| Revision as of 16:11, 28 March 2015 editJohn Cline (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors64,922 edits →Should we create a WP:MOS/Noticeboard?: ce← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:13, 28 March 2015 edit undoRGloucester (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers38,757 edits →Should we create a WP:MOS/Noticeboard?: rNext edit → | ||
| Line 123: | Line 123: | ||
| Many of our polices and guidelines have affiliated Noticeboard pages - a place where editors can raise and discuss ''specific'' situations, and get opinions on how to interpret the policy or guideline in the context of those specific situations. I have realized that there is no equivalent WP:MOS/Noticeboard. Do you think creating one would be beneficial to the project? ] (]) 12:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | Many of our polices and guidelines have affiliated Noticeboard pages - a place where editors can raise and discuss ''specific'' situations, and get opinions on how to interpret the policy or guideline in the context of those specific situations. I have realized that there is no equivalent WP:MOS/Noticeboard. Do you think creating one would be beneficial to the project? ] (]) 12:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Strongly support''' creation of an MOS noticeboard. There currently is no place where MOS related discrepancies can be promptly addressed, and competently resolved other than this talk page. For the most part, this talk page generates a consensus driven answer but the results are too often far less than timely; inadequate to quell the kind of "good faith escalation" that can occur when opposing sides genuinely believe they each are correct in their interpretation. In my opinion, if this specialized noticeboard is created, it will quickly become a welcomed asset, without the apprehensiveness associated with reports that ostensibly require the intervention of an administrator.--] (]) 16:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | *'''Strongly support''' creation of an MOS noticeboard. There currently is no place where MOS related discrepancies can be promptly addressed, and competently resolved other than this talk page. For the most part, this talk page generates a consensus driven answer but the results are too often far less than timely; inadequate to quell the kind of "good faith escalation" that can occur when opposing sides genuinely believe they each are correct in their interpretation. In my opinion, if this specialized noticeboard is created, it will quickly become a welcomed asset, without the apprehensiveness associated with reports that ostensibly require the intervention of an administrator.--] (]) 16:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Oppose''' – This is giving the MoS more authority than it has, and will result in determination of style issues by a select few editors. If there is to be a neutral "style noticeboard" outside the MoS space, I could support that. I cannot support a "MoS noticeboard". ] — ] 16:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:13, 28 March 2015
| Skip to table of contents |
 | Manual of Style   | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | For a list of suggested abbreviations for referring to style guides, see this page. |
Distinction between acceptable and unacceptable forks
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Misplaced Pages talk:Content forking#Distinction between acceptable and unacceptable forks. A WP:Permalink for that discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk)
WP:MOSQUOTE
Right now it says 'trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment (for example, correct basicly to basically and harasssment to harassment), unless the slip is textually important'. I have always learned, and a quick Google search confirms (example), that direct quotations are never to be messed with, even if the author makes a trivial spelling mistake. Misplaced Pages is the only exception to this rule I have encountered so far. Are we sure we want this? Banedon (talk) 08:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see it as a problem. WP:MOSQUOTE also currently notes that we can use brackets to make a direct quote clearer. Are you against that as well? Note that the bracket aspect is common practice outside of Misplaced Pages. Flyer22 (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see how that is relevant. Brackets indicate that the text in question is a direct quote, but doesn't actually change anything about the quote itself. I am against changing the text itself. Example. Interpreting WP:MOSQUOTE as it is right now would make it seem that one should simply correct "cars" to "car's" as a trivial typographic error, but that is something that goes against what I learned, hence I put the sic tag there. Banedon (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about this issue. Although I think the integrity of the quote should be retained, a mere typographical error is usually appropriate to correct. Most style manuals state that silent typo corrections are permitted, including the Chicago Manual of Style. Sometimes, is used to indicate a typo, but there are some concerns that its usage can appear condescending or rude to the person being quoted, since it points out glaring errors in his or her writing/speech. According to Template:Sic, this should only be used when the misspelling is important and deliberate (and doesn't fall under WP:RETAIN, MOS:LIGATURE, or MOS:SPELLING#Archaic spelling). Curiously enough, WP:TYPO seems to disagree on this point. My personal opinion is that obvious typographical errors should be corrected out of respect of the person being quoted. The only exceptions to this are when the error is deliberate and intentional, or if the content being quoted is old enough that it would be inappropriate to correct any typos. This could also extend to any written publications. In general, should be avoided and the unintentional errors be corrected if the quote is from a speech transcript, or anything that is not published. That's my understanding of it, at least. Retaining the quote in all its inglorious error can detract from the message itself, especially if a whole bunch of 's are added.
- Like MOS:QUOTE stated, quotes are not facsimiles, and thus minor editions (including those in order to conform with the context) are permitted so long as the message it retained. Otherwise, we'd have to mock up everything with brackets for changes in capitalization, s for errors in spelling, and even the original language in which it was written or spoken (if you want to get really technical), complete with all the antiquated symbols and diacritics or obsolete lettering that accompanies it. Editing a quote is always a very uncertain and uneasy thing to do, but it's necessary if we wish to ensure that the quote could still be readable while not conflicting with English rules and conventions. In my opinion, just so long as the quote is verbatim in message and syntax, the capitalization, erroneous spelling, punctuation, and even language can all be changed to fit the context. It's of course more complex than that, but I'll refrain from a lengthy analysis for the sake of brevity. –Nøkkenbuer (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Whether to "correct" a minor error in a quote is always something of a judgment call. Remember that giving permission to correct such errors is not the same as mandating that we do so. We don't have to correct minor errors in quotes... it is always OK to leave a quote as it was in the original. All we are trying to say is that we are allowed to correct minor errors when we think it will improve the article, not that we must correct them.
- My personal opinion is that when there is a dispute over whether to correct or not, we should default to "follow the original". But that default does have to be tempered with a healthy dose of WP:Don't be a dick about disputing minor corrections that don't really affect the quotation in any meaningful way. Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware the Chicago Manual of Style allowed this kind of change, and indeed, I'm shocked. Couple more examples of instructors teaching the exact opposite and championing the sanctity of quotes: and . I suppose in the end it's a judgment call, but to this end my judgment is never to alter the quote. Banedon (talk) 05:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- As to what standards there are out there, they get pretty low sometimes. The infamous Masson v. New Yorker lawsuit (I am astonished that we don't have a WP article on this) revolved on the NYer's apparently liberal use of quotation marks. If you are really interested in these issues, let me recommend Cappelen and Lepore Language Turned on Itself, perhaps the deepest philosophical analysis of quotation yet. Choor monster (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Choor monster: Interesting. See Janet Malcolm § Masson case. —sroc 💬 13:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- See also M. MASSON, PETITIONER v. NEW YORKER MAGAZINE, INC., ALFRED A. KNOPF, INC. and JANET MALCOLM:
—sroc 💬 14:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Of course, quotations do not always convey that the speaker actually said or wrote the quoted material. "Punctuation marks, like words, have many uses. Writers often use quotation marks, yet no reasonable reader would assume that such punctuation automatically implies the truth of the quoted material." Baker v. Los Angeles Examiner, 42 Cal. 3d, at 263, 721 P. 2d, at 92. In Baker, a television reviewer printed a hypothetical conversation between a station vice president and writer/producer, and the court found that no reasonable reader would conclude the plaintiff in fact had made the statement attributed to him. Id., at 267, 721 P. 2d, at 95. Writers often use quotations as in Baker, and a reader will not reasonably understand the quotations to indicate reproduction of a conversation that took place. In other instances, an acknowledgement that the work is so-called docudrama or historical fiction, or that it recreates conversations from memory, not from recordings, might indicate that the quotations should not be interpreted as the actual statements of the speaker to whom they are attributed.
The work at issue here, however, as with much journalistic writing, provides the reader no clue that the quotations are being used as a rhetorical device or to paraphrase the speaker's actual statements. To the contrary, the work purports to be nonfiction, the result of numerous interviews. At least a trier of fact could so conclude. The work contains lengthy quotations attributed to petitioner, and neither Malcolm nor her publishers indicate to the reader that the quotations are anything but the reproduction of actual conversations. Further, the work was published in The New Yorker, a magazine which at the relevant time seemed to enjoy a reputation for scrupulous factual accuracy. These factors would, or at least could, lead a reader to take the quotations at face value. A defendant may be able to argue to the jury that quotations should be viewed by the reader as nonliteral or reconstructions, but we conclude that a trier of fact in this case could find that the reasonable reader would understand the quotations to be nearly verbatim reports of statements made by the subject.
.......
In some sense, any alteration of a verbatim quotation is false. But writers and reporters by necessity alter what people say, at the very least to eliminate grammatical and syntactical infelicities. If every alteration constituted the falsity required to prove actual malice, the practice of journalism, which the First Amendment standard is designed to protect, would require a radical change, one inconsistent with our precedents and First Amendment principles. Petitioner concedes this absolute definition of falsity in the quotation context is too stringent, and acknowledges that "minor changes to correct for grammar or syntax" do not amount to falsity for purposes of proving actual malice. Brief for Petitioner 18, 36-37. We agree, and must determine what, in addition to this technical falsity, proves falsity for purposes of the actual malice inquiry.
Petitioner argues that, excepting correction of grammar or syntax, publication of a quotation with knowledge that it does not contain the words the public figure used demonstrates actual malice. The author will have published the quotation with knowledge of falsity, and no more need be shown. Petitioner suggests that by invoking more forgiving standards the Court of Appeals would permit and encourage the publication of falsehoods. Petitioner believes that the intentional manufacture of quotations does not "represen the sort of inaccuracy that is commonplace in the forum of robust debate to which the New York Times rule applies," Bose Corp., 466 U. S., at 513, and that protection of deliberate falsehoods would hinder the First Amendment values of robust and well-informed public debate by reducing the reliability of information available to the public.
We reject the idea that any alteration beyond correction of grammar or syntax by itself proves falsity in the sense relevant to determining actual malice under the First Amendment. An interviewer who writes from notes often will engage in the task of attempting a reconstruction of the speaker's statement. That author would, we may assume, act with knowledge that at times she has attributed to her subject words other than those actually used. Under petitioner's proposed standard, an author in this situation would lack First Amendment protection if she reported as quotations the substance of a subject's derogatory statements about himself.
Even if a journalist has tape recorded the spoken statement of a public figure, the full and exact statement will be reported in only rare circumstances. The existence of both a speaker and a reporter; the translation between two media, speech and the printed word; the addition of punctuation; and the practical necessity to edit and make intelligible a speaker's perhaps rambling comments, all make it misleading to suggest that a quotation will be reconstructed with complete accuracy. The use or absence of punctuation may distort a speaker's meaning, for example, where that meaning turns upon a speaker's emphasis of a particular word. In other cases, if a speaker makes an obvious misstatement, for example by unconscious substitution of one name for another, a journalist might alter the speaker's words but preserve his intended meaning. And conversely, an exact quotation out of context can distort meaning, although the speaker did use each reported word.
- See also M. MASSON, PETITIONER v. NEW YORKER MAGAZINE, INC., ALFRED A. KNOPF, INC. and JANET MALCOLM:
- The tl;dr version: "reasonable readers" expecting the facts and nothing but the facts from a source with just such a reputation, do not expect more than "nearly verbatim" to be implied by the use of quotation marks. Choor monster (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well clearly speaking and writing are two different things, and it's harder to record what someone said verbatim (but see the ku.edu link above). Call me an unreasonable reader, but altering written text just reminds me of this incident. In the same way, if I ever have to quote you on what you wrote above, I'll say "Choor monster wrote, 'let me recommend Cappelen and Lepore Language Turned on Itself, perhaps the deepest philosophical analysis of quotation yet'" and not "Choor monster wrote, 'let me recommend Cappelen and Lepore's Language Turned on Itself, perhaps the deepest philosophical analysis of quotation yet'". You're not likely to object to the second statement and it's clearly not malicious, but still, I'm not going to alter what you wrote (of course though, ideally, I'd be able to write "Choor monster recommended Cappelen and Lepore's Language Turned on Itself", avoiding both having to use the tag or having to alter your writing). Banedon (talk) 05:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Apparently, single quotation marks ('...')—but not double quotation marks ("...")—are sometimes used in newspaper headlines to paraphrase rather than directly quote. —sroc 💬 15:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- You're citing an Australian source. I would assume they follow UK usage, so I'm not sure if the comment means what you think it means.
- Yes, I'm aware of large differences between transcribing speech and copying text. The above SCOTUS opinion doesn't place emphasis on the original being verbal as some kind of magic loophole. But you aren't making much sense here. "Author Title" is simply a style, very common in the academic material I'm used to. There is no required possessive as you seem to imply. In fact, it seems deliberately rather rude to put a "sic" on something for not following your preferred style. (My offense is as hypothetical as your ever quoting me on this for real, but at some point some reader somewhere is going to get confused.)
- Would you edit Julius Caesar to replace
- Indeed, Suetonius says that in Caesar's Gallic triumph, his soldiers sang that, "Caesar may have conquered the Gauls, but Nicomedes conquered Caesar."
- with
- Indeed, Suetonius says that in Caesar's Gallic triumph, his soldiers sang that, "Caesar may have conquered the Gauls, but Nicomedes conquered Caesar. "
- ?? After all, Caesar's soldiers did not known any English.
- Would you edit Jacobellis v. Ohio to replace
- Stewart wrote, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." (emphasis added)
- with
- Stewart wrote, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it , and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."
- ?? Perhaps you might on the grounds that it seems rather pointless emphasis in this particular article. But would you do so on the grounds that quotations are supposed to be sacrosanct, and modifying the quotation for your own ends, even when you're honest about it, is a violation of some reader expectation?
- Cappelen and Lepore op cit go into this and numerous other issues quite thoroughly. In short, no reasonable readers actually expects direct quotations, whether of text or speech, to be some kind of verbal photocopy. Choor monster (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well, you obviously wouldn't use (meaning: "thus was it written") for something that has been translated from another language, and thus wasn't written that way in the original at all; if anything, you might provide the original text with a translation preceded by "literally" to show some odd meaning. —sroc 💬 02:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Cappelen and Lepore might suggest that no reasonable reader should expect a direct quotation of written text to be either exact or clear about its inexactidue, though such a suggestion would be especially surprising in the age of copy-and-paste. But have they really surveyed the reasonable readers of the world and discovered that none of us have such expectations of direct quotations of written text in any circumstances? In contrast, style guides such as Fowler's go into great detail about the punctuation at the end of a quotation, essentially a question of balancing the norms of sentence punctuation with a default expectation of literal quotation. NebY (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- C&L is the latest and most thorough in a long history going back to Quine and Davidson, of philosophers trying to figure out just what quotation really is. It is not easy. They are operating at a level well beyond our discussion. I don't see what copy-and-paste has to do with anything: if for example I see a misspelling in a quotation here on WP, I normally fix it, unless the point of the quotation is to draw attention to the mistake. As for Fowler's, do say which edition. The first was very prescriptive, the current third edition (the first is still in print, though!) is very descriptive. I know WP does not follow Fowler's first on everything, as the entry is Welsh rarebit, the redirect is Welsh rabbit. Choor monster (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sure it's not easy when examined thus; that's rather why I reacted negatively to the simplicity of "in short, no reasonable reader...." I mentioned copy-and-paste because it inverts the process of correcting quotations; where before one might correct a spelling while typing in a quotation, now a whole piece of text can be pasted in at once and reviewing the spelling is an extra step (which still doesn't deter people from correcting the full title of Robinson Crusoe, alas). You asked which edition of Fowler's; it's under "Stops" in the first and second editions and under "quotation marks" in the third, a section that Burchfield introduces as "a slightly adapted version of the OUP house style as set out in Hart's Rules." But I raised it not to suggest we follow Fowler's but to remark that much ink has been spilt on when and how to deviate from the default expectation. NebY (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- C&L is the latest and most thorough in a long history going back to Quine and Davidson, of philosophers trying to figure out just what quotation really is. It is not easy. They are operating at a level well beyond our discussion. I don't see what copy-and-paste has to do with anything: if for example I see a misspelling in a quotation here on WP, I normally fix it, unless the point of the quotation is to draw attention to the mistake. As for Fowler's, do say which edition. The first was very prescriptive, the current third edition (the first is still in print, though!) is very descriptive. I know WP does not follow Fowler's first on everything, as the entry is Welsh rarebit, the redirect is Welsh rabbit. Choor monster (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- Apparently, single quotation marks ('...')—but not double quotation marks ("...")—are sometimes used in newspaper headlines to paraphrase rather than directly quote. —sroc 💬 15:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well clearly speaking and writing are two different things, and it's harder to record what someone said verbatim (but see the ku.edu link above). Call me an unreasonable reader, but altering written text just reminds me of this incident. In the same way, if I ever have to quote you on what you wrote above, I'll say "Choor monster wrote, 'let me recommend Cappelen and Lepore Language Turned on Itself, perhaps the deepest philosophical analysis of quotation yet'" and not "Choor monster wrote, 'let me recommend Cappelen and Lepore's Language Turned on Itself, perhaps the deepest philosophical analysis of quotation yet'". You're not likely to object to the second statement and it's clearly not malicious, but still, I'm not going to alter what you wrote (of course though, ideally, I'd be able to write "Choor monster recommended Cappelen and Lepore's Language Turned on Itself", avoiding both having to use the tag or having to alter your writing). Banedon (talk) 05:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
As an aside - typos within transcripts should not be ascribed to the speaker - nor should "um" and the like be used. People do not speak with typewriters, and an occasional "um" is done by the best of us, and is usually not placed in real transcripts. Thus using "sic" where any transcript is used is marginal at best. IMO. Nor should transcripts carp on UK/American spelling issues. Collect (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- I would go one further... quoting transcripts is a huge red flag that the article may suffer from WP:NOR issues. Transcripts are primary sources, and have very limited use. so, before you correct a typo in a transcript, ask yourself whether it is really appropriate to quote the transcript in the first place. Blueboar (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
My opinion on this is that it is totally not important for readers to know that whoever is being quoted made a typo. I mean, really, why would it be? Typos happen to even the best of us and really aren't a reflection of anything substantive at all, I don't think, so it's just pedantic and disruptive to throw in s all the time. I also think that is in poor taste in general (it's like saying "aha! I managed to discover a blatant flaw in your work!", and a lot of the time it even seems somewhat gleeful). So, assuming it is worth noting that a typo was made, which again I dont think it is, I think a much better practice is to fix the typo yourself and add brackets where necessary. AgnosticAphid talk 15:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- If correcting the typo is discouraged (such as if it could arguably change the meaning of the quoted material), the typo should be acknowledged precisely so that it doesn’t get corrected by well-meaning editors who might happen to notice it. So best practice is to either correct it or it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Placement of subject bar
About {{Subject bar}}. Reading WP:LAYOUTEL, this bar should be right above any navboxes. Certainly not in the See also section. Can someone confirm that? -DePiep (talk) 10:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Notification of request for comment
An RfC has been commenced at MOSCAPS Request for comment - Capitalise universe.
Cinderella157 (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- Sigh... yet another RFC on this issue? The last one just closed. You seem to have difficulty accepting "no consensus". Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- Double sigh since it actually said no consensus to add it to the list of words to capitalise but but it appear there is no consensus as to what 'no consensus' actually means. Cinderella157 (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- Is there really consensus that it appears there is no consensus as to what "no consensus" actually means? NebY (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see why there isn't consensus, since it should be obvious that "universe" could serve as both a common noun and proper noun, just as can "earth" and "solar system" and even "moon" in some contexts. Context is what's important, though. I guess some people just refuse to consider the possibility of other universes. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 07:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Does ENGVAR apply to number formatting?
Resolved
Interesting question at Convert, decimal notation. In South Africa, the decimal symbol is a comma, not period. So 1.5 km in USA is written 1,5 km in SA (forget about miles for now). The question is, when the WP:ENGVAR for an article is South African, should the decimal symbol be comma?
(see also Category:All Misplaced Pages articles written in South African English, WP:ENGVAR, WP:MOSNUM). -DePiep (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- A similar question could be asked of India: should commas occur every two places after the thousands, rather than every three? — kwami (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- India has an ENGVAR? Anyway, the question is theoretical or moot only, by now. {{Convert}} won't do it. -DePiep (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Indian English. Why would it not? RGloucester — ☎ 22:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- It was an open question. -DePiep (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Indian English. Why would it not? RGloucester — ☎ 22:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- India has an ENGVAR? Anyway, the question is theoretical or moot only, by now. {{Convert}} won't do it. -DePiep (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- See MOS:DECIMAL and MOS:DIGITS.—Wavelength (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
There are as many different conventions for this as there are days in the year. I'd suggest the most important thing is to pick one and stick with it consistently, which is what the current standard does. It doesn't particularly matter whether the decimal separator is a period or a comma, so long as readers are in no doubt as to which is which. Personally I'd suggest the SI standard of using thin spaces between groups of digits would be clearer in this regard, since it has the advantage that a thousands separator could never be confused for a decimal separator. Archon 2488 (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Is a comma used as the decimal separator in S.Africa in English, Afrikaans or both? My suspicion is that it is predominantly in Afrikaans and only loosely used in English (possibly by people who speak Afrikaans most of the time). But I'm not from S.Africa, so I have to ask. All other varieties of English that I am aware of use a period as the decimal separator. WP:ENGVAR is mostly for situations where there are multiple ways of doing things (eg colour vs color) but no ambiguity. To allow S.African articles to use commas as decimal separator would introduce ambiguity and for this point alone I would disallow it. Stepho talk 02:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Stepho: what does 1,234 mean? Is it a bit over one, or a bit over one thousand? It would be far too confusing for readers (not to mention editors) to sometimes use dot and sometimes comma, even on different pages. Thin spaces for separators can look good, but wikitext should be as simple as possible while getting the job done—requiring editors to fiddle with templates when editing numbers would be too much effort for too little reward. Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe that MOS:DECIMAL and MOS:DIGITS (as indicated by Wavelength above) are both definitive and explicit on the subject. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thin spaces are common in Australia so by ENGVAR they should not be disallowed but thin spaces don't cause the ambiguity that switching dots and commas would. I agree with Stepho, this would be too confusing. Jimp 04:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I see, MOS:DECIMAL is absolutely clear, had not see that one. Thanks all, these responses help me improve my knowledge & thinking about style. -DePiep (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- We shouldn't be mixing up commas and decimals. Does South African English officially invert their meaning from other varieties of English, or has the usage from Afrikaans bled into some places from those who speak both languages? Regardless, since this is the English Misplaced Pages, we should go with what the majority of English speakers would expect them to mean to avoid confusion (ie, 1.234 = a quantity slightly larger than one, 1,234 = a quantity of over twelve-hundred). Canuck 05:19, March 28, 2015 (UTC)
- South African usage of the comma as the decimal separator simply follows the usage common in continental Europe and much of the rest of the world - see Decimal mark#Countries using Arabic numerals with decimal comma. It does cause problems on Misplaced Pages. I've more than once seen 101325 Pa (the traditional value of the standard atmosphere) written as 101,325 Pa and then corrected to 101,325 kPa. NebY (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- That is an argument to always use a decimal point for fractions and spaces for thousands: that way there is no confusion. DrKiernan (talk) 09:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Just so. I've even gone as far as switching one troubled instance to
101325 Pa (101.325 kPa)
using {{convert|101325|Pa|kPa|abbr=on|comma=gaps}} for clarity when reading and to deter tampering (I hope). NebY (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Just so. I've even gone as far as switching one troubled instance to
- That is an argument to always use a decimal point for fractions and spaces for thousands: that way there is no confusion. DrKiernan (talk) 09:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- South African usage of the comma as the decimal separator simply follows the usage common in continental Europe and much of the rest of the world - see Decimal mark#Countries using Arabic numerals with decimal comma. It does cause problems on Misplaced Pages. I've more than once seen 101325 Pa (the traditional value of the standard atmosphere) written as 101,325 Pa and then corrected to 101,325 kPa. NebY (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Should we create a WP:MOS/Noticeboard?
Many of our polices and guidelines have affiliated Noticeboard pages - a place where editors can raise and discuss specific situations, and get opinions on how to interpret the policy or guideline in the context of those specific situations. I have realized that there is no equivalent WP:MOS/Noticeboard. Do you think creating one would be beneficial to the project? Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Strongly support creation of an MOS noticeboard. There currently is no place where MOS related discrepancies can be promptly addressed, and competently resolved other than this talk page. For the most part, this talk page generates a consensus driven answer but the results are too often far less than timely; inadequate to quell the kind of "good faith escalation" that can occur when opposing sides genuinely believe they each are correct in their interpretation. In my opinion, if this specialized noticeboard is created, it will quickly become a welcomed asset, without the apprehensiveness associated with reports that ostensibly require the intervention of an administrator.--John Cline (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose – This is giving the MoS more authority than it has, and will result in determination of style issues by a select few editors. If there is to be a neutral "style noticeboard" outside the MoS space, I could support that. I cannot support a "MoS noticeboard". RGloucester — ☎ 16:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)