Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 166

Archive 160

←

Archive 164

Archive 165

Archive 166

Archive 167

Archive 168

→

Archive 170

An unlikely tale

Someone has just said that consensus trumps the Manual of Style. Is this true? 156.61.250.250 (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure. The MOS is not a policy, and the manual itself is determined by consensus. However, editors should understand the manual's goal of consistency across the encyclopedia. Also, remember that the MOS generally represents a community consensus, which shouldn't be superseded by local consensus among a small group of editors. See WP:CONS for a discussion of what consensus means. Pburka (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Unless WP:IAR is invoked, which is an explicit decision that a given page should be different for what ever reason. That is a perfect legitimate way of operating according to the oldest and highest policy. Not to mention the longstanding... tension, shall we say, over just how much of a Wikipedia-wide consensus MOS actually is vs being the creation of only a handful of especially concerned editors who obsess over these details, and sometimes have an unfortunate habit of acting like their edits are automatically consensus because of the MOS. but I digress...oknazevad (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Not true. I was doing some gnoming, figured that the principle of internal consistency trumped the MoS's position, and moved some stray commas so that the whole article was punctuated the same way. I got brought up on AN/I for it. No we don't get to ignore the MoS even when we have a reason that makes sense. For a wider example, there's the idea that individual wikiprojects don't get to make up their own rules for capitalization, etc. The biggest example is probably WP:BIRDS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

See WP:BIRDCON for the very lengthy RfC on that one, winding down several years of resistance to MOS:LIFE by [certain vocal participants in] one wikiproject. The closing admin even personally favored the capitalization scheme propounded by the wikiproject, but posted a carefully reasoned, detailed close rationale in favor of MOS:LIFE's instructions. While the debate itself is too repetitive and long for most to wade through, the close is worth reading for the procedural reasoning that led to that conclusion. (And it's also interesting to note that the close did not even get to several other, non-procedural rationales for concluding against the demands of [some members of] that wikiproject, which would have led to the close going the same way anyhow.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Several distinct points to cover here:

1. The general principle is covered at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy: Insular groups of editors (e.g. wikiprojects) do not have some kind of "sovereign" authority to override site-wide consensus (e.g. general-application guidelines like MOS and its subpages, or the naming convention guidelines that interpret WP:AT policy) in "their" articles. Wikiprojects do not "own" articles, no matter how vigorously they protest that an article is within their scope and that [some] participants in that project have agreed amongst themselves that they prefer something different to what MOS/NC advises. WP:GAN and WP:FAC regularly require compliance with MOS and NC guidelines, as just one example, and yes, editwarring at articles to push anti-MOS styles can result in actions at WP:ANI. A "wikiprojects are their own fiefdoms" approach cannot possibly be valid. Not just because that policy says so, but because the idea is simply irrational, for the simple reason that any given topic can be within the scope of multiple projects, which would (and historically did) lead to conflicting style demands on, even conflicting styles actually used within, the same article, and editwarring over it. Our Manual of Style is centralized and generalized to the extent possible, for real reasons.
2. Anyone who says "that's just a guideline" does not understand WP:POLICY; guidelines are not "ignore them any time you want" documents. They differ from policies primarily in a) covering editorial territory that is not absolutely critical to Wikipedia's basic values as a project (like verifiability, neutral point of view, no copyright violations, no personal attacks, and other policies), and b) consequently being easier to get consensus to change than policies.
3. If some wikiproject is darned certain that MOS (or the NC guidelines) have gotten something demonstrably wrong with regard to a topic area within the scope of the wikiproject, the sensible, well-accepted, and usually only effective procedure for making that case is to raise a discussion about it at WT:MOS, or maybe the talk page of the more specific guideline (WT:MOSNUM, WT:NCP, etc.). And raising it at WT:MOS is generally going to be the best tactic, especially if advertised via WP:RFC and (if it seems to warrant it) WP:CENT and WP:VPP, because it ensures that the result effectively cannot possibly be a "local consensus". MOS is one of the most important guidelines on the system, and one of the most watchlisted, since it basically effects every article. Various attempts to tweak an MOS subpage to get some specialized exception, that the proponents of which don't think will pass muster at WT:MOS itself, is generally a waste of time, because the main MOS page explicitly supersedes its subpages. I.e., if they are altered to contradict it, they are trumped. Anyway, the key fact that MOS has been built almost entirely by presenting arguments (proposals beforehand, or WP:BRD rationales after WP:BOLD edits) on its talk page, to change MOS to account for various cases that weren't accounted for before, is incontrovertible proof that the recommended procedure works.
4. A handful of editors tirelessly beating a "MOS isn't really a consensus" drum doesn't make their hypothesis true. The very facts that ANI, FAC, GAN, CFR, and RM, among other formal processes, depend on and "enforce" MOS, and that WP:AT policy explicitly defers to MOS repeatedly on style matters, clearly demonstrate that it's an accepted site-wide consensus, even if debates flare up here and there about some particular detail in it. It simply is not possible that some secret cabal controls MOS. Anyone can edit MOS (or, more often, propose and get consensus for an edit to it, using its talk page). Of course, MOS in practice is principally edited by those with a long-term interest in its content and stability. This also happens to be true of every other page on Wikipedia, except perhaps certain articles that are the subject of a lot of "drive-by" editing due to their topic's popularity or controversiality, and even those usually have a cadre of watchlisters who keep those pages sane.
5. Finally, WP:IAR is not the "oldest and highest policy" (it dates in some very different form to 2002, and has stably been labeled a policy only since 2005; WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:EP, WP:DP, and WP:COPYRIGHT all date to 2001). More importantly, invoking IAR requires a serious rationale, not simply a refusal to play along for personal reasons: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia" is actually quite a stringent requirement, rarely satisfied. The second, third, and fourth items at WP:Ignore all rules#See also explain fairly well when IAR is actually used legitimately, and why it's so infrequently used.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Curly marks – again

From MOS:PUNCT:

Where an apostrophe might otherwise be misinterpreted as Wiki markup, use the templates {{'}}, {{`}}, and {{'s}}, or use <nowiki> tags.

Straight quotation marks are easier to type and edit reliably regardless of computer configuration.

If we were using the curly apostrophe (and single quotation marks) everywhere, these cumbersome templates would not be needed at all. That’s a huge plus for “authorabilitiy”.

(Searches for Alzheimer’s disease will fail to find Alzheimer’s disease and vice versa on Internet Explorer)

This is not an argument to favor either curly or straight marks. It’s an argument to file bug reports for browsers to treat both the same. The same goes for the Wikimedia search engine.

So, the only remaining argument for preferring straight marks is ease of input:

Straight quotation marks are easier to type and edit reliably regardless of computer configuration

Considering autoformatting/autocorrection in Word etc., this could just as well be implemented in Visual Editor, this point is also very much moot. It comes down to this: one looks a bit better, the other is a bit easier to enter.

This doesn’t seem like being strong enough a reason to justify edits to transform a stable article from one style to another. Alas, that happens on a regular basis. So I’d like some backup to revert such minor changes without risking an edit war. Are you with me? — Christoph Päper 20:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Ease of input is one major reason to prefer straight quote marks, but curly quotes also have little meaning in English. MOS:PUNCT has a longstanding consensus, so I don't think you will have much support for curly quotes. So when you see them being converted to straight quotes, don't revert. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain how changing to straight marks article-wide, all at the same time, detracts from reader value? Perhaps I'm missing something, but I also don't see any value in a concept of article stability if it gets in the way of improvements to an article. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The font which is used is a sans-serif, so curly quotes are not necessary. Also I use a Text editor with the curlies turned off, so what am I to do – turn them back on? Waste of time. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Ease of input is a very significant factor. Virtually no one is going to memorize special-character-generation codes for at least four different "curly" characters, much less memorize them different codes for the different OSes many of them use (e.g. Mac at home, PC at work, iOS phone, Android tablet). And there are other input concerns, especially for those of us that use external text editors, some of which throw errors about mismatched quotation marks, that can be a tedious to track down and fix in a long article. Imagine if English sometimes still used the long s except at the beginnings and ends of words, but that the usage wasn't consistent, and the codes to create them differed from OS to OS. Now imagine that Modern English had developed two variants of the long s and two of the short, and that each was used in specific positions in words, but that usually no one wanted to bother, and it did not actually aid readability in any way. See the problems yet?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

ENGVAR and quotations

Do we "correct" the spelling in quotations to the ENGVAR of the article, in the manner that "trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment"? As in, when an article in CanEng quotes an American critic ("in favor of this tatty fetish")—should that favor be "corrected" to favour? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

No. If the quoted author was following the conventions of spelling that apply in the author's country, or the publication in which the material appeared, it wasn't an error and isn't subject to "correction". Jc3s5h (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

An interesting twist, however, might be the case where we're quoting what someone said as opposed to what they wrote. Jimp 12:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I still wouldn't "correct" it. If they're speaking in US English, spell it in US English, as if the speaker had published a transcription. Correct obvious flubs, however: if it sounded like "flavor" but they obviously meant "favor", write "favor" (not "favour"). —sroc 💬 02:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I would say, use the variety the source reports, not the one we imagine the speaker was using.

To take a plausible example, let's say that an interview with Barack Obama appears in The Economist. (Well, not sure they do interviews, but other than that, plausible.) Probably The Economist will use British spellings to report what he said, right?

Then if we give a direct quote from that interview, we should use the British spellings, even though Obama (presumably) doesn't use them, and even in Obama's article, which of course is in American English.

Look, if this is distracting, there's a simple solution: Take away the quotation marks, and paraphrase. But don't frak with what's between quote marks. --Trovatore (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little disturbed by the rationale attached to this rule, though:

However, national varieties should not be changed, as these may involve changes in vocabulary, and because articles are prone to flipping back and forth.

This seems to suggest that, if it were a color-v-colour case that didn't involve vocabulary, and if we weren't worried about the variety of the article changing at some point, we would be perfectly OK with changing the variety in the direct quote. Surely that is not the case? I know that quite a few publishers do do this, but I think they are quite wrong to do so, and we should have a higher standard for precision.

Maybe we should just make it "national varieties should not be changed", and dump the rationale? --Trovatore (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

You wouldn't change a quote by a representative of Vauxhall saying "boot" to say "trunk", so don't change how they'd spell "colour" either. —sroc 💬 01:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that this follows. Spelling and vocabulary are quite different things. Pburka (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

You wouldn't say: "The boot was a different color from the body"—a mix of UK vocabulary and US spelling. That's schizophrenic. Remain faithful to the variety of the quoted speaker/writer. —sroc 💬 02:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not arguing to change the rule. I'd just like to remove the rationale, which I think is not the real reason for the rule (or at least not the most important one) and weakens the statement by its presence. --Trovatore (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

This kind of rule needs a fuzzy boundary. Very few quotes are verbatim (I seem to remember the press making some sports star look like a moron by quoting every "um", "er" and pause). When someone speaks a pidgin English, we translate into familiar English (else it would seem to be mocking), and if they speak another language, we translate. When a dialect differs enough that words might be unfamiliar, we substitute. I think that the 'trunk'/'boot' example is in the fuzzy zone where we expect the reader of either variant to be familiar with both words. I think the overarching rule should be to adjust the quotation sufficiently that a reader of that variant will be familiar with the language it is expressed in. It is also only if we wish to convey (or even draw attention to) the dialect/accent/jargon of the speaker that we should consider not translating to the variant of the article. We don't quote someone as saying "She picked fresh 'erbs", even though this standard pronunciation in much of the US. —Quondum 03:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it seems as though you're talking about quotations of speech here, is that correct? That's a very rare case. We work from reliable secondary sources (primarily secondary anyway, ha ha), and these are almost always written sources. I suppose there's no reason in principle why a reliable secondary source couldn't be in audio or video format, but in practice, they almost never are.

When we report a quotation from a printed reliable secondary source, we should never change the variety of English. No fuzziness at all. We just shouldn't do it. --Trovatore (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I remember a few months ago there was a question here about an American magazine attributing a quote to, I think, Douglas Adams. The quote used American spelling, and an editor wished to know if they should change it to British English, given that Adams was British. (I may have the details wrong, but it's a good hypothetical, anyway.) Would you keep the American spelling in this case, even if the quote is attributed to a British author and used in an article with strong national ties to Britain? Pburka (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

See my example above, with Obama and The Economist. --Trovatore (talk) 03:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• I would normally use an article's prevailing engvar spelling in an oral quote, and of course never change envar in written quotes. But it would become awkward if both oral- and written-mode quotations are used in the same article where the speaker/writer sourced speaks a different variety from that in which the article is written. Best to use editorial judgment on those occasions—difficult to express in MOS. Tony (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
• Generally, don't change the ENGVAR of the quoted speaker, even if quoting A/V not written material. It would be absurd to the point of a WP:V and WP:NPOV failure to put "I don't like the color of that theater" in the mouth of a speaker of British English, for example. If you have a case of unfamiliar terminology, you can use [square-bracketed "translations"] if you really feel it necessary: "in the boot [trunk] of the car". Though we generally don't recommend linking in quotations, it could also be done as "in the boot of the car", as sroc noted. Which is the lesser of the two evils is contextual consensus matter. Due to the influence of Hollywood's firehose of output, it's fairly likely that either adjustment needs to be made more often for helping North Americans understand British terms than vice versa, but it's not universally true. See the language blog Not One-off Britishisms for evidence of how many British terms are entering North American vocabularies due to media counter-influence, e.g. US/Canadian popularity of Doctor Who and Downton Abbey.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

To clarify: I'm talking specifically about spelling, and not about vocabulary. What concerns me is the spelling inconsistency could attract gnomish "corrections", or come across to readers as sloppiness: it looks like a mistake. It's not plausible that a BrEng vocab in a quoted statement in a NAmEng article would come across as such a mistake—I don't think literature readers could be that ignorant. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

section: titles of works

contains the phrase "than the section are you are reading now". for some reason I'm not sure of it can't be edited in the typical manner. Primergrey (talk) 07:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Pet Peeves

I have written this essay on how to avoid pet peeve wars: WP:No Pet Peeve Wars, some regulars here might find it interesting.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

It hinders communication if we don't use the same spelling or grammar. Yes, you can decide to use non-standard fleemishes and the reader can still gloork the meaning from the context, but there ix a limit; If too many ot the vleeps are changed, it becomes harder and qixer to fllf what the wethcz is blorping, and evenually izs is bkb longer possible to ghilred frok at wifx. Dnighth? Ngfipht yk ur! Uvq the hhvd or hnnngh. Blorgk? Blorgk! Blorgkity-blorgk!!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 09:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It doesnt really. And the argument is quite irrelevant to the essay.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Nice essay... but by focusing on the specific peeves, you obscure the real issue. It's not the peeves that are the problem - it's the warring behavior (sometimes referred to as "going on a crusade"). Essentially, one should not engage in "warring" ... period. What one is warring about is actually irrelevant. Engaging in "Warring" is what is disruptive. Even warring to enforce WP policy or guidelines is disruptive. It does not matter how "right" you are... if you piss everyone else off while doing it, it's wrong. Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Well we have an essay on not edit warring already, so this is meant as a specific corrollary. But your catch phrase would make for a good essay as well. :)·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia really needs an essay titled It does not matter how "right" you are. if you piss everyone else off while doing it, it's wrong. The obvious shortcut (WP:PISS) might be a problem, though... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Slight change to wording, tho: "It will still be right, but you will be wrong". In other words, while you cannot change the correctness of an idea by your behavior, you can still be personally held accountable for your behavior, even in defending the "right" side of a dispute. --Jayron32 16:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

See also meta:Don't be a jerk. —sroc 💬 17:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It might be all the MoS-hate going on at the Village Pump right now, but I thought that essay had an overtone of "And style is not important enough to bother about anyway; stop caring about it." If that wasn't intentional, then a few tweaks might be in order. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

no en dashes with "suffixes"

The discrepancy between our treatment of "prefixes" and "suffixes" (often elements of compounds rather than actual affixes) still strikes me as odd, as AFAIK is idiosyncratic to WP. Just came across the following in The Week, which attempts to be as accessible as possible:

"a Wild West–like gunfight" (2015 May 29, "Biker bloodshed in Texas")

— kwami (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 160#Allow en dash in a compound modifier where the first element contains spaces (September 2014)

—Wavelength (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "Spanish guitar–player" is an even better example. Just thought I'd share, since AFAIK no-one apart from WP treats "prefixes" and "suffixes" differently. — kwami (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

In that discussion, no-one defended the status quo. There were people who dislike en dashes, but they wanted to get rid of them all, not keep this odd rule. I'll delete the comment, and leave it for someone to argue that we really should treat the two situations differently. — kwami (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

So under this guideline, "Spanish guitar–player" = "Spanish-guitar player", and not "Spanish guitar-player". That is what I presume. Why not use the hyphen in these cases, since a triple bomb isn't at issue? Tony (talk) 04:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Currently we don't say anything at all.

Following the hyphenation rules strictly, "Spanish-guitar player" would be a player who is Spanish guitar, which makes no sense. But, usually people give things a bit more leeway than that, so I wouldn't have a problem with "Spanish-guitar player". I don't see how that could create any confusion. It wouldn't work for "Wild West–like", though. — kwami (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

See these search results for "united states based". The word "based" should be joined, probably by means of an en dash.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

There's a third style, "foo-bar-baz". I use this. I have no idea how many external style guides would agree. Make of it what you will. But in this particular case, a "Spanish-guitar player" is a "player of the Spanish guitar", but we should use the second phrase for clarity. As a compound adjective, I'd hyphenate the entire thing: "...addressing Spanish-guitar-player concerns", but would really actually rewrite to avoid any such construction when possible, which it almost always is.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Titles of articles about pretenders and the like

There are a lot of articles on princes and so forth in monarchies that did/do not then exist. An example, picked more or less at random: Prince Pedro Gastão of Orléans-Braganza, the article about whom starts:

Prince Pedro Gastão of Orléans-Braganza (born Pierre-d’Alcantara Gaston Jean Marie Philippe Laurent Hubert d’Orléans et Bragance ; in Portuguese, Pedro de Alcântara Gastão João Maria Filipe Lourenço Humberto Miguel Gabriel Rafael Gonzaga de Orléans e Bragança e Dobrzensky de Dobrzenicz) (19 February 1913 – 27 December 2007) was one of two claimants to the Brazilian throne and head of the Petrópolis branch of the Brazilian Imperial House

I confess that I don't understand the term "imperial house", but when this fellow was born there hadn't been any Brazilian monarchy for over two decades. The article does say that he was merely a "claimant", but the article title suggests that he actually was a prince, a notion that's simply delusional (however desirable you may think a return to monarchy might have been).

(Of course there are plenty of encyclopedic Princes who weren't/aren't really princes: not only Prince but also for example Prince Buster. The latter article should be so titled because that's the name by which Cecil Bustamente Campbell is known; obviously that article neither misleads the reader into thinking that he's a prince nor appears to support any delusion about Jamaican royalty.)

There seem to be scads of these articles. (To pluck another, more or less at random: Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia, born over three decades after Russia did away with its monarchy.) Should the titles of these articles parrot their biographees' claims? -- Hoary (talk) 11:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The term "Imperial house" refers (in this case) to the House of Orléans-Braganza. Blueboar (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

-- and the article on House of Orléans-Braganza says that this is or was a "noble house", whatever this might mean. It seems to be a family about whom monarchical fantasies are constructed. Again, I don't begrudge people their fantasies; I wonder about titles that seem to reflect or even proselytize for fringe beliefs. -- Hoary (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Would WP:COMMONNAME work here? If referring to this person as "Prince" is standard, then it's not promoting a fringe belief. For example, if even books and documents that don't consider him the rightful claimant still call him "Prince," then it's all right for the article to do so. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• It's noticeable that "real" princes, like for example this chap's very distant relative Louis of Valois, don't usually get "Prince" in the article title. But ones that have nothing but their dubious title are so called by the Wikipedia snob-squad. We have a policy on using "King" and "Queen" in titles (executive summary: don't). Doesn't that cover this? Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• WP:NCROY says "Do not apply an ordinal in an article title for a pretender, i.e., someone who has not reigned; instead call them what independent secondary sources in English call them. For example, use Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou, not Louis XX, for the legitimist pretender to the French throne. Such a person may however be referred to by a title, for example, Victor Emmanuel, Prince of Naples for the last Italian Crown Prince." Emphasis mine. If the articles on widely-recognized-as-legitimate princes et al did not normally include their titles, then I would find it bizarre to include pretenders' titles; however, articles like Charles, Prince of Wales do include their subjects' recognized titles. Meh. :/ -sche (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• My impression is that most of these imagined princes, duchesses, etc are negligible aside from their imagined titles. This being so, they excite little or no attention other than among trivia/curio-hunters, and so a large percentage of what references to them do exist will call them by their imagined titles. Not quite sure where this logic leads, though. Meanwhile, the "common name" guideline, though generally sensible, has an enormous exception for (genuine or presumed genuine) nobles: the articles on them generally have double-barrelled titles. Thus we have for example "Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon", a combination that I doubt gets much use. (I believe that his commoner names include "Tony Armstrong-Jones" and [unmodified] "Snowdon".) -- Hoary (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Isn't this a WT:AT question?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. (I'd forgotten about the existence of that page.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Formatting titles of journal articles and book chapters in references

When formatting references I had always assumed that 'title case' was used for the titles of journals and books and that 'sentence case' was used for the titles of journal articles and book chapters. This is a style that is used by many scientific journals. I've now discovered that this choice is not explicitly specified in the manual of style which reads:

"The titles of articles, chapters, songs, television episodes, research papers and other short works are not italicized; they are enclosed in double quotation marks. Italics are not used for major revered religious works (the Bible, the Quran, the Talmud). Many of these items should also be in title case." (colour added)

So my question is, which of these items should be in title case? Or does WP:CITEVAR apply? Aa77zz (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

MOS:ALLCAPS. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• WP:CITEVAR applies per the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Exceptions to Small Caps which stated MOS does not seem to apply to references using a style using these (such as BlueBook). In any case, changes to citation style should be made at WT:CITE, not here.. That doesn't address the question however. WP:CITEVAR applies. If your chosen citation style uses title case, then you use title case. If it uses sentence case, then you use that. If it uses italics or underlines, ditto. GregJackP Boomer! 23:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that this is a matter for CITEVAR: variations in this choice from article to article are ok but within a single article we should be consistent. My own preference, btw, is the one expressed at the start of this section: sentence case for journal articles and book chapters, title case for journal names and book titles. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• As long as it is consistent within the article, I agree with you and think that it's fine. I personally use Bluebook for articles I create, so journal articles are title case and in italics while book titles are in title case and smallcaps. GregJackP Boomer! 20:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• I very grudgingly concede, temporarily, that CITEVAR probably applies sometimes, but: 1) use a consistent style within the article for the same type of source; 2) never change non-periodicals' titles to use sentence case; and 3) always favor title case for all titles when in doubt, for consistency between different types of sources. On that last point, I would further say never change periodicals' titles to sentence case unless it was used by the first major contributor, in properly formatted, complete citations – don't count copy-pasted, wannabe citations (e.g. <ref>"The unlightable beingness of bears", Jane Smith, Underwater Basketweaving Jnl, Jan 2016</ref>). Per WP:COMMONSENSE, it would also be reasonable to override CITEVAR for rational reasons, e.g. the first major contributor adding only one such citation, and not raising any objections after other editors added considerably more periodical citations using title case. We also often override ENGVAR for rational reasons, and we must not take "first major contributor" fetishism seriously. (This has been happening; I fairly often see attempts at WP:RM to extend the "first major contributor" concept to all sorts of things, and this problem is growing not shrinking.)

  I would prefer if WP settled on "use title case for titles", and just left it at that. It would eliminate all such disputes. It's more important for the project to eliminate recurrent disputes that pointlessly waste editorial time and energy for no reader benefit, than to do what some particular camp stylistically prefers in "their" articles because some journals in their field use sentence case. It's yet another example of the WP:Specialist style fallacy in action.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• Well, WP:CITEVAR clearly applies, and that includes using a consistent style within the article. APA uses sentence case for journal articles, and if the first major contributor is using that style it should be allowed. If that means changing a title to match the requirements of the citation style used, that's what we do. Second, we use the citation style implemented by the first major contributor. By definition, if there is only one or two poorly formed citations in the article, there is not an established style and CITEVAR encourages editors to impose a citation style in those cases. Finally, WP:Specialist style fallacy is an essay by you, and of no more weight than WP:Generalist style fallacy if I should decide to write an essay on that subject. It is your opinion and not close to what is currently policy.

Finally, we don't impose a single citation style on editors, we allow them to use what they are comfortable with. I'm comfortable with Bluebook and prefer to use it on articles I create. If you prefer CS1/2, you can use that. If you prefer Chicago, use that. It is more important that we don't run off content creators by imposing styles that they don't like or feel comfortable with. GregJackP Boomer! 04:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• "Well," CITEVAR does not "clearly" apply or this discussion, and many previous similar ones, would never arise. Hyperbole isn't helpful, and simply restating your assertion after it's been controverted isn't a real argument. CITEVAR was intended for one, clear purpose, to prevent the wholesale alteration of citations from one major style (e.g. Help:Citation Style 1), to another. It was never intended to allow anyone to WP:OWN every nitpick of citations. It's been incrementally WP:CREEPing toward that un-wiki goal for several years now, and this has to stop. It's not an MOS matter, though, so I'll take that up at WT:CITE. Moving on, CITEVAR doesn't say what you seem to think it says; "first major contributor" (FMC, hereafter) is only one of multiple encompassed scenarios, and the FMC can be overridden. This is because the "we don't impose a single citation style on editors, we allow them to use what they are comfortable with" intent you point out is directly thwarted when the FMC picks something that doesn't work well in the context and/or that other contributors aren't comfortable with. WP:CONSENSUS applies to this as it does to everything else on WP. Even the FMC's ENGVAR preferences can be overturned. Citation styles don't "run off" anyone (cf. comment about hyperbole again). No one has ever been blocked for adding citations that weren't formatted a particular way, and people can add citation any way they like; they just don't necessarily get to tell others they can't reformat the citations. There is no principle anywhere on WP that you can't add information and citations to an article however you like, and leave it to someone else to tweak them later (though they may ask you on your talk page to respect CITEVAR and/or to use our citation templates).

  PS: I think you misapprehend the nature of WP:ESSAYs and why people mention them. No one is citing them as authoritative (or if they are, they are making a mistake, misunderstanding how WP:POLICY works). There is no assertion of "weight", and accusing me of making one is a straw man. People write essays to lay out frequently-repeated reasoning clearly, so they don't have to keep writing it out again and again every time the same issue comes up. That's all they are, and that's the only reason to link to one. If I or anyone else points to an essay, it means "this has already been addressed, and we don't need to rehash it at length here, unless we're adding something new." (As for that essay in particular, if the specialist style fallacy were not actually fallacious, someone would have long ago written a refutation, given how many people engage in that fallacy and are convinced they are right. Hasn't happened, because the reasoning in the essay is sound.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but CITEVAR clearly defers to the FMC, stating: "As with spelling differences, it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved." So if you want to change it, you get consensus to change it. It works the same way as anything else in WP. I'm also familiar with the purpose of essays. When they are good and well-grounded they serve the purpose you state. Unfortunately, the reasoning is not sound, nor, for that matter, does it do a good job of explaining the position, relying instead on "using emotive, even insulting language that generates heated responses and tends to derail discussions" as above. I get that you don't like CITEVAR and would apparently prefer a uniform system for all articles. But CITEVAR still clearly applies. GregJackP Boomer! 04:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you somehow seem unable to see the part that says "or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page" (trumps the FMC), and the part that follows, "unless a change in consensus has been achieved", which trumps both the FMC and a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of the main editors of the page as a group, if (e.g.) an RfC decided the cite style they were using wasn't appropriate for the topic area. "It works the same way as anything else in WP"; yes, I just said that. I didn't say there should only be one citation style. Vague claims than an essay isn't reasoned well don't demonstrate that it's not reasoned well.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

No, you're unable to comprehend it. I've stated several times here (and hundreds of times elsewhere) that consensus can overrule the FMC. Why are you having difficulty with this? GregJackP Boomer! 18:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we are concluding that we've been talking past each other then. :-) You clearly put more weight on the FMC than I do, but who cares? I even !voted here to go the same way you did, albeit more tentatively, so we should probably save this discussion for some other time, since continuing to argue this side point isn't instructive to the question that was asked.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. GregJackP Boomer! 16:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Seeking relevant section

Hi, is there a section anywhere in the MoS pages that deals with the disambiguation of people with the same name in article titles, e.g. the parts in brackets in "Joe Bloggs (actor)" and "Joes bloggs (politician)"? I can't seem to find it, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. 109.157.11.203 (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I think what you're looking for is linked from WP:MOSDAB, but it's actually Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming the disambiguation page. —C.Fred (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

For naming an actual article about a person, take a look at Wikipedia:Article titles#Disambiguation, and also at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming the specific topic articles. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 14:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Guidance specific to articles about people is at WP:NCPDAB. older ≠ wiser 16:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the links. I have noticed that this disambiguation is not always done in a consistent way. Typical example: Sam Smith (actor), Sam Smith (painter), Sam Smith (journalist), Sam Smith (footballer, born 1904), Sam Smith (basketball, born 1944), Samantha Smith (tennis). Note that "basketball" and "tennis" are inconsistent with the others and (in my view) illogical. The relevant advice in the MoS is "The disambiguator is usually a noun indicating what the person is noted for being in his or her own right." Following this advice, and (in my view) logic, the disambiguators should be "basketball player" and "tennis player". I believe this issue has been discussed before, quite a while ago, and I think I may have participated in the discussion. I can't remember the outcome now, though it seems it did not result in any change being mandated. What is the current view about this? 109.157.11.203 (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

While consistency is good... it isn't always possible (and in some cases trying to be consistent results in a silly title that simply does not make sense).

As for "(basketball)" vs "(basketball player)"... I don't think the word "player" is needed in most cases. Most of the time, it is enough to distinguish the Sam Smith who is (in some way) associated with the sport of basketball from the other Sam Smiths (who are associated with other things). There is no need for the article title to explain that he is a "player" if he is the only Sam Smith associated with Basketball. That, of course, changes if there are other Sam Smiths who are also associated with basketball (especially if those others are associated with the sport in other ways, such as being a coach or a referee). In that case we might need to include the word "player"... because just saying "Baskeball" isn't enough. Blueboar (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you give an example where consistency results in "a silly title that simply does not make sense"? 109.157.11.203 (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the silliest article title debate I can think of revolves around two ice hockey players named "Steve Smith". As one might expect, there are plenty of "Steve Smiths" in the world. Unfortunately for Wikipedia, our hockey Steve Smiths shared a lot in common. Seriously, a lot:

• Their names: Both were known as "Steve Smith"
• Their profession: Both professional ice hockey players
• Their role on the ice: They were both defenceman
• Their nationality: Both held Canadian citizenship
• Their year of birth: 1963
• They even shared their month of birth: Both were born in April of 1963

Literally, the only acceptable difference we could find was that one was born in Canada, and the other born in Scotland. Thus, we have the rather long, but still technically accurate, article titles Steve Smith (ice hockey, born in Scotland) and Steve Smith (ice hockey, born in Canada). Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 10:43, June 1, 2015 (UTC)

To me, this does not seem to be an example of consistency resulting in "a silly title that simply does not make sense". Actually, it is not even consistent in the sense relevant to my point, since it says "ice hockey" not "ice hockey player". 109.151.63.170 (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

In terms of the "ice hockey player" piece, the rationale behind omitting "player" that I most support is the fact that it is unnecessary. We want the DAB to be as simple as possible while conveying proper context to identify which topics sharing a name we are referring to. In this case, simply noting the sport is sufficient. Likewise, we don't dab Calgary Stampeders (ice hockey) as "Calgary Stampeders (ice hockey team)". The extra word is unnecessary. So in that respect, I would submit that adding unnecessary "player" or "team" to the dab would be an example of consistency resulting in a silly title (though it would still make sense). And if we changed, we could then get into the question of why soccer uses "(footballer)" instead of "(football player)" - or more accurately, "(association football player)". The current dabs are all inconsistent in format, but consistent in function: they add context with the shortest reasonable title available. Resolute 19:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You really think that Steve Smith (ice hockey player, born in Scotland), for example, is a "silly title" because it includes the word "player"?? I don't. By the way, "(footballer)" is consistent. It means "football player". Inconsistent would be "(football)". 109.151.63.170 (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. The fact that WP:HOCKEY insists it has "consensus" to not use "player" is just another example of a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS problem. Titles like that don't make sense, to plenty of other editors, or the issue would not have been coming up for years and years. Virtually all of our biographical articles are disambiguated, where necessary to disambiguate, with descriptors of the person not the field in which they're most notable. It's "Jane Garcia (biologist)", not "Jane Garcia (biology)". Right off hand, the handful of WP:FAITACCOMPLI divergences from this that affect a whole category of articles that I can think of are all in sports. The sport wikiprojects in particular are more prone to local consensus issues than average (in multiple ways; e.g., they're also among the most frequent campaigners against MOS:ICONS; "their" articles are often among the most riddled with WP:PEACOCK problems; etc, etc.), so this doesn't surprise me. NB: I say that as the co-founder of a sport wikiproject that has it's own style and naming guidelines, by the way – written to comply with and topically apply policies and guidelines, not skirt them.

Anyway, in this particular extremely unusual case, the obvious answer is to disambiguate by including their middle names instead of some weird criterion like "born in Scotland", a much more obscure fact than the full name of the subject. WP:COMMONNAME, like all WP:POLICY that isn't dictated to us by WP:OFFICE, can be bent by WP:IAR when WP:COMMONSENSE requires it. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

(OP) I think the "Steve Smith" example is a complete red herring, and nothing to do with point I was trying to raise. 109.145.19.68 (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Proper names/nouns

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere

Please see Talk:Proper noun#Merge?, which has been running for some time without closure, and which if closed right now would probably close without consensus. It needs a consensus one way or the other, as this proposed merge and rename has been raised (pro and con) many times, in multiple forums.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this discussion already closed or does the closure apply only to the survey portion? Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

No idea, but I seem to have stepped in at the wrong time. Good thing I changed my vote to "no vote" before it collapsed (or whatever happened). InedibleHulk (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone rewrote the Proper name (philosophy) article such that it became essentially impossible to merge it. I closed (by retraction) the merge discussion, but the discussion about restructuring Proper noun (to which Proper name redirects), as a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE or WP:CONCEPTDAB article and moving it to Proper name is still open (but it is not a WP:RM discussion; that would be premature). The WP:FAITACCOMPLI mooting of the merge discussion has largely muddled the entire thing, though. I think what I and anyone else who wants to work on it should do is simply start improving the article. It will naturally fall into SUMMARY/DABCONCEPT format simply by the nature of the material.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

MOS: articles and talk pages

Wrong venue. Please move to Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

Hello, sorry if this has been addressed elsewhere. Is "articles" meant to be interpreted broadly to include talk pages? In other words, does the MOS apply to talk pages? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

No, "articles" excludes talk pages. The MoS does not apply to talk pages. —Quondum 17:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

What Q said. There are separate rules for talk pages at WP:TALK, but that's conduct, not style. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep. I'm curious what case comes to mind. It's pretty routine for people to normalize things like sentence case in talk page headings, per WP:REFACTOR, just because we're used to sentence case headings here. People shouldn't revert-war about such trivia. It's definitely not normal to edit other people's posts to comply with MOS points, if that's what the issue is. See WP:TPOC.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok. This was posted on the Caitlyn Jenner page: This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page. Is there a hierarchy of Wiki policies? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I thought you were talking about someone else correcting the spelling in other people's talk page posts or something. Is there something libelous or unsourced on the Jenner page? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The text you've quoted is a notice about Wikipedia's "biographies of living people" policy (BLP), which is quite distinct from Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MOS). Material which violates BLP will be removed from anywhere (articles, talk pages, userpages, ...). -sche (talk) 03:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

... but it raises (unintentionally though it be) a point. Whilst we ought to strive to be respectful of the talk-page contributions of others there can be valid changes we might make, e.g. replacing an extinct (or even a modified) template, heading organisation, etc. Jimp 17:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's covered by WP:REFACTOR. I even fix dead templates, redirects that go to different articles than they used to, and such stuff in talk page archives, and I think in over 9 years I've only been reverted on that twice, and the reverts didn't stick when I explained what I was doing (some people just reflexively reverted changes to archive pages).

Yeah, this isn't a MOS matter. If the question is "can WP:BLP policy be used to remove questionable claims or slander from talk pages", the answer is yes, though this usually not done unless it's egregious.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Logical "and/or" strings

"A, or B, C, D, or E" is logically equivalent to "A, B, C, D, or E". "A, and B, and C, and D, and E" is logically equivalent to "A, B, C, D, and E". Is there something in MOS that prefers the latter? FloraWilde (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes there are nested series. Please see User:Wavelength/About English/Nested series.

• We visited Acapulco and Guadalajara, and ate guacamole and gazpacho.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT: I do not believe that either the main MoS or MOS:LISTS covers this issue specifically. However, most basic writing lessons do. Keeping in-sentence lists simple is part of good writing in general. It's one of those things that's so obvious that we don't have a rule about it. If there's a problem (like Wikieditors constantly changing the latter type of list to the former) then we could certainly add a line to the MoS about it, but I don't see why else we would need one. I guess this could be covered by WP:TONE, which says we're supposed to write in formal, standard English rather than any kind of field-specific jargon.

Is there a problem in the article space or a specific issue that needs to be resolved? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wavelength: I clicked through for the essay and got a redirect to your talk page archive. Intentional? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The sub-subpage itself has no essay at this time, but only a link to an archived discussion about nested series.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It was the highly edit-warred alternative medicine article, where there are some editors who use the alternative thinking styles in their logic. (One of the sources is titled "Alternative medicine and common errors in reasoning".) I made the change to the simpler style,[1] with a talkpage quote of Darkfrog24 above, "It's one of those things that's so obvious that we don't have a rule about it", and so far there are no objections. Thanks. FloraWilde (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not huge on the serial comma after D, but that's about as neverending as the God debate. The MOS (basically) says omit them unless doing so causes ambiguity. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

And be consistent throughout the article. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Please refer to ordinary English grammar ... sorry to be an arse but ... P.S., InedibleHulk, may I humbly suggest you not link dates? Jimp 17:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Generally I agree with the OP (who probably doesn't mean nested series, as Wavelength details), but there are cases where "A or B, C, or D" structure (to simplify the original example) makes more sense, to group closely related alternatives that variants of each other more than separate alternatives to the others in the series. E.g., "The Manx cat is known in the Manx language as kayt Manninagh or cayt Manninagh, kayt cuttagh or cayt cuttagh, or stubbin". There are often alternative ways to do this, e.g. with parentheses (round brackets). In this particular case, a compressed version of the nomenclature paragraph at Manx cat, a better approach is to instead drop the partially redundant cayt examples, shortening the list, and add a note that kayt is sometimes spelling cayt. But the original longer list isn't "wrong", it's just not ideal. And it contrasts sharply with, e.g., "The tribe subsists mainly on fruits and nuts, legume crops, pigs and sheep, rice, barley, and squash and beef", which of course is terrible.

PS: Any "A or B, C, or D" structure should definitely use the serial/Oxford comma, even if you would not use one in an "A or B, C or D" case. Because we have no idea what someone will insert in mid-sentence later (hopefully with a one-detail citation, so they don't falsify any existing citation for the rest of the list), I lean more and more toward recommending to always use the serial comma, though I don't use it in my off-WP writing (or even in talk pages here) unless it's necessary in a particular case to avoid ambiguity or other confusion. It's taken me about two weeks to rather painlessly shift my in-article comma style.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY and personal names

Why does Wikipedia break it's otherwise good rules about the most common and recognizable name when referring to people who wish to change their genders? Bruce Jenner is still known more commonly as "Bruce" than "Caitlyn". Everyone who recognizes the name "Caitlyn Jenner" will also recognize the name "Bruce Jenner". Many people who recognize the name "Bruce Jenner" will have no clue who "Caitlyn Jenner" is. I understand that people want to try to be nice to transexuals, but creating a useful encyclopedia is more important. Any website that has an article called Nigger cannot say that is is trying to avoid being offensive to minority groups. Bobby Martnen (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) – Apparently two of us were preparing comments on the same issue at the same time. My comment below suggests a potential specific action, although it seems you might advocate a different outcome. I have merged these two sections for discussion. (A couple of hours ago, I was arguing for Caitlyn Jenner to be reverted to Bruce Jenner, but right now I'm just trying to figure out whether the current MOS:IDENTITY phrasing is intended to apply to that question or not.) —BarrelProof (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There is an issue that has come up in discussion at Talk:Caitlyn Jenner, regarding the application of MOS:IDENTITY in regard to personal names. Currently, MOS:IDENTITY says that there is an exception for gender identity in regard to "pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example 'man/woman', 'waiter/waitress', 'chairman/chairwoman')". The list of examples that is given does not include an example for the personal name of a person – e.g., "Charles" versus "Charlotte" (or, in that instance, "Bruce" versus "Caitlyn"). Should we add a personal name to the list of examples, to help clarify that this issue is intended to fall within the scope of "gendered nouns"? Is this phrase actually intended to cover personal names? —BarrelProof (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I still think the article on Mr. Jenner should be called "Bruce Jenner" until the other name becomes the most common one. This is an encyclopedia, not a transexual activist site. Most people know him as "Bruce Jenner". Bobby Martnen (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

"Mr. Jenner" Can we please not with this kind of thing? I legitimately don't know why I decided "Oh, I'll read wiki pages on trans issues after someone major came out again", because seriously, this seems to happen every time. Cam94509 (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

If you strike the POV-pushing "Mr." part, the comment is clearly valid, though. WP:COMMONNAME policy exists for a reason, as does the WP:NOT#SOAPBOX policy.

• If anyone seriously wishes to challenge or change Wikipedia's established position on this, I would strongly suggest starting by studying the history of our articles on Chelsea Manning and Wendy Carlos and the extensive discussions about the naming of each on multiple noticeboards. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Also check out Chaz Bono. You're allowed to challenge the rule if you want to, but check out the talk pages and see if your concerns have already been addressed to your satisfaction. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed as well, and some of these decisions definitely need to be revisited (Chaz Bono makes sense, since that's the WP:COMMONNAME of that subject. Meanwhile Chelsea Manning is a clear violation of that policy, pushed through by intensive WP:ADVOCACY.) But these titles aren't really a MOS matter, and there's no entirely consistent approach to them, even when excessive activism isn't taking place with regard to a particular case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

This matter (well, to what extent does MOS:IDENTITY apply) is being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 07:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

That discussion seems to be about a different topic. It seems to be about whether to apply MOS:IDENTITY to secondary articles that have no particular reason to discuss a person's gender and only cover the period of a person's life during which they were publicly identified by a different gender than their current self-identified gender. The question of whether or not MOS:IDENTITY is intended to provide an exception to WP:COMMONNAME in regard to personal names does not seem to have been discussed there. If that is a settled matter (and WP:Gender identity seems to say that it is, although that's only an essay), then I suggest that we add an example of this in MOS:IDENTITY. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

However, retroactive use of a new personal name would clearly seem anachronistic in some instances. In an article about the 1976 Olympic sports competition, it would probably make more sense to say that it was won by "Bruce Jenner" or "Bruce (now known as Caitlyn) Jenner" than to say it was won by "Caitlyn Jenner" or "Caitlyn (then known as Bruce) Jenner". So perhaps we should be cautious about that. In that regard, I suppose the Village Pump discussion is overlapping. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Why? We say that Michelle Obama was born January 17, 1964 and was raised on the South Side of Chicago even though her name at the time was Michelle LaVaughn Robinson. We say that Switched-On Bach is a musical album by Wendy Carlos (originally released under the name of Walter Carlos) We can and should say the olympic events in question were won by Caitlyn Jenner (competing under the name of Bruce Jenner). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon (talk • contribs) 18:11, 2 June 2015‎ (UTC)

I think retroactive use of a new personal name can be strange ieloquentlyn some cases, although it may be fine with some others. Michelle Obama wasn't very notable under her prior name AFAIK and it's so well-understood that this wasn't her original name that it's not necessarily worth mentioning, but articles about the early films starring Shirley Temple Black don't mention that name at all, even though I believe she would have been insulted to be referred to as Shirley Temple while serving as the Chief of Protocol of the United States – articles about her later life use her later name, but articles about her early life do not. I think it would be pretty strange to have an article about Robert Kardashian that says he married Kris Jenner, as she wasn't known by that name until after she was no longer his spouse – so the article about him describes her as "Kris Kardashian (née Houghton, later Jenner)". Switched-On Bach was released under both names, and Carlos was undergoing transition even before it was released, so it's not really on-topic here. Articles about the hit songs and albums by Cat Stevens (at least the ones I looked at) don't mention Yusuf Islam at all, and he's been primarily using that name for more than 36 years. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with BarrelProof. Common sense should be used in cases like Bruce/Chelsea Jenner. He competed under his birth name in the men's Olympics, so per the principle of least surprise, we should use that name there. That way, there is accord with sources. Presumably, a less politically charged example would be someone competing under a maiden name. I leave it to the sports folks to give a list of examples. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that's quite good, and it's an ideal that we may hope for, but it assumes a world that does not exist. Specifically, no one has been harrassed, attacked, physically harmed, or killed for changing their name from a maiden name to a married name. On the other hand, people who are transgendered, and who have other non-standard gender and sexuality identities, are so treated on a daily basis in the world today. Were it not so, I would be much happier. The refusal to use someone's chosen name for a transgendered person is used all the time as a deliberate act of degradation against that person, and used specifically to deny the legitimacy of their identity. No one refuses to use a heterosexual cisgendered person's married name because they don't recognize the legitimacy of their marriage, so it's a non-issue. Yes, we wan't to live in a world where it isn't an issue, and we can use a name like "Bruce Jenner" and do so in a way that doesn't carry any political or social baggage. We don't live in that world right now. People are using the name "Bruce Jenner" as an overt attack on Caitlyn to deny the legitimacy of her experience. Because of that, Wikipedia must be cognizant of the effect of using that name, especially since our intent, while it may be innocent and pure, cannot be assessed merely from the text of an article, and also cannot be assessed outside of the greater context where it IS being used as an attack. I'm not saying we never use such a name, or that we refuse to acknowledge it, but that we understand the greater social context, and use that context to inform our decision to NOT degrade the dignity of transgendered people, even if that would never be our intent. --Jayron32 17:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

But it's not Wikipedia's job to right great wrongs. Just to provide the facts. Fact was, Jenner was a man when she competed at the Olympics, and it makes sense to refer to them by the persona they outwardly identified under at that time. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

How can you say that, it is garbage, he was a man when he competed in the olympics, that was the correct pronoun at the time, you can't change history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.236.81 (talk) 11:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not writing any wrongs. It is granting proper dignity to a living person. --Jayron32 00:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, not everyone agrees, including people quite familiar with this debate's parameters both on- and off-Wikipedia, and sympathetic to the interests of TG individuals.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

That's just it: It's not a fact that Jenner was a man during the Olympics. It is a belief.

The issue of whether Jenner 1) was a man and is pretending to be a woman now, 2) was a man and became a woman, or 3) was always a woman whom we all mistakenly believed to be a man are all vibrant and dynamic points of view based on everything from hard facts to assumptions to misconceptions, but it is not for Wikipedia to determine which one is right. We must let our sources do that and then reflect what they say. That means waiting, probably decades, for scientific and social research projects to be completed. Does Jenner really have a woman's brain? If so, is that enough?

When the jury is out on the facts, we must rely on other things. I think we should err on the side of using Jenner's preferred name and pronouns, if only because it is more polite, though Jayron also brings up some good reasons why this issue is not exactly the same as that faced by, say, Muhammed Ali. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The larger issue is not the same, but the fact is, we cannot credibly call Wikipedia a serious encyclopedia if we are going to alter history to suit politicized feelings. We absolutely want to refer to Jenner as Caitlyn on her own article and on articles related to her person. But for the historical record in her sporting career, the lists should contain the name she was known by. If the IOC goes and retroactively changes the name, then we should definitely look at following suit, but otherwise, the WP:NPOV solution is to leave the historical record as is. Resolute 18:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I've been saying this about this issue in particular for years now. And as a factual matter, yes we can say that for both WP and IOC purposes, Jenner was a man during the Olympics! FFS. I doubt even Jenner would argue to the contrary, or [now-]she'd be arguing for [then-]his medals to be rescinded. There's a huge difference between "felt like woman trapped in a man's body" or even "already self-identifying as a woman", and being externally verifiable to be one in the sense relevant in the context. WP is written in plain English, not the highly theoretical, prescriptive, and debated ontological reinterpretationism of some schools of thought in gender studies. Pushing that lingo, and that view of what English-language words "really mean", is not only a WP:NPOV problem, it's patent original research when applied to cases like this. It's a novel analytic/evaluative/interpretive/synthetic claim based on a personal, subjective, WP-editorial view of primary sources, like Jenner's own statements in particular, and gender studies journal papers more generally.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It's really much simpler than all of this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If we have lists of individuals that competed in sporting events, we should include the names as they are listed in the billings of those events. This makes an article on the 1976 Summer Olympics more useful as a reference resource, because it adheres to other other reference sources concerning that event. I disagree very strongly with the attempt to politicize this. Jenner was a public figure who went by the name of "Bruce" during this event. We don't need to inject our own opinions on whether this is proper, or what the social implications of it are, etc. That is really not appropriate under NPOV. We just report what sources about the event report.

Also, we don't really need to speculate about whether Jenner was a man at the time of the olympics, or what defines a man, etc. I would point out that we are here talking about someone who did compete in the men's olympics, but I fear that such a comment would rapidly degenerate into a pointless discussion about whether such biological designations of masculinity are appropriate, or are outmoded social constructs that should be abolished. That really isn't the point. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Those concerns are addressed by saying Caitlyn (then Bruce) Jenner or Bruce (later Caitlyn) Jenner. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be fine with either of those options. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I would disagree with either. WP:POLA would apply strongly here. Resolute 21:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

As a failed proposal, WP:POLA doesn't apply anywhere. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Either of DarkFrog's options are equally acceptable. As a matter of standardization, we should probably go with one or the other as standard (since we need some standard), but those elegant solutions are neither factually incorrect nor problematic. --Jayron32 00:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with both Sławomir Biały's "It's really much simpler than all of this" explication, and Darkfrog24's obvious wording suggestions. It occurs to me that "When a style or similar debate becomes intractable, see if a rewrite can make the issue moot" should be a general maxim here, perhaps even in the MOS lead.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a failed proposal, but still relevant to this situation. That said, I have spoken my piece, and don't wish to follow the path of so many others by arguing a point incessantly. If consensus emerges to rewrite history, then so be it. Resolute 00:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It does sometimes (seen where Bradley Manning redirects to?), but this doesn't mean it can't be readdressed later after tempers cool and WP:ACTIVISTs go make trouble somewhere else.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Darkfrog's suggestion of including both names is the simplest solution, and when someone was notable under another name it's also the best solution. (In cases where someone was not notable, Wikipedia has never hesitated to "rewrite history"; the article on Michelle Obama's school mentions her under that name, not the name she had at the time.) Others have argued that saying only "Caitlyn" would be obfuscating history. I point out that saying only "Bruce" is obfuscating history because, as Skyerise pointed out in the WP:VPP thread about this (quod vide), "a name does not win a Gold Medal in the Olympics, a person does" and "that person has the ethical right to be credited [...] for their past accomplishments". As Skyerise puts it, imagine if "every time someone moves, they are no longer allowed to be credited for things done in their old town. [...] You move to Boston and play ball in college, but you graduate and move to New York to pursue a career. All your college football credits have to be deleted from every article they occur in, they cannot be credited to you. You found a company which goes big, you sell it and move to LA. Gotta delete all those references to you from the company and other articles." -sche (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I've stated my opinions on the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification discussion, but apparently this also needs to be said here. Specifically, the problem with this guideline that is causing problems is (even when usage by reliable sources indicates otherwise. This goes against a key WP:POLICY; WP:SOURCE by definition and in the very public case of Jenner, but in many others where notoriety is achieved before the change in identity, it actually leads to confusion. It makes wikipedia's reporting of the facts inaccurate, hurting the entire wikipedia project's reputation. We have reasonable compromises available but because this particular phrasing was adopted by advocates for transgender acceptance, they have overridden a key policy and are using this specific clause to make their WP:POINT. We should never have adopted a phrase that allows users to violate the key policy of WP:SOURCE and this clause must be changed. Trackinfo (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The thing that is never mentioned in all the debates about Jenner is that a woman can be named "Bruce". Blueboar (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not as simple as a name. Jenner came to notoriety as a male athlete, played male roles on TV and in a couple of movies, married three now notable women (they have WP:BLPs too), fathered 6 children all in full public coverage by the media--a tabloid celebrity. For wikipedia to suddenly put female pronouns and use Caitlyn across the board goes against what the public has learned about Jenner for almost 45 years. She is Caitlyn in 2015. Because of her transition in 2015, we seriously have people trying to claim female world records from athletic performances in 1976 in wikipedia's voice because of this policy. I'm arguing these points elsewhere. Sure it goes against what the authority on world records says, but with this line in the policy, wikipedia can go against all that crazy stuff like evidence. Trackinfo (talk) 05:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but doesn't seem to apply here. The name change came along with the public gender switch. Same with C. Bono.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I have to concur with @Trackinfo:. So, what should it actually say? I would rewrite the whole section significantly, but I doubt that would be accepted, so let's hear some proposals for minor changes that resolve this conflict with WP:Verifiability policy (I needn't dwell on it, but there's also WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR problems inherent in it, too).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Elsewhere I am trying to defend against the repercussions of this poorly written MOS guideline. As involved as I am, I'm probably not the person to rewrite the guideline. It involves the #1 most read article on wikipedia this week, which has 4 times the hits of #2. There are going to be repercussions. There are a lot of advocates pushing for their POV, conflating this with transgender acceptance. I'm all for acceptance in society, but I'm against the rewriting of history. That was a terrible precedence to allow. If we do attempt a rewrite, how will it survive the onslaught of POV pushing advocates? In this environment, how will we state the case without wild accusations of bigotry? How will sane minds prevail? Trackinfo (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's the thing, Trackinfo, is using female pronouns for Jenner rewriting history or merely acknowledging that previous sources made an honest mistake? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

While I am arguing for a broader rule change (to conform with existing policy that was excepted out for this special section), Jenner's representation was not a mistake on the part of the contemporary media. Jenner entered a male only event in the Olympics (and the entire athletic career, including vs me, personally). Jenner entered into three marriages as the male in the relationship. WP:BLP did all three of these women acknowledge they were marrying a woman, and for two of them, that this woman was fathering their children. Is that a mistake on the part of the reporters? In the least, it was misrepresentation on the part of Jenner. Is Jenner a liar? As they would ask in court; Where you telling the truth then? Or are you telling the truth now? Just when are you telling the truth? Trackinfo (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that gets to the heart of the cognitive dissonance. The heart of the policy matter, to me, is that its setting up TG people as a special class who have rights, as article subjects, that no one else may enjoy. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, even if the gander used to be a goose. Put another way, why is one particular mid-life realization, about gender identity, different from any other major one? I don't mean for the subject, I mean objectively for Wikipedia. This question actually has deeper ramifications, with regard to many public figure who went through a totally life altering change, e.g. Nelson Mandela disassociating his views from the arguably-terrorist group he was a member of in his youth, and becoming a pacifist reform leader. Whatever. Lots of examples come to mind, and I don't need to belabor the point. (It's also not an MOS discussion at that level, since broadened that way it doesn't involve gender-related language disputes, but NPOV and OR more generally.) PS: I don't think this can be fixed right now because of the pageviews issue. Jenner is too hot a topic, attracting too much off-WP and new-to-WP opinion that is uninformed about and unexperienced with WP editing culture.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Permit WP:Red links in WP:Navboxes?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Red link#Proposal to permit redlinks in navigation templates; subsection is at Wikipedia talk:Red link#Revision proposal. A WP:Permalink for the matter is here. Flyer22 (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Drink-driving

Is "drink-driving" a typo for "drunk-driving or UK English?[2] --Guy Macon (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That's the standard British term, not an error. RGloucester — ☎ 18:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's a British government web site that uses that expression: [3]. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Closing gameable loopholes

I tweaked the lead a bit to close two gaping loopholes that people try to WP:GAME all the time: 1) The MOS applies to encyclopedic content not just in articles, but also in public-facing templates, category pages, and portals. 1b) It doesn't apply to talk pages, project pages, and user pages, so people can stop squabbling over that idea. This should prevent a large number of minor disputes. They don't last long, but they're frequent enough to be a drain on productivity. 2) The main MOS page has precedence, as a matter of WP:CONLEVEL policy, over not just its own subpages but any conflicting style advice given in other guidelines and in wikiproject advice pages. Not policies, of course, but we actually sculpt policies like WP:AT carefully so that the directly defer to MOS on style matters already. This latter loophole has been used, unsuccessfully but incredibly disruptively, to WP:POVFORK various guideline and project advice pages from MOS, and that really needs to stop.

These wording tweaks don't actually change anything at all, they simply state the scope and policy situation more clearly, to forestall more disruptive nonsense of both kinds.

Also cleaned up some wording and flow problems, by clarifying some lead clauses, removing redundant phrasing, and keeping related sentences together.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The MoS has no authority to extend its own authority. That's just very obviously unacceptable procedure. Any such extension needs to be discussed explicitly in a broader setting, where the MoS regulars are not so firmly in control. --Trovatore (talk) 05:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Already addressed that below, in #Precedence. MOS's "authority" isn't being changed or proposed to be changed in any way.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

By the way, Flyer22, you should have taken your own advice and discussed first. SMcCandlish made a bold edit which I reverted; it should be discussed before being re-implemented. --Trovatore (talk) 05:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I was going to state that considering that the top of the page states "Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus.", I don't see why I needed to start a discussion instead of reverting you on this. But after seeing where you stated "SMcCandlish made a bold edit which I reverted," and looking in the edit history to look over things, I understand that you were reverting SMcCandlish's text. I initially thought that you were reverting a little bit of what SMcCandlish added and removing long-standing material. I reverted myself. Flyer22 (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --Trovatore (talk) 05:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Trovatore, considering that SMcCandlish rearranged material with this edit, some of the older material is lost with your revert/my revert. Flyer22 (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

That may well be so. He made several edits in a row; I assumed that they were in a linear progression. I didn't look for the possibility that he had removed stuff intending to put it back in in a later edit. --Trovatore (talk) 05:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I looked it over; the only "loss" is removal of the two words "within Wikipedia", which serve no purpose in that sentence.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopedia content in templates, etc.

This is the change in question.

The proposed change

Old: New: The '''Manual of Style''' (often abbreviated as '''MoS''' or '''MOS''') is a [[style manual]] for all Wikipedia articles. The '''Manual of Style''' (often abbreviated as '''MoS''' or '''MOS''') is a [[style manual]] for all Wikipedia articles and other content.{{Efn|The Manual of Style covers style in all encyclopedic content, not just articles themselves. This includes content found in [[WP:Portal|portals]], provided in public-facing [[WP:Template|templates]] and [[WP:Category|categories]], and styled by [[WP:CSS|CSS MediaWiki interface pages]]. It does not directly cover Wikipedia-internal material, such as wikiproject pages, user pages, talk pages, and administrative resources, though it strongly influences them, as many of its style rationales apply generally.}}

Rationale [originally posted above]: Anti-WP:GAME fix. The MOS applies to encyclopedic content not just in articles, but also in public-facing templates, category pages, and portals. It doesn't apply to talk pages, project pages, and user pages, so people can stop squabbling over that idea. This should prevent a large number of minor disputes. They don't last long, but they're frequent enough to be a drain on productivity.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Trovatore: Why did you remove the clarification about MOS applying to encyclopedia content when it's outside of articles? That has nothing to do with your theory about the precedence issue (see subthread below). Do you really believe that someone can take content in an article and put it into a template in a bid to avoid MOS compliance? That MOS matters, from gender neutrality, to date formats, to how to properly render and attribute quotations, magically don't apply if you put the exact same content on a portal page or the intro text on an article category page? NB: I'm not objecting to a WP:BRD revert, I'm asking you to actually provide a rationale, part of the "D" process in BRD.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I didn't specifically insert or remove anything. I reverted to one of your revisions, without other changes. I looked through the list of revisions and looked for the first diff I thought was unacceptable, and reverted to the version (still your version) immediately before that. --Trovatore (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't question what you did, Trovatore; we can all read page history. I'm asking you what rationale you can provide for reverting this change, in throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bath-water style, when you reverted the other specific change, below, that you're discussing with what you feel is a policy-based rationale. (I also never said anything about you inserting anything. Not sure what you're talking about.) What I'm getting at is WP:DONTREVERT, 'Don't revert a large edit because ... you don't have time to rewrite the whole thing.' — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

DONTREVERT is an essay I don't agree with. It's cleaner to revert the whole thing and then discuss.

Frankly, I think even BRD has too much B for the MOS. It's fine for article space, or at least it's usually fine. But a lot of your edits to the MOS come across as attempts to dictate policy to clarify, of course I mean "policy" in the everyday language sense, not the WP-specific sense, and if no one happens to see it or has the energy to fight it, then you get away with it. I'm not saying that's how you see it, but it's how it can be perceived, and it could substantively come out that way whether it's your intent or not. I think you should do the D part first. --Trovatore (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Trovatore: "cleaner to revert the whole thing and then discuss" - The point is there is no "whole thing"; they're two different things, and you clobbered one to get at the other. And still have not provided a rationale for objecting to the part you collateral-damaged. Yes, "then discuss". I did, with -sche, but you don't seem to have any input on the issue (despite being asked for a rationale several times now) and neither does anyone else. BRD is therefore satisfied. This is not an RfC. We don't need to wait a month to get on with it. Re: "DONTREVERT is an essay I don't agree with" - Well, BRD is an essay I don't agree with (much). So? We all know by now how progress occurs here. People make changes, some of them stick immediately, some don't and get massaged into something that assuages concerns, and sticks later. Some is reasoned against and never sticks. What doesn't happen is people squat on a page and filibuster any movement at all, just because. What doesn't work is repetitive knee-jerk reverts that seem to indicate a "not getting it" problem. What isn't permissible is reverting everything some other editor does just because they're the one doing it. All of these things happen at MOS frequently, and they're all bollocks.

I do understand that some people are perceiving a policy change here, but I've already demonstrated repeatedly that it's not. It seems to me that no matter how many times it's explained to various people in the ... MOS skeptics? ... camp that a description of the policy status quo isn't a change in policy, they just don't understand the reasoning, or refuse to accept it (more likely), yet can't provide a refutation (or provide a weak one that is in turn easily refuted), so they go right back to their original assertion. At some point we just have to move on, whether everyone wants to ride the float or not. I'm all for working out concerns and problems, but they have to actually be articulable and articulated, cogently, or there's no way to address them. Even BRD makes it really clear that when a discussion is going nowhere, it's time to be bold again and see if new eyes and minds have arrived and some progress will be made.

PS: Essays are collections of reasoning, not rules. "I don't agree with [that essay]" means "I don't agree with the reasoning in it". So, what reasoning exactly at DONTREVERT do you disagree with? Have you tried to improve the page? (It does badly need copyediting.) I'm hard pressed to find any reasoning in it that doesn't actually fit how consensus works on Wikipedia. If it were worded better would you agree with it? Surely you don't refuse to accept any opinions about reverts and consensus other than your own? PPS: I understood what you meant by policy, and I too am tired of people jumping on that word and flipping out.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

These essays "collections of reasoning"? No. They're statements of a position, for which reasons are (ideally) given. I can agree that the given reason supports the position, without agreeing that the position itself is the correct one.

For example, DONTREVERT says that editors have a natural preference for the status quo, and that that may be influencing the revert. That is true. It fails to note that this preference is perfectly reasonable, in and of itself. If an edit is not an active improvement, it should be reverted. That promotes stability. There should be a small bias in favor of the status quo ante, that in cases of dispute, the new edit should have the burden of overcoming. The fact that Wikipedia "likes to encourage editing" is true, but that is not the same as saying that it encourages editing for its own sake. --Trovatore (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that principle, but didn't infer the essay intended a different conclusion from yours. Then again it does need some text-massaging. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I would either change "strongly influences" to "may influence" or simply drop ", though it strongly influences them, as many of its style rationales apply generally." Other that that, this is a good anti-GAME fix. -sche (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@-sche: Done!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

PS: Someone reverted it in a spate of deletions. I let the revert stand for further discussion. I'll put it back after the storm blows over, and maybe in the interim someone will want to improve the wording in some way. (Or maybe someone will have a cogent rationale for not including it after all, in which case I won't put it back in of course, but look into another approach to the underlying WP:GAME problem.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, you violated 3RR last night. Please don't revert so much or make significant changes to content that you know are likely to be opposed. Sarah ^(talk) 02:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't, actually; I'm careful about that. You reached 3RR yourself, and deleted long-standing material without consensus to do so. I agree such back-and-forth isn't helpful, and we seem to have stability again. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Precedence

This is the change in question.

The proposed change (underlined here for clarity)

Old: New: In case of discrepancy, {{em|this page has precedence}} over its detail pages and the [[Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style|Simplified Manual of Style]].{{Efn|This is a matter of policy at {{section link|WP:Consensus|Level of consensus}}: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a wikiproject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." And: "Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of pages."}} In case of discrepancy, {{em|this page has precedence}} over its detail pages, the [[Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style|Simplified Manual of Style]], and style advice found in other [[WP:Guidelines|guidelines]] and [[WP:Advice page|advice pages]].{{Efn|This is a matter of policy at {{section link|WP:Consensus|Level of consensus}}: ... [footnote unchanged] ... }}

Rationale [originally posted above]: Anti-WP:GAME fix. The main MOS page has precedence, as a matter of WP:CONLEVEL policy, over not just its own subpages but any conflicting style advice given in other guidelines and in wikiproject advice pages. Not policies, of course, but we actually sculpt policies like WP:AT carefully so that they directly defer to MOS on style matters already. This latter loophole has been used, unsuccessfully but incredibly disruptively, to WP:POVFORK various guideline and project advice pages from MOS, and that really needs to stop.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• I have to object in the strongest terms to any attempt by the MoS to claim "precedence", purely on the initiative of editors who work on the MoS. It makes no sense at all for the MoS's presumed "authority" to be based on the MoS itself. --Trovatore (talk) 05:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Trovatore. If the MoS is to gain precedence which it does not presently have, there needs to be a broad consensus of editors who want it. I do not believe that WP:CONLEVEL, which states "The community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others," supports such a claim to precedence, on the contrary, it calls out for more input. At the very least, a widely published RfC. GregJackP Boomer! 07:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I already addressed this below, before you interpolated this comment. Repeat: This precedence already exists. It's at work every single day all across Wikipedia. Nothing has changed. The wording in my edit does not change anything about any policy, it's just factual introductory lede material. Please read the discussion and add comments that are responsive to it, don't just insert them into the top of the thread like this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

WTF do you think you are, the talkpage police? I can insert a comment where I see fit, and offer support for another editor's position. Second, what makes you think that I did not read your incorrect interpretation below? Please do not assume that your opinion is automatically correct, or that others cannot insert properly indented comments into a threaded conversation. It's done every day on Wikipedia, see WP:THREAD. I'm surprised that you don't understand this. GregJackP Boomer! 16:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

How does making a request turn me into "police"? Don't police generally give orders that must be obeyed, on pain of arrest? I didn't say you couldn't insert your comment here, it's simply not useful if you're just adding something non-responsive to the discussion, just a "me too". Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and WP:JUSTAVOTE. Your !vote on the matter below is already the same "me too". It seemed clear that you did not read the material below because you have not rebutted anything in it, just stated agreement with something I already refuted. If X says "chickens are as smart as dogs", and Y provides a strong argument for why that's not true, it's a reasonable assumption that if Z says "yeah, chickens are as smart as dogs" that either they missed the refutation (the kind assumption), or they can't understand or answer the refutation and are trying proof by assertion, which is an unkind assumption. I decline to apologize for going with the nicer assumption, even if you confirm the other one was correct. No one's opinion is automatically correct, but WP consensus process gives more weight to policy-, source- and common-sense-based rationales than to "me too" comments, and more weight to unrefuted rationales than to refuted ones. "I don't agree!" is not a refutation. Of course I understand WP:THREAD; I'm using it now. What I'm not doing is inserting a redundant statement of agreement or disagreement without a reason. See the difference?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: 'It makes no sense at all for the MoS's presumed "authority" to be based on the MoS itself.' It's not, of course; it's based on the clear, directly quoted wording of WP:CONLEVEL policy, and various ArbCom decisions (e.g. WP:ARBATC and WP:RFAR/DDL) that we probably don't need to quote in the guideline. (I had long thought that the policy pointer was sufficient to get the point across, without including legalistic ArbCom stuff.) MOS isn't "claiming" anything. This precedence already exists. WP:BIRDCON confirms this in no uncertain terms. Camps of editors cannot go off and make up their own rules in defiance of site-wide policies or guidelines. MOS is WP's style manual, and if someone doesn't agree with something it advises, the process for resolving that is to seek consensus to change it, not to run off an write your own topical anti-MOS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

This notion that the MoS represents "community consensus" is your spin, and that of some other regulars. But it isn't true. It represents the consensus of people specially interested in a centralized style guide. That is not the "broad consensus" you would like to claim. --Trovatore (talk) 05:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Trovatore: I guess we do need to quote directly from ArbCom then, at least on the talk page:

• WP:RFAR/DDL#Manual of Style: "11.4) The Manual of Style is a set of guidelines governing appropriate editing on Wikipedia. The Manual is prescriptive in areas that enjoy broad consensus; where there is no such consensus, the available options are described, but no prescriptive guidance is provided. Editors are expected to follow the Manual of Style, although it is not policy and editors may deviate from it with good reason."
• WP:RFAR/DDL#Changing a guideline such as Manual of Style: "13.1) A guideline such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates can be changed by the Wikipedia community; see the policy on how policies are decided, which provides for consensus decision-making by those users who are familiar with the matter."

So, yes, MOS is a broad consensus. I suspect you are coming from the angle that because you (like surely all of us) have some points in MOS that you disagree with that it "doesn't represent consensus". If so, you're misunderstanding WP:CONSENSUS, what MOS is and why, and what we have consensus on. Consensus does not require unanimity. MOS is not just some descriptive work listing all known options for how off-WP writers handle each style question. What we have broad, long-term, site-wide consensus on is that MOS is our in-house style guide, and we're agreeing to follow it so we have a consistent encyclopedia, and fewer lame style editwars distracting us from creating content. (Some particular situations may inspire us to WP:IAR, to work around a rule that doesn't quite work in that case; this is a situation ArbCom clearly allowed for, and which IAR policy allowed for long before ArbCom said anything about it. MOS is a guideline not a policy, so there is no "power" to "grab".) We also have broad consensus on the points on which MOS is prescriptive, or they wouldn't be prescriptive. Where we don't, options are provided. We even have explicit consensus that for some specific things we shouldn't be prescriptive.

There's no mystery here, and no "spin". It's simply logically impossible under what ArbCom has ruled, and under WP:CONLEVEL policy, for it not to be true that MOS has precedence, on style matters, over other pages (below the level of official policies), or MOS would not be Wikipedia's style manual. Is ArbCom lying? Of course not. MOS is WP's style manual. It says so (as a matter of scope definition, not "authority"); ArbCom says so; WP:POLICY processes, that led to its formation over years by innumerable Wikipedians, tell us this is so; and CONLEVEL policy tells us we can't go make up our own style guideline to contradict MOS; meanwhile ArbCom reaffirms that rules in guidelines and policies are changed by community consensus discussions, not by defiance. If you want to propose that MOS somehow isn't a real WP guideline, feel free to propose that it be marked {{Historical}}. PS: the "users who are familiar with the matter" ArbCom observation speaks directly to your "consensus of people specially interested in a centralized style guide" comment. You surely know by now that all consensus on WP is established by editors with enough interest in the matter to weigh in on it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The point is that the editors who weigh in are those specifically interested in a centralized manual of style. Editors who don't care about that, because they don't see the need for such decisions to be made uniformly across WP, would be expected to be underrepresented here. --Trovatore (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

And by the way, WP:CONLEVEL does not in fact mention the MoS. You talk about it over and over again as though it did, but it doesn't. --Trovatore (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not feel that CONLEVEL has to mention the MoS specifically to be relevant here. It boils down to "local consensus does not trump wide consensus" and that matches the situation with the MoS and its subpages closely. There may also be circumstances in which the MoS is the local consensus. Either way, it's relevant. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

But the point precisely at issue is whether the MoS is a "wide consensus". By the way, the subpages are not the issue here. SMcCandlish's edits cast a much wider net. --Trovatore (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised that someone who has been around as long as you does not understand that ArbCom decisions do not set binding precedent, see WP:AP#Policy and precedent. Second, your second ArbCom quote supports Trovatore's position, not yours, that more input is needed, by the "Wikipedia community" instead of a few editors at this talkpage. GregJackP Boomer! 17:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

GregJP is right that this would need broad consensus: Let's go get it!

In general, I favor centralization. Don't forget what it's like to be a new editor, clicking through six and seven and ten pages of guideline after policy after essay and still not finding the rule that covers what you need. While I do believe that the MoS should serve in the capacity recommended here—as the place to go when you want to know Wikipedia's style rules—we should first check all the sub-pages in question to see make sure that the MoS contains the best, most correct and most practical rules. This is more than a change in text; this is a project.

So what I'm saying is, if this were a recognition of something that was already happening (like the proposal to make this the official page for style questions; people already do that here ), then it'd be hands-down yes, change the text because it's just a clarification. Yes, we should change this text as recommended, but we should make sure it's true first, and that might involve making some changes. We need to bring more people on board. The regulars from the sub-pages would be the natural choice. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Not just the subpages. You need to get people from the WikiProjects, and people who just work on a specialized topic and don't bother much with projects or MoS or other "meta" stuff. Challenging to do, but that's what you'd need for a true broad consensus. --Trovatore (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Technically, the best place for this would be VP:Proposals or VP:Policy, but the last two attempts to deal with MoS matters there have shown that many of their participants have an unmerited disdain for the concept of having a MoS at all. So what we'd need to do is get people who care about MoS matters on board, all of the people who care about MoS matters on board, without giving the hecklers an opportunity to whine about how no one should bother. I see posting notices on relevant Wikiproject talk pages as an appropriate part of that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Uh? Who says it's unmerited?

The "hecklers" who think "no one should bother" need to be part of the discussion. If you don't include them, you don't have a valid consensus. --Trovatore (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Darkfrog... have you considered the possibility that this "disdain" you detect at VP:Proposals and VP:Policy reflects an actual community wide consensus (which raises interesting WP:CONLEVEL questions regarding the MOS). Blueboar (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Who says it? I did. And yes, the idea, "Oh punctuation is stupid and we shouldn't bother to have an MoS!" is not valid. The fact that Wikieditors who are not regulars here come to WT:MoS to ask for help writing articles with neat and correct English proves that there's demand for one and that doesn't even count the people who use the MoS without posting on this talk page about it. If people choose to ignore that proof, then yes, they're wrong.

Blueboar, as to what the disdain means, I think it means that punctuation and writing mechanics bore most people, and maybe they didn't like having to learn about them in school. Nothing more. To them, it's as if we're talking about the best way to sweep the floors. They don't understand why some people just like the floor clean—but they'd get annoyed real fast if the bits of dirt started sticking to their feet.

As for whether people who think we shouldn't bother should be deliberately included, imagine that we were talking about anything else. A TV show like Game of Thrones or an insect like the Japanese beetle. Anyone who showed up solely to say, "That's just a dumb TV show. It's not worth our time!" or "Bugs are GROSS! It's not worth our time!" should be disregarded. We include Game of Thrones and the Japanese beetle on Wikipedia because their treatment in secondary sources proves that they're important enough to include, and the hits that those pages receive from readers show that this was the right decision. Similarly, almost all similar endeavors of good quality, whether they're encyclopedias or newspapers, have their own MoS. There's precedent to use one, none to not use one.

I get that some people have had bad experiences, whether it was with an English teacher or online or even right here at Wikipedia, but that only means that we need to be strict about what goes into the MoS and how it is enforced, not that we shouldn't provide the Wikieditors with everything they need to do their best—even if some people think that intra-article consistency and proper capitalization are dumb. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: Re: 'we should first check all the sub-pages in question to see make sure that the MoS contains the best, most correct and most practical rules. This is more than a change in text; this is a project.' All already been done. MOS is centralized because we already went through that process, after VP discussion, several years ago, and it was done as a project (WP:WikiProject Manual of Style). So, great idea, but "been there, done that". Hecklers who whine "no one should bother" with style/title rule are of no concern as a "threat", though I want very much to resolve the issues they're having with MOS and AT, without undermining their purpose. There are not enough naysayers to dump the site-wide consensus that MOS at AT are both centralized, that they are a guideline and a policy, respectively, and that they are our singular WP style manual and WP article titles policy, not alternatives among an array of optional approaches. It would be productive, not disruptive, in a roundabout way, if they would just get on with it and try to kill MOS and the parts of AT they don't like, so that proposal can crash spectacularly, and we can get back to the business as usual of writing the encyclopedia. This endless firehose of noise from a handful of MOS and AT opponents really just has to be turned off.

PS: I'm not sure why you say "we need to be strict about what goes into the MoS and how it is enforced", when you keep ending up at AN / ANI for evading MOS, and then complain about enforcement. Cf. my earlier citation of the old saying "Everyone is for free speech, as long as it's theirs." MOS shouldn't have "strict rules" that "are enforced". It should have clear, consistent rules that best serve the encyclopedia's needs, and which are followed because we agree that having a set of rules is more important that personally all getting every single rule exactly as we'd prefer it. It's a maturity and collegial behavior issue. Imagine what football would be like if ever player stopped playing to try to change a rule in the middle of the game, or just ignored it without good reason any time they'd like. Welcome to Wikipedia as of 16 June 2015. I certainly agree that "we should... provide the Wikieditors with everything they need to do their best—even if some people think that intra-article consistency and proper capitalization are dumb." I just wish you agreed with this principle when it was about style nit-picks you think are dumb or which aren't the "right version". Maybe your statements in this section are motion in this direction? If so, I welcome that. I also agree with the gist of your analogy to people showing up at articles on TV shows or insect species (aside from the fact that core content policies don't apply to Wikipedia-namespace pages). Yes, if we have a consensus to have a page, for a particular purpose and with a particular scope, "this page is pointless", and "there's no real consensus to have this", and similar sentiments don't carry any weight in discussions with regard to improving the contents or refining the scope of the page. I'm not really sure why people take the view that WP:IDONTLIKEIT-type reasons are valid as long as you apply them to a guideline page you hate.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? "Keep ending up at AN/I for evading the MoS"? That happened once, seven years ago (and it's why I quit general gnoming) and the admin involved had to be convinced that the issue was important.

I'm going to assume that you're talking about my opposition to WP:LQ. WP:IDONTELIKEIT≠WP:THISCONTRADICTSRELIABLESOURCES. I also don't like it.

What I mean by being strict about what goes into the MoS, I mean that it shouldn't contain rules that are based solely on whims or personal preferences that we then impose upon others, of which WP:LQ is the most obvious case. To use your words, "clear, consistent and serving the encyclopedia's needs" is good but "supported by (or at least does not contradict) reliable sources" is better. Requiring sentence case for every header—sure, it's nice, but is that a big enough deal to take up space here? Requiring double quotation marks instead of single—we've seen that single can interfere with search functions in some browsers, so it's clearly here for a non-arbitrary reason. The whole point of Wikipedia is that it's not just one person telling another person what to do; it's about verifiability, notability and relevance.

As for how the MoS should be enforced, short answer: politely.

SmC, you seem to have overlooked something: I do think that the MoS should trump other guideline pages. We might have different reasoning behind how and why, but we're on the same page on what. In fact you and I agree on most things.

As for the hecklers not being a threat, they were a pretty big deal in the proposals to create a style help noticeboard and an even bigger one in the proposal to endorse the help that we provide here at WT:MoS. They should be disregarded but they aren't. By "disregarded" I mean that the admin closing the discussion should ignore votes from people who gave "The MoS/commas/these people are stupid" as their only reason for opposition. There were also valid complaints made against both proposals. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

MOS consults reliable sources on style and grammar; it does not cite and obey them robotically (it's impossible for it to do so, since they conflict on virtually everything). MOS is not an article subject to WP:V / WP:RS, any more than any other policy or guideline is. It's crafted through often tedious and frustrating, but necessary, consensus processes the primary work of which is not at all digging around in source after source to compile some kind of statistical average of "most popular" recommendation. It's almost entirely an exercise is applying common sense to observed problems and what their most practical solution is. So, I see what you mean by "strict" now; you mean drawn from source that someone (namely you) wants to interpret as authoritative. If you want to apply a content policy analysis, then that's undue weight. In the real analysis, it's just irrelevant. The frequency with which grammar and style sources agree on something has nothing to do with whether the advice in question serves our needs best. And of course there's no way to gauge what that frequency is. Does anyone have every style book? Have they checked every single one of them for every single MOS point? Of course not; it's impossible. Your entire LQ argument is based on a statistical analysis that is faulty and meaningless. It's also impossible for MOS to not contradict RS. This are very nearly zero style or grammar issues on which all style and grammar guides agree, ergo every rule will contradict at least one of them. Everyone seems to have internalized this except (counting on my hands) 6 editors over the last ~3 years. As I said in related discussion above, at some point we just have to move on and leave some people behind.

I don't get your point about sentence case, niceness, and space. Double quotes could have been here for an arbitrary reason, too, and that would be fine. Lots of rules (not just in MOS) are arbitrary, and have to be if we want one rule instead of inconsistency. We don't impose one unless the inconsistency is problematic, but when we do then it's one rule, arbitrary or not. (And as you know, I don't mean "rule" in some kind of formal policy sense). I believe you that you believe in MOS; see your talk page. I look forward to finding common ground somewhere. Hecklers: I'm not worried about them. They didn't derail the "MOS help desk" stuff; even I !voted against those proposals, after initially being interested in them. The opposes changed my mind. It's fine for us to say people can ask questions here, but we wouldn't be telling people all over that they need to come here. It's more that we can't keep people from asking such questions here and we do a serviceable job answering. It's fine for this to be an informal role.

I share your concern that admins are not discounting WP:JUSTAVOTE noise in RfCs. Its becoming an increasing problem all over, though I think it affects MOS and AT matters more strongly, because a significant number of admins are themselves in the MOS/AT critics camp. Just a fact we have to work with. Finally, on ANI: I cited two style-related cases, but whatever. The point wasn't "you've been to ANI, so you must be bad". I have too. It was the topic of the the ANI cases. Seven years later, you're still riding the same warhorse. WP:TE was written specifically with that kind of never-give-up stuff in mind. Some issues you just have to let go of. If I could get my way in MOS there would e at least 50 things I would change, and plenty of things I'd change in various policies, but it's good that I don't get my way. This isn't SMcCandlishPedia. And over time you actually get used to and change your mind about things. My own usage has changed in quite a few ways based on my editing here. But not all. I will never, ever, ever use spaces instead of commas in long numbers, and off-WP I would ever write "J.R.R. Tolkien" as "J. R. R. Tolkien". I think it's pointless, distracting, and a pain in the butt, but it's MOS's rule, it doesn't really hurt anything, some people to expect it, and it's more important that we have an arbitrary rule on this with one answer, than have a "do whatever you want" mess.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I consider style guides and observable evidence more authoritative than people's unsubstantiated personal opinions or what "feels better" to them. Facts, not truthiness. That's pretty much what Wikipedia is about.

We actually did check a lot of style guides the last time this came up. Just go to the archive and search for "vote with sources" or click the link I gave you under the LQ challenge discussion. You say "oh the style guides all contradict each other," but the fact that almost all of them agree on American punctuation in American English is all the more reason to change WP:LQ. Why would we have a rule that contradicts an overwhelming majority?

So the fact that all but one American style guide (ACS) says "use American punctuation" isn't enough for you personally. You also said that rules should serve Wikipedia's needs. Requiring British punctuation in all articles does not serve any of our needs. American is easier to learn, use and copy edit. It is not as has been asserted, more prone to errors than British. And, unlike the case with single-vs-double quotation marks, Wikipedia has no technical issue that British style addresses better than American. Also, Wikipedia's multinational spirit is better served by treating all varieties of English equally than by favoring one over the others. Or if consistency is so important, we should just chuck ENGVAR and write the whole encyclopedia in British English. I am not being sarcastic. I could get behind that. I'd rather write British English articles correctly than American English articles incorrectly, by a lot, actually, BrE is pretty neat.

You mean seven years later, this rule has been challenged over half a dozen different times by more than half a dozen different people for different reasons and I continued to support changing it. That's not tendentious editing. That's me putting up with something that I don't like until I can get it changed within the system. You shouldn't be complaining about that.

As for whether WP:LQ hurts anything, the problem is that I see students copying Wikipedia thinking that it's correct, and it isn't. They're learning sloppiness and their teachers' efforts are being undermined. We don't need more of that, and it would be a relatively simple fix. However, if this rule followed ENGVAR, they'd be learning about the differences between varieties of English, which is valuable.

I still don't think that two cases in eight years establishes a pattern, but I'm a bit curious now: What was the other one? Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Get on with it: @Trovatore, GregJackP, and Blueboar: I repeat:'The ArbCom observation speaks directly to your "consensus of people specially interested in a centralized style guide" comment.' Are you just not reading? We have a centralized manual of style. This is a fact. Policy says so, and refers to MOS specifically, all the time constantly. ArbCom says so. The Guideline tag on it that's been there forever and ever says so. The consensus to consolidate MOS better, which was advertised all over the place, including WP:VP, says so. Most importantly, the fact that the entire community except for a tiny handful of MOS naysayers treat it as our unified style guide says so. That's consensus. If you want to change that consensus, feel free to go to WP:VPPRO and propose a decentralization of Wikipedia's style guidance. But stop pretending that we don't already have a centralized style guide. And your reasoning doesn't fly: Editors who don't care about or care for a centralized style guide are not underrepresented here; they're overrepresented, causing constant text-walls of invective because they don't or won't recognize that style guidance is centralized here. And they disruptively blanket revert anything that doesn't help them decentralize without consensus. Sound familiar? Of course WP:CONLEVEL doesn't specifically mention MOS by name; it addresses all site-wide policies and guidelines as a class. Do you really expect it to list every such page? If you do, then you can probably just transclude the existing lists of policies and guidelines, which I'm sure someone will revert you on immediately since that would be pointless. If you somehow don't believe that MOS is "really" a WP guideline, then go to WP:VPPRO and propose that it be marked "historical". Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

No one made a claim ArbCom was setting a precedent. You're confusing ArbCom making a decision, about what is (a finding of fact) and what will happen (remedies) vs. it setting precedent (which it does not do) that binds it from changing its mind in later cases, or prevents WP consensus from changing in ways that moot its prior decisions. ArbCom is modeled on civil law not common law. The idea that "ArbCom doesn't set precedent" means that nothing ArbCom says really matters, is nonsense, or WP:AE would not exist.

Belief that MOS is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS stems from simply not reading that policy carefully. It distinguishes site-wide polices and guidelines from individuals or groups of editors, like wikiprojects, making up rules against them or ignoring them out of preference. MOS is a site-wide guideline, so it's in first category. Basic logic. If you really believe MOS is not a Wikipedia-wide consensus, you know where WP:VPPRO is. If you three really believe that misc. comments of "disdain" at VP about MOS/AT represent some new wave of consensus change against centralized style and naming rules, then just go prove it. If you think MOS isn't "really" a guideline, or AT isn't "actually" a policy, go prove it. And be willing to accept the result when your demotion proposal doesn't go the way you'd like. That means an indefinite cessation of all this disruptive ant-MOS and anti-AT activism.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yawn. TL-DR all of it. BTW, Arbcom is not modeled after the civil law system either, with its call for Jurisprudence constante, which Arbcom doesn't come close to either. Although wikilawyering is an art, it is not because it is needed, it is because people try to force their views on "rules" down other people's throats. GregJackP Boomer! 08:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

"TL;DR" is shorthand for "I made several assertions, and someone refuted them, so I'm going to take my ball and go home." I guess this means you won't be making a VPPRO move to demote MOS then? Why shouldn't we take that as concession that, of course, it does have site-wide acceptance as a guideline? PS: I don't recall anyone saying that every single aspect of civil law was mirrored in ArbCom.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Why does it not surprise me when you take a long-time, well-known abbreviation, and twist it completely out of context? Probably because that is what you have done with WP policies and guidelines all along, including here. And I like the way you change it from your comments about ArbCom/Civil law to "anyone saying..." I've seen ArbCom use Latin words but that doesn't mean that they issue the decisions in that language any more than a slight resemblance to one civil law means that ArbCom is "modeled on" civil law, which is what you said. TL-DR means that I'm not going to wade through two tons of manure to find one acorn. GregJackP Boomer! 02:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

So lots more noisy, evasive, aspersion casting text, none of it responsive to anything of substance in this discussion, closing with a refusal to participate. Thanks for proving the pattern I described is accurate.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"TL;DR" is shorthand for "not everyone has time to read the walls of text you post in response to each comment". I've found myself agreeing with you more often than disagreeing with you, but even I find your verbosity off-putting. -sche (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@-sche: I guess I could try the typical circular-debater tactic that prevails here: Pick one point out of 5 in someone's post, construct a weak straw-man out of it in an unresponsive one-liner, ignore the rest, and then later just repeat my original assertion in proof-by-assertion style, pretending no one will notice it was already refuted; this gets the other party to re-post their rebuttal, and then I can repeat the cycle, until they get frustrated and leave; then try to convince everyone consensus went my way, which I hope will work if a crony will post some me-toos. I may be verbose, but I cover each of the argument points. I do this enough times, people stop trotting out the same weak arguments; they either present better ones, changing my mind and leading to progress, or accept mine, leading to progress. The circular nonsense does not lead to progress. I would take "TL;DR" here more seriously if the people who throw that at me weren't usually the same ones re-re-re-raising the same tired debates month after month, forum after forum, generating, in total, far more verbiage than anyone else, and wasting far more people's time. I am sorry that it's annoying to some bystanders, but won't it be way more annoying to be having the same debate next week, next month, and next year?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm reserving my right to disagree about the extension of MOS to cover the TFA column until I read everything through again. There are at least a few formatting things that have always been different at TFA. I'll give you a full report as soon as I'm done. Then there's the problem that people sometimes have strange notions about what MOS requires, notions that I don't want to be held to. I'll try to list everything I can think of along those lines, too. - Dank (push to talk) 23:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Dank: It's extremely unlikely that if WP:TFA needs a variance (or list thereof) from general rules, because of the very tight space or whatever, that the variance(s) would not be accepted into MOS (directly or as a subpage) if we even think it wasn't covered by WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IAR. We already know that MOS does apply to TFA content, since it's already written to comply except where IARing for a real reason. :-) That is, it's a description of actual practice, not a "new rule". There are no extant disputes between TFA and MOS, so I wouldn't go looking for one. Heh. I can't see that layout issues would apply, since MOS:LAYOUT covers article structure, and TFA (and portals, etc.) are not articles. I don't think anyone thinks TFA is some "localconsensus"; it's a core WP PR effort. But TFA also doesn't go around abusing underlining, or giving dates in "23rd of Jan. '05" format, or otherwise ignoring MOS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I've finished reviewing the last six months at TFA and comparing that to MOS; the only MOS dispute was over whether to italicize James Bond, and the end result was a change in a MOS subpage. So ... there's nothing to do, so far, and hopefully, there never will be. Unwatching for now; my watchlist is already beyond hope. - Dank (push to talk) 11:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Btw, FWIW: I didn't get pinged by the {{ping|Dank}} above. More confirmation that pinging can't be relied on. - Dank (push to talk) 11:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that's twice in one day (that I know of) that the ping failed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• I oppose the proposed change, and would like to note that the MoS cannot extend its reach unilaterally. RGloucester — ☎ 16:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • We've already covered this in detail at the top of this thread. There is no extension of reach, much less a unilateral one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Except that every one else is saying the opposite, that it is a unilateral extension of reach. GregJackP Boomer! 02:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose any change that tries to make the MoS more rigid or extensive. It's a guideline, and a small number of editors here are making it strongly disliked by acting as if it's policy. If you would just loosen up a little, you could make it respected and even loved, because people do want the advice when they come looking for it, but they don't want it to be forced on them. Sarah ^(talk) 02:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @SlimVirgin: Huh? Nothing here would make it more "rigid"; it doesn't involve any changes in content or editability. Nor more "extensive"; MOS's size and scope would remain unchanged. It would simply more accurately describe the scope. It simply is not possible under WP:CONLEVEL policy that some competing guideline's or would-be guideline's editors can overrule MOS, the (not a) site-wide guideline on style, with some "local consensus" to defy it where ever they feel like it. It's like arguing that because some people don't like the results at AfD that they can go start a new "Article for keeping" that has its own deletion rules that can override AfD decisions. Centralization is not the Devil. If a variance is needed, put the new rule in MOS. Not be being a ranter, but by discussion, with reason and evidence. Or just be bold, put it in, and see if it sticks. There is no forcing of anything on anyone. Who is acting as if it's policy? I'm the one repeatedly reminding people these are not hard-and-fast rules, that IAR applies (in more ways than many people think it does), and that MOS is almost entirely build out of refining general rules to account for more specific needs. Other MOS regulars do so as well. The only people treating it like policy are people who don't like something in it, and then create a straw man that it's being applied as if policy, so they can attack it as not really policy. It's shadow boxing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)<

• I've regularly seen you try to force in your style preferences to articles with which you otherwise have no involvement, citing the MoS. Hence your footnote that local consensus can't override this, when of course it can and often does. The MoS is a guideline. It's not a question of IAR. It's a question of it not consisting of rules. Sarah ^(talk) 04:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• 1) I demand proof of that accusation. 2) WP:CONLEVEL policy says local consensus can't override a site-wide guideline. Has nothing to do with my personal style preferences. The very fact that a small number of people, who doggedly pursue the idea, believe that conlevel magically does not apply to MOS as a site-wide guideline is why that footnote needs to be there, so people start to understand it better, finally. We already had a consensus discussion about this. Please do not remove that long-standing material again just because you feel like it. But we're not talking about the existing footnote. We're talking about the new clarification to that consensus, that people can't go write their own anti-MOS style guides and expect them to be followed. 3) Please give us some examples of local consensus overriding MOS. 4) Please cite the policy where it says that only someone who has already edited a page is allowed to edit it (for style or any other guideline-, policy- or content-related reason). Oh, wait, that principle couldn't possibly exist, since then it would be impossible for any pages to even exist, wouldn't it?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Try reading WP:1AM, it fits this discussion. GregJackP Boomer! 02:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose any change, per my above comments, SlimV, and RGloucester. GregJackP Boomer! 08:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • What rationale(s) in particular did you have in mind? WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Per majority indicates why this kind of drive-by !vote is meaningless.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• WP:BASH#Weighting arguments which states: If you have nothing more to add to anyone else's comment, you should not be discouraged from saying so. Delete per nom. or Keep per User:Username are not useless gestures that add nothing constructive to a debate, especially if an issue is contested. To announce that these opinions should be preemptively disregarded is to ignore the fact that they do constitute evidence of consensus. Hasn't this been explained to you before? Like multiple times? Plus, where is says "per my above comments," it means to look up and read what I have already stated. There is no need to repeatedly post the same thing over and over again. GregJackP Boomer! 02:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

But you said the same thing there. It's more "me too", and more of the exact same content-free sarcastic quips about what you think the other person knows or should know (I think every single post of yours on this page contains one). Isn't that "post[ing]the same thing over and over again"? The result is, it's impossible to tell what reasoned position you might have and be able to articulate, vs. just going along with someone in particular, or agreeing with anything that seems to have a "down with MOS" slant to it, or what.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I think there is a distinction in community consensus between having an MOS and enforcing the MOS... and this distinction is something that goes directly to the CONLEVEL argument about "precedence". Having an MOS is useful, and the community strongly supports having one. Community consensus even supports what the MOS says (or at least most of it). However... when it comes to enforcing the MOS in actual practice, it is clear that there is a lot less community support. Time and time again (frequently enough to be significant), the wider community sides with Wikiprojects when there is a specific issue between Wikiproject guidance and MOS guidance. We trust the subject specialists at Wikiprojects to know what they are talking about when they say "that's not how it is done in our subject area". That said... it is important to realize that the wider community does not see this as "overruling" MOS guidance... instead the community sees it as "making an exception" to the otherwise good MOS guidance. And that's really the key... while community consensus approves of the MOS, it also favors making frequent and relatively liberal exceptions to it. Blueboar (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Blueboar: Very interesting, and much more to think about and respond to than it looks like. Do you mind if I break this into a subthread? I see at least 5 different themes to explore here (and not in a point-by-point, fallacy-this-fallacy-that way). Something hopefully more productive than a who-was-most-policy-cogent discussion for a closer to go through.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem if you want to split this into its own sub-section. Blueboar (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Some other time when things are quieter, soon I hope.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Improving examples in "Quotations": "Point of View" section

I made the following tweaks (to my own examples, and in response to a clarification request on my talk page), but someone reverted it in a spate of reverts of everything I'd added any time recently, and with a WP:IDONTLIKEIT-style non-rationale. I'm curious whether there is any actual principled objection to this cleanup and small addition; or more constructively, whether anyone has any ideas for even better wording. (If you want to vent at me personally for something then please use my talk page. Reverts are not a means for expressing inter-editor personality issues.) PS: I made minor copyedits to the "New" version, below, to use more flexible wording in "Styles may be mixed, but should not be when juxtaposed" (vs. "Styles can be mixed, but not when juxtabposd"), and to replace "Siskel and Ebert" with "The reviewer" to shorten the examples and now show how old I am. ;-)

Old

New

Concise opinions that are not overly emotive can often be reported with attribution instead of direct quotation. Use of quotation marks around simple descriptive terms often wrongly implies to many readers something doubtful regarding the material being quoted (where weasel words such as "supposedly" or "so called" might be implied). Permissible: Siskel and Ebert criticized the film as predictable. Unnecessary and may imply doubt: Siskel and Ebert criticized the film as "predictable". Should be quoted: Siskel and Ebert criticized the film as a "simple-minded rehash".

Concise opinions that are not overly emotive can often be reported with attribution instead of direct quotation. Use of quotation marks around simple descriptive terms can often seem to imply something doubtful regarding the material being quoted; sarcasm or weasel words, like "supposedly" or "so called", might be inferred. Permissible: The reviewer called the film interesting. Unnecessary and may imply doubt: The reviewer called the film "interesting". Should be quoted: The reviewer called the film "interesting but heart-wrenching". Styles may be mixed, but should not be when juxtaposed: Source says: "Dimly lit, this effort is snail-paced and lengthy, neither the director's nor the producers' best work." Inconsistent: The reviewer criticized the film as dimly lit, "snail-paced", and lengthy. Awkward but not wrong: The reviewer criticized the film as "dimly lit, ... snail-paced and lengthy". Better: The reviewer criticized the film as "dimly lit", "snail-paced", and "lengthy". Better still: The reviewer found the film dimly lit, and also criticized it as "snail-paced and lengthy". (Source separated them, because pace and length relate to each other, but not to lighting.)

Detailed rationale

• The second sentence was awkward in several ways, like: confusing imply and infer; unnecessary use of "many"; didn't mention sarcasm, the #1 problem in such cases; linked wrongly to WP:WEASEL instead of to weasel words (the former applies to material in WP's own voice, the latter to usage in general). The rewrite fixes all of these problems.
• Someone pointed out that the "criticized the film as predictable" wording was ambiguous (could imply it was predictable what the reviewers would say).
• In the course of thinking about a replacement word, it occurred to me that the rest of the "predictable" examples weren't very clear (especially as to why "scare quotes" might imply doubt.
  • So picked replacements, first by picking a word that is often used sarcastically (to imply doubt), but also often used by reviewers earnestly, and which is not overly emotive, thus can be used in a paraphrase: "interesting" seemed the most obvious choice.
  • The requester of the clarification thanked me for this change. I consider the issue resolved since no one else has raised any issues with it.
  • The revert has reintroduced this ambiguity.
• It also occurred to me that a frequent set of "sloppy partial quotation" problems could be addressed in the same section, with little more than some examples, no lengthy explanation or "rules" needed:
  • So, give an example source text someone may want to excerpt from, a short simple case. The example's construction is important: It includes a non-emotive, attributable description that doesn't require quotation marks and isn't thematically related to what follows; some fluff verbiage we want to elide; an emotive opinion that does need to be quoted; another non-emotive, attributable description right next to the emotive opinion and which does thematically relate to it; and finally more verbiage we want to elide.
  • Illustrate the bad way, and make it obviously why it's bad without having to spell it out. I'm hard pressed to think of a better case than dimly lit, "snail-paced", and lengthy.
  • Show a common and technically correct way to do it, but which is awkward, especially in short segments like this.
  • Show another common, correct way to do it.
  • Without getting into a lecture, include an example of how it is okay to mix styles, by not butting them up against each other, and kill two birds with one stone by hinting at the kind of consideration one might want to engage in to select such a choice (which can sometimes be preferable). It takes far more verbiage to explain it that to just give the example: Siskel and Ebert found the film dimly lit, and also criticized it as "snail-paced and lengthy".

Is there a way to make it even better? I'm hard pressed to think of a content-related outright objection to it, but I'm not the world's best example-maker, and someone may have better cases to use. PS: We should not shorten "The reviewer" to "The review"; inanimate things do not have opinions and do not take actions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

These new examples have TL/DR and clarity problems. This level of detail required to explain these fine points might be more appropriate for the article space. Also, what source are you using for this? "Styles should not be mixed when juxtaposed" makes sense to me but do we need a rule/guidance/what-have-you about it?

Question, and I wouldn't be surprised if the answer were yes, do you see people making mistakes in the article space that these new examples would fix? You mention a "requester." Did someone ask for these changes? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Interested in the clarity problems. Where do you see them? It's always a challenge to write stuff this compressed and devoid of explanatory verbiage and still have it be really clear. TL/DR? Are you thinking the rationale material is part of the content? It's not, only the stuff in the "New" column of the table. The entire point of the examples being constructed so carefully is they do not need any explanatory text, as said in the rationale (4th top-level bullet). What was requested and where: 2nd top-level bullet in rationale. Are the mistakes actually made?: Yes, 4th top-level bullet in rationale. I get the impression you skipped the rationale. Sources: I own two entire bookshelves of style guides and dictionaries, almost all that are in print in English (don't have Macquarie yet, due to .au postage cost), and many that are aren't any longer. MOS doesn't cite sources except for a tiny handful of things. For this particular point, it's common sense, and more more about style clarity, not absolute accuracy, so I'm not inclined to spend time crafting citations for something they'll all agree on, where they even address it. Many don't because it seems too obvious. For an "anyone can edit" work like us, it's turning out not to be. I never introduce a "rule" into MOS that isn't based on recurrent problems, and I usually sit on it for 3-6 months to see if the recurrences were transitory, sometimes for years.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You've done two things here, SmC: 1) You reworded existing guidance/rules and 2) you added new guidance/rules. The deal with #1 is how we word these examples as clearly as possible, which shouldn't be a big deal, but the deal with #2 is whether or not the additions should be kept. Where these jobs overlap is that some of the new additions, the value judgments given to the different examples, also need to be clarified.

TL/DR means "[It was] too long [so I] didn't read [it]." (NOTE: I did read the whole thing so I could discuss it here.)

For #1, there are a couple of problems with clarity but the one I can articulate right now is that the green examples say "permissible," "good," "better" and "still better," the red ones "inconsistent" and "unnecessary" and both the "awkward but not wrong" and original text are colored black. That 1) might imply that the "awkward" one is best because it's the same as the original and 2) might confuse people. In our heads, one person might think "Of course 'better' is better than 'good'" and another might think "It's obvious that 'good' is better than 'better.'" (Consider "an old woman" vs "an older woman.") I like to keep the MoS in the imperative: "Do this." "Don't do that."

For #2, what I see as the addition here is the different values given to different examples ("this is better than that") and the new content ("don't juxtapose"). They look like they're coming from you personally, but I could be wrong. Do you have an outside style guide that says "never juxtapose quoted and non-quoted material" and "doing X is better than doing Y" or is this just a conclusion that you've drawn using your own accumulated experience? And if something is "not wrong," then we shouldn't tell people not to do it in the MoS, even if it looks a little neater the other way. Because the MoS is interpreted as gospel by so many editors, many will think this means never do this and report anyone who does as a rule-breaker! So I'd want to see style guides before I'd support putting this new stuff in. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: #1 / #2 –Yes, that's accurate. "TL;DR": Yes, everyone knows what it stands for. When I said "'TL;DR' means ..." I was characterizing the use of "TL;DR", without any substantive response, in discussions of this sort as often really indicating a refusal or inability to rebut refutations. Except when said by a bystander, in which case I take a step back, and try to exercise more brevity. (Something I can't do below, because you've nitpicked virtually everything conceivable.)

#1 – All of those features are intentional, including the "black" (actually grey - adjust your monitor calibration?); that's template {{xtn}}, which means a neutral or kinda-ok example, neither red nor green. Good, better and still better are self-explanatory, but if we're labeling something as not good, it can be helpful to say why ("inconsistent", "unnecessary"). People don't really ask why X is good usually, they want to know why Y is deprecated, especially if it's something they would maybe do. Anyway, I've never heard of any confusion resulting from the use of {{xtn}}. This stuff about the color is an objection to how MOS's examples are written systematically, not about the text at issue here, which is consistent with how {{xt}}, {{!xt}}, and {{xtn}} are used throughout the whole thing. I see what you mean about "good", but none of the example use "good" at all. I also like to keep MOS imperative, but it is intentionally not imperative where things are a judgement call. This too is a matter of how the entire MOS is written; it's not to do with these examples. I don't think we should try to change how MOS is written and colored here.

#2 – There are style guides and writing guides that cover all sorts of quotation mark usage rules, but there's no relevance for them here; MOS already has a rule about when to use quotation marks, these are just examples illustrating judgement to exercise. I'm using my own wording to give common-sense, simple-as-possible examples. I'll continue answering this in detail, but I again feel that you have not carefully read the rationale, since many of the questions you ask are already explained. Moving on: These are not a grammar rules example; they're "don't confuse and visually abuse our readers" illustrations. It's a pretty compact package for all it delivers. There is no style guide to quote that will lay out these exact things as "rules" that can be quoted. It's just specific bad cases I run into fairly often, that are an endemic product of Wikipedia because of the frequency with which it quotes highly truncated excerpts. I'm drawing my own conclusions, yes: A ", ..." construction is a readability issue. A this then later "that and that"" construction is no less readable than "this", "this", and "this", but is less choppy, and in the case provided also adds conceptual clarity by not mix-and-matching unrelated things. The point of the example, however, is not to give that kind of writing advice, but to give an example, at all, of why the two styles could be mixed but not juxtaposed. So, it's necessary for that case to have a reason, to actually be an example that's plausible; I manufactured one by making the first descriptive term unrelated to the other two, thus a reason to separate them and use the non-juxtaposed different styles. Seriously, I did think pretty hard about this.  :-) Re: "not wrong": I agree, but we aren't telling them no to do it; you're objecting to something that's not happening. We're using it as an illustration of one of two common cases of the juxtaposition in question, and also incidentally saying which is iffy, visually. There is no "never!" with any of the the non-red example. {{xt}} means "definitely OK to use", and grey means neither preferred nor deprecated, a standard MOS usage for these template. They were devised specifically for MOS for this purpose (I know, since I created them, or most of them, I forget). One is just a bit sub-optimal, thus grey. There is no style guide to quote for examples that pertain to what is best in a case of Wikipedia-specific editorial considerations. It's not a reasonable request. MOS does not require or make much use of any kind of sources for the construction of any common-sense editing examples. If your sourcing expectations were applied to all of MOS we'd have to delete about 99% of it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh. When I said "TL/DR" I meant "this looks long and disorganized and tiresome and many of the readers will probably experience an urge to skip it." I meant it as concrit.

No we wouldn't have to delete 99% of the MoS if it were sourced. Closer to 1%. Most of the rules in there are found in more than one reliable source.

I mean that this would be clearer if there were only two categories, and they should be "Do" and "don't." Yes it can be helpful to say why, but did anyone ask? (Again, non-rhetorical.)

We've established in previous conversations that I think the MoS should be sourced and you don't. We've also established that I think of the MoS as rules that must be obeyed or else, because that's been my experience, and you don't. However, we can both agree that community consensus is highly relevant to the MoS. Do this new juxtaposition rule and the new layers of distinction already have community consensus? If not, then this was a valid WP:BOLD edit, but it's been reverted, so the next step is to discuss. That's what we're doing now, so also good.

We've seen that Slim and Trov don't like this content. Here's what it would take to get me to support its inclusion: 1) Reliable sources saying that this is the right way to write. 2) Examples of non-hypothetical Wikipedia-specific problems that this new rule would solve, such as Wikieditors edit warring over this point. You mentioned a "requester." You mentioned "Wikipedia-specific editorial considerations." Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: TL;DR: Got it; I was confusing two unrelated conversations. All of MoS is TL;DR. People don't read it like an article; it's a reference work.

99%/1%: I'm talking about examples, not rules. You're asking for a source for examples. There essentially is no source for examples, unless we plagiarize them.

Do and don't: I understand that it would be simpler if there were only these two options, but MOS is not that binary where multiple options are acceptable; we needn't list every conceivable combination, but half the point of the examples is to impress upon editors that there is more than one way to approach excerpted quotations, and some are better than others, for different reasons, without having to lecture them about it. I.e., don't underestimate the power of example.

We've also established in multiple discussions that the MOS is not sourced. I appreciate your desire to change that, but it has nothing to do with how MOS is presently written. There is no need to discuss further the fact that you'd like to see MOS enforced as if a policy (much less your stated motivation for this, which appears to be WP:POINT, or would be if was actionable). It's just not relevant. Consensus: Surely. Clear writing and proper attribution have long had consensus here. Whether every single character of my wording perfectly represents consensus is unclear; the usual way to find out with minor edits of this sort is to put them in see whether they stick. Another method, for more serious changes is extensive multiparty discussion, but no one seems bothered in any way by this wording but you, and honestly I get the feeling you don't have any clear concerns here, but just dragging this out for some reason. A third method is an RfC, but I think the community would consider it disruptive to launch an RfC over trivia like this (I know; I've been criticized for using RfC for edits this minor before, which is why I don't any longer). At any rate, we have discussed this at about 15x more length than necessary, and the discussion (between us) is stagnant, circular, and mostly off-topic, so I consider BRD more than satisfied (not that I put much faith in BRD anyway). I'm moving on after this and seeing if anyone else has any input. "The next step" is not to discuss, it's to stop discussing with no point other than generating a text wall.

Who's Troy? Slim "objected" with a meaningless WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and has a tendency to multi-revert everything recent when disagreeing with one thing she has an articulable issue with. [Inserted clarification: I don't mean to single out Slim here; other editors take this approach. Trovatore calls it "atomic reverting" and states it's his preferred approach; see his talk page for discussion of this. The point isn't that it's objectionable, though it is for WP:DONTREVERT reasons. The point is that it's not evidenciary in any way of an objection to anything specific at issue here, only to "something" ill-defined. If the reverter does not articulate something specific, then the "D" in BRD isn't happening and BRD has thus concluded with regard to that party's objections. End clarification. 02:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)] You don't get to speak for others. If they have specific concerns they can raise them.

We've already been over your "reliable sources" demand, why it's unreasonable and inapplicable, and that MOS is not edited on such a basis. Yet you keep insisting on it, demonstrating that this is a WP:FILIBUSTER and a WP:POINT exercise, as usual. I'm done. I'm fine with not having your approval, because this has been a really silly waste of time, and looks more and more like it was engineered to be one. I believe anyone else reading this will come to the same conclusion. I am not going to scour Wikipedia for days or weeks until I run into a good "live" example, looking for examples for you. That's ridiculous, especially given that your other conditions are impossible to meet because you are imposing sourcing restrictions on MOS that simply do not exist. BTW, I'm going to post a link at the WP:VPPOL thread about elevating WP:BRD to guideline status, pointing to this thread as probably the best example in Wikipedia history why that can never, ever happen. Finally I have no idea why you are mentioning to me what I mentioned. I know what I mentioned Good day.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have misinterpreted me. I didn't say I'd like to see the MoS enforced as gospel rules. I'm saying it is enforced as gospel rules. Whether it should be is another question.

no one seems bothered in any way by this wording but you SlimV and Trovatore both reverted it. [4] [5]

To clarify, I don't mean sources supporting these specific examples but for rather the rules and values underlying them. A style guide, preferably more than one, that says "don't juxtapose" would be sufficient support for the examples you've given. I understand you don't think sourcing the MoS is important; you think a consensus is enough. Right now, we don't have consensus. We have just you. Your opinion is just as good as any other one person's opinion, but it's still just one person's opinion. For consensus, you'd need many people to share that opinion. I've told you what would convince me to join that consensus: sources, non-hypothetical problems. You're acting like I said, "DOWN WITH THIS SORT OF THING!" when I actually said, "I want more information." Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and I mentioned your "requester" and "Wikipedia-specific editorial considerations" because they make it sound like you did come across a non-hypothetical problem and just haven't said what it was yet. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

We've already been over this. To the extent your concerns can be parsed and are applicable, they've already been addressed. The D in BRD is satisfied, to the extent I recognize BRD as an essay worth following, which is now very close to 0% because of this sort of misuse of it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I think I see what's going on here. You think X. I think Y. The problems is that you also think that I should change my view to X just because you told me to. I do not think this. Your opinion is an opinion. It's not itself policy. That's not WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It's "I don't agree with that," and you'll notice we don't have a rule on Wikipedia that says that I have to conform to your own personal interpretation of things, not any more than you have to conform to mine. I am not misusing BRD just because the discussion hasn't gone the way you wanted it to, and your assertion that I abused or misused this or any guideline is inappropriate. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not it at all. I think you nit-picking to death on this trivia is non-cogent WP:GAMEplaying, a WP:FILIBUSTER. You've even made it clear, in both this thread and the next one, what WP:POINT you are trying to make by doing so. We've already been over (in both threads) why your desire to change MOS to somehow be sourced like an article is impossible (and certain doesn't reflect present reality). I decline to play the game any longer.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

1) Nitpicking: You asked me for clarification. 3) WP:FILIBUSTER is inappropriate. The only thing I've withheld from you is my own approval, and I gave you some easy instructions for how to get it if you want it. 2) You need to read WP:POINT. It refers to people disrupting Wikipedia by over-enforcing rule that they don't like in the article space. It has nothing to do with this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Um, you actually confirmed precisely what I said you were doing to filibuster in your denial of filibustering. "withheld...my own approval" = contesting my edit; "instructions for how to get it" = agree to provide source citations for an MOS point when MOS doesn't do that. QED. PS: POINT is "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point" not "Do not disrupt articles to illustrate a point". It applies to all of Wikipedia. Most of the examples related to articles because that's where most POINTs arise. The last example on the page does not apply to articles but to a WP namespace page, proving it does not apply only to articles. [sigh]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:FILIBUSTER refers to "repeatedly pushing a PoV that the community has clearly rejected." All I did was tell you what would get me to change my mind about adding your new text. Withholding my approval only stonewalls you if the lack of my approval is the only thing keeping this text out, and it's not. As for WP:POINT, I didn't disrupt Wikipedia in any way, let alone by over-enforcing a rule that I don't like. Your accusations are inappropriate. Please retract. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the clarifications of the existing material, since I wrote it unclearly the first time, someone on my talk page requested the clarification and thanked me for it when I made it, and no one has raised any cogent concerns about this clarification, despite all the above verbiage, and despite the fact that a revert of the added examples also undid that clarification. I have not restored the added examples since they're still (nominally) at issue here. Are we good with that?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I happen to prefer the color and specificity of saying "Siskel and Ebert," but I do like that we now say "inferred" instead of "implied." If S&E are only for fogeys now, then is there some more Milennial-friendly film reviewer we could use? Maybe we could say Rotten Tomatoes or IMDB. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

But you also claimed the material is "TL;DR". Such example specificity will lengthen the material, unless the string is shorter than "The reviewer". IMDb isn't a reliable source, so we can't use that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

PS: I'm fine with "Siskel and Ebert" going back in. Up to you. I'm disinclined to edit that back in myself, or someone will probably manufacture another objection somehow.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Does anyone else have any issues with the "Styles may be mixed, but should not be when juxtaposed" material? If so, what are they?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Usage of free image in templates

I ask if that conversation regards this page. They referred me here based on that WP:MOSLOGO. --IM-yb (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)