Misplaced Pages

talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:18, 28 September 2012 view sourceNeotarf (talk | contribs)4,029 edits →RfC: Internal consistency versus consistency across articles: re-remove template that I restored in order to unarchive RfC, after removed by bot← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:26, 13 January 2025 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,304,635 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive 228) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
{{Mbox
{{Talk header |WT:MOS |search=no }}
| type = content
{{FAQ|quickedit=no|collapsed=no}}
| image = ]
{{Round in circles|search=yes}}
| text= This page (along with all other MOS pages and ]) is subject to ] ]. See ]
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
{{#switch: {{NAMESPACE}}
|target=Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive index
| {{ns:0}} = ]<!-- Template:Article probation -->
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive <#>
| {{ns:Template}} = ]
|leading_zeros=0
}}
|indexhere=yes
}}
{{Section sizes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |1=
{{WikiProject Manual of Style}}
{{Misplaced Pages Help Project|importance=Top}}
}} }}
{{shortcuts|WT:MOS}}
{{MOS/R}}
{{tmbox|small=yes|text=For a list of suggested abbreviations for referring to style guides , see ].}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(30d)
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive %(counter)d
|maxarchivesize = 600K
|counter = 129 |counter = 228
|maxarchivesize = 900K
|algo = old(60d)<!--temporary changed from 7 while RfC is in progress-->
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive %(counter)d
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadsleft = 4
}} }}
]
{{archives|auto=short|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot II|age=7}}
__TOC__
{{clear right}}
{{stb}}


==Style discussions elsewhere==
== Internal consistency v consistency across articles ==
<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message}}<!-- ] 06:15, 18 June 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1876457735}}<!-- END PIN -->
Add a link to new discussions at top of list and indicate what kind of discussion it is (move request, RfC, open discussion, deletion discussion, etc.). Follow the links to participate, if interested. Move to ''Concluded'' when decided, and summarize conclusion. Please keep this section at the top of the page.


===Current===
]</small></sup> 08:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)]
(newest on top)
<!--
Don't add threads that are on the same page as this list.
Capitalization-specific entries should go in the corresponding section at the top of:
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters
-->
* ] - A ]/] question
* ] – Plural possessive ] question
* ]
* ] – to use policy-based material on "Christ" found in an essay but more useful in a guideline. (Nov. 2024)
* ] – Has stylistic implications (punctuation, leading "The", etc.) despite not being intrisically an MoS matter. (Nov. 2024)
* ] - use of flag icons in infobox per ] (Sep.–Nov. 2024) – See also prior ].
<!--Please put newer entries at the top.-->


{{block indent|1=<nowiki />
{{see|Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_129#Internal_consistency_v_consistency_across_articles}}
'''Pretty stale but not "concluded":'''
Noetica removed these words – "though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole" – from this lead sentence:
* RfC needed on issue raised at ] (June–July 2004, archived without resolution). Presently, the royalty/nobility wikiprojects have imposed putting British peerage titles in place of names in biographical infoboxes, against ], ], and the template's documentation. Either the community will accept this as a best practice and the guidelines changed to accomodate it, or it should be undone and the infobox used consistently and as-intended.
* A ] revision RfC needs to be drafted, based on ] (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024, archived without resolution). JOBTITLES remains a point of confusion and conflict, which the guidelines are supposed to prevent not cause.
* ] – Involves ] (plus ], ], ]). Covers more than thread name implies. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' Stalled without resolution; at least 3 options identified which should be put to an RfC.
* ] – Involves ], ], ], ], etc. (Sep. 2023 –) ''Result:'' Still unresolved, though consensus seems to lean toward permitting lower-case "prophet" when needed for disambiguation, but no agreement yet on specific guideline wording.
* ] – Specifically in tables, possibly elsewhere. ] (at the table "General guidelines on use of units") has an example of existing use that is being challenged, and material at ] is also at issue. (Dec. 2023 –) ''Result:'' Still unresolved.
* ] – Help page is conflicting with ] and ] on a technical point. (Aug. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' No objection to fixing it, and a suggestion to just do it ]ly, but the work actually has to be done.
<!--Please put newer entries at the top.-->
}}<!-- end of block indent -->


{{block indent|1=<nowiki />
<blockquote>An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within a Misplaced Pages article, though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole.</blockquote>
'''Capitalization-specific:'''

{{Excerpt| Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters|Current|subsections=no}}
As the lead already mentions internal consistency, this sentence is arguably repetitive without the juxtaposition. More importantly, we don't require consistency across articles, and it's important to stress that. The lead currently implies that we do, or at least does not make clear that we don't:

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

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

Therefore, the addition of "though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole" (or similar) is needed. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
----
The first sentence of this section inadvertently misrepresents what happened. The sequence of events (all on 12&nbsp;August&nbsp;2012):
* SlimVirgin restored some wording that had been long absent from MOS ()
* Curb Chain reverted that restoration ()
* Noetica restored what SlimVirgin had added, except for what Curb Chain objected to ()
Slim, would you please amend that first sentence? Best to keep the account accurate.&nbsp;♥<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

]), please refer to the detail in all of my submissions in this earlier section. I explain my temporary absence in that RFC.'''&nbsp;☺<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)]
----
:Not needed. As these sentences in the lede show, consistency across articles is indeed important. Including your proposal is contradictory and will be a contention of confusion for editors.] (]) 05:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

:::No Enric, Curb is not mistaken. As things stand, there is nothing in the Manual to support such a spree. If MOS supported campaigns to impose one style choice uniformly across Misplaced Pages, from among options, it would say so. It would not single out consistency ''within articles'', as it does now. '''Indeed, it would not present options at all!'''
:::Consider three propositions:
::::'''P1''': There is a hard requirement for consistency within articles, where MOS presents options.
::::'''P2''': There is no hard requirement for consistency between articles, where MOS presents options.
::::'''P3''': In groups of articles ''on similar topics'', similar styling is better than an unprincipled or random selection of styles.
:::Who disagrees with any of those, and why? (''Not'' a rhetorical question.)
:::We might regard P3 as a motive for our glittering array of subsidiary MOS pages, naming conventions, informal conventions out there in the projects, and so on. It starts as an unspoken presumption; and then, many specialists make it explicit for their own fields.
:::I think we should not send a message against efforts to unite groups of articles in that established way. I am yet to see an argument that such groups of articles (often cross-linked, often cited together) are improved by a perceived licence for each to take its own independent direction, subject only to the whim of editors narrowly focused on a single article rather than a thematically united group of articles.
:::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
:::: I agree with Noetica's general principles here, but would formulate the propositions to take account of the following.
::::* for P1 and P2, "where MOS presents options or is silent".
::::* for P3 I think we should make it clear that consistency is ''expected'' for closely-related articles (and try to establish that if anyone is inclined to disagree).
:::: Of course, how closely articles are related can be a matter for discussion. Authors should be relatively free to agree the appropriate scope for any consistency.
:::: Apart from being general common sense, an appropriate degree of consistency both enhances the user experience and makes it easier for editors to make corresponding changes everywhere where they are needed.
:::: Nobody should be able to say "MOS says that articles do not have to be consistent with each other" as a ''pro forma'' excuse to block changes among such ''closely-related'' articles. At the same time we should emphasise that editors should establish consensus before making extensive changes. --] (]) 09:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::I disagree. The MoS does not require articles, even articles in the same Wikiproject, to match each other, so it is perfectly okay to say so. "Let's make this article match a related one" is not, by itself, sufficient reason for a change in style. However, "I feel like it, I raised it on the talk page, and no one objected within a reasonable time frame," is sufficient reason. To use the language of the thread, we should not put P3 in the MoS. 1. We shouldn't add rules to the MoS unless there is a real reason to do so, like a) said rule is part of the English language or b) adding said rule would solve a non-hypothetical problem and 2. Enric Naval has provided evidence that attempts to enforce cross-article consistency have caused non-hypothetical problems on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 00:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::Yes, but adding such a rule will allow editors to ].] (]) 01:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::With what do you disagree exactly, Darkfrog? I don't read Mirokado as saying that any version of P3 should be actually included in MOS. P3 is just a proposition that we are invited to consider. On the other hand, if you disagree with P3 ''itself'', will you please tell us why?
::::::I would in effect reverse your judgement on the two reasons you mention, like this:
::::::* "Let's make this article match a related one" presents an excellent reason for a change in style.
::::::* "I feel like it, I raised it on the talk page, and no one objected within a reasonable time frame" is never a sufficient reason for making a change in the style of an article.
::::::To use the reason that you favour (the second reason cited here) is contrary to current provisions in MOS, at ]:
::::::<blockquote>When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary.</blockquote>
::::::That wording makes good sense. Some talkpages are sparsely attended; but the article in question might have a style that fits well with related articles, for example. A positively expressed consensus should be required, to overturn such valuable consistency.
::::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::::I disagree with Mirokado's statement, "Nobody should be able to say "MOS says that articles do not have to be consistent with each other" as a pro forma excuse to block changes among such closely-related articles." Yes, they should be able to state that the MoS does not require inter-article consistency and use that to block changes among closely related articles. People should need a reason to make such changes. That reason need not be big. It can be "I feel like it, I raised it on the talk page, and no one objected." However, "We ''have'' to make these articles match because they're closely related in subject!" is false. No we don't have to.
:::::::I do not believe that we should add P3 to the MoS for the reasons that I stated yesterday. 1) We shouldn't add more rules without a good, non-hypothetical reason. 2) We don't have a good reason to add this rule; E. Naval even showed that we have a good reason not to. If pushing cross-article consistency causes trouble, then we shouldn't require people to push it, even if some people would prefer articles to be written that way.
:::::::As for the "I feel like it, I raised it, no one objected" rationale, if only one person has an opinion on the matter, than that person's opinion ''is'' the consensus. In that situation, 100% of the people involved would agree. ] (]) 18:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::::The MOS is also a guide and set of pages to indicate to readers/editors which style to use when there are differing styles. We don't make rules to limit peoples' choices for the sake of limiting peoples' choices; we make rules, and the MOS's purpose, to make it easier for viewers to read our articles so there is some sort of consistency and so that readers can expect a sort of userfriendlyness versus a chaotic page-after-page styled encyclopedia. There is a way to block changes where people quote ] but that requires the use of ].] (]) 19:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Maybe that's how it should work, CC, but it's not how it does work. 1. We should assume that anything written down in the MoS will be cited as gospel on article talk pages. 2. Because Misplaced Pages is a crowdsourced encyclopedia, giving people their freedom wherever reasonably possible, as in such proven policies as ENGVAR, allows disparate editors to contribute. Some inconsistency is worth it if it means we don't grossly insult Brits or Canadians or non-native-English-speaking contributors. ] (]) 03:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::ENGVAR already is sanctioned at ]. We don't need this extra statement as it will be used by editors to disrupt pages per their own style.] (]) 13:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::It is about other things as well as ] such as ] and ] (and others such as date formats, table formats, quotation styles and any other style of format issue that an editor thinks should be "consistent"), so there is a need for the extra statement over and above the specific ENGVAR. -- ] (])

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

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

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

I am with SV, EN and Darkfrog24 on this one. If as has been said "SlimVirgin restored some wording that had been long absent from MOS" then as it is a sentence that sums up a lot of Arbcom decisions, when was it deleted who deleted it and what was the justification given on this talk page for the deletion? -- ] (]) 10:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
:That's a task for the history search where I pick half way between the latest and earliest version and see if the sentence was present or not and continue this process until I find the version where it was taken out. It doesn't always work, because there could be reverts in between or it could have been added and removed multiple times, but usually it does work. What instances where there that people were changing spelling styles according to ] articles and not according to reliable sources?] (]) 20:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

:But you miss the point, PBS. Please read the exchanges above with more care. The core suggestion is ''not'' they we insert P3 in MOS: "In groups of articles on similar topics, similar styling is better than an unprincipled or random selection of styles." I must say, I would be amazed if anyone disagreed with it as a statement considered in isolation. Do you disagree with it? In other words, do you prefer "an unprincipled or random selection of styles" in a group of articles (however defined)? For example, would you prefer that within a group of obviously related literary articles, these two forms be ''randomly'' selected: ''Dickens' novels''; ''Dickens's novels''?
:With respect, PBS: perhaps you have neatly demonstrated the kind of confusion MOS should avoid inadvertently promoting, in the matter of consistency. Do not conflate "this has never been a requirement" and "this is a bad thing". Those problems you discuss with defining "group" are not weighty. Any competing systematic groupings among articles can be resolved by the appropriate projects, and agreements can be reached. Only if we actively seek difficulties, or manufacture them, can we expect possessive apostrophes to emerge as a ''casus belli'' in thematic groups of articles. Editors will generally prefer a consistent look and feel&nbsp;– and take pride not just in a single article but in the appealingly uniform style that greets the reader who follows links to similar ones.
:That said, I have always favoured more ''singularity'' and less optional variability in MOS guidelines. Apart from British versus American, en dash versus em dash, and some other inevitable diversity, most variability in fundamental style is avoidable and detrimental. The community really does appreciate a well-considered ''standard'' that will settle disputes at the 4,000,000 articles. Look, I always prefer the spaced en dash for sentence punctuation, and always will. But I cheerfully use the em dash instead: and that includes across related articles, not just within them. If I got militant about it and sought to promote en dash regardless of such broad coherence, I would be doing a disservice to the readers. Let's all avoid such militancy; and let's not carelessly promote it by including unnecessary text that people ''will'' misread, and ''will'' use to justify disruption. And the fewer kinds of variability we have at the most basic level of style, the fewer opportunities we give to militants.
:<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

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

:::How about this: "Making this a requirement would be a bad thing." And Misplaced Pages has a long history of "guidelines" and other unofficial rules being treated like requirements. No, there should be no requirement or any unofficial resolution or declaration that could later be mistaken for one.
:::The more freedom/variability we have, the better. That way we don't insult people by claiming that their way of doing things is inferior. This is a crowdsourced project. The rule requiring intra- but not inter-article consistency is a good way to strike a balance between neatness and diversity.
:::Noetica, you state that making this into a rule would settle disputes in many articles. Can you offer evidence, as EN has offered evidence to the contrary? ] (]) 14:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

::::Darkfrog, I cannot follow some of those points. Making ''what'' a requirement "would be a bad thing"? What does that answer, precisely? My point was general; but you seem to have something specific in mind. I do understand this though: "The more freedom/variability we have, the better." I appreciate your being consistent on that point. Unfortunately, maximising variability is not the business of MOS. Quite the opposite. A core function of any manual of style is to restrain variability in a principled and measured way, which improves the reader's experience. And freedom? A robust, clear, and consensual MOS has freed editors from many a wilderness, such as these ] over ], which were only settled by the sharpening of ] that we achieved here in 2011. Remember those disputes? Wade through all of that archive! Or search for this: "consistent with itself", especially at the exchange following Enric Naval's "Oppose". Read all of that exchange. You will find him insisting on the same line as he does here. I had hoped that the lessons of Mex~Am War were well learned; but no. In that exchange see reference to this provision at WP:TITLE (it stood then and it stands now):
::::<blockquote>* '''Consistency''' – Titles follow the same pattern as those of similar articles. Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the ''Specific-topic naming conventions'' box above, and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principles behind the above questions.
</blockquote>
::::That's the last of five points so salient that they bear this link: ]. Why should we weaken its force with the "not necessarily" wording at MOS? My example, to answer Enric's evidence: ].
::::WP:TITLE and MOS have to be in harmony. This is achieved by WT:TITLE settling the choice of title (the wording, as the title would be spoken); and then almost all of the styling is delegated to MOS. As with any publisher. No other arrangement works. If the title were styled without consideration of MOS, we could not even achieve consistency within an article. The title would drift with the inconsistent and untrackable usage of "sources", but the text would follow recommendations at MOS. Or what?
::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::As I've said earlier in this discussion, I mean that making P3 into a requirement or having some sort of resolution stating "It is better for closely related articles to use the same styles" would be a bad thing.
:::::Misplaced Pages is not a publisher the way other entities are. There's no chain of command. There's no understanding that things are one entity's opinion. The current rule requiring intra- but not inter-article consistency strikes a good balance between the benefits that you cite above and the insult that we would be doing our editors by requiring them to kowtow to other people's whims for no practical reason.
:::::And in case this wasn't clear, let me explicitly state that I don't think that cross-article consistency should be banned, only that it should not be required. If someone writing an article wants to use the same style as any other article in Misplaced Pages, then he or she should go right ahead. If someone proposes this or any style change on a talk page and a consensus forms that the change would be beneficial, then they should have that option. However, what people should ''not'' be able to do is say "We ''must'' make these articles match each other because the MoS requires it of us." ] (]) 00:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

::::::Misplaced Pages is very like a publisher in the relevant respects: it assembles and edits material, and disseminates it in text and related forms to the public. Very early in its history, people decided that it needed a manual of style, in the manner of a publisher. MOS has existed continuously since then. Its role has been tested and certified again and again, as for example in this ArbCom finding of fact:
::::::<blockquote>The English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style has been built from a number of pre-existing Manuals from numerous fields. The best practices from these have been combined to create a single, unique MOS that applies to articles on the English Misplaced Pages.(from ])</blockquote>
::::::I have repeatedly challenged people here to find a manual of style for collaborative web writing, editing, and publication that is more thoroughly considered, or more comprehensive, or more detailed than Misplaced Pages's MOS. Like it or not, ] and its subpages are in their own right a major style guide of our time.
::::::If you object to that, or want to alter the role of MOS, make a proposal to do so. Good luck!
::::::You speak of "kowtowing". No one is asked to do that. MOS is as consensual as we can make it, and a good deal more consensual than ] (look at the troubles ''there'' at the moment, and over the last ten months), and even than ] itself (currently a hotbed of troubles, and recently placed under a month-long protection). If you object to following consensual guidelines, with the occasional application of ] where they fail to cover a particular set of circumstances, then make a case against guidelines at the village pump. Not here! Here we continue orderly development of a premier style guide for a very special purpose, unprecedented in history.
::::::Finally, you write: "...&nbsp;what people should ''not'' be able to do is say 'We ''must'' make these articles match each other because the MoS requires it of us.'&nbsp;" That's right; and MOS does ''not'' require that. It is policy at ] that comes closest to requiring that. Nor should MOS provide an argument for those who would twist its words in support of ''inconsistency'' between thematically related articles.
::::::♪
::::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::::The current discussion is about which rules Misplaced Pages MoS should endorse. Misplaced Pages's difference from other entities that disseminate information&mdash;its crowdsourced nature&mdash;is relevant. People aren't getting paid. People are for the most part nonprofessionals and volunteers. "Do it because I'm the boss and I think A looks better than B" doesn't hold much water here. We have to treat people with respect, and that means not making them adhere to our whims. If we endorse something as a rule, and people are punished for not following it, that is "requiring people to kowtow," as I put it.
:::::::For the most part, the rules that are in the MoS weren't made up from scratch here. They were sourced from other, professionally compiled style guides. The majority of those style guides say "using a lowercase s in 'summer' is right and using a capital S is wrong." There's a difference between copying what can be said to be a rule of the English language and making stuff up on our own just to shove down other people's throats.
:::::::Do you know of any case in which someone claimed "The MoS requires that we use different styles in these articles"? ] (]) 13:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Darkfrog, of course I don't know of any such cases. No one is claiming that there are any, right?
:::::::::Misplaced Pages is not simple anarchistic "crowd-sourcing"; it has policies and guidelines to ensure that a high-quality encyclopedia results. So what, if people are not paid? People have always engaged in voluntary work and subjected themselves to local restrictions and rules&nbsp;– for a better outcome. As I have said many times, the work of this talkpage is to make the best set of guidelines to help Misplaced Pages be the best possible encyclopedia. If that work is done well, MOS will earn respect. The community will decide on the value and status of MOS within the project that it serves. We cannot decide that ''here''. But ArbCom has decided; and the quiet majority of editors seems to appreciate the consensually derived recommendations and standards that MOS encodes. When they are asked, which is rare enough. No one is "making them adhere to our whims". No one here compels anyone to do anything, in editing articles; and anyway, the guidelines should certainly not be "whims". If any one of them is, let it be challenged. I have challenged in that way from time to time, and I will again. WP:MOS itself ("MOS central") is in pretty good consensual shape, but there are problems at several other MOS pages.
:::::::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::You said, "Nor should MOS provide an argument for those who would twist its words in support of inconsistency between thematically related articles." This caused me to wonder if perhaps you had seen a discussion in which someone thought that the MoS required different styles, "word twisting," as you put it.
:::::::::::By "people are not paid," I mean that at a regular publishing company, it is okay for one or a few people to hand down arbitrary decisions that could just as easily go the other way. This is because 1. the lower-ranking people are paid to put up with it and 2. the lower-ranking people can assume (sometimes with a great deal of benefit of the doubt) that higher rank was bestowed based on merit or seniority or something else that makes their supervisors worth heeding. Because Misplaced Pages doesn't have any of that, we should be extra careful that there is a good reason for every rule that we ram down people's gullets. "Y looks neater to me" invites the response, "Well X looks better to ''me''." This is why I think we should be very cautious about adding new rules to the MoS. There are too many whims in it already. Maybe there ''shouldn't'' be whims in the MoS, but there are.] (]) 03:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::And if people can be brought up on AN/I for violating the MoS, then yes, that counts as "compelled." ] (]) 03:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::Read more carefully the answers you have already been given, Darkfrog. I have responded patiently and at length; and at considerable cost in time and patience. No one here is making "rules that we ram down people's gullets"; MOS has ''guideline'' status, and is consensually developed. ''As I have said'' (see above):
::::::::::::<blockquote>"No one here compels anyone to do anything, in editing articles; and anyway, the guidelines should certainly not be 'whims'. If any one of them is, let it be challenged. I have challenged in that way from time to time, and I will again."</blockquote>
::::::::::::(I ''will'' run out of time for this, you know.&nbsp;☺)
::::::::::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::What exactly is it that you want me to discern from your previous posts, Noetica? My last post, the one to which you're responding, consists entirely of my clarifying things that I had said to you. Did you mean to respond to my question about the M-A war article?
:::::::::::::By "compelled" and "ram down people's gullets" I refer to anything that people can be punished or censured for disobeying, as in AN/I. The MoS may be only a guideline in theory, but in practice, it's a set of hard rules. That means that we should treat any new additions to the MoS as if they will be cited as gospel on talk pages.
:::::::::::::By "whim," I mean any rule that offers no real benefit to Misplaced Pages. WP:LQ, for example, has been challenged repeatedly and it's still there, even though it directly contradicts the preponderance of reputable sources and discussions have failed to show that the ban of American punctuation gives Misplaced Pages any benefit. It is a lot easier to keep whims out of the MoS in the first place than to get them removed once they're there.
:::::::::::::Bringing this back to the issue at hand, this is why I don't think that the MoS should endorse P3 either officially or unofficially unless someone can offer evidence that doing so would solve a problem that has actually happened. We'd be forcing people to follow rules that we made up solely because we felt like it, and that's a slap in the face. ] (]) 05:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

::::::::There has never been style consistency across articles on WP, and the MoS makes that clear at various points (e.g. ENGVAR), as do other guidelines (e.g. CITEVAR). So the issue here is only that the lead should properly reflect that. I'd therefore like to go ahead and restore the words in question, because they do make the lead clearer on that point. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Of course there has been "style consistency across articles on WP"! How could that be a bad thing? MOS assists that; and so do ], the many naming conventions, and other "regularising" instruments across wikispace. But MOS is already very clear: in some areas there are ''choices''. Where that applies, stick to ''one'' option within an article, and don't switch to another option without good reason and consensual discussion. No more needs to be said; stressing a ''lack'' of consistency between articles only encourages a lack of consistency between thematically related articles, through misreading for "political" purposes. I have given a potent example of such politics: ].
:::::::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::There has never been consensus to introduce style consistency across articles; on the contrary, there has always been opposition to it. I don't know what you mean by thematically related articles, or "political" purposes, and the example hasn't enlightened me, sorry. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::Sure there has been such a consensus! Style consistency across articles is what MOS is all about. But there has never been a requirement in MOS to ''implement a particular style option uniformly across articles, where MOS provides for such options''. I for one am not proposing any such requirement. Let's be strictly accurate, otherwise we ''will'' be misread. It's bad enough when we ''do'' express ourselves with precision, apparently.&nbsp;☺
:::::::::::As for ], it is an infamous example of a battleground. Disregard for reader-friendly consistency of style where MOS did ''not'' provide for such options; and it caused protracted conflict. I gave the example at least to show how hotly disputed the matter of conformity to MOS has been, generally. But more specifically, MOS was cited inaccurately: against ''any'' consideration of titles that in the relevant respect were precisely the same (based on the pattern "X–Y War", using an en dash). Cited, in fact, against the policy provision at WP:TITLE that I have quoted above (from ]).
:::::::::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::I finally had time to click your link and it's just the article on the Mexican-American War. How exactly does this serve as evidence that having some sort of resolution in favor of cross-article consistency on closely related topics would prevent problems on Misplaced Pages? I'm not being sarcastic; I'd like to know.
::::::::::::As things stand, I support returning "but not necessarily across Misplaced Pages as a whole" to the MoS. ] (]) 03:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The link for you to click is clearly marked as "archived disputes" (see above). I then wrote (see above): "Remember those disputes? Wade through all of that archive!" You ''contributed'' there, Darkfrog. Read how you made points that are almost identical to those you make now, and read how I referred you to policy at ], ''then too''. Try again.
:::::::::::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I mean the link you posted a few days ago, the one that just leads to the war article. (Checks) And today's link just leads to the article too. Yes, there was a big fight about whether M-A War should be hyphenated/dashed the same way in every article, but I am asking ''you'' what ''you'' think. Wading through the archive would at best facilitate a guess at what your reasoning is. What I want to know is what part of which M-A war dispute you feel is a specific problem that would be solved if the MoS were to endorse P3.] (]) 05:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Sorry Darkfrog: I have no time to limn yet again the stance that I have already made quite clear. Just note my response to your last sentence: I have linked you the ''general'' archived mess at ]; and I have drawn attention to your own points there, and Enric Naval's. Let us ask: How much progress has been made? Who has worked for that progress, and who has worked against it? Finally (as I hope!), I stress once again: '''I am not proposing P3 or anything like it as an addition to WP:MOS.'''<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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

] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

===Additional discussion===
I just want to note that I agree that ] was correct in removing the discussion that ] started by pulling the archive instead of linking it, but some comments had been added when she restarted the discussion:] (]) 03:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
:Never mind, Curb. SlimVirgin acted completely in good faith. I only objected because the way she did it left things unclear. I think it would often be fine to restore something had very recently been archived, and to put a clear explanation at the top. I ''do'' think that one is generally then expected to join in the discussion that one has wanted restored. I don't see that happening.<br>☺&nbsp;<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
::I think Curb's point is that, when you removed the discussion from this page, you removed six new posts that had not been archived. So they disappeared. But they're now in the archive along with the others. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
:::O yes, of course. Well, that's what can happen when material is retrieved from the archives without clear signalling. I have checked, and it turns out that anyone who made a post in that discussion has joined the new discussion, and can see what has happened. If anyone had been left out, I would have notified them now. Turns out not to be needed.
:::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

=== Reversion of non-consensual edits concerning inter-article consistency ===
I have reverted (see ) two edits by SlimVirgin. The change in question clearly has no consensus. Editing and discussion for this page are subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions (see the note at the top of this talkpage); so a high standard of conduct and respect for due process applies. Please discuss more, and if necessary initiate a ''neutral'' RFC. If any RFC is not set up in neutral terms, according to the provisions of ], I will call for its immediate closure and refer the matter to ]. Please note especially: This is not intended as inimical to any good-faith development of the page; but experience has shown how these things can escalate, and how they can wear away people's time and patience.&nbsp;♥<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
::When changing subtle things, it's a lot easier on the rest of us if you use "Show changes" a bit, and try to minimize the distracting diff variants. I had to compare sentence-by-sentence, just to figure out that the only thing you changed in that edit was a single sentence, and a number of linebreaks.
::''This'' is why plain-reverting is bloody annoying. (The same thing is happening elsewhere at the moment). If you have a partial dispute with an edit, then '''just revert the part you disagree''' with (or even better, offer an alternative/compromise edit), not the entire damned thing.
::Thanks. -- ] (]) 00:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

::Noetica, what was the point of ? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

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

:I reverted Noetica there in a moment of irritation, but I shouldn't have, so I'm going to revert myself and abide by whatever the RfC decides. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small>

* '''Comment''': It's obvious to anyone who thinks about it for a few seconds that this entire "intra- vs. inter-article consistency" thing is a false dichotomy. There is absolutely no conflict between the two ideas, except that which is purposefully manufactured by people who refuse to write in a way that is consistent between articles, just to ]. The "versus" that is latent in this discussion is entirely artificial. It's what the British call a load of bollocks, and Americans refer to as total bullshit. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp; <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>&nbsp; <small>]</small></font> 23:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

== RfC: Internal consistency versus consistency across articles ==

This sentence had been in the MoS for some time: "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole." The whole sentence was removed 12 months ago, then restored, then it was changed so that it read: "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article."

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

:

=== Replies===
:''''
*'''Oppose removal'''. There has always been an understanding that internal consistency is required when it comes to style issues, but not consistency across articles. There are formatting issues that are applied across the board (the general layout, for example). But when it comes to language variations, punctuation, and a host of other issues, we allow the editors on the page to decide, sometimes governed by personal preference, sometimes by whether a particular English-language variant ought to be dominant. The words "not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole" signal that cross-article consistency is sometimes expected, but not always, and I feel it's important to retain that point. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
*I am '''opposing the removal''' because style consistency across articles has always been discouraged since the "date delinking" edit wars years ago. It's clear and concise. The removal leaves room for other interpretations. --] (]) 14:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose removal'''. per SlimVirgin and Enric. (Maybe we can get "Description not prescription" added back to wherever it was, too, eventually...) Time is not especially relevant, the detail/context that the sentence contains, is. -- ] (]) 19:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose removal'''. I think it's important to include a phrase that underscores the point that we have options for styles. Otherwise MOS would require, say, American English and SI units and common date formats across all articles. The MOS is not a prescription to be applied slavishly to all articles. A short phrase serves as a useful reminder of that fact, and its removal, as Enric Naval pointed out, leaves room for other interpretations, contributing to wasted time in needless debates about inter-article consistency. ~] <small>(])</small> 04:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose removal'''. The sentiment expressed by the phrase in question is essential to preventing disputes over English spelling style, comma style, referencing style, etc. "The wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." <grin> We should emphasize that we are not here to make everybody toe the same line. If somebody's formatting can be traced to a practice that is accepted in a particular venue, then that formatting should be allowed. ] (]) 04:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose removal'''. It must be understood that an absolute consistency across articles is not possible with the diverse population we have and hope to have. This lack of rigid consistency must be explicitly ''permitted'', along with the wish expressed that styles be referenced and adhered to when possible. But when the permissiveness disappears <s>silently</s> <s>quietly</s> without much notice to the common editor, the appearances are chilling.
::Which brings up two issues on my own mind. Noetica, do you really think that 12 months is a long time, for pages which nominally are to be used to guide the ''entire'' 'pedia? You've been here since 2005, seven years. The lapse of one year before even active editors discover a misjudged edit is not unreasonable. It would seem from your strong surprise that a year could ''possibly'' be called 'recent' that you must be far too familiar with these environs to tell on that particular.
::These pages are not welcoming, quite dense, often confounding, and I am not surprised that editors would not often make themselves available to review proposed changes. Saying that "see talk" is sufficient for changes to MOS would seem to me to be entirely ''insufficient'' for the average non-MOS-wonk editor.
:Removing the explicit allowance for editors to not be '''required''' to conform to the tittle of MOS, through a change by the MOS-most editors, is troubling on multiple levels. ] (]) 06:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' the removal of text that was done twelve months ago. The stress on intra-article consistency is fine, of course. So is motherhood. But why labour to include what many editors have unfortunately misread as a licence for chaos? Groups of articles ''on similar themes'' benefit enormously from ''similar styling'' (where MOS allows for a choice). Why bend over backwards ''against'' such efforts? They are clearly in readers' interests. MOS was, till a few days ago, silent on such laudable efforts. What benefit is there in it making a statement that is bound to be misused by those who favour complete independence of styling, at each of 4,000,000 articles? No one is suggesting that a contrary statement be made; just that it is not the business of MOS inadvertently to counter worthwhile efforts to improve the readability of closely associated articles.
:<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)<br>
:*]. The question facing us is important, and I advise people not to conflate ''consistency of style'' for Misplaced Pages in general (the very essence of MOS) and ''consistency of style where choices are allowed in MOS'' (and there are very few such choices, at least in WP:MOS itself). Misreadings we observe in this RFC illustrate the very problem that such carelessly added wording introduces: ''people do not read accurately, nor discriminate as we expect they will''.'''&nbsp;♥&nbsp;<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)]
*'''Oppose removal''' by which I really mean "support re-insertion." Misplaced Pages is not like other encyclopedias. It requires on the unpaid service of editors from many disparate backgrounds and it has no chain of command. There's no one who can legitimately say, "Do it this way because I'm the boss and I've earned my authority." Inter- but not intra-article consistency strikes a balance between neatness and the diversity of opinion among our editors. If it is "bound to be misused," then show at least one case in which that has happened. Has an editor ever claimed "We are not allowed to make these articles match each other; the MoS says so"? ] (]) 13:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose removal/retain''' - This would also seem to fall afoul of ], among other things... - <b>]</b> 20:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
* I think the sentence should be re-inserted. It's good for readers of the MOS to see a reminder that it is meant to include only a minimal amount of standardization, and that there are many reasons why different articles will have different styles. Where some see chaos in numerous styles, I see a field of wildflowers. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 21:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. In my opinion, style and formatting inconsistencies across articles within English Misplaced Pages should be viewed as unavoidable exceptions to a general ambition that Misplaced Pages should be as consistent as possible throughout. Inconsistency should not be tacitly encouraged or presented as part of a "principle". ] (]) 16:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support re-removal''' per Noetica, and per the fact that ], and the fact that we do not need to repeat everything ever said in every guideline and policy on the system. It's already implicit in MoS's mandate as a guideline that it operates in juxtaposition and compromise with other forms of guidance here. Reiterating that a guideline can have exceptions, or that any particular guideline is not an ironclad policy, is ]. Also, it really {{em|has}} been misinterpreted as a license for chaos. It was removed for a reason.<p>Furthermore, there's an underlying assumption (one that is often advanced by the sort of editorial misprioritization addressed by ], and ] before it) that inter-article consistency is {{em|not}} desirable, and is immediately trumped by narrow, even personal preferences. Yet, obviously it {{em|is}} desirable to the extent that it can happen without raising intractable problems (like those addressed by ]). If it were not desirable MOS would be very short, as the bulk of it and its subpages is style advice for dealing with English-language prose across all articles here. Material is not being broken out of MoS into small, topic-specific WikiProject "guidelines"; rather, the exact opposite is happening: Good advice from projects is making its way steadily into MoS so that it is applied consistently in articles on other topics.<br />— <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp; <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>&nbsp; <small>]</small></font> 08:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)</p>
*'''Support re-removal''' When one says 'consistent within an article' and is mute on what happens outside, lack of consistency between articles is unambiguous as implied in the guideline. There is no ambiguity in its absence, and I find the deleted half superfluous and repetitive. --<small>] ]</small> 08:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support removal'''. The main purpose of the MoS , like other guidelines, is to achieve a level of consistency above the level of the individual article. Even in the case of the exceptions which ], like ] we strive for consistency with things like ]. It is not required, but ''within the context of the Manual of Style'' we should not stress that it is unnecessary, thus giving the impression that it not desired. I think we achieve a reasonable balance by not mentioning it at all in this sentence.--] (]) 09:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
* '''Remove to reduce chaos''' – "though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole" sounds like the opposite of what MOS is about, which is to encourage some consistency of style across WP. ] (]) 05:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support removal.'''—It's unnecessary to confuse editors on this point, when the whole of MoS concerns stylistic consistency on en.WP. The absence of this text in no way suggests that articles have to be consistent with each other where a choice is allowed (engvar, em vs en dashes as interruptors, etc). ] ] 06:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose removal''' (of "though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole.") This is another case where discussion of wording changes gets confused with discussion of policy changes. "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article" of itself implies that between articles consistency of such choices is not of "overriding" importance, so ''if we were only discussing wording'', I don't see the need for "though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole." That there is no overriding requirement for consistency throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole is clear from many other places (ENGVAR, choice of citation styles, etc.). If on the other hand those who don't want to include "though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole" seek thereby to change policy (as some comments above imply), so that consistency between articles becomes an "overriding principle", then these words should certainly be present, otherwise the implication is that consistency overrides ENGVAR, etc. ] (]) 09:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Retain/oppose removal'''' - The key words being '''"not necessarily"'''. On those formatting issues about which broad community-wide discussion arrives at a consensus, consistency can and should be enforced, but about those the community maintains a more ''laissez-faire'' attitude, editors should have the leeway to improve articles as they see fit, given the specific needs of the specific article, without having to answer to those who try to enforce a non-existing consensus. The very most important thing, which it is best that we put our energies to, is to give our readers ], rather than that every article have every tiny formatting aspect be exactly the same. Such "fooliosh consistency" is, in Emerson's words "the hobgoblin of little minds", in Shaw's words "the enemy of enterprise", and in Wilde's words "the last refuge of the unimaginative." Surely our editors are just the opposite: enterprising, imaginative and open to the world. ] (]) 01:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Though they certainly are superfluous these few words can serve as a reminder to people of how we do things here. It would be much easier to point a misguided editor to this phrase than to the absence of words to the contrary. There may not be a lot of benefit but the cost is nanofarthings. ]<sub>&nbsp;]·]</sub> 09:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' removal. Of course the Manual of Style applies to the whole of Misplaced Pages. That's what it's for. Are we now to have local consensus for commas? Em-dash wars breaking out in Birds? Apostrophe wars in Composers? ] ] (]) 06:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' removal. The extra words seem to be encouraging inconsistency far too strongly. <s>, indeed one responder says "consistency across articles has always been discouraged" which seems a good example of a rule which should always be ignored: should I look for ways of making every article I edit inconsistent with every other article?</s> The wording chosen should not give anybody an excuse to be uncooperative, whether they wish to apply something too widely or ignore interrelationships between articles. Although readers must accept that Misplaced Pages's articles follow no single strict house style, they are not well served if, for example, individual articles covering the six books of a series have corresponding content distributed differently across sections, perhaps in a different order or with different names. The work of adding related information to several such articles could be doubled or trebled depending on how they were inconsistent and such barriers to editing cannot contribute to content improvement. Not even in a single article do we revert constructive additions merely because a wrong sort of dash has been used, so I do not see consistency within an appropriate scope, maintained tactfully, as stifling new content. Neither would any expectation of consistency remove the necessity for having consensus to maintain it: I would expect the ease of finding consensus to correspond to the closeness of the relationship in a self-limiting way. --] (]) 14:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose removal'''. It is kind of silly for a project that uses four different flavours of English and can't decide what it thinks about the usage of diacritics to try and pretend that internal consistency is really all that important. When you get right down to it, Misplaced Pages is the informational equivalent of a quilt. It is a patchwork design that comes together into a single pattern despite the differences found on each tile. I see no reason to replace that with a unitarian attitude. ]] 01:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Meh'''. Should talking about the other part; there is far too much different-as-hell but internally-consistent going on. Consistency ''across the project'' is needful, with any variations being on a level vastly larger than individual articles. And no, don't talk to me about WikiProjects taking any lead, here. ] (]) 04:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose removal''' and reinstate the words per Slim, Resolute and Peter Coxhead. It's how we do things, and policies and guidance describe how we do things. ] <small>] </small> 11:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose removal''' Editors should be allowed to edit, to create articles. No one wants to see WP become an homogeneous blob. Part of its charm is that the best articles do bear the stamp of their creator. The phrase should be retained. It's not tautological. It makes explicit an import aspect of WP's ethos. ] (]) 14:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose removal/Support retaining''' the bit that says that we don't need to be consistant across all of Misplaced Pages. --]''''']''''' 00:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Meh''', seems to make little difference either way. I would prefer to argue over something juicier like diacritics or nested quotation marks ;) ] (]) 04:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Removal per the smart people above. ] (]) 05:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support removal''', per ]: ''In my opinion, style and formatting inconsistencies across articles within English Misplaced Pages should be viewed as unavoidable exceptions to a general ambition that Misplaced Pages should be as consistent as possible throughout. Inconsistency should not be tacitly encouraged or presented as part of a "principle".'' -- Strongest point made in this discussion, bar none. We strive to present a consistent and ''consistently formatted'' encyclopedia to the public. A reminder to watch consistency first on the level of the individual article is perfectly fine, but the words "though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole" explicitly defy the purpose of having a Manual of Style in the first place. --] (]) 00:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support removal'''. Overall consistency in formatting and style across the entire English Misplaced Pages is an important goal also. Certainly exceptions can exist, but that language implies that broader consistency is of little importance. ] (]) 17:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
* '''Oppose removal'''/support replacing that phrase, unless I'm the person who gets to decide what that applies-to-all-articles style is going to be. We need more ] where style is concerned, and less time wasted in discussions about whose style of spelling, citing, image formatting, etc. is the one true way. ] (]) 22:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

===Threaded discussion===
==== Some questions ====
* '''Question''' - How does this apply to an issue like "The" v. "the Beatles"? Could/should we have our article about the Beatles use "The" while those about John, Paul, George and Ringo use "the"? ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 03:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
::In my opinion, no. Misplaced Pages should have a global view on that (unless the different camps become so entrenched and intractable that people just give up trying). ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 11:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::And if that happens, go with MoS's default position, which is inter- as well as intra-article consistency. Those who would make weird exceptions have the burden on them to demonstrate a need for it. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp; <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>&nbsp; <small>]</small></font> 23:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
::::The MoS does not have a default position for inter-article consistency. ] (]) 14:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::Come on guys, don't descend into slipshod language again and again. See my admonishments to distinguish what are quite distinct issues, above. Sheesh! If we at this talkpage don't read with care, how do we expect readers of MOS to get the message? ''That is the core problem in this discussion.''
:::::SMcCandlish refers to "MoS's default position, which is inter- as well as intra-article consistency". Of course. That's the ''purpose'' of a manual of style!
:::::If anyone (Enric Naval? Darkfrog?) thinks Misplaced Pages should not have a genuine, effective MOS, let them go to the village pump and argue their case. Or mount a self-contained RFC. ''Here'', however, the business is to develop a manual of style that ''functions'' as one. It now qualifies as a major manual of style in its own right, and there is nothing remotely approaching it on the web&nbsp;– or for the web&nbsp;– in quality and coverage. You doubt that? Show us a better one! If anyone thinks MOS includes whims or foibles, let them argue here for particular improvements. That's the core purpose here.
:::::So finally, for now: ''Do not spread confusion.'' Do not conflate these two issues:
:::::# '''Consistency of style generally'''<br>(the purpose of MOS)
:::::# '''Consistent application of styles where MOS provides for a choice'''<br>(a much smaller concern, the details of which are the present topic; it can only apply to groups of related articles, otherwise MOS would ''not'' provide for choices at all)
:::::It is grossly irresponsible to hijack an RFC concerned with 2 to further one's agenda with 1.
:::::♫♪
:::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::Take your own advice, Noetica. No one said that Misplaced Pages should not have an effective MoS. The MoS does (or used to and should again) state that intra-article consistency is its purpose. It does not state that inter-article consistency is. One can imagine a default position, but no true one is given. ] (]) 02:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Obdurate obfuscation. I have no time for this, as I have said. You write: "It does not state that inter-article consistency is ." What? Inter-article consistency is the blindingly obvious plain supposition behind ''every'' manual of style. You wonder why I go on at length, repeating what I have already plainly stated in a few words? Think afresh; actually ''read'' what I write, and you might get it. You utterly, repeatedly, and apparently wilfully fail to see the crucial distinction that I have marked out several times already. Do better.
:::::::♥
:::::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::In other words, you looked at what the MoS said, and you drew your own inference about what it meant. Don't complain when other people do the same thing. I might read ''Hamlet'' and think that it's "blindingly obvious" that Hamlet's insane, but someone else might think that he's faking. I'm not "willfully failing" to listen to you. I just ''don't agree with you''.
::::::::What we know for certain is that the MoS does explicitly state that intra-article consistency is a goal and does not explicitly state that inter-article consistency is. ] (]) 18:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::A recklessly inept response, and unworthy. To mimic your analogy, missing the fact that MOS is about ''general'' consistency between all articles would be like reading ''Hamlet'' and missing the fact that it is a play. ''Hamlet'' is very evidently a play, even though there is no declaration like "this is a play, and is to be acted by actors in front of an audience". Its proper title: ''The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark''. You have to know: in those days especially, a tragedy ''is'' a play. It has a list of dramatis personae, it is divided into acts and scenes, it is set up in standard dialogue format, and has stage directions. Now, the proper title for MOS: ''Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style''. Kind of gives the game away, doesn't it? And what is a manual of style, that applies to {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} articles? ''It is necessarily a guide to elements of consistency, for and across all those articles.'' You continue to confuse the issue. Yes, MOS provides for some variation. But yes, MOS rightly stresses ''especially'' consistency within any given article. What is here under dispute, though you steadily refuse to acknowledge it, is the extent to which those few variable elements ''might vary across related articles''. The issue could not rationally be anything else. You just don't read that; it seems to suit your agenda (and Enric Naval's, and sockpuppeting campaigner ]'s) to insist instead on making MOS ineffectual. You would prefer that it have less influence, and that it not work toward ''general'' uniformity of style, across four million articles. But that is ''not'' what this RFC is about. Nor is it what the contested wording is about. Stop pretending that it is. Yet again: people will misread the wording that SlimVirgin inserted in MOS, which she now wants restored. ''You'' misread that wording, and you are a regular here. So it is even more likely that those less familiar with MOS will misread it. Where has this been a problem, you ask? I have answered: the best example I know is the life-wasting wrangling over ], in which you, Enric Naval, and PMAnderson pushed the same anti-MOS agenda, with the same perverse appeal to Slim's ill-advised and misleading words in MOS. Get it.
:::::::::☺
:::::::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::What this means, Noetica, is that you and I looked at the same document and came to different conclusions about it. That does not make me unworthy in any way or designate you as fit to give anyone orders. You have an agenda yourself: You don't want people to be allowed to do things in ways that you don't like, regardless of whether they can be proven to be correct or incorrect English.
::::::::::Just because I don't think that pushing inter-article consistency or whims like WP:LQ is a good idea doesn't mean I don't want the MoS to be followed. Removing stupid and arbitrary rules from the MoS makes people less likely to disregard the sensible ones.
::::::::::This conversation is in response to SmC's assertion that inter-article consistency is the MoS's default setting. I responded "The MoS does not have a default setting for inter-article consistency." The RfC is about whether the MoS should have a statement stating that its purpose is int<strike>er</strike>ra-article consistency, so that comment is relevant.
::::::::::So, because I disagree with you, I must have misread the wording? Actually, my understanding is that you think that the fact that the MoS exists is proof that it must exist for the purpose of inter-article consistency, and ''that'' is what I don't accept.
::::::::::Your comments seem to have a recurring theme of "The fact that you disagree with me is proof that you don't understand the issue." That's not a very logical argument. ] (]) 01:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::Palpable misrepresentations, Darkfrog.
:::::::::::* I did not say ''you'' were unworthy. I said: "A recklessly inept response, and unworthy." It was unworthy of you, as a committed contributor at this talkpage.
:::::::::::* You have no ground for the claim that I "don't want people to be allowed to do things in ways that don't like". That is an irresponsible accusation. I am not forcing anyone to do anything; nor is MOS. MOS includes many provisions that I think are absurd; but I choose to respect MOS, and I hope other editors will do the same (as ] says they should).
:::::::::::* What you prejudicially characterise as "pushing inter-article consistency" is the very purpose of MOS. Again and again you fail to make the elementary distinction that I have again and again invited you to grasp.
:::::::::::* WP:LQ is not "a whim". If it were, it could easily be exposed as one; and it could be removed. Your failure to achieve that removal does not prove that it is a whim. Quite the contrary.
:::::::::::* You write: "The RfC is about whether the MoS should have a statement stating that its purpose is inter-article consistency,&nbsp;...". Inaccurate to the point of being straight-out false.
:::::::::::* You write: "Removing stupid and arbitrary rules from the MoS makes people less likely to disregard the sensible ones." So what? I want to remove those also! We all want to. Keep working on it, by all means. But don't weaken the standing of MOS in the meantime.
:::::::::::* Your "understanding" shows that you do indeed miss the points that I have made. Because of your missing them, I repeat them; and still you miss them. If you have an alternative account of what a manual of style is, please share it. I have spelt out my account (which is the almost universal account, note). Let's see yours.
:::::::::::* You wrongly apprehend the recurring theme of my posts. It is not your disagreeing with me that I find unacceptable; it is that you do not address the evidence and the arguments that I present.
:::::::::::* It is a cheap and transparent tactic to ignore the arguments as actually given, present a straw man in their place, and then finish with the judgement "That's not a very logical argument."
:::::::::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::That "inter" was a typo for "intra." I meant to say "This is about whether the MoS should state that intra-article consistency is its purpose."
:::::::::::::So if I said "These posts are full of drama queen histrionics," you wouldn't think that I was calling you a drama queen? You wouldn't be insulted or consider it a personal attack? Because I think you would.
:::::::::::::The difference seems to be that you think that just because the MoS says something doesn't mean people have to do it, so it doesn't matter if it contains unnecessary rules (and those rules might as well match your own preferences). However, people can be censured and punished for disobeying the MoS, so we must be more careful.
:::::::::::::WP:LQ is a whim in that people like it but it offers Misplaced Pages no real benefit. It is not my failure to have it removed that proves that it's a whim. It's the fact that it contradicts established sources and that no one has been able to point to even one incident of American English punctuation causing any problems that proves this. It takes more than logic and the sources to get a popular problem out of the MoS. It would be great if it didn't work that way, but it does.
:::::::::::::There is a difference between most manuals of style and the Misplaced Pages manual of style. That difference is that the WP:MoS is meant for Misplaced Pages, which is 1. crowdsourced and 2. dependent on the donated service of editors from ''around the world''. The difference in skill, training and range of expertise is immense. Because they are not being compensated, we shouldn't expect them to take orders the same way we could expect paid employees to and we shouldn't expect every article to be exactly the same the way we could expect articles in ''Britannica'' to be. If we want to keep our contributors, we need to make compromises, and accepting that consistency has its limits is one of them.
:::::::::::::My idea of a strong MoS is one that is obeyed. Not requiring inter-article consistency or a serial comma or any given point does not make people less likely to do what the MoS does tell them to do. Think of two teachers in a grammar school: One of them has a million rules about how the kids' legs should be positioned when they sit and exactly how far apart their coats should be on the rack. The other teacher has fewer rules but they're more about safety and schoolwork. Which one are the students less likely to disregard as a control freak or jerk? Which one is likely to have students who think that rules in general are made to be broken?
:::::::::::::Noetica, you haven't presented any evidence in this thread ("Questions"). You've only repeated your opinions. You sound like you think I should take your word as proof. ] (]) 14:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

::Concur with anon. Where something is clearly incorrect English and can be shown through sources to be incorrect English, like capitalizing "the" mid-sentence, then the MoS should not allow people to use it. This is a separate issue, dealing with optional matters, like whether or not to use the serial comma. As for "The Beatles," its my understanding that their fans kept shouting until the opposition was too tired to object any more. ] (]) 17:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

====Break 1====

* An RFC should not be advertised misleadingly to the community. I have therefore added a factual correction that will appear on the relevant RFC listings. If Slim Virgin would like to amend her text to incorporate that correction, fine. Otherwise, please let it stand.&nbsp;♥&nbsp;<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
::If you want to write underneath my posts to correct or add an interpretation, that's fine of course, but please don't post inside them (this is the second time it has happened). In any event, none of these details – when it was restored, who partially restored it – matter. The question is simply whether we (now) want these words or not. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
:::Slim, I am the last person to want irregular procedure at this talkpage. But you posted misleadingly so that the RFC is not advertised honestly to the community; and your rewording is still misleading. An RFC is, as I clearly reminded people here recently, required to be presented neutrally (see ]). Please now reword accurately. I'm sure you will understand: if you do not fix the advertised portion of your text, my proper but reluctant next move might be to seek a remedy from ArbCom. <font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
::::I assume you are asking SlimVirgin to alter the text at ], presumably to include the text you added above in the "Correction from Noetica" section? (Your request is unclear, and bringing up arbcom is .... .)
::::I suggest a simple addition, there and above (SlimVirgin only, please): just add the list of relevant diffs, and let people come to their own conclusions based on the evidence.
::::, , ,
::::It's not complicated, don't make it more so. -- ] (]) 02:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for the diffs, Quiddity. I've added them. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::Indeed: it may not be complicated at all, Quiddity. Ask SlimVirgin who inserted the contested words in the first place, and with what consensus, and with what signalling in an edit summary. That might be relevant here, don't we all think?
:::::When the extra words were removed, a year ago, there was reference to an ongoing discussion on the talkpage, where everything was out in the open. The edit summary (see Quiddity's links just above here): "Rationalise unruly bunch of mini-sections ('principles'). Reduce negative angle. Rm repetition and redundancy. See talk page." Now, let SlimVirgin show how the original insertion of the text she favours was managed. And by whom. I'm all for transparency.&nbsp;☺!
:::::As for referrals to ArbCom, of course I mean through ] (ArbCom enforcement). My purpose is not to impugn SlimVirgin's motives or good faith; but recent cases have left this page under ArbCom discretionary sanctions, and as a regular here I am very concerned to avoid deficiencies in process that have wasted months of editors' time, and reserves of goodwill. We have to be especially careful. False advertising at an RFC notification, editing unilaterally without establishing consensus, chaotic discussion&nbsp;– none of that helps. Let's work collegially to maintain an excellent manual of style for Misplaced Pages.
:::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::Mentioning AE has a chilling effect, and comes across (in this low-stress situation) as ''tactical''. I'm not going to belabor the point, because it's plausibly deniable, and hence not worth debating. But everyone reading is aware, and most are rolling eyes.
::::::Don't just insinuate, show the fracking evidence. Why are you asking others to do the legwork? ("Ask SlimVirgin who ...") Here's some relevant diffs, that led from its initial to final form: , , , , , , , , , (And yes, SlimVirgin added it). It's not hard; Open the history, search for "consistency". With the time spent on crafting your polite wikilawyeresque statement, you could have been researching that, or doing something else useful. Grumblegrumble. -- ] (]) 21:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

:::::::Posted with difficulty, away from my usual place, from an iPad, immersed in real-world concerns involving the care of an 89-year-old woman 18,000 km from where I am: References to WP:AE may be "chilling", but the mechanism is there for a reason, and MOS has a role and a history that mean we must exercise special care. It is not my fault if people edit it disrupively, or discuss without observing the protocols, or without revealing their involvements. If my objections when people do that are seen as unpleasant, consider dispassionately what chaos we must guard against repeating.
:::::::Look above on the page, Quiddity, and see how much effort I have already put into this discussion. Thank you for coming in now and doing some more of the necessary work, and for revealing what SlimVirgin really ought to hve made plain from the start. I genuinely have no time to do any more on this for a while. My opinions, and my rather closely articulated reasons for them, are all laid out clearly above this RFC.
:::::::Best wishes to all!
:::::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

::::::::I don't want to take part in a meta discussion, but I'd like to add that I didn't know before starting this discussion who had first added that sentence and who had first removed it, because there was a lot of history to look through and it didn't really matter. All I knew was that it had been there for a while, and had been removed relatively recently, so that's what I wrote. I don't like the implication that I knew I was the original author and for some reason wanted to hide that (why would I?). I also wonder what the point is of not saying directly: "Slim, did you realize you first added that sentence a few years ago?".

::::::::Anyway, enough said. I hope we can now focus on the substance. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if Noetica is still amazed, . But there is a possibility of arguing that while a consistent style may not be desirable across all articles, a consistent style in groups of articles may be desirable. This argument has been advanced in the past for the articles ] and ] because they are both articles about colour. It has also been advanced for the articles in ].

My problem with arguing for consistence in "groups" of articles is what is obvious a group to one person is not necessarily obviously a group to another (and what to do with articles that are ''obviously'' in two groups with differing styles). I suspect that while the argument about ''obvious'' groups is superficially attractive, due to the problems lack of clarity in defining a group, it will eventual lead inexorably towards harmonisation of style over large parts of Misplaced Pages. -- ] (]) 08:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
:And then you have overlapping. There are many articles that belong to more that one group. What will happen when those groups have conflicting styles? --] (]) 16:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

====Break 2====
:''] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)]
:<blockquote>*'''Oppose removal'''. per SlimVirgin and Enric. (Maybe we can get "Description not prescription" added back to wherever it was, too, eventually...) Time is not especially relevant, the detail/context that the sentence contains, is. -- ] (]) 19:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)</blockquote>
::Not taking sides in the RfC (haven't thought it through yet); but I want to point out now that ''all'' manuals of style are both prescriptive and descriptive. ] ] 06:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
:::I don't remember exactly where it was, but I think it was originally in WP:NOT or WP:PG or similar (not a MOS page). Pointers appreciated though. -- ] (]) 19:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

:<blockquote> ''Support'' the removal of text that was done twelve months ago. The stress on intra-article consistency is fine, of course. So is motherhood. But why labour to include what many editors have unfortunately misread as a licence for chaos? Groups of articles ''on similar themes'' benefit enormously from ''similar styling'' (where MOS allows for a choice). Why bend over backwards ''against'' such efforts? They are clearly in readers' interests. MOS was, till a few days ago, silent on such laudable efforts. What benefit is there in it making a statement that is bound to be misused by those who favour complete independence of styling, at each of 4,000,000 articles? No one is suggesting that a contrary statement be made; just that it is not the business of MOS inadvertently to counter worthwhile efforts to improve the readability of closely associated articles.
:<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)<br>]. The question facing us is important, and I advise people not to conflate ''consistency of style'' for Misplaced Pages in general (the very essence of MOS) and ''consistency of style where choices are allowed in MOS'' (and there are very few such choices, at least in WP:MOS itself). Misreadings we observe in this RFC illustrate the very problem that such carefleesly added wording introduces: ''people do not read accurately, nor discriminate as we expect they will''.'''&nbsp;♥&nbsp;<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)]</blockquote>
::By "what many editors have misread as a license for chaos," what do you mean? What happened, specifically, and when? ] (]) 03:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
:<blockquote>*'''Oppose removal''' by which I really mean "support re-insertion." Misplaced Pages is not like other encyclopedias. It requires on the unpaid service of editors from many disparate backgrounds and it has no chain of command. There's no one who can legitimately say, "Do it this way because I'm the boss and I've earned my authority." Inter- but not intra-article consistency strikes a balance between neatness and the diversity of opinion among our editors. If it is "bound to be misused," then show at least one case in which that has happened. Has an editor ever claimed "We are not allowed to make these articles match each other; the MoS says so"? ] (]) 13:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)</blockquote>
::I've already addressed this fallacious "we're {{em|volunteers}} so we should be able to do whatever we want for personal reasons, and consistency can go screw itself" meme at ]. Lack of payment has nothing to do with anything; there's no logical connection. It's like saying "I have blonde hair, so I should be allowed to eat small children", or "my dog is old, so I shouldn't have to pay the water bill". — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp; <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>&nbsp; <small>]</small></font> 22:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
:::I'm not saying that volunteers get to do whatever they want, and you know that perfectly well, but anyone who's worked in a volunteer organization can tell you that it's not the same type of dynamic as a workplace. On Misplaced Pages, no one volunteer outranks another. "Do X because I'm your boss" holds no weight here. "Do X because the majority of sources say that X is right and Y is wrong" does. People don't pull rank; sources do. When the sources cannot show that one way is better than another, no one person or small group of people should get to order the others around. ] (]) 14:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

:<blockquote> *'''Support re-removal''' per Noetica, and per the fact that ], and the fact that we do not need to repeat everything ever said in every guideline and policy on the system. It's already implicit in MoS's mandate as a guideline that it operates in juxtaposition and compromise with other forms of guidance here. Reiterating that a guideline can have exceptions, or that any particular guideline is not an ironclad policy, is ]. Also, it really {{em|has}} been misinterpreted as a license for chaos. It was removed for a reason.<p>Furthermore, there's an underlying assumption (one that is often advanced by the sort of editorial misprioritization addressed by ], and ] before it) that inter-article consistency is {{em|not}} desirable, and is immediately trumped by narrow, even personal preferences. Yet, obviously it {{em|is}} desirable to the extent that it can happen without raising intractable problems (like those addressed by ]). If it were not desirable MOS would be very short, as the bulk of it and its subpages is style advice for dealing with English-language prose across all articles here. Material is not being broken out of MoS into small, topic-specific WikiProject "guidelines"; rather, the exact opposite is happening: Good advice from projects is making its way steadily into MoS so that it is applied consistently in articles on other topics.<br />— <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp; <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>&nbsp; <small>]</small></font> 08:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)</p></blockquote>
*:You said "''It was removed for a reason.''", but what? The only clues I can find are the , and the archived thread ] - neither of which discuss the sentence/section in question ''at all''. Is there anything else to look at, that makes you (and Noetica) consider it a license for chaos? (I'm assuming this is related to some sub-battle about date or titles or dashes or engvar or etc, but I'm not familiar with what/when/where/who :/ If I/we have more information, we can give better input. It ''is'' an RFC, after all; lots of non-regulars who need context...). the talkpage history from 4/5 Aug 2011, in case that helps. -- ] (]) 20:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
:::I second Quiddity's request. You are the second person to say that this rule has been "misinterpreted as a license for chaos." What happened, specifically, and when? Was it only once or many times? We've seen some evidence that this text prevents problems, but if we can prove that this text causes more problems than it prevents, then it should stay out. ] (]) 23:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
::::Please do not fixate on the idea that only a specific, major event is important; there was no Great Wiki Disaster of 2011. What there has been in response to this "rule" and various other kowtowing to intractable special interests who refuse to write consistent, encyclopedic prose for a general audience, is such editors taking license to do the exact opposite, and write articles on "their" topic as if intended for and published by professionals in their field instead of, well, everyone else in the entire world, which is what Misplaced Pages is actually here for, not regurgitating precious nitpicks from academia. It leads to wikiprojects acting as if they are sovereign states that ] entire ranges of topics, and has led to enormous amounts of entrenched editwarring over the last 8+ years, threats of editorial boycotts, ] by editors, and other childish nonsense of massive proportions, all because some people are ] but rather to spread their sub-sub-sub-field's particular stylistic peccadilloes and force everyone else to use them. Enough of that idiocy. It's been nothing but destructive. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp; <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>&nbsp; <small>]</small></font> 22:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::Actually, problems attributable to this phrase would be ''more'' relevant to the MoS if they happened more than once. If it was a lot of little incidents rather than one big incident, then point to a good example or two. However, it's not immediately obvious what "not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole" has to do with the issue of writing for a general vs. a specialized audience.
:::::Encyclopedic tone seems to be a separate issue from intra- vs. inter-article consistency, and it is covered elsewhere in the MoS. All of Misplaced Pages should be written for a general audience. Can you show or tell us how the phrase "but not necessarily across Misplaced Pages as a whole" has caused these problems? Can you point to one or more talk page discussions in which someone cited that phrase as a reason to write articles in a Wikiproject in an inappropriate manner? Did it happen in WP:BIRDS? Those guys are pretty big on writing articles for a specialized audience. ] (]) 14:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

:<blockquote>*'''Retain/oppose removal'''' - The key words being '''"not necessarily"'''. On those formatting issues about which broad community-wide discussion arrives at a consensus, consistency can and should be enforced, but about those the community maintains a more ''laissez-faire'' attitude, editors should have the leeway to improve articles as they see fit, given the specific needs of the specific article, without having to answer to those who try to enforce a non-existing consensus. The very most important thing, which it is best that we put our energies to, is to give our readers ], rather than that every article have every tiny formatting aspect be exactly the same. Such "fooliosh consistency" is, in Emerson's words "the hobgoblin of little minds", in Shaw's words "the enemy of enterprise", and in Wilde's words "the last refuge of the unimaginative." Surely our editors are just the opposite: enterprising, imaginative and open to the world. ] (]) 01:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)</blockquote>
:::Misquotation, and skewed quotation out of context that misconstrues the intent of the original, is the hobgoblin of people whose arguments are too weak to stand on their own. Emerson actually said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers...", which is very, very different, and his message was about radical philosophy and the advancement of novel ideas, which Misplaced Pages absolutely does not do. Just one example. By way of contrast, see the old aphorism "Consistency, thou art a jewel." Its origin is lost, but uses the virtue-as-jewel metaphor of the Elizabethan era, so it's at least as old as Shakespeare (cursorily searching, I've found it in print in the 1800s, but Bartlett suggests it's much older).<p>What you're missing is that Emerson, Shaw and Wilde were all writing about the negative effects of conformity on {{em|new, creative output}} such as literature, fashion and other forms of artistic expression, as well as the propounding of new theories. That is not what Misplaced Pages is. We are not permitted to engage in ]. And ]. It is necessarily dry, strictly informative prose that serves a purpose. It is formal, technical communication, not art. It serves this function best when it does not confuse the readership or make them mentally work hard to figure out what we are trying to convey. Emerson is worth quoting in more detail here: "To be great is to be misunderstood." Emerson argues {{em|for}} being confusing and self-contradictory! That's fine if you are a philosopher refining your outlook over time. It's a disaster in an encyclopedia. Inconsistency between articles here, for no reason other than to suit the in-house preferences of (mostly) academics, government people and fandom obsessives (the three most common sources of ] problems around here), is {{em|directly inimical to Misplaced Pages's actual goals}}, which are in service to readers, not editors. Consistency between articles, where it does not create novel problems like conflict between English dialects, is a {{em|sensible and necessary}} consistency in our context, not a foolish one. More recently, ] (again writing of creative not technical/formal educational output) said "only logicians and cretins are consistent", and that's important: Consistency in art is certainly cretinous and yawn-inducing. But encyclopedia writing {{em|is by definition}} the work of logicians.</p><p>In closing, see the other quotations at http://en.wikiquote.org/Consistency, and notice that all of them that are in opposition to consistency are about either a) art and other creative output, or b) are about individuals changing their mind (i.e., a completely different meaning of the world "consistency" that isn't relevant to this discussion at all, and ] even suggests it's a misuse of the concept). I dare you to find a single exception. Even ]'s quip that "the essence of sanity is to be inconsistently inconsistent" is directly applicable here, as it suggests that exceptions to consistency in human relation to reality (which is what WP is a tool for) should be rare; an {{em|insistent lack of consistency}} in such a context &ndash; what he calls "consistent inconsistency" &ndash; is, he suggests, a working definition of insane.<br />— <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp; <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>&nbsp; <small>]</small></font> 23:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)</p>

:<blockquote>*'''Support''' removal. The extra words seem to be encouraging inconsistency far too strongly. <s>, indeed one responder says "consistency across articles has always been discouraged" which seems a good example of a rule which should always be ignored: should I look for ways of making every article I edit inconsistent with every other article?</s> The wording chosen should not give anybody an excuse to be uncooperative, whether they wish to apply something too widely or ignore interrelationships between articles. Although readers must accept that Misplaced Pages's articles follow no single strict house style, they are not well served if, for example, individual articles covering the six books of a series have corresponding content distributed differently across sections, perhaps in a different order or with different names. The work of adding related information to several such articles could be doubled or trebled depending on how they were inconsistent and such barriers to editing cannot contribute to content improvement. Not even in a single article do we revert constructive additions merely because a wrong sort of dash has been used, so I do not see consistency within an appropriate scope, maintained tactfully, as stifling new content. Neither would any expectation of consistency remove the necessity for having consensus to maintain it: I would expect the ease of finding consensus to correspond to the closeness of the relationship in a self-limiting way. --] (]) 14:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)</blockquote>
:*Hum, my bad. A better wording: "''enforcing'' consistency across articles has always been discouraged". As in "changing articles from one MOS-approved to another MOS-approved style, just because you would like all articles in an arbitrary group to have the same style." People won't complain if you are actually working in a group of articles and you need to do changes in order to work better, and you only change articles that you are working in, or at most the odd article that is closely related. Now, if one was to land in a group of articles for the first time, then change the style to one's personal preference, then edit war when people complain that specific articles have a different style for a reason, etc, ..... --] (]) 18:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
:*: Thanks, Enric. Striking some of my response. I do agree with what you say just above, but not every editor is as sensible as we are and I'm still concerned that the proposed wording will encourage uncooperative behaviour, so I will stick with supporting removal. --] (]) 21:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
:*::Ideally nothing would depend on such a fine balance of words, but experience of Misplaced Pages editing suggests to me that ''either'' wording will be used by those who cherry-pick the MOS to support a prior position. "Sensible" editors already understand that intra-article consistency is a priority, and that inter-article consistency is highly desirable, and that both kinds of consistency are subject to consensus, not ownership. Unfortunately many editors are not "sensible". I guess that preference here may depend on which kind of uncooperative behaviour you've mostly encountered. I'm concerned that ''removing'' the wording will encourage uncooperative behaviour, namely editors trying to change styles which have consensus in one area of Misplaced Pages to those which have consensus in another, because this is the kind of edit-warring I've mostly encountered. ] (]) 08:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::Look at that post. When I keep asking about evidence, this is what I mean. What kinds of edit wars have you seen, what fights on talk pages, what poorly worded articles, what bad reader experiences have you seen and ''how do you think changing/keeping this wording would fix it''? Peter, can you drop us a link to any of these edit wars? ] (]) 13:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

{{od|::::::}}
Well since the proposed addition has been absent for a year or so I can't point to any recent problems it has caused. I can however point to responsible and constructive activities that this wording appears to target and wonder why anyone would expend so much effort to try to prevent them:
* the ] extends over 70 other pages. My attention was drawn to these lists by an obviously incorrect entry while I was checking links from a stub I had created (]) for general quality issues (which does ''not'' mean that I expected all those links to be consistent). These lists were in an appalling state with lots of redlinks and lots of incorrect entries. I noticed that because I ''naturally'' checked the other lists as well as the original one, something which would be pointless if consistency between related articles is to be discouraged. Although the lists generally had the same number of columns and the same column headings, in detail there were random differences between them as well as formatting inconsistencies within some articles. The only practicable way to fix these problems was to apply a uniform structure to all the articles and then check progressively for problems and correct them. The more subtle the problems, the more the growing consistency helped to reveal them. The end result is that (with content improvements mainly due to contributions from other editors) the lists are much more correct and better sourced. Citations needed on more than one list can be copied and pasted without alteration as can the occasional entry allocated to the wrong year. The fatuous entries from drive-by editors have almost disappeared. All the changes were discussed on talk pages, often with an announcement and progress report accompanying each set of changes.<br />If the MOS allows an editor to insist that some of these lists can have a different table structure, or be a bulleted list instead of tables, or have a different citation format, or whatever, because "consistency between articles is not necessarily required", then I presume I would either have to let some articles rot, ignore the problems completely or start an RFC. I certainly would not do the work twice over to accommodate what I would regard as obstruction.
* cooperation on the works of ] is relatively easy because, generally, the articles on her books have a common format. We can refine changes to one article including discussions on the talk page knowing that the corresponding updates can be made with reasonable effort and reliably to the other articles. There have been disagreements which have been resolved on talk pages. New ideas are not stifled, very much the reverse, we are currently discussing a new set of improvements. As far as I know, nobody has been made to feel unable to make changes to the pages. I don't think anybody is saying "therefore every article about a book by a particular author must have the same format", simply that the MOS should not set out to prevent such cooperation.
* it seems in practice unlikely that editors will often challenge these sorts of scenario, but that indicates that this proposed addition is in fact pointless. If anybody were to make use of it, the result would be more discussion not less, resulting in RFCs if necessary.
* in cases like date linking which has been mentioned, nobody is going to prevent such an activity by saying "articles do not have to be consistent", that is far to vague to counter someone's conviction that the world can only be saved by linking (or delinking) every date. The lines of defence are already quite adequate, with a requirement for consensus in advance for extensive systematic changes, blocks for editors who do not accept that (we can all think of cases where that has happened) and specific criteria determining when a particular disposition is appropriate. Nobody prepared to be blocked rather than achieve consensus is going to take the slightest notice of this text even if it is adopted. --] (]) 23:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
::To summarize, Mirokado seems to be saying the following 1. Inter-article consistency can make some improvements easier to make. 2. Mirokado describes one set of articles that happens to be written consistently and is working out well. To these two points, I respond that just because inter-article consistency is not required doesn't mean it's not permitted. Consistency alone isn't reason enough to change format, but my opinion is that effecting repairs is. 3. Mirokado thinks that the wording is extra/unnecessary. 4. Mirokado provides an argument against the date delinking example, which was previously offered as evidence by Enric N. Mirokado has not listed any edit wars or other nonhypothetical events attributable to the inclusion of the phrase "not necessarily across Misplaced Pages as a whole" in the MoS. Let me know if I've misinterpreted any of that. ] (]) 04:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
::: That is a pretty fair summary. It seems clear from your response that your concerns are not intended to impact the sorts of activity I have mentioned. As far as "consistency alone" is concerned, there will pretty well always be other benefits. I have already given examples from the editor's perspective. Readers benefit if they can easily understand where to find information in article Y if they have just been looking at the corresponding information in article X. Readers' expectations will be stronger the more closely they perceive the articles to be related.
::: Responding to "just because inter-article consistency is not required doesn't mean it's not permitted": ''if'' the MOS says anything at all about this it should acknowledge, as well, that although not required across the whole project substantial consistency is essential among many sets of articles in order to provide a satisfactory user experience and highly desirable, again among relevant articles, to support effective collaboration between editors. If it does not then it is encouraging a substandard user experience and article ownership in various forms, both of which are totally unacceptable. --] (]) 20:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

::::Hi Mirokado, no one is saying consistency across articles, or groups of articles, must be opposed. The point is simply that just because an editor punctuates in a certain way in ] doesn't mean editors must punctuate the same way in ]. The sentence at issue is: "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole." The word "necessarily" is important here. It signals that consistency across articles may sometimes, or regularly, be appropriate, but not invariably, and that some style issues are left to the editors on the page to decide. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

:::::I believe that the MoS should not state that any sort of cross-article consistency is desirable because that statement will be taken as law. 1. We should give our editors freedom where correct English allows. 2. Some articles may logically belong to more than one group. ] (]) 23:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

::::::Some things are the same across pages (e.g. the general appearance), and there have been style practices that were so odd that I was glad to see cross-article consistency applied (e.g. overlinking). But generally I agree that internal consistency is the aim, and agree too about the groups. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

====Break 3====
{{hat|This isn't a race or about numbers alone, so I'm closing the running tally. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)}}
;Tally against removal of "not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole" vs. for
As of now, responses are 2:1 in opposition of removal (AKA support of reinsertion). Would anyone like to offer or summarize evidence or change his or her position? ] (]) 03:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
:I make it 12:7, Darkfrog.
::Is this Request for Comments now being closed by a nonadmin after only 10 days? ] (]) 07:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

: And as we all know, an RFC should not be decided on the numbers, but on the arguments advanced. I submit that refusals to answer questions, and misrepresentations of issues, ought to be taken into account also.
:I have notified three editors whom I contacted earlier (because they had earlier commented on the issue, with varying opinions), to let them know that you are counting votes here. The matter is important, and there is no rush for it to be concluded.
:'''I suggest that we do indeed start a subsection for summarising the issues. Let it be one in which each side collaborates to produce a summary of its own case in 500 words&nbsp;– so there would be just two clear statements to read, side by side.''' Care to start?
:<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
:: (I'm one of those Noetica contacted, thanks for that as I had been following the discussion and intending to respond but also "rather busy" the last few days. --] (]) 14:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC))
:::This poll is not meant to close the discussion, only to facilitate bringing it to resolution. As for the theory, I'd love it if RfCs could be decided based on issues rather than on numbers, but how often does that happen around here? ] (]) 15:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

;Tally of votes: continually updated

'''Oppose removal'''
# SlimVirgin
# Enric Naval
# Quiddity
# Amatulić
# Binksternet
# Shenme
# Darkfrog24
# jc37
# Beyond My Ken
# Jimp
# Peter coxhead
# CBM
# Resolute
# Hiding

'''Support removal'''
# Noetica
# SMcCandlish
# Ohconfucius
# Boson
# Dicklyon
# Tony
# 86.160.221.242
# Neotarf
# Mirokado
# Br'er Rabbit

]</small></sup> 12:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)]
{{hab}}

====Counting votes====
* ''I have reinstated the tally (see subsection below). No one should think that numbers alone count; but the voting has become diffused or replicated by quotation in various subsections. Quite confusing for newcomers, I might add! These lists serve an index of contributions so people can find them and evaluate their arguments.''&nbsp;<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

:*And I have closed it again. If you want to open your own RfC later you're welcome to do that, but keeping a running tally of numbers is pointless at best, so please allow this RfC to run its course without it. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
*I have no view one way or the other on the above discussion about including or not including the sentence about Misplaced Pages as a whole other than to comment that you might as well reverse the two words not and necessarily if it is included - just a comment... ] (]) 09:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
=== Summary of RfC: “Internal consistency versus consistency across articles”===
<small>A request for closure has been made, and the bot has removed the RFC tag, and in the meantime the thread has been archived. I have unarchived it and attempted to summarize the issues as follows.</small>

Wording:

It is proposed to add the following sentence to the fourth paragraph of the introduction: “An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole.” There is a consensus, or at least no opposition, to adding the first part of the sentence, but the second part of the sentence is contested.


Issues:

*Those who wish to add “though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole” say it is needed in order to discourage those who want to use similar format for similar articles, and that style issues should be determined by personal preference.
*Those who do not wish to add “though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole” say it will discourage similar styling in groups of articles on similar topics, that the phrase is confusing and has been used for pointless argument, and that consistency across the Misplaced Pages as a whole is the purpose of having a Manual of Style in the first place


Survey:

*'''Support''' adding “though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole”: SlimVirgin, Enric Naval, Quiddity, Amatulić, Binksternet, Shenme, Darkfrog24, jc37, Beyond My Ken, Jimp, Peter coxhead, CBM , Resolute, Hiding, 87.112.91.134, Jayron32, WhatamIdoing

*'''Oppose''' adding “though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole”: Noetica, SMcCandlish, Ohconfucius, Boson, Dicklyon, Tony, 86.160.221.242 , Neotarf, Mirokado, Br’er Rabbit , 128.127.107.10, 87.79.226.106, Rreagan007

] (]) 21:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

== Infoboxes ==

{{rfc|style|proposals|bio|proj|rfcid=FC09490}}

] says that infoboxes are optional ("neither required nor prohibited"). I would like to extend this on that subpage and the main MoS page to read: "The addition of an infobox is an optional style issue that is left to the editors on the page. Where no consensus can be reached, defer to the style used by the first major contributor, per ]." ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

=== Survey (Infoboxes) ===
:''''
*'''Support'''. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - I don;t agree with the part about ''defer to the style.. first contibutor'' - it just doesn't match policies - I think on the other hand that some deference to consistency should exist - eg most species articles have a species box., ditto habited places - in potential cases of conflict I would suggest defaulting 'to the norm'..] (]) 22:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
* '''Strong Oppose'''. Deference to ''first major contributor'' is baldfaced ownership. Infoboxes are a de facto standard; there are millions of them, and good faith editors add hundreds per day. It is disruptive for a dis-info band to staunchly oppose these good and appropriate improvements. It retards the project and is toxic to the community. ] (]) 23:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
* '''Support''' ...] (]) 23:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Why is this section ''once again'' placed above the one below? And why has the section bellow been headed "''discussion''" as though the comments there are not replies to the proposal in hand? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 22:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
:Because some people think RfCs are essentially a form of voting? — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp; <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>&nbsp; <small>]</small></font> 15:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support'''. If the project has a MOS subset, such as WP:MOSLAW or WP:MILMOS then it should take precedence over projects that do not have an MOS subset. Other than that, I'm fine with the first <u>major</u> contributor approach for any conflicts. I am opposed to them becoming optional in all cases. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#ffc">]&nbsp;]</span> 01:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' primarily to halt the battleground mentality that is otherwise brought to the table by the aggressively-pro-infobox-everywhere editors. I'm pro-infobox-everywhere (because metadata is useful, and I personally learn well via bulletpoints and lists and reductionist synopsese, and can extrapolate oversimplifications/archetypes with ease), but not via the tactics currently used (grind down opposition, ']' the person who wrote the article, etc etc), and not without acknowledging the very legitimate problems that infoboxes often run into. It's the rude/siege mentality that is killing us, and causing stress and retirements. I'll add more, in the discussion below, later. —] (]) 03:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
*<s>Support, but Oppose a likely interpretation</s>. If people follow what this actually says, and follow consensus when there is one, then any damage this causes is likely to be minimal, and it could possibly help. But I'm pretty sure that some people will read this as an analogy to ENGVAR, and say that the first contributor trumps everyone else ... and that would be a huge mistake, as long as this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. In military history articles for instance, if certain types of articles tend to have an infobox, our readers notice things that like, and will add a similar infobox to similar articles. If we invent some rule that an infobox is "not allowed" because someone back in 2006 didn't add one, that's only going to generate a long series of frustrated editors who feel slapped down because we reverted what seemed like an obvious omission to them. My main concern here is creating an editing enviroment that's hostile to people who don't "know the rules". - Dank (]) 12:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
**'''Switching to Oppose''': Sorry, I just noticed the last two words ... it's okay to tilt the playing field slightly towards the first major contributor, but ... seeing this issue through the eyes of the wikiprojects I'm familiar with, my point won't work for everyone ... we see infoboxes as primarily a matter of content selection rather than style, and treating it as just another optional style issue is part of the problem. - Dank (]) 15:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as the defer portion seems like it could be used to keep infoboxes off pages just because the first major contributor didn't put one on. Also, I like the boxen. --] (]) 16:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' who is the first "major" contributor? Support that User:A writes a 1000 byte stub, User:B then enlarges that to 10,000 bytes and User:C adds another 20,000 bytes, who is the "first major contributor"? Suppose now that User:B's work was riddled with errors and did not include any citations, then User:C corrected the work and added many citations - who would be the major contributor? Unlike ENGVAR, where an article can start off life without using specifically UK or US English, all articles start off without an infobox, so trying to draw inferences from ENGVAR is not appropriate. ] (]) 16:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
**Hi Martin, I've replied below. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' - Martinvl's reasoning above is compelling. Opposing change to an article based on an individual's preference is a recipe for fossilising our content and preventing improvement. The issue of whether an infobox improves an article is not so clear-cut that a rule will work 100% of the time, but I can see sufficient benefit in general that the presence of an infobox may be assumed to be the default. --] (]) 19:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
* I think there is a general consensus on Misplaced Pages that infoboxes are useful - this can be seen in the large proportion of articles that include them. I feel infoboxes are part of our "house style" that makes Misplaced Pages articles distinctive. The question here is different than CITEVAR, where the citation information is included regardless of the form of the citations. With infoboxes, there should be a presumption in favor of them (just as there is a presumption in favor of references). The exact ''kind'' of infobox is a separate issue - if there is no consensus on that for a specific article, I agree that the first infobox to be added should be used. But in general we should expect that adding infoboxes is an improvement to the article. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 11:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' When I create an article I hardly ever add one of these boxes, I leave that to people who enjoy creating them (so I do not see the argument that because I have created an article without them some other editor can come along later and interpret my lack of adding a box as my opposition to them). The argument about CITEVAR is not a good one because that is strongly opposed by some editors such as myself in the way that some editors interpret what style means. Instead the argument if used should refer to the where there is general greement. In this case arguing that one should defer to the first non stub contributor is like arguing that if the first major contributor did not use section heading, then section heading can be removed at will and not added without consensus. First major contributor is useful for National Verities of English, but not much else, as it impedes the development of the project as people come up with better ways to present and order information. -- ] (]) 15:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Strongly oppose''' 2nd sentence; '''support and suggest reinforcing''' the 1st, to make it clear it is telling wikiprojects they don't ] articles they feel are within their scope and cannot force them to have or not have infoboxes or any particular form of infobox. I cannot at all support the notion that "style of first major editor" is a good idea here, though. We only ever go that route when there is no other choice (e.g. American vs. British English in a topic with no strong national ties - the choice is 100% arbitrary and no functional/utility argument or other rational preference can be offered, only an entirely personal, subjective "I like it" feeling). This is {{em|not}} one of those cases; there are rational arguments for and against infoboxes, even particular infoboxes, that can be made and discussed and consensus thereby arrived at normally, on a per-article basis, just like 99.9% of everything else about that article. We do {{em|not}} need Yet Another Rule (cf. ]) that impedes the ability of editors to arrive at consensus by reason instead of doing something arbitrarily by fiat like "I was here first, so you can go get bent." WP generally never works that way except in the handful of cases where it is an unavoidable lesser evil. Infoboxes aren't one, they're just something that a few people obsess about and won't stop arguing about. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp; <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>&nbsp; <small>]</small></font> 15:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''' What if the editor is a newbie and doesn't know how to make an infobox? So because he or she didn't include on when starting g an article that that article can never have one? Dumb. And a terribly foolish enshrinement of ownership issues. Goes against the idea of improvement by current consensus..] (]) 18:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
*:'''Comment''': That's an invalid argument (it's a ]); no one has proposed that newbies, or {{em|any}} particular editor, be forced to add an infobox themselves. Rather this is about whether any editor or group of editors can force an article to have or not have an infobox at all. Obviously, per ] and everything else about how WP works, the answer to that is "no". You may be right (or not) to oppose this proposal, but what you wrote addresses a different, imaginary one. :-)
* '''Oppose''' ''(sorry)'' I appreciate the sentiment in trying to resolve a dispute, but enshrining what is essentially first mover advantage in lieu of discussion is not a good idea. ] (] '''·''' ]) 20:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
* '''Strong oppose.''' Infoboxes are {{em|useful}}. It's not just a style issue as with “12 September” vs “September 12” where the difference between the two is completely immaterial 99% of the time. Just because I didn't bother to add an infobox straight away when I created an article doesn't mean there should never be one. ]] 19:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' The problem with using first-major-contributor to resolve a deadlock here is that it is impossible to decide from the edit history who if anyone has ''decided not'' to add an infobox, as opposed to lots of editors who have not added one. (I for example mostly don't bother to add infoboxen but have not so far objected if someone else does so). I guess if someone adds a comment saying "&lt;!-- please do not add an infobox to this article -->" that could determine the current-consensus state for subsequent revisions (my addition of a similar comment to an article where an editor had refused to accept {{tlx|authority control}} was welcomed). A talk section added at the time explaining why it is not considered appropriate for a particular article would also be helpful. --] (]) 12:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
*:'''Comment''': Huh? Adding a "please do not an an infobox" HTML comment would tell no one anything about consensus, only about the controlling urges of whoever added that comment. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp; <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>&nbsp; <small>]</small></font> 22:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' As pointed out a number of times above, this would amount to a ban on adding infoboxes to anything but stubs. Let's extend this to tables. Tables are optional. If tablelessnesss is a style and the first major contributor didn't add one, then thou shalt never add a table. Pictures are optional ... ]<sub>&nbsp;]·]</sub> 15:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Agree that in the absence of policy on whether or not articles should globally have infoboxes, the decision should always be made at the individual article level, but ] should rule the day. This wording just ] strengthens trenches and little empires on WP. Applying the ']' is rarely the way article styles evolve where there is a healthy consensual editing environment. I see this rule invoked almost always a first line of defence of entrenched ]; it then becomes a substitute for rational discussion and consensus-building. In any case, the absence of an infobox at the hands of the FMC does not mean she/he didn't want one. The FMCs' intentions or proclivities are often impossible to establish, and thus ought never to be used as grounds for turf wars. Even if same was possible to devine, it's no more justified for individual editors to overrule consensus because (s)he got to an article first. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small><sup>]</sup> 03:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Infoboxes should be banned entirely :) ] (]) 23:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Articles evolve over time. Most articles do not start off their life with an infobox, and the first major contributor often does not add an infobox. They generally get added at a later time. Besides all the problems trying to determine who was the "first major contributor", you would likely be deferring to someone who probably didn't leave the infobox out intentionally. The "first major contributor" could have wanted an infobox in the article, but didn't feel like putting the effort into making one. Or maybe he just didn't know how to add one. Or maybe he was planning on coming back later to add one. ] (]) 17:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per "]". Out of the question. --] (]) 14:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

===Discussion (Infoboxes) ===
Does anyone mind if I add a sentence about infoboxes being optional, with the usual reminder to respect the preference of the first major contributor if no consensus can be reached, per ]? I am seeing infobox wars breaking out in several places and pages needing to be protected as a result. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

:I would think infobox requirements would be set at the wikiproject level, and when there are conflicts due to multiple projects, the first-editor approach to decide which to use should take precedent. --] (]) 19:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
::Neither Wikiprojects nor "first major contributors" (by whatever metric that might be argued) own articles. This is a core Misplaced Pages principle. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 19:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
:::Yes, but in nearly any case where there are two or more options for the MOS (say: us vs uk spelling, ref style, etc. etc.) our MOS defaults to the first editor's preference with consensus discussion to change later unless it is totally and obviously wrong (eg using US spelling in an article about Buckingham Palace). It's a standard resolution that works well in the other parts of MOS, and should be fine here. --] (]) 14:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
:I concur with Masem with a proviso - if the project has a MOS subset, such as ] or ] then it should take precedence over projects that do not have an MOS subset. Other than that, I'm fine with the first editor approach for any conflicts. I am opposed to them becoming optional in all cases. I disagree with Andy in part, in that I do not see that setting MOS standards cause ownership of an article. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#ffc">]&nbsp;]</span> 19:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
::Where did I say that "setting MOS standards cause ownership of an article"? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 19:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
:::You did not say that, I said that. You said that "neither "Wikiprojects nor first major contributors ... own articles." I replied that having MOS standards, such as the one proposed by Masem and endorsed by me, would not cause ownership of articles. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#ffc">]&nbsp;]</span> 20:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
:The current guideline is at ]. ] (]) 19:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

:::Thanks, DrKiernan. So it would just be a question of adding the usual wording, per ]/]/], about deferring to the first major contributor where consensus cannot be reached. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

::And is perfectly adequate (even if it doesn't give as much weight in favour of infoboxes as I would like it to). The problem is with people not respecting that, and not respecting consensus. The proposal above doesn't address that. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 19:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
: Object; infoboxes are good and useful, and all the deference to first major contributor is thinly masked OWNership by vested contributors. And Wikiproject's don't own anything, either. ] (]) 19:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
::I don't know that I agree - it is only if there is no consensus that it defaults to the original language. That doesn't imply ownership, it merely means that if there is not consensus to change something, it is left as is. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#ffc">]&nbsp;]</span> 20:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
::: (You know me, Greg; Jack Merridew;)
::: There's years of evidence that ''first major contributor'' is used as ''ownership''. We have ], we don't need consensus to change things, we're supposed to. Too many people focus on the R in ]; they love tripping the bold up. The net effect of their approach is that major topics that were begun years ago, are often stuck in the norms of years ago. They retard articles. ] (]) 23:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I '''oppose WikiProject control''' here. The official ] has given infobox wars as an example of what WikiProjects may not demand for articles within their scope for several years now. It is not good for a group of editors to descend on an article and tell the people who did all the work that they must/mustn't have an infobox, because we're a group of editors who called ourselves a WikiProject, and you're just a group of editors who wrote the article. (WikiProject, by official definition, means "group of editors who want to work together".)

The problem of conflicting advice is not trivial: not only do groups of editors differ in their preferences, they differ in which infoboxes they use. WP Chemistry and WP Pharmacology don't use the same infoboxes, but they do support many of the same articles. ] (]) 21:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

:@WhatamIdoing Look at what you wrote: "tell the people who did all the work that they must/mustn't have an infobox". This is classic evocation of ownership. However much work a group of editors did, they don't own the article any more than a WikiProject does. However, a well-supported WikiProject has the advantage that it can set cross-article standards, whereas a group of editors who worked on an article are less likely to. ] (]) 11:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
::Well said and exactly right. It isn't "control" - it is setting standards. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#ffc">]&nbsp;]</span> 14:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
:::''Any'' well-supported group of editors can set cross-article standards. The way you do that is by making a ] to the community, and either we adopt your standards or we don't.
:::What you don't do is get a little group of friends together, name yourself "WikiProject Something", write down your advice, and then pretend that the advice of your little group has to be followed, or even respected, by anyone at all. The community, not little self-appointed fragments of it, is in charge of actual cross-article standards. Any group or individual can put their ideas or preferences forward, but no small group or individual can demand that their preferences be followed.
:::The actual cross-article standard for infoboxes is articulated at ], and it says that you can do whatever you want. They're never required (even if some group of editors says they are required for some type of article) and they are never prohibited (even if some group of editors says they are prohibited for some type of article). ] specifically says that groups of editors who have decided to call themselves a "WikiProject" get no special say in the matter. Both of these are official, community-adopted guidelines, not just essays made up by a small group of editors.
:::There are solid practical reasons behind this. Many articles are tagged by multiple groups. We do not want to be in the untenable position of simultaneously requiring and prohibiting an infobox on the same articles. We commonly add infoboxes to articles about chemists. We commonly do not add any infoboxes to articles about classical music composers. And guess what? ] is both, in equal parts. ] was a prolific medieval composer—so no infobox, if all that matters is the opinion of the composer's WikiProject—but she was also an abbess and author, so other WikiProjects say the opposite. ] was both musician and physician, among other things, and the WikiProjects make opposite recommendations. ] was author, performer, musician, and engineer. You cannot simultaneously allow all of the relevant WikiProjects have their way. It's not actually ''possible''. ] (]) 22:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Are there advantages or disadvantages to infobox? I started two different BLPs. The first article, someone came and put an infobox on, but it doesn't show anywhere on the page. I added a question about it to the infobox, but no answer. I don't know what it does or if I should delete it. The second article, I found an infobox I liked on another biography and copy/pasted it to the new one. How do I know if that was the right infobox, or if the article would be better without one? There is little guidance anywhere about these infoboxes. ] (]) 21:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
:There are two main advantages to Infoboxes; first, they give a handy summary, in a semi-standardised format, of the key points and data in an article, ''for the benefit of our readers''. Secondly, they emit that data as machine-readable metadata, understandable by scripts and computers, to allow it to more easily be reused elsewhere. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 21:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
::The main disadvantage is that a decent implementation may be impossible. They often contain no more information than you would get from the first paragraph. They can reduce complex, nuanced issues down to a thoroughly misleading word or two. They provoke disputes between the "completists" (if the field exists, then we should fill it in) and "selectivists" (let's only put the most important information in the infobox). When they aren't completely redundant, they're often inadequately sourced. ] has more information. ] (]) 22:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
:::No; ] has mostly FUD. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 22:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
::::: <s>No, ] is absolutely right. Recently I found three fields in an infobox to be absolutely ''wrong''. No one questioned them because they were in an infobox, and they didn't require a source because they were in an infobox and when I take the page off my watchlist anyone can change them. But that's all irrelevant to what SV has proposed here. This page is a mess now and it's hard to find where to support or oppose her proposal.</s> ] (]) 22:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::I did set up a separate section for "support/oppose," with comments from this section copied above, but Andy kept reverting me. I will set up a new, empty one. Otherwise it will be impossible for the closer to read the consensus. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::: You assert that "''No one questioned them because they were in an infobox''"; you offer no evidence to support that assertion. Your claim that "''they didn't require a source because they were in an infobox''" is bogus. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 22:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
::"Disinfobox", heh. "...for their apparent professional visual appeal". Yes, yes. Useful when you don't have that much information on a subject, and don't want the article to look so much like a stub. :) I have seen infoboxes both footnoted and not, but no indication in policy if the material in the box needs to be sourced, especially if it is presumably sourced in the article. And what do you do if someone who has no interest in the subject whatsoever drops an infobox onto the article, and none of the info is available. ] (]) 10:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
:::Do you have an expame of an infobox used where ''none'' of the information is available? I'll wager not. They may indeed be useful to hypothetically niaive editor in your contrived scenario, but that's not why they exist, nor one of their several and significant benefits. Do you have any other straw men you'd like to invoke? (How we might - telepathically? - determine that an editor has "has no interest in the subject whatsoever" of an article they've just edited is left as an exercise for the reader.) <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 21:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
::::It's very rude of you to assume that I am lying. ] (]) 22:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::Its ''extremely'' rude, not to say unacceptable, of you to ''falsely'' assert that I assume that you are lying. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 22:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::If you are going to continue to make accusations about my conduct and good faith, i.e. "contrived scenario" and so forth, this is not the place for it. Take it to my talk page. ] (]) 00:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
'''Note''': I have again undone SlimVirgin's duplication of parts of this section (she reverted me the first time I did so). I object to my comments, and others', some of which I had replied to, being shown out-of-context; especially (but not only) when done above the original discussion. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 21:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

:The RfC tag goes at the top of the discussion, not at the end of it. Please don't move it again, Andy. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

====First major contributor====
Martin, regarding who counts as the first major contributor, the idea is to model this on ], which resolves disputes about which citation style to use. What happens there is that, when editors can't agree or reach a compromise, people look through the contribs to find the first major contributor who used a consistent style (the first person to make substantive edits who decided to use one style over another, and who did so consistently). Determining who this is may sound tricky in theory, but in reality I've never known a case where it wasn't obvious. And remember that this is only used where editors are falling out over citations. It's just a way to end disputes.

In the case of a dispute about an infobox (where no compromise can be reached, such as choosing a different infobox, or adding or removing certain parameters), you would look to see which one editor, or series of editors, had done most to advance the article to the state it was in when the dispute began, and you would abide by whatever decision they had made about an infobox. Yes, you're right that this tends toward conservatism, in that the '']'' is the position that's given priority. But that has worked well with CITEVAR and other style issues, in that it discourages prolonged disputes about style issues which – if not discouraged – can end up being pursued from article to article. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
: Slim, articles are improved by editors making changes and the use of CITEVAR is merely a mechanism to stultify improvements. It ends disputes by appealing to ownership of articles and that is bad for the encyclopedia. No editor should be given a weapon to override reasoned consensus on an article's talkpage about any optional part of our content. ENGVAR has a series of priorities for deciding on the style of English used and deferring to the first major contributor is merely the tie-breaker in the event that the more rational factors do not apply. CITEVAR on the other hand makes no consideration of the advantages or disadvantages of having a given citation format. Hand-written citations are ''not'' a "style". Harvard is a style; Vancouver is a style; APA and Chicago are styles; and yet many articles are prevented from adopting the ease of maintenance, consistency of presentation, and improved reusability that templates can afford. Only the largest of articles display the downside of templates, yet vast numbers of small articles are left with broken references and non-working links because of the '''dead-hand''' of the "first major contributor". This proposal is a further attempt to impose a technophobic fossilisation on articles - particularly as all articles start off without an infobox, which gives a kind of 'first-mover' advantage to those who want to remove all infoboxes but can't articulate a reasonable argument to support their prejudice. --] (]) 19:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
::RexxS, you left out ], and it really makes not a bit of difference whether the style is achieved via a template (we don't happen to have any that adhere to MLA) or by handwriting. The viewers see the output. Templates are useful for data mining. ] (]) 20:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
::Rexxs, people aren't going around removing infoboxes so far as I know. In all the cases I've seen, people are arriving to impose them on articles they haven't edited before, and then start reverting when challenged. I like infoboxes, and I also add them to articles I haven't edited before. In several years of doing this, I've only been challenged three times, and in each case I backed off, not because I was acknowledging someone else's OWNership, but because I respected that someone else had written the article, and they had formed an educated view about the content problems an infobox might cause (e.g. because of complicated biographical issues), or had formed a view about the aesthetics that I was willing to respect.
::Three times in several years indicates that this is not a major issue. It's just that, when it does become an issue, we currently have no way of resolving it (except by people turning up to vote for their overall preferred position, which turns it into a numbers game). This proposal – that this is a style issue that should be handled like any other – would offer a resolution in the small number of cases where no compromise can be reached. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
:::You're mistaken. Editors allied to the classical music/ opera projects systematically remove - and presume to issue bogus ''instructions'' against re-adding - infoboxes. This is in direct contravention of the outcome of an RfC which they instigated. Recently, another editor has taken it upon herself to purge infoboxes for a significant number of articles, usually obfuscating with two-or-three letter edit summaries such as "rm" and "org". Your suggestion that Misplaced Pages does not have a method of resolving content disputes is a curious one; though there is an issue that some small but vocal groups of editors reuse to use that process or abide by its outcomes. It is naive in the extreme for you to assume that your proposed remedy would not be abused by such people in an attempt to enforce the removal of infoboxes from significant sections of Misplaced Pages. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 21:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

::::Thanks, Andy, I'm not familiar with the classical music wikiproject issues; if you have a link that would be helpful. We could add an explicit caveat to this proposal that people should not go around adding or removing infoboxes across the board, per ] and per the ArbCom (see the footnote in the STYLEVAR link for reference to the cases that formed the principle): "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason. Revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable." ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::]. Infobox use is not merely a matter of style. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 22:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::This proposal would prevent WikiProjects from ruling that articles within their scope must or must not have infoboxes. That is, if someone were to create an article about a composer and were to add an infobox, no one could remove it on the grounds that one of the projects interested in that article had decided against infoboxes. The decision about an infobox would always be made at the individual article/editor level. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Your second sentence does not guarantee your first. The current situation is already that the decision about an infobox is made at the individual article level; your proposal is thus, at best, redundant. Giving article creators control of the future development of articles would be contrary to core Misplaced Pages policy; and would be a monumentally stupid thing to do. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 23:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

::::::::Everyone can't be in control here, not the people who want to remove the boxes, or the people who want to add them, or a WikiProject that has placed the article within its scope. It's an either/or thing at the moment: we either have a box or we don't. Perhaps in future someone will create an option whereby readers can choose to see or hide infoboxes, or perhaps we should create a template for a completely collapsed infobox. But for now, we need a mechanism to decide in those rare cases where no compromise can be found by refining a box's parameters.

::::::::The most obvious mechanism is to prioritize the ''status quo ante''. That will sometimes mean the box is retained and sometimes removed. As more people who like boxes create articles, they will become the first major contributors and the ''status quo ante'' will increasingly mean the box stays. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Collapsed has already been tried, and widely detested: see the disaster that was for 3 years, because everyone got completely burnt out ] (80% of that talkpage is about the infobox), until some IP finally came along and fixed it per the very relevant ]. It's an ] problem at the least, and a hindrance/overcomplication at best. —] (]) 00:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

::: Truthkeeper, I missed out ] as well, but it was never intended to be an exhaustive list. To the point: it actually makes the world of difference whether a citation is achieved by hand or by template. The latter ''guarantee'' a consistent style; can be checked and updated much more easily by bot or script; and can emit metadata, which (although you can't see it) can be used by re-users like Google to pick up important facts. It is a mistake to assume that just because two options ''look'' the same, they are identical.
::: Slim, I think you'll find that infoboxes are being removed sometimes without even the courtesy of an explanation in the edit summary. I am very disappointed at such behaviour from colleagues who really could do much better and engage in a proper discussion. I hope I'm not an unreasonable editor and I'm willing to accept that some articles are not best served by infoboxes, but I'm unhappy that the issues are not being explored. You are quite right, of course, to defend the principle of decisions being made at article level. Given goodwill between the editors discussing, I believe this still represents the fundamental 'wiki-way' of finding a consensus. I honestly don't think that STYLEVAR actually helps that process, as any mechanism that uses a rather arbitrary factor to favour one side or another denies the very principle of looking for common ground when seeking a consensus. --] (]) 00:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

::::I agree that it's always better to find common ground. I also think that just about every objection to infoboxes can be addressed by refining the parameters, and by finding ways to express key points succinctly. Editors who oppose infoboxes may not realize that you can use the generic {{tl|Infobox}}, and create your own headers and parameters. Having said that, I still wouldn't want to see editors who had put a lot of work into an article forced to accept them by sheer weight of numbers. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

==== Classical music ====

{{Infobox musical artist
|image=<!-- Terry_riley.jpg IMAGE WAS DElETED -->
|name = Terry Riley (before)
|caption =
|image_size =
|background = non_performing_personnel
|birth_name = Terrence Mitchell Riley
|alias =
|birth_date = {{Birth date and age|mf=yes|1935|6|24}}
|origin = ], U.S.
|death_date =
|instrument = {{Flatlist|
* ]
* ]
}}
|genre = ]
|occupation = ]
|years_active =
|label = {{Plainlist|
* ]
* ]
}}
|associated_acts =
|website = {{URL|terryriley.net}}
}} }}


===Concluded===
{{Infobox classical composer
{{collapse top|left=y|title=Extended content}}
| name = Terry Riley (after)
<!--Please put newer additions at the top, by order of closure. -->
| image =
* ] – Use en dash not hyphen in four paired names? ''Result:'' Yes.
| birth_name = Terrence Mitchell Riley
* ] – In short, should we use odd-ball stylization of band names and the like to match their marketing? (July–Aug. 2024) ''Result:'' No formal closure, but a clear consensus against this idea, and against the underlying "conflict" premise; the proponent simply did not understand the policy.
| birth_date = {{Birth date and age|mf=yes|1935|6|24}}
** Various simultaneously executed RMs by the same proponent all concluded against the desired over-stylizations (usually ALL-CAPS) – some by affirmative consensus against, some by no consensus to move.
| birth_place = ], USA
* ] – Should British peers use their peerage title in place of their name in infoboxes? (June–July 2004) ''Result:'' archived without resolution. This needs to be RfCed.
| era = ]
* ] – ]: "Shays'" or "Shays's"? ''Result:'' "Shays's". No objective rationale was presented for an exception to the guideline, and evidence shows "Shays's" common in source material even if "Shays'" is also common, especially in older sources.
* ] – Should multiple entries be formatted as a list or a single phrase? (Apr.–May 2024) ''Result:'' 4:1 against proposed change to a list format; alternative idea at end neither accepted nor rejected.
* ] – Do flags in this infobox serve a "useful purpose" per ] or are they primarily decorative and should be removed? (Apr.–May 2004) ''Result:'' 3:1 against inclusion; the 1 did not read or understand the entire guideline. See also later ].
* ] – Primarily on a recent habit of military-conflict articles having collages of 4, 6, or even more images in their infobox. (Mar.–May 2024) ''Result:'' No formal closure, but a clear consensus against this practice; image galleries (when appropriate at all per ]) belong in the article body.
* ] – ] (and ]) in "day of year" (DoY) article candidates for "featured list". (Feb. 2024) ''Result:'' No formal closure, and little clear consensus other than that ] / ] apply, as does ].
* ] – On ] vs. ], etc. (Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' No clear consensus reached; a great deal of sourcing is provided, but there's a feeling that real-world usage varies considerably on a case-by-case basis, so ] might invididually trump ]. Worth revisiting in a few years to see whether source usage has shifted.
* ] (moved from WP:VPPOL) – Yet another round of this long-term, multi-RfC process. Consensus about "deadnames" seemed possible this time but was mostly elusive. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' no consensus to change the wording of MOS:GENDERID based on this proposal; consensus against changing "should be included" to "may be included".
** Related: See numerous previous deadname-related and more general GENDERID discussions listed below.
* ] – Proposal to merge a "guideline in all but name" into MoS. (Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' consensus to promote to a guideline (after some significant revisions).
* ] – Peripherally related to ] and ]. (Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' Consensus to increase to 250px.
* ] – ] has long been considered too complicated and hard to follow. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' input stalled out over the holidays, then it was archived without resolution.
** ] – Abortive, unclear RfC that resolved nothing. (May–Sep. 2023) ''Result:'' unanimously opposed.
* ] – Involves ], ], ], ]. (Oct.2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' Archived without closure. There does not seem to be a compelling reason for this ALL-CAPS behavior in the template/module, but it was still happening in Nov. 2024.
** Discussion re-opened at ] (Nov. 2024). Changed to lowercase ; we'll see if that sticks.
* ] – Involves ], ], ], ], ], etc. (Oct. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' No formal closure, but there seems to be no appetite for diverging from ], and the OP commingled unrelated cases like stagenames of real people.
* ] – About use of {{tlx|sronly}} around table captions (which are primarily for screen readers) to hide them from the usual non-screen-reader view, only when their content repeats what is in the table headers. (Nov.–Dec. 2023) ''Result'': Archived without firm resolion. As there was but one opposer of the idea, there is no consensus against doing this. If more opposition arose or some reason, open an RfC about it.
* ] – Involves ]. (Oct. 2023 – Feb. 2024) ''Result:'' Thinly attended, but there does seem to be a linguistics standard to render ]s in {{sc2|smallcaps}}, so this has been accounted for and added to the exception lists at ] (since our articles are consistently doing it based on that sourcing).
* ] – On ] and whether to add another example to it. (Oct. 2023) ''Result'': Discussion archived without a clear conclusion.
* ] – On use of a template to link Korean characters to Wiktionary (Jan. 2024). ''Result'': general consensus to not do that excessive linking; and a bot request made to clean it up.
* ] – Use an en dash instead of a hyphen? ''Result'': Withdrawn
*] – Move review on Pākehā settlers vs. European settlers in New Zealand, related to ], ], ], ] (Feb. 2024). ''Result:'' There were many steps in this process but ultimately ] was moved to ].
* ] – To treat word-substitutions ("U" for "You", "❤️" for "Heart", {{nowrap|"..."}} for elided wording), as "words" for the purposes of a particular line-item about title-case treatment. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' Done, with unanimous support.
* ] – To merge a line-item (about stylization of stage/pen names) out of MOS:INITIALS (where the one of the examples is only semi-pertinent anyway) and into ], leaving behind a cross-reference to MOS:TM from ]. (Nov.–Dec. 2023) ''Result:'' Because of some things that apply to personal not corporate names, this ended up not being practical; intead the MOS:BIO material was cleaned up and cross-references between the two MOS sections was improved; description at: ]. No objections or other issues have come up.
* ] – Proposal to add something to ]. (Oct.–Dec. 2023) ''Result:'' "no consensus as to whether or how to standardize ISBNs or whether to subject them to a CITEVAR-like rule .... The closest thing we have to a consensus here is that spaces (option 4) should not be used."
* ] – About changing ] to specify a format (new or otherwise) for betting-odds ratios. (Oct.–Dec. 2023) ''Result:'' No formal closure, but apparent general agreement that the <code>:</code> style for ratios in general applies to odds ratio in particular like the rest, and MOS:RATIOS updated to say this.
* ] – Primarily a matter of article title, but there are related issues such as capitalisation. (Nov. 2023) ''Result:'' basically stalled out, without resolution/action. Specific revision proposal is needed.
* ] – Also involves ]. RfC on "season 3, episode 7" vs. "season three, episode seven" styles (and probably also "seventh season" vs. "7th season", etc.). (Oct.–Nov. 2023) ''Result:'' "season and episode numbers should be expressed as numerals in tables, headings, and article body" (revision of a previous, less clear close).
* ] – On how WP uses terms like "terrorist/terrorism" and "freedom fighter", specifically to add a requirement "these words should only be used in quotations or referencing third-party use of the term". (Oct. 2023) ''Result:'' "nearly unanimously opposed".
* ] – Involves ], ], etc. (Sep.–Oct. 2023) ''Result:'' "rough consensus to allow for lowercase or capital letters after dashes or colons in article titles, section titles, and list items".
* ] – ] / ] and Northern Ireland again. (Sep.–Oct. 2023) ''Result:'' No formal closure, but near-unanimous consensus against using national flags as ethnicity symbols.
* ] – Involves ] and could have implications for what the guideline says due to wildfire news bringing many more editorial eyes to that page than to ]. (Aug.–Sep. 2023) ''Result:'' Archived without closure or any clear consensus; the general gist seems to be that the state of Hawaii is named Hawaii, the island is named Hawaiʻi, and diacritics (] and ]) should not be suppressed in the more localized names (and the US Geological Survey, which sets official placenames, along with the Hawaiʻi Board on Geographic Names, which basically tells USGS what to do in Hawaii/Hawaiʻi, both agree).
* ] – ] stuff. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' Not moved. Lots of invalid arguments, and confused attempt to pit ] against MoS (COMMONNAME is not a style policy, never has been one, and never will be; every proposal to incorporate a style matter into a policy has failed).
* ] – Wikiproject propsal to change ] or ]. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' wrong venue, and to the extent people commented on using 24-hour time, it was mostly opposed.
** ] – Above question was raised at a specific article as a "local consensus" matter. (Aug.–Sep. 2023) ''Result:'' unanimous opposition to 24-hour time.
* ] – Follow-up to "unfruitful" discussions at ], etc. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' No formal closure; general agreement basically boils down to "write clearly and don't confuse or over-simplify with an adjective".
* ] – Wikiproject proposal to change rank abbreviations (to NATO style) in ]. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' no formal closure, but overwhelming consensus to stick with MoS and ignore NATO preferences.
* ] – And some alternative ideas, including merger into ]. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' No formal closure, and the idea was mostly opposed, with no effect but returning all of the shortcuts (], ], ], ], ]) that someone changed to point to the ] essay to now point back to the real guideline at ].
** The essay has since been retooled to be an exegesis of the guideline, though attempts at ]ing are likely to continue, as this is one of our most hotbed internal topics. See also the guideline ], and the essays ] and ].
** ] – Proposal to move the MoS material into WP:BLP. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' Procedurally closed as "premature".
* ] – Should the en dash have spaces around it; should it be an em dash? ''Result:'' moved to spaced en dash.
* ] and ] – Relating to concordance between wikidata descriptions and enwiki "short description". (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' Good summary: "as long as you choose a comprehensible form, your edits are fine. However, you should not change existing descriptions for stylistic reasons, and also not to unify desriptions for a given set of items"; also observations that various languages, e.g. Spanish, do not use an en dash for this purpose. So, Wikidata will not be changing away from hyphen as default, and any desire to have WD material, like automatically provided short descriptions, will have to do that change on our end.
* ] and ] – Use "&" or "and"? (see ]). ''Result:'' Follow ]; the essay ] conflicting with the guideline and with ] policy was noted, and this ] was fixed in Jan. 2024. The second of these actually closed as "no consensus" because the ] who closed it did not know of ] policy and incorrectly treated policy- and guideline-based arguments as no stronger than those based on a contrary essay.
* ] – Some re-wording proposals, and even a suggestion to remove the language entirely. (July 2023) ''Result:'' No formal closure, and did not result in wording changes, though a re-do might come to such a conclusion.
* ] – move to ] like ], or is there a reason to hyphenate as ]? (July 2023) ''Result:'' Not moved. The closer actually misunderstood the guideline wording badly, and this has created a ] policy failure with titles of other such entities including AFL–CIO, and the Famous Players-Lasky decision covered just below. This probably needs to be re-done.
** ] – ditto. ''Result:'' Procedurally closed as a ] of the RM above.
* ] –&nbsp;proposal to use dash instead of hyphen. (June–July 2023) ''Result:'' Use the dash per ]; a followup RM to add "Corporation" to the title rejected that idea despite ] supporting it, one of several recent RM incidents suggesting that at least some portions of the page do not enjoy consensus.
* ] – Proposal to change ] that "encyclopaedic significance of the deadname established through in-depth analysis or discussion of the name in high quality sources, or if they were notable prior to transitioning". (June–July 2023) ''Result:'' "no clear consensus".
* ] – Primarily about "When should Misplaced Pages articles include the former name of a deceased trans or nonbinary person who was not notable prior to transitioning?" (May–June 2023) ''Result:'' "there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion. Also, there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest. Where, exactly, the lines of encyclopedic interest and avoiding confusion are is not simple or clear and will likely need discussion on individual articles, although there is definitely space for more guidance in the MOS". This has let to a lot of follow-on discussion and dispute.
* ] – Proposal to move section to naming-convention guideline. (June 2023) ''Result:'' no pro or con input; re-opened (Jan. 2024) on main MoS page.
* ] – Proposal to make anti-deadnaming rules apply to the long-deceased as well. (Apr.–May 2023) ''Result:'' No consensus to remove ''living'', so "the ''living'' qualifier, shall remain in place". The May–June 2023 RfC above was an outgrowth of this discussion.
* ] – essential information, or icon cruft? (Mar.–Apr. 2023) ''Result:'' "There is consensus against inclusion of rank icons."
* ] – involves ] and ]. (Feb.–Mar. 2023) ''Result:'' no consensus to use "v"; continue to use "vs." or "vs" as suits the ] of the article.
* ] – Should an external style guide be used in place of ] in chapter lists (e.g. ])? (Jan.–Feb. 2023) ''Result:'' Insufficient input to reach a consensus. Needs to be RfCed. But the {{lang|la|status quo}} default principle is that a lack of consensus to create an exception to general rules does not result in such an exception.
* ] – Open discussion as to whether decimalized years should be used in personal biographies. (Jan. 2023) ''Result:'' discussion archived; majority felt that decimalized years are not standard in biographical prose and should be limited to a statistical/mathematical context.
<!--Please put newer entries at the top.-->
{{block indent|1=<nowiki />
{{Excerpt| Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters|Concluded|subsections=no}}
}} }}
{{collapse bottom}}


== Any objections to extending MOS:TIES to all nations and regions? ==
@Andy: The classical composers project DOES have and use an infobox, called {{tl|Infobox classical composer}}. The RfC you link to is where it came from. You've tried to delete it 4 times, including once by replacing , remaining uses with {{tl|infobox person}} and then claiming it was "unused" at ] of the ], plus editors that try to use it. Plus two 1-month , in the same way. How many times have you replaced it before?

Instead of complaining about it "losing valuable data" abstractly, and ignoring legitimate objective objections, I strongly suggest you read the section ], and try to understand the perspective of the ''many'' editors that agree with those summaries. Then start a clear and non-confrontational discussion on the talkpage, suggesting additions/changes that you believe would be both widely-applicable, and unlikely to result in misinformation being added to unwatchlisted-articles.

We're trying to inch the discussion forward, over time, solving each of the objections slowly and '''carefully'''. It'd be really great if you'd stop shooting us in the foot. —] (]) 00:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

:Again, though, if someone were to create an article about a composer, and were to add a non-minimalist box, that would take priority. This is why I feel the "first major contributor" rule is the only one that's going to work, because it's an entirely "blind" process. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
:: Indeed it is a blind process - although not a neutral one because of the starting point. I would not object to the idea of "FMC" if it were to be to be used to reach a decision ''when all other options have failed to reach consensus'', but I fear that in reality the side that FMC favours would simply use it as their starting point in discussion, ignoring reasoned argument from the opposite viewpoint. In that case it becomes the antithesis of a tool for finding consensus; without some means of ensuring that it is to be treated as a tie-breaker, not a trump card, I remain convinced that including it here is not helpful in improving the encyclopedia. --] (]) 10:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

:I have to side with Whatamidoing, RexxS and others raising concerns about the "first major contributor" clause, but also about wikiproject dictatorialism, which the first half of this proposal does appropriately address. We (meaning the WP community in general, but also MoS gnomes more specifically) have let WikiProjects run roughshod over the principles of Misplaced Pages for far too long, and to a terrible extent. The level of ] nonsense out of these things is worsening by the day. And I say that as someone who has started wikiprojects myself and finds them useful when they are not operated like little dictatorial fiefdoms. That said, I'm entirely sure that "whatever I did first is the rule, and I was the first major article, so everyone else can just go jump off a bridge" is not a good model for how to go about this. We don't normally form consensus this way, so I can't support this proposal. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp; <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>&nbsp; <small>]</small></font> 15:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
:The ''only'' time members of that project use "their" infobox (which was recreated out-of-process after being properly deleted) is to replace a better one, in order to deny editors the ability to use the latter's parameters (and we've already discussed this, recently; I pointed out that you were duped into creating it for them). I can provide evidence of this if you doubt that; can you provide evidence of the infobox being used by the project's active members, in other circumstances? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 17:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
::The fact that they're using an infobox at all, is good.
::As stated, there are ''rational'' reasons to exclude certain parameters that continually get misused (]). You always just skip over those parts, in discussions.
::I was not "duped" into helping them come to a solution, as you keep saying, and it's rude to assume or state that I was. I'm fully aware that it is "incomplete" or "imperfect" from your perspective.
::There are a mixture of humans here, and as WhatamIdoing explained very clearly above, the disagreement between "''the 'completists' (if the field exists, then we should fill it in) and 'selectivists' (let's only put the most important information in the infobox)''" is '''not''' simple.
::Yes, I have seen that most of the current uses were added by Mishae and Magnus; and Yes, I'd be ''very'' happy to see diffs where the project-members are actively implementing the template. Most of us think it is a ''good'' thing, if they're willingly using an infobox. <s>It certainly displays more adaptability and open-mindedness than your own actions</s> I value their adaptable and open-minded attitude. —] (]) 21:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
:::It's all very well and good to have some recommendations that standardize the use of boxes for specific topics, especially if there are enough experienced editors on a topic to reach a consensus, but my understanding is that most content is created by new users. Can't some guidance be provided for us? Maybe not on the level of MoS, but more of a recommendation or tutorial thing. Really, there are other users with even fewer edits than I have who go around templating stuff that I have no idea what it is. Wouldn't it be best for the person who wants to use the box to source the information to put in it? And is there a minimum amount of information needed on the box? For instance, I have found very little about ], other than his full name and his age on a particular date, still, I like the box, especially since there's no photo yet. And what about sourcing? I have seen boxes with ref markers; it looks cluttered, but is it a good practice for other reasons?
:::Also, there is something called a ]; not sure if it is covered by this part of MoS.
:::] (]) 23:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

*Infoboxes are only useful if uniform, and uniformly used. Projects may need special features, but as much as possible should be standardized. ENVAR is not a parallel case--in that matter, there were several equally good standards and choosing one or the other is necessary. This is a case where we either have a standard, or total inconsistency. As Misplaced Pages matures we need a way to provide formally formatted data. Personally I wish we had never chosen this particular obtrusive and unsightly way of doing it, but if we use it at all, it should be used systematically. Perhaps The Wikidata project will find a better technique. ''']''' (]) 23:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
:::This might also be a good place to remind participants of the template at the top of the page, and that the MoS pages are subject to ] ]. See ] which includes the reminder " All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegially towards a workable consensus."
:::] (]) 23:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
::::To clarify why my vote above - editors should have a choice concerning the use of infoboxes. I oppose mandatory use and I also oppose giving the decision to first users as in ]. However respect and deference should be accorded editors who create hundreds of edits to an article and who render an opinion - weight should be given to those opinions...] (]) 00:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
:::Quidity: You claim that "that they're using an infobox at all, is good"; event though they are not using an infobox, other than as a tool to remove better infoboxes. That is ''far'' from good. I invited you to provide an example of them using it in a positive manner; you have failed to do so. I addressed your "''Fields that are specifically excluded''" point ("''in order to deny editors the ability to use the parameters''"), but, for clarity, those edge cases are being used to prevent the inclusion of valid, cited and relevant information, such as that Terry Riley (you cite me reverting its replacement, above), whose lede says he was "intrinsically associated with the minimalist school", wrote minimalist music; that the man we say is "currently performing... as a solo pianist" plays piano; hides his own website (readers are invited to compare the infobox before and after its emasculation; above) and removes the fact that he is a composer. That's a disservice to our readers, and harmful to the project. That and similar examples are evidence enough that your naive good faith in creating the template was abused. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 09:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

===Time to close===
There's much opposition, well-reasoned at that, to this proposal. Tome to close it? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 11:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
:Yes, but see below. This proposal has obviously failed, yet the underlying issue remains unresolved. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp; <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>&nbsp; <small>]</small></font> 22:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


Currently ] qualifies itself to English-speaking nations. However, in an increasingly multicultural world with English emerging as the ], at minimum in the ], why qualify this part of the MoS like that, ESPECIALLY when it also impacts on ]? For example, the ] has 24 official languages, including English, and multilingualism is one of its founding principles.
== Resolving the underlying infobox "ownership" issue ==


Would it not make sense to extend ] to nations (and regions) irrespective of whether they traditionally speak English or not? Because I can see how saying to someone that embraces multilingualism and values Europe's rich linguistic diversity wishing to contribute to an article on a topic with strong ties to their nation or region in the EU, where English is an official language, that in this case that tie doesn’t count (and someone else gets to decide) might be perceived as ... well ... rude and arrogant, which isn't just unnecessary but also unproductive. Would the article not benefit from including anyone with a strong tie to it?
The fact that "first major contributor gets to arbitrarily decided" idea proposed above isn't workable is only half the problem here, and not the root one. The other, which this proposal also tried to address, is that wikiprojects by and large {{em|do}} appear to believe that they have the authority to tell the entire editorship "thou must" or "thou shalt not" put an infobox on any article We the Project consider within our Holy Scope. They need to be rapidly and unmistakably disabused of this notion before this situation gets any worse. So, the underlying issue this proposal tried to address is a real problem and remains unaddressed with this proposal's failure (because it reached too far in the opposite direction).


I must note I would prefer if there was an established international variant, but I also find it practical not to have to waste time and effort trying to work out whether in a given article its meter or metre, organise or organize, or SI first and then imperial, or imperial first and then SI. Because getting it wrong just causes unnecessary consternation, especially if the article is inhabited by one or more "]s". ] (]) 06:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
'''I propose that we add a statement to the effect that no editor or group of editors can force this issue, and that it's up to a consensus of the editors at the article, on a per-article basis, just like almost all other editorial decisions on Misplaced Pages.'''
:I'm not in favor of this idea. TIES is an exceptional case that should be used only when it's very clear; the main rule is RETAIN.
:In practice I think this proposal comes down to "don't use American English in articles about Europe". I don't agree with that. --] (]) 06:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{reply to |Trovatore}} The proposal doesn’t suggest it no longer needs to be clear, nor that that main rule is no longer retain. It simply proposes that MORE voices are heard.
::As for the “don’t use American English in Europe” bit ... that would then only happen if most voices then want that. The solution surely isn’t “but I don’t like that, so let’s exclude them from the set of voices allowed to speak”. Fear not, they may choose American, who knows. ] (]) 06:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Also not in favor for the reasons cited by Trovatore. ] (]) 07:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:I do object to this.
:Moreover, from what I understand it's a perennial suggestion, so I recommend perusing ], wherein I happen to embark on a journey from the exact wrong position all the way to the right one, filling your heart with hope for a better future as you follow my progress. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 07:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::If it keeps coming up, perhaps there is something there.
::However, you do highlight its more complex than I originally thought, so back to the drawing board 🤔. ] (]) 06:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Not a chance.''' The purpose of MOS:TIES is entirely, only, solely about English-language dialects that exist at a more or less national level and in a formal ] suitable for encyclopedia writing. Under no circumstances would we accept an English pidgin/creole or some vaguely identifiable informal habits of English-as-a-second-language users in some country or region as a "variety of English" to accept for encyclopedia writing. If you encounter "Franglais", "Spanglish", "Deutchlish", etc., in any of our articles it should be normalized on the spot to whichever form of standardized English suits the subject best if there are strong ], or to the form that the article already most closely matches (British, American, Canadian, or some other dialect of a country with majority or official and large minority English usage in a formal register). Another way of looking at this: There is no strong tie between Finland and any form of English. Even the "Well, it at least shouldn't be American, but British, because the UK is part of Europe and the US is not" sort of argument fails, because there's more than one national dialect of English in Europe (Irish, for now, and probably Scottish if they have another independence referendum). If there's not a particular encyclopedia-appropriate variety/dialect of English in widespread use in a country, then that country by definition has no strong tie to any such particular variety. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 06:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{reply to |SMcCandlish}} Thank you for stating very clearly and firmly that {{tq|the purpose of ] is entirely, only, solely about English-language dialects}}, because THAT means my primary concern of how it relates to ] is a non-issue!
::For the record, I did not, and still don’t, propose that “Franglais” and so on become accepted English variants. Because that would be insane, pointless and not useful. ] (]) 06:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::If this is something to do with promotion of ''crore'' and ''lakh'' in articles that pertain to India, there's already a big thread about that at ] (again), and last I looked the consensus wasn't really changing: they're permissible as secondary units, but always need to be converted because they don't mean anything to anyone outside India and parts of its immediate neighbors (and of course among first-gen Indic diaspora). Maybe the tide has shifted in that discussion; I last looked at it about a week ago. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 06:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::No. I wasn’t aware of that thread. ] (]) 06:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The thread to which you refer is “RfC Indian numbering conventions”? ] (]) 06:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I don’t think there is any real overlap with the “RfC Indian numbering conventions” thread.
::::I also think ] is a dog’s breakfast, but happy to leave it alone at this time.
::::Are there any objections then to apply the direction from {{u|SMcCandlish}} that {{tq|the purpose of ] is entirely, only, solely about English-language dialects}} to ] and decouple "respect the principle of 'strong national ties'" from MOS:TIES? For example, change it to "respect the underlying principle of strong national ties as also used in MOS:TIES but in a different context”, and then also qualify the following with ''only''?
::::*In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United States only, the …
::::*In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom only, the …
::::*In all other articles, the …
::::] (]) 08:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Well, you're been so vague about why you are asking these things, what rationale you could have for making up a new rule or changing any existing one, without any reference to an ongoing and important on-site problem, that all one has been left with is guesswork based on encounters with extant or recent discussions that seem like they could be pertinent. "{{tq|Are there any objections}}"?: '''Yes.''', I can think of a number:
:::::#There is no clear rationale for what you're proposing, much less a consensus to do it. Substantive changes to policies and guidelines (]) need consensus or they will not be accepted (unless they, rarely, hit upon something that needed to adjusted and no one else noticed until now, which isn't the case here).
:::::#There are strong rationales against it, most obviously:
:::::#:A. Your implicit notion that units of measure have no connection to dialect (or "variety" as WP likes to say) is not correct.
:::::#:B. Even if it were, it'd be immaterial. The next implicit idea in your proposal (quite central to it really) is that if P&G page X reiterates a general principle from another, Y, and cites the latter for the explanation, such that X applies that principle to X's circumstances because they are reasonably analogous to Y's, that this somehow creates a ] rules-chain dependency in which every aspect of the context of the cited origin of the principle in Y must also be applicable to the citing circumstances of X. Nothing on Misplaced Pages works that way at all. Cf. ]: it's a mistake to try to interpret our P&G as essentially a legal system (or as something like a procedural programming language, or a chain of dependencies in building software from source code; more than one analogy works).
:::::#:C. Because of point B, and because of the guideline's current "where applicable" wording (which is there for a reason and meaningful), your first rewrite idea, of tacking on a bunch of "respect the underlying principle of strong national ties as also used in MOS:TIES but in a different context" verbiage it entirely superfluous. The two versions convey the same meaning, because it is already understood that the principle (not the detail-by-detail contextual specifics) of TIES is being applied at UNITS. This is the way our entire P&G system operates. It wouldn't really be possible for it to be any other way. If UNITS was literally just restating TIES, down to the specifics of exactly what TIES covers, then UNITS would be redundant (in this regard) with TIES, and its wording about this issue would've been deleted long ago and replaced with a simple cross-reference to TIES without further comment. The kind of exemplary and contextual more-than-crossreferencing done at UNITS is entirely normal. And important: an editor looking for "what to do about units" is unlikely to instead stumble upon "what to do about national-level usage disputes", and so would be unlikely to find the TIES principles and then be certain how to contextually apply them (if at all) to units, without being basically an expert in our style guide the way some Tolkien fans learn Elvish.
:::::#:D. The next bit of suggested rewriting is to inject "only" into two line items, but this change would have a nonsensical and undesirable result in two ways: It would make those items applicable under no circumstances to anywhere but the US and the UK, respectively (even to former UK colonies with English- and units-usage norms virtually indistinguishable from British in an encyclopedic ]); and it would necessitate (to fix that new problem) expanding that into a long list of every country with anything that WP would consider a "national variety of English" with pertinent unit-usage norms. The purpose of those two examples is {{em|as examples}} (not as an exhaustive list) of how to approach these matters. The examples were chosen because they settled previously recurrent disputes. So, what long-term, recurrent, serious problem can you point to that you think your changes would resolve? The examples are not there to serve as the beginning of an ever-growing rulebook to address every imaginable case with a new micro-topical line item to thump. The purpose of giving a general principle and providing some prominent examples is to obviate the need to have a pile of micro-rules. (MOS:NUM is already too detailed as it is.)
:::::# The long-term stability of these guidelines is very important, because even small but meaningful/operative changes to them can affect many thousands up to potentially millions of articles, for reasons that almost always resolve to trivial and subjective peccadilloes. That cascading-wave-of-unneeded-changes problem (and all the fighting the endless trivial tweaks would generate) is never more of a danger than when a national-level and frequent usage matter is at issue (and literally millions of our articles do have measures with units in them). See also ]: If MoS, after 20-odd years, doesn't already have a rule about something, then it needs to {{em|not}} have a rule about it, because it is not necessary for the project to do what it does successfully, and MoS is already way too long.
:::::# Your "I also think ] is a dog's breakfast, but happy to leave it alone at this time" approach does not bode well. Our policies and guidelines don't exist as hills to die on. The purpose of these style guidelines is (aside from the main one of producing intelligible and consistent content for our readers) {{em|dissuading}} style-warring behavior. Arriving with the idea that the rules are broken and that at some forthcoming time you're going to fix them is antithetical to their purpose and to the needs of the community. It largely doesn't matter {{em|what}} any particular line-item in MoS sets out (except when there is objectively a reader-clarity improvement offered by one option over another), only that it sets out, and long-term retains, {{em|something}} that addresses a recurrent dispute pattern and brings it mostly (hopefully entirely) to an end, and/or that it produces better content for our readers – even if that "something" is arbitrary or is a compromise that can't please everyone. Just as a word to the wise, ] (including TIES) is pretty much the hardest-fought consensus compromise reached in MoS's history, and is also one of the oldest and most stable, so if you think you're going to make serious changes to it, you are very mistaken. It's like going to Canada and declaring your mission is to undo the country's approach to French and English as official languages.
:::::This might all come off as harsh, but ], and the vast majority of proposals to change any P&G are off the mark. There are many devils in many details (thus the length of this), with a lot of nuanced interrelations between different rules (or advice or best practices or whatever you want to call them). Most of the real kinks were worked out long ago. Those that remain are subject to long-term dispute that hasn't produced a workable compromise. There is no such dispute about the material you want to change. And there are sometimes severe costs for making changes that are not vital to make.<!--
-->PS: I've tried hard to find a "yes" to put into this pile of "no", and there is one! Namely, your version is correct that the "scare quotes" around ''strong national ties'' shouldn't be there. I just went and removed them, so thanks for that. Otherwise, no element of your draft appears to be clearly an improvement. Here's the original wording: {{xt|The choice of primary units depends on the circumstances, and should respect the principle of ], where applicable}}. Here's yours (presumably also keeping the original's first 10 words and the link): {{!xt|respect the underlying principle of strong national ties as also used in ] but in a different context}}. Mentioning the other guideline by name is redundant with linking to it, and all our P&G pages are fairly (not entirely) consistent in, when practical, using plain English with links around pertinent terms rather than injecting page names. Mentioning it by shortcut in particular is "newbie-unfriendly" and wrongly presumes memorization of our shortcut strings. "Underlying" is a puff word and doesn't serve a concrete purpose in the sentence. (And underlying what? It has no clear downstream referent.) "As also used in" is more redundancy; if we're linking to TIES as the locus of the principle, it's already automatically understood that the principle is applied at the place we're linking to. "But in a different context" is a combination of redundancy with the implication of the link again, and quite odd wording: Why is there a "but" in this? (What it is contrasting against?) "Different" from what? Different in what way? And "context" is conceptually misused in this construction, in that the general principle at TIES is a meta-context, of all usage/style disputes pertaining to national-level English dialects, while use of units is a subset of that, a sub-context, not a conflicting/alternative context. Finally, unit usage is only {{em|sometimes}} a subset of the usage in a national variety of English, thus the original's "where applicable" – a key point that your version drops, despite it seeming to be central to the bee in your bonnet. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 11:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Introducing Scottish as an additional form of English would cause mayhem - or at least a shedload of future editing - here. We’ve already had a nationalist-driven push towards replacing ‘British’ with ‘English’ or ‘Scottish’ in bio articles, usually uncited and based purely on supposition or the subject’s birthplace. Fortunately, Scottish Independence appears to be receding as a prospect, at least in the short to medium term. ] (]) 07:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I don't disagree (and we had a real template at {{tlx|Use Scottish English}} in 2013, with an attempt to re-create it in 2016). Several years ago, I tried to get rid of all the "Use {{var|Foo}} English", and related, templates declaring "national varieties" that, in reality, are completely indistinguishable from general British English {{em|in an encyclopedic register}}, and could all collectively be covered by a "Use Commonwealth English" template. ENGVAR only applies to national (not subnational) varieties, and only those dialects that exist in distinct forms and with a formal register (by definition: if you can't write encyclopedia-appropriate material in a dialect, then it doesn't belong in our articles for any reason, so ENGVAR cannot be used to "protect" it from edits). But nationalistic sentiments won out in the end, and we still have all that claptrap, with ridiculous results like articles being tagged with {{tlx|Use Jamaican English}}, {{tlx|Use Singaporean English}}, etc. (Likewise we have no use of American-splitoff variants, either, like "Use Guam English", etc.) Too many editors who should know better and should think just a tiny bit harder have utterly mistaken the purpose of these as something like "national pride" flags to put on articles, in a verging-on-] manner. These tags absolutely do not resolve to "write an article about Nigeria using colloquialisms and grammatical oddities found only in the informal speech and writing of English in Nigeria, which will be confusing to everyone else in the world". If someone tries that crap in response to such a template, rewrite the material per ] and ]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 11:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== MOS:NOTGALLERY ==
{{small|(PS: I rather wish we'd scrap the entire WikiProject system and replace it with something that forbids any kind of "club"-like model - no "members" or "participants", no "projects", just pages of recommendations arrived at by a consensus of editors who care, on how to address particular topics. But that's another issue for another time and place.)}}


At another talk page, I was writing an explanation of why articles should not be swamped in a plethora of images, planning to cite ]. Fortunately for once I checked first and found that it is just an alias for ], not a statement that article spaces should not be mirrors of Commons.
— <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp; <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>&nbsp; <small>]</small></font> 22:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


Given that the majority of visitors do so on mobile phones, is there a case for an explicit policy that says that curation is essential, ]?
:Can you provide links to places where this has happened? (I'm not doubting you, I'm just interested in reading what the debate looked like in those instances.) ] (]) 00:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
::See ], and preceding comments in ], above. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 10:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
:We already have ]. A link to that should suffice; though the problem is not that we don't have a policy, but that some editors are allowed to ignore it, for the sake of a quiet life. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 10:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


Or would it be enough to change the target of NOTGALLERY to ] (which might need a little expansion because right now it just says {{tq|Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important ] to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting.}} At least a reference to ]? (which is expressed in terms of word count, not megabytes, so would also need work). ] (]) 17:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::The rule you want already exists, or nearly does: "'''If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article,''' defer to the style used by the first major contributor." The first choice is a consensus of editors at the individual article. ] (]) 01:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


:I think IMAGEREL would be a better redirect target. I want this to point to guidance that images should be included selectively rather than overwhelming articles with images. NOTDB instead seems to be guidance that images should be relevant and accompanied by text, which is not enough to prevent big indiscriminate galleries. —] (]) 20:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:I was asked to comment again. That is not the consensus. The consensus that is followed in practice in WP is that once it is decided to use infoboxes on a particular type of article then the decision stands until consensus changes, and affects every article in scope. It does not go article by article. In particular, there is general consensus throughout WP to use infoboxes for people in as standardized and generalized a way as possible across all the relevant wikiprojects; that nobody is compelled to make such an infobox when writing an article, but that if they do not, someone will add it. (I understood the original proposal here to be challenging that, and I understand that challenge to be rejected. If the wording of the MOS needs to be changed to make it clear that they are ''not'' optional, I make such a proposal.) ''']''' (]) 15:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
:::Thats way off - I hope others dont see things this way as conflict will only issue - ] in anyway and it does go article by article as seen at ]. We have tried to fix this ownership problem many times over the years, but still have statements like "]" that is a clear violation of our ] and ]. To think our editor will see some odd WP advice page before they edit is just crazy and has lead to many many conflicts.] (]) 17:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
::::Not to mention in-article comments ''instructing'' people not to use infoboxes, which are a blatant defiance of the outcome of the RfC called by members of that project in a vain attempt to enforce their preference. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 18:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
:Quote - "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article". There seems to be a drive here that all articles must have infoboxes, and that the editors of an article or members of wikiprojects have no say whatsoever about what the content or format of infoboxes, which people here appear to want to be set centrally as part of MOS and be immune from all challenge. Why should MOS (effectively a Wikiproject itself) have supremacy and be allowed to dictate things if no-one else is? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:32, 22 September 2012‎ </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
::Quote =Nigel Ish "a drive here that all articles must have infoboxes" and "the editors of an article or members of wikiprojects have no say whatsoever about what the content or format of infoboxes" - All that would be the opposite of what the policy says that you have just quoted. All content and format disputes should be discussed at the individual article level first - then proceed to outside the article if not resolvable at the article level. No blanket rules by a group of editors should prevail over talking about what is best for each article at each article!] (]) 19:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
:::The quote is what the guidance currently says - the following comments are my take on what the regulars here appear to be doing in trying to force a Misplaced Pages wide standard for infoboxes onto all articles, with the appearance of trying to override any objections either at the article and ignore any issues that wikiprojects raise, whether based on valid subject related reasons or not.] (]) 20:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
::::Oh sorry that was not clear to me.... but yes you are correct that the majority think infoboxes are beneficial thus an asset to our readers.] (]) 20:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


::I've had second thoughts about this one. It is probably not wise to make NOTGALLERY an exception to the general rule that WP:NOTaaaaaaaa shortcuts all redirect to ]. So the better plan is to add a short sentence to the current target to say that {{tq|Misplaced Pages is not a database of images or a {{lang|fr|]}}; those are among the functions of ]. Image use in Misplaced Pages articles must comply with ].}} I will do that now.
== Embedding foreign terms and names (like names with diacritics) in English Misplaced Pages ==
::IMAGEREL needs some work too, to make it even more explicit that to bury an article in a mass of images is sure way to ensure that nobody reads it. --] (]) 10:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:While some types of "galleries" should be avoided, articles on certain visual topics do benefit from many visual examples. I also do not think we should explicitly outlaw the ] model while allowing many other bibliographic lists. One size does not fit all, and such a change would need to be debated with the folks curating ] and those who work on visual topics. —] (]) 10:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::Pending further discussion, I have removed the reference to ''catalogue raisonné'' from my amendment (so that it now reads simply {{tq|Misplaced Pages articles are not a repository of images: image use in Misplaced Pages articles must comply with ].}} to item 4, "Photographs or media files".
::I agree certainly that, in an article about an artist or an artistic movement, it is essential to illustrate the phases of their artistic development. That to me is clearly in keeping with IMAGEREL and wp:localconsensus can determine relevancy. But to include an image of <em>every</em> work in an artist's '']''? How is that a valid exception to NOTDB? (and likely a COPYVIO too). And why not show every putter manufactured by ACME Golf Inc? every locomotive made by ACME Rail Inc? every postage stamp (including all misprints) produced by the Austro-Hungarian empire? We have articles so swamped in pointless images that they have become essentially unusable to visitors on mobile. How does that make any sense? --] (]) 11:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I would definitely oppose including every work in an artist's oeuvre in an article on the ''artist'', but I want to make sure we do not outlaw ], where the images are perfectly encyclopaedic and just as relevant for identification as the images in ]. Tables in such long lists are often not great for small screens, but that is a separate issue from the number of images. Generally, lists are not the same as other articles in their use of images, so the rules should reflect that. —] (]) 12:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't see a problem with that. Clearly the application of IMAGEREL should (and would) be different between a list article v a fairly broad concept article. To take your example, it would be entirely reasonable to include every image we have in the list article, provided that we use small thumbnails (upright=0.2); conversely (IMO) the bio article about Munch should be curated so that it has just one carefully chosen image to illustrate each phase of the development of his style , with maybe one or two especially notable examples that he did . Surely we don't want to replicate Commons? --] (]) 18:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:Please, let's not compromise the full extent of the encyclopedia by limiting what has always been one of its main features. Images and galleries define and describe just as much as text. That many choose to "read" Misplaced Pages on tinier gadgets should not dictate the coverage and image-styling of encyclopedic content articles. ] (]) 11:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::The problem we have at the moment with some articles is what {{u|David Eppstein}} describes above as "big indiscriminate galleries" and rote copying of everything in Commons for no evident informative purpose, a form of ]. As IMAGEREL begins, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important ] to understanding". Without curation, the information gets buried in the woodpile.
::I am not proposing a principle that we must minimise the number of images, period. My proposal is that we provide a policy basis that editors can use to say "that point is already adequately illustrated, another image adds nothing new" or "this article had become so bogged down in images that it no longer navigable". I am talking about edge cases here, in most articles it is not an issue. But some have become swamped in an uncritical replica of Commons. This is not to enable wikilawyering, it just makes it easier to explain the rationale. --] (]) 18:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::As an example of the sort of burying articles in galleries that I would object to, see ], where (at least in its ) four of its six sections are entirely image galleries (in some cases hidden in collapsed templates, with much of their content peripheral to the main article topic).
:::We do need wording that distinguishes this case from ], where the galleries are entirely appropriate, though. —] (]) 18:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::But as far as I can see, the List of paintings by Edvard Munch (and similar lists by artists) already complies with IMAGEREL, because the use of images in that article is ''proportionate and entirely relevant to that context''. Conversely, to put all those paintings in the Munch bio article as a giant gallery would not be proportionate (IMO).
::::So to focus this discussion, can anyone suggest another sentence we can use to amplify the point made in the opening sentence of IMAGEREL? ("Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding".) How about
::::{{blockquote|Consequently, each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose: for guidance, see ].}}
::::AFAICS, that responds to and respects both the Munch examples above. (FWIW, very few if any of the visual arts articles suffer from this swamping problem. The issue affects high profile articles like ].) ] (]) 11:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:It is entirely enough that we have the ] shortcut. A proposal to retarget ] to that would almost certainly fail, because it's part of a very long-standing set of policy (not guideline) WP:NOT{{var|FOO}} shortcuts to sections of ], and such a change would both confuse editors today and render archived discussions of policy misleading. "Ain't broke; don't fix it." <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 06:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== Audio video guidance ==
Not many editors seem to be aware of the ]; these guidelines are for ] reasons. For an explanation, please see my essay ].
I propose that a caution, and a link to these guidelines, be added to ] or to a more appropriate section of MoS. ] (]) 11:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
:And as has been pointed out to you in the past, its not that people are unaware, its that people don't agree with you that names with diacritics are Non-English. -] (]) 12:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
::A bit of both perhaps. They are some articles with large chunks of none English text without use of {{tlx|lang}} or similar. Regards, ]<sup>(])</sup> 12:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
:::For example:
:::*"successful actor and director, ] has had a significant impact" from the article ] is English, but,
:::*"Deux enfants royaux dans véritable amour ont été séparés largement et profondément" from ], is not English. Regards, ]<sup>(])</sup> 12:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
::::*Sun Creator: Many thanks! I'm doing an ] and would greatly appreciate knowing of any popular pages that use diacritics in the article title and body.
::::*There's a parallel discussion about language templates ]. ] (]) 13:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::If you want to find articles with foreign language text try searching with quotes for the following , "para a", "volta a", "an der" "an die", "an den", "es a". Regards, ]<sup>(])</sup> 16:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
::::Yes, I agree that the quote should be wrapped in the template. Its the names that I don't believe should be and that is what he is really trying to argue here. -] (]) 13:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
::::One should perhaps distinguish between "foreign text" and "foreign terms". Foreign terms (as opposed to names of foreign entities and words of foreign origin) are usually written in italics. --] (]) 13:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::Standard English words like resume (think job applications) and naive are both properly written with characters not common in English. The presence of accent marks or umlauts does not, by itself, make the word non-English. ] (]) 21:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::Please also remember that "foreign" and "non-English" are distinct concepts. The former has no real place on Misplaced Pages, which is ] both in content scope and in readership. That said, many diacritic-using article titles are of course related to specific countries with major languages that use such diacritics. To find examples of "popular" pages, consider looking at national categories such as ], ], ], etc. Of course the equivalent "High-importance" article categories are much more populus. ] <small>]</small> 22:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::*Very helpful, much appreciated. ] (]) 02:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Non-English words and phrases are entirely appropriate to the English encyclopedia. Consider '']'' or '']'': they are not English, and they are important articles. Similarly, the English Misplaced Pages properly contains thousands of lines of poetry, lyrics, and quotations that aren't in English. ] (]) 01:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::*As discussed ], no major book publisher would use complex diacritics or foreign languages in book titles—except for widely-known words or names. The same argument surely applies to article titles. ] (]) 05:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::The parallel discussion just got closed ]. How often do we have to go over the same arguments? ] (]) 13:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::*The trend everywhere is towards simplicity and usability—particularly in book titles, film titles, and article titles. In Mainland China "simplified Chinese" was created to make the language more accessible to the majority.
::::::::*Britannica apparently uses macrons in romanized Japanese names like Tokyo and Osaka—no respectable publisher does that nowadays, but it would probably cost Britannica too much money to bring their style into this century. Local English newspapers and websites represent current majority usage; limited-edition vanity academic publishers cannot afford to keep reference materials up to date with the real world. ] (]) 15:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::You again conflate non-latin scripts with diacritics. These are two totally seperate issues. Also you are saying that tabloid sources are more relevant than accademic? That throws our quest for knowledge out of the window and replaces with trash. ] (]) 17:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


Hi there, I'm noting a lack of guidance for Audio video content, I've mentioned this at ]. It seems people just edit MOS rather than run through large discussions, but I'm reluctant to start plunging in before getting some help. Here is what i think is needed:
== RFC:Largest cities or city population templates ==


* Something explaining that the guidance at ] applies to Audio-video content in most cases, eg regarding relevance, image quality, textual information, offensive images, placement, size, location, availability. Nearly all of the page is relevant, in fact.
<!-- ] 10:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC) -->
* The download advice might need to be different. Do videos or audio need a warning that they are large files? This is not assumed, it seems.
There is a Request for comment about the utility/redundancy of ]. This is an open invitation for participating in the request for comment on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. ]] <span class="plainlinks"></span> 08:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


There is a case for some separate AV guidance, regarding:
== Number signs ==


* Length: should inline videos be shorter where possible? Does this apply to audio clips?
The section currently reads
* Language: if audio or video is original language, should subtitled content be preferred rather than recording originals? Should songs be subtitled where possible? What are the requirements for validating translations (what are the relevant WP policies on translation of original source material that apply?)
: Instead use the word "number", or the abbreviation "No."
* Rendition: historical accents and historical musical performances might be very rare. Should we say that modern standards are fine, in the absence of authentic reconstructions?
While the examples is only No.. I would like to suggest two things. It seems that on most music articles that No. is the preferred method. Can we please get rid of "number" or at least suggest it's not preferred? Secondly, there have been a few editors who have been adding a non-breaking space between the "No." and the following number.
* Public domain renditions: if audio or video is a rendition of a public domain source, for example a work by Mozart, or a speech by Caesar, what are the requirements for source validation (these should reference WP's general guidelines, but these are mostly focused on secondary sources).


] ] 20:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Also, could we clarify that if, when using "number", and the digit is less than 10, that the number should be spelled-out? --] (]) 05:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
*Elsewhere, someone asked whether an RfC would be needed to add guidance on this topic. I think not -- while discussion will be needed on details, I can't see anyone objecting to clarifying that multimedia beyond everyday images should follow similar guidelines to those for image. The question is where to say that. We don't want to duplicate guidance on contextual significance etc., because that creates two things that need to be kept in sync. Probably the best thing is to expand MOS/Images to explicitly cover other multimedia. See BTW ], which has a ''contextual significance'' section. ]] 20:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Thanks very much (and yes that was me!) I agree that MOS:Images would be best, especially to get this started.
*:The ''contextual significance'' contains much about in-copyright works. That is in general very helpful. In-copyright video samples feels like something rather complex that might need an RFC, and might be best parked until there is a little more in place. ] ] 20:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::@] Would it be helpful if I draft up something on ] and ask for feedback? ] ] 21:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I suggest you wait a while so that the experienced editors gathered here can lend their thoughts. After that, you might take the conversation back to Talk:MOS/Images, but since that page has 1/5 watchers of this one, and you've already put a pointer there to this thread here, it might be better to continue here as you begin to draft. There's no hurry to this, so the slower you take it, and the greater the extent to which others can get their thoughts in, the smoother it will go. (I'm afraid I'm really tied up IRL so the time I myslf can contribute is limited.) ]] 21:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Happy to wait. I made a stab at below, but I can wait for further thoughts / feedback here. What I've provided relates to historical source content, as most of the AV I've been dealing with falls into this category; I have guessed at some other considerations but it is currently narrower than it should be. ] ] 21:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


<blockquote>Audiovisual content can also be used for illustrative purposes. Most of the guidance on images above applies to audio visual content. Additionally, consider:
== Request for scrutiny and feedback ==


* '''Length''': inline videos or audio that is shorter will be easier for users to watch. Consider clipping long form content, and linking to the original on Commons, or elsewhere. Longer videos (eg, over 10 minutes) may be more suitable for links than inline video, unless they are highly relevant to the page's subject.
I've brought a new writing and editing tutorial to the stage where it could do with some feedback. I wonder whether editors would mind taking a look and either directly editing or commenting on the talk page: ].
* '''Rendition''': historical accents and historical musical performances of content may be very rare. Modern renditions are fine, where authentic reconstructions are not available, and may be preferred, where there is uncertainty about the original performances.
* '''Musical, poetic and literary content''': aesthetic considerations are higher for these kinds of content. Where possible, the performances should be considered good by other editors. Where editors find performances are poor, content should generally not be included.
* '''Language''': where audio or video is in the original language, subtitles should generally be preferred rather than translated versions, as this reflects the original more closely and text files are easier to correct than mistakes in audio-visual content. Where possible, songs should be subtitled. Original language versions should be made available where where possible for artistic content.
* '''Translations of subtitles''' should be verifiable, but as with other Misplaced Pages content, competent editors can create them. While academic translations are preferred, where subtitle translations are longer than 10-20 words, use of academic translations is likely to constitute copyright infringement. Here, a Wikipedian's translation should ideally be verifiable against an academic translation. (See ] for further guidance.)
* '''Public domain renditions''': if audio or video is a rendition of a public domain source, for example a work by Mozart, or a speech by Caesar, the original sources must be valid. The performance should be comparable and follow the original. Where possible, include links on media file pages so that editors can make checks.
* '''Sourcing''': as with images, sourcing of audio-visual content needs to be copyright compliant. Sources of CC video and audio can include Youtube, Flickr and CC search tools. Care should be taken to ensure the licensing claims appear to be valid.
* See also: ]</blockquote> ] ] 21:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


:The "Language" point is a bit unclear to me. Is it asking for subtitles to be in English or the original language? If the phrase "rather than translated versions" is referring to the spoken or written material, that seems to contradict the phrase "where audio or video is in the original language". Which is also a weird way to say it because the "original language" could be English. Given that this is English Misplaced Pages, an English version should be provided whether or not there is a non-English version.
Apart from identifying glitches, I'd like to know whether the tone and structure of the exercises are optimal. Are the explanations too wordy? And is this a useful angle to take in helping writers to improve their article editing skills? There are many more examples I could add, but perhaps already the 19 exercises need to sectionalised into groups of six or seven to encourage users to work through the page in a number of visits. I chose to mix up the types of ambiguity rather than to systematically concentrate on one at a time (e.g., lexical, punctuation, unclear referents, word order). Thank you. ] ] 12:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
:Subtitles should be provided for all videos with an audio track, to make them accessible for readers who cannot hear or find it difficult. There are additional guidelines at ].
:Not sure the "Sourcing" point needs to be made, as this is explained in detail for images generally.
:The "Length" point should probably link to the ] and point out the copyright issue when displaying here under fair use. It should say "video" not "videos" to be grammatical.
:I would drop the "Translations of subtitles" point and just link to ] for guidance on translations.
:The "Public domain renditions" point does not make any sense to me, and I would just drop it.
:I'm not sure whether the "Rendition" point needs to be made, but if it does, it's confusing. I think it's supposed to be recommending that historically accurate renditions of older works are preferred, if available. Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't, depending on what the purpose of inclusion in the article is. Might be better just to leave this point off; I don't see any similar guidance for audio samples of music. Page editors can decide which samples are best out of those available.
:Another point probably worth making is that a video should be considered an optional part of an article. In other words, any content vital to reader understanding should be included in the text and not be omitted on the assumption that reader will watch the video. Many readers will not be able to view video due to technical limitations, such as using a web browser that is not configured with a video player, or reading an article in another medium such as an app, paper printout, or text-to-speech system (including those who cannot see or find it difficult to read text). There is more specific guidance against putting text in images at ].
:It's fine for a video to re-explain something that's already explained in the text if having a moving image clarifies substantially, but it seems wasteful for embedded videos to effectively repeat or rephrase the text.
:-- ] (]) 22:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks very much!
::* Regarding '''language''', this was meant to be about non-English content, think Bach or Mozart in German or Latin; or Goethe's poetry.
::* On '''Sourcing''', the section on images does not include YT, which is significant for CC video.
::* On '''translation''', the situation for subtitles is a bit different, as usually you cannot use academic in-copyright translations, so this mention is retained.
::* On '''public domain renditions''', this was the subject of a ]. Does that help? Take a file such as ]. There is some need for verification, even tho it is not being used as a citation? I've edited it for clarity.
::* On '''style of renditions''', this has come up a few times in discussion, including at the link above, where a user claimed only a Catholic priest could do a Latin audio recording; also at ] on LA Misplaced Pages about accents and delivery, preferring a modern standard over historical guesses. I figured the same principle might apply to say reading Shakespeare, or using 16th century instruments; it simply shouldn't be a consideration, but sometimes editors think it should be.
::* I've added the points on (1) text as images, (2) subtitles for EN content, (3) optionality of AV content
::'''VERSION 0.2'''
::Audiovisual content can also be used for illustrative purposes. Most of the guidance on images above applies to audio visual content. Importantly, audio-visual content should not be an essential part of a page, which is necessary to understand the whole. This is because not all readers will be able to download or access the content, for example because of technical limitations or relying on text to speech tools. With audio and video just as with any content, relevance is paramount; consult ] for further context. There must be a clear reason for including the content on the page.
::Additionally, consider:
::* '''Length''': inline videos or audio that is shorter will be easier for users to watch. Consider clipping long form content, and linking to the original on Commons, or elsewhere. Longer videos (eg, over 10 minutes) may be more suitable for links than inline video, unless they are highly relevant to the page's subject.
::* '''Rendition''': historical accents and historical musical performances are not required. Modern renditions of audio are acceptable. For example, there is no need to read Shakespeare with an Elizabethan pronunciation.
::* '''Musical, poetic and literary content''': aesthetic considerations are higher for these kinds of content. Where possible, the performances should be considered good by other editors. Where editors find performances are poor, content should generally not be included.
::* '''Subtitles for comprehension''': In English language videos, an English language subtitle track should always be provided for accessibility. See ] for more details.
::* '''Subtitles for translation''': where audio or video is originally in a non-English language, for example a Goethe poem, subtitles should generally be preferred over than translated audio, as this reflects the original more closely and text files are easier to correct than mistakes in audio-visual content. Where possible, songs should be subtitled. Original language versions should be made available where where possible for artistic content.
::* '''Translations of subtitles''' See ] for guidance. Note that longer subtitle sequences may need to be translated by Wikipedians rather than obtained from academic sources to avoid copyright infringement.
::* '''Embedding text''': As with images, rendered text should be avoided in video content. See ] for more information.
::* '''Public domain renditions''': if audio or video is a rendition of a public domain source, for example a work by Mozart, or a speech by Caesar, it must be possible to check the original scores or texts. An editor should be able to compare the performance with the original. Where possible, include links on media file pages so that editors can make checks.
::* '''Sourcing''': as with images, sourcing of audio-visual content needs to be copyright compliant. Sources of CC video and audio can include Youtube, Flickr and CC search tools. Care should be taken to ensure the licensing claims appear to be valid.
::* See also: ]


::] ] 23:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:My main criticism is that there is a limit to how much verbiage should be devoted to clarifying every possible ambiguity, which is relevant because some of these ambiguities are far-fetched. Churchill said "]" He didn't say {{"'}}We' means all of you, not just me and my dog. And 'all of you' means all Britons, not just all of you here. Well, not all Britons; we do have some traitors. I mean we won't surrender as a group. Oops, make that the British Empire, not just Britons. And 'never' doesn't really mean never; in a thousand years it may be honorable to surrender to an overwhelming alien invasion. It means we won't surrender to Hitler. Um, or Mussolini, or Hirohito. Um, or their successors. In the near future anyway (I'm not anticipating 21st-century neo-Nazis). And it doesn't mean there won't be surrenders like the ]. And it doesn't mean we won't surrender to a seductress&nbsp;..."
:::This appears to be related to situations such as ], where a consisting of a person reading a letter aloud was included in an article, one example of a series of such edits. It is not clear to me that we need a bunch of guidelines about the best form for this sort of application because it is not clear that it is desirable to include such videos in the first place - the cart is being put before the horse. ] (]) 23:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes, I certainly would like to clear up some of the misapprehensions that regretfully appeared in that discussion. It's a discussion I will deeply regret getting involved in for some time.
::::I'll be clear about the other discussions and examples of this content for context:
::::* ]; ] no debate and no questions occurred
::::* ]; no questions raised (I am the main editor for this page but plenty of people make edits)
::::* ]; ] as a link after discussion with editors
::::* ]; ] after discussion with editors
::::* ]; readings included; no discussion or objection
::::* ]; reading of his disputes with no objections raised
::::* ]; reading of his defence of Catholicism; posted and no objections raised
::::* ]; ]; no response yet
::::* ] and ]; early work added; an editor has asked me to check whether these are sufficiently relevant; I've agreed to do so and remove the videos if ] is not met.
::::@] I hope you can at least see that normally I try to be as collaborative as I can be. there's not much point going further into why that discussion became hard for me. However, policy is the place where we make guidelines to avoid disputes and lack of clarity.
::::What meets ] overrides any other consideration, to my mind so I have added that to the draft text. (''With audio and video just as with any content, relevance is paramount; consult ] for further context. There must be a clear reason for including the content on the page.'') ] ] 00:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::As regards the other articles where there was no discussion, just because there was no dissent at the moment doesn't mean there wont be in the future. What happened at the Machiavelli article could just as easily happen in the other ones
:::::I am also asking you kindly to please stop making the issues with that RfC bigger than what they are. ] (]) 00:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::We can take this discussion in two ways:
::::::* We can either construtively discuss the principles behind what video content should be allowable; or
::::::* We can decide that emotions are too high for it and pause it
::::::I do need this guidance, because there are divergences of opinion on some of the points, and it's important to me to be able to resolve them. But my guess is that if the three of us are just going to rehash the RFC discussion, then that would a terrible use of other people's time and energy. A break off would make sense, in my view. ] ] 00:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::No one's emotions are high but yours, judging by your rather relentless snipes against my character and the fact that you have so much as admitted it in the RfC. You have also stated that the RfC "needed to die" (quite strong words) when I gave you a chance to change your mind, and now you want to pause now that the discussion is nearing a close?
:::::::I do not get what you are trying to accomplish here, to be fair. ] (]) 00:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::It is not needed to rehash the RFC here, but I did feel that fresh eyes on this talk page should have enough context to understand what the proposal is about. ] (]) 00:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Thanks, I appreciate that as a valid concern. Does the change regarding ] help, or do you feel more is needed? For context, other points raised in the RFC such as regarding the need to be able to validate translation is also included. ] ] 00:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I dropped the video from ]; it seemed like excessive detail. It's already on '']'' where it's a bit more appropriate. But even there, it seems like it violates the video equivalent of ]. Same for ] and ].
:::::I also posted that the video for ] should probably just be kept on Commons; there's already a general link to the topic there.
:::::I agree it's not clear that videos of performances of works should generally be included, so I would also be hesitant about specifying anything in particular about those. Uploaded videos cover a broad variety of subjects, including scientific phenomena, buildings, and specific events. -- ] (]) 03:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I would like to understand ] a bit more, especially regarding accessibility in particular, as this is certainly an overriding concern. What makes the text subtitle files inaccessible and not regarded as text? ] ] 09:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Subtitles are, of course, text. They are less accessible than the text in an article because some readers will have technical or logistical difficulty watching video and thus reading subtitles or listening to audio narration. For readers that ''do'' watch a video (which presumably has an animation or something which illustrates the subject of the article in a way a still image cannot), it ''increases'' accessibility by allowing people who cannot hear or find it difficult to know what is being said or what sounds are happening in the video. -- ] (]) 15:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::] already says that for user-created diagrams, etc., a source for the underlying data must be included. To me, this applies straightforwardly to videos that are presenting public-domain content. A citation to the original work is kind of implied, but a reference to a specific version or even better an online copy, should suffice. YouTube videos that we're importing into Misplaced Pages as on-article videos are no different than diagrams or maps or explanatory videos uploaded by random Misplaced Pages or Commons users, assuming an appropriate copyright license. The reliability of YouTube is not really in question, any more than the reliability of any given Misplaced Pages editor is, when they are just repackaging information from a different underlying source in a more digestible way. That's different than citing a YouTube video as a reliable source for the information itself.
:::I'm not sure I have enough examples to make a guideline about video length. Ten minutes seems way too long for download on a mobile phone, and most videos I would expect to be under a minute. Perhaps there are exceptions, but I'd want to survey how videos are being used now. In the meantime, I would trim the 0.2 version down to reduce scope and reduce overlap with other pages and rephrase and retitle:
:::----
:::'''Video content (v. 0.3)'''
:::* The guidelines on this page also generally apply to videos.
:::* Many readers will not be able to play videos, because of technical limitations of their web browser, because they are seeing article content on a different web site or app, or because they are using a different medium, such as paper or text-to-speech system. Some readers cannot see or find it difficult. Videos should be used as a ''supplement'' to article material, to concisely illustrate the subject in a way that a still image or text cannot do. Videos should not replace article text, and articles should remain coherent and comprehensive when video playback is not available.
:::* Similar to ], for accessibility and file size reasons:
:::** Videos that simply show text should be replaced with text.
:::** Videos that simply show a sequence of still pictures should be replaced with an image gallery.
:::** Videos of text being read aloud should be replaced with text, or if the sound of words is being demonstrated, audio files (with the text being read in the file caption or in closed captioning).
:::** Videos of text and narration with should be converted to article text.
:::* The copyright and other guidelines on ] also apply to video samples.
:::* The policies on ] also generally apply to videos.
:::* Accessibility guidelines at ] apply.
:::----
:::-- ] (]) 03:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::] has additional suggestions; not sure if it's appropriate to link there from here. -- ] (]) 03:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::With your commentary, this makes a lot of sense. I would point out that there was a lot of heat generated over YT reliability in the aforementioned RFC, so it would be good to point that it can be used. YT is not mentioned as a source for images in the images section above; an alternative would be to add it there in the list of common sources, but that also seems odd. I know one can point to the archive discussion, but that is not generally available knowledge for anyone looking at the guidance in future. ] ] 09:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I added a clarifying note at ] for YouTube; hopefully this will not be controversial. -- ] (]) 02:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Unfortunately that has been . It might make more sense here, because this is about video as illustration, and there is ]. Perhaps it should be parallel advice to this, eg mentioning that YT has a search facility for CC content (and there isn't anything else AFAIK). ] ] 09:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I started a discussion at ]. -- ] (]) 20:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Thanks - quick observation that we have lost that the guidance for illustrative audio content would also generally derive from the images guidance. The music samples page linked is wholly focused on samples from copyrighted material; there is a lot of PD / CC music material on WP, especially for classical music. Sometimes this could do with subtitling, etc, care in positioning, checks for relevance, etc. ] ] 09:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::OK, what are you suggesting? -- ] (]) 18:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I think, where appropriate, add audio, eg "The guidelines on this page also generally apply to videos and audio files"; maybe "where appropriate, for instance non-English language audio files should include subtitles". I'm not sure there is much else. ] ] 22:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::And where would you find that addition to be appropriate? -- ] (]) 02:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I would amend the title to "Video and Audio content"; I would amend bullet one to "The guidelines on this page also generally apply to videos and audio files". Under "Similar to MOS:TEXTASIMAGES, for accessibility and file size reasons:" I would add "where appropriate, for instance non-English language audio files should include subtitles". The accessibility guidelines could move to be bullet two, in order that audio and video advice is at the top. ] ] 08:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::It looks to me like hardly anything on ] applies to audio files, and it seems like the wrong place to go looking for style advice about them. -- ] (]) 22:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::For example:
::::::::::::::* ]
::::::::::::::* ]
::::::::::::::* ]
::::::::::::::* ]
::::::::::::::* ]
::::::::::::::* ]
::::::::::::::* ] Uploading to commons, recording information about files, changes in editing and download size etc
::::::::::::::These seem pretty substantially helpful guidance to me, and pretty similar level of relevance as to video files. ] ] 09:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Yeah, most of the material in those sections is not relevant to audio. I'd say if you feel strongly that guidance is needed for audio generally and not just music samples, we should create a new page. Editors shouldn't have to read through a whole page about images just to pick out the occasional tidbit on audio files, if they're only interested in the latter. -- ] (]) 20:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I've posted the 0.3 draft for now, since that wouldn't be changed by adding an audio page somewhere else. -- ] (]) 20:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Thanks for posting the v 0.3. On audio, I would think about this from a few user perspectives:
::::::::::::::::* There is currently no MOS advice at all on audio files and approaching general layout, pertinence, etc. What would the user do? Currently, MOS offers them nothing, so they must either guess or work off examples on other pages.
::::::::::::::::* If a user asks for advice, where would they be pointed? (my guess: ] as closest match.
::::::::::::::::IMO, it would be better to offer them something, even apologetically ("There is currently no detailed advice on MOS regarding use of audio files, but the basic principles of ] and some considerations at ] may be helpful.") This could be placed at a page relevant to other audio usage files, for example. ] ] 10:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Feel free to propose a draft if you like. It's also possible no particular guidance is needed, if people are able to figure this stuff out using common sense and regular editorial judgement, and if disputes arise, turn to the various policy and guideline pages on topics like due weight. -- ] (]) 21:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:Given the small amount of material to include about this, and the redundancy that would be required with MOS:IMAGES if "MOS:VIDEOS" were its own page, and given the short nature of the audio samples MoS page, I think the most sensible approach is to merge all of this into a WP:Manual_of_Style/Images_and_multimedia page with a top MOS:MEDIA shortcut (which I'm surprised doesn't already exist as an internal disambiguation page), then MOS:IMAGES, etc., going to sections. We have too many separate MoS pages as it is, and this is an ideal merge of two of them and a proposed third. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 06:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Sure, that's a reasonable alternate approach. I think it would work if we put the things that apply across all three at the top, and then make it clear with section headers which those interested in a specific media type should look at without having to read inapplicable guidelines. -- ] (]) 08:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::+1 to both of these observations. ] ] 09:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Yeps. If we hammer out a videos-related section, I'll be happy to do the work (most MoS merges and the like are done by me because I kind of have a database in my head of all the rules and how they interrelate, and 19 years of observing how misinterpretations, lawyering, and other problems can be avoided by careful wording. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 14:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I think what we could agree on for videos has been added. -- ] (]) 00:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== misleading text in ] ==
:I wouldn't segregate the examples by ambiguity type. No specialized training is required to determine why any of the examples might be considered ambiguous; the reasoning is plain enough after clicking the answer. So I think the examples should be like real life, where you don't know what type of ambiguity is likely to occur next.


The text on keyboard entry of dashes in {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style|Dashes}} is misleading. The text {{tqq|or on a Windows keyboard }} implies a technique specific to windows when in fact it is valid for any OS. -- ] (]) 15:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:More detailed criticism is on the talk page. ] (]) 21:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
:True. What it should say: "on a Windows keyboard enter them manually as {{key press|Alt|0}} {{key press|1|5|0|chain=}} (on the numeric keypad) for en dash, and {{key press|Alt|0}} {{key press|1|5|1|chain=}} for em dash." -- ] (]) 16:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::Verbiage ... ok, I guess it's crap. ] ] 08:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::Wrong on two counts:
::Hmm. I think Tony deserves our thanks and our encouragement for his sustained efforts. Those tutorials are a largely untold success story. They have been very well received in the past, and deserve wider promotion. Quite an innovation, contrasting with some of the nay-saying and nihilism we observe on the topic of Misplaced Pages style.<br>Congratulations Tony! Please continue, and please don't hesitate to ask for input at this talkpage, even if the appreciation is not always made explicit.<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::# No. It should not say anything at all, per ].
:::O, I meant to add that Art's work on WP:SMOS is surely appreciated also. We should not let that initiative fall away. I want to return to the problem of multiple links to the same large MOS page, in many instances. I've been developing an idea about transclusion, but I have been busy and not felt on top of the technical issues yet. All in good time.<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::# And even if it does, those ]s are only valid for ] and related. They don't work if the user has a different default code page installed.
::Delete it completely. --] (]) 17:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I doubt that NOTHOWTO is meant to apply to the MOS. It's surely helpful for editors and hence should stay, reworded if needed. ] (]) 08:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Gaewon is correct: NOTHOWTO applies to articles only. MOS is littered with how-to stuff, as is should where the ratio {{nobreak|<code>(editor confusion and time saved)/(])</code>}} seems sufficiently high. However, if this starts getting into weeds of code pages and such, it may be best to relegate the whole thing to ], with a pointer to that from MOS. ]] 20:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::So why not simply recommend {{tl|mdash}}, {{tl|ndash}} and {{tl|snd}} rather than advise keyboard callisthenics? --] (]) 20:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, I have always advocated symbolic representations (templates such as you list, or html escapes such as &amp;mdash;) of the various dashes (and in some cases, even hyphens), rather than having them appear literally in the wikisource, so that editors can see at a glance that the right character is present. But even though ], I can't seem to get people on board with this. ]] 20:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I am happy typing the dashes on my Apple keyboards but also happy with recommending the templates rather than giving keyboard-specific advice. What I would like to avoid is warring bands of gnomes going around changing unicode dashes to templated dashes and vice versa. —] (]) 21:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Edit conflict: yes, different route to the same answer. --] (]) 20:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::JMF's policy understanding {{em|is}} mistaken above. ] only applies to article content (and other reader-facing content, like portals and the front page features). If it applied to internal documentation, then we would have to delete the entire "Help:" namespace and about 95% what is in "Misplaced Pages:" namespace. However, the technical point JMF raised is entirely correct, and we should not be telling editors to use keyboard codes that will do the wrong thing (or nothing) if they don't happen to be using the "right" code page. To {{tq|1=simply recommend {{tl|mdash}}, {{tl|ndash}} and {{tl|snd}}}} is the sensible approach. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 06:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Let's just direct people to ]. --] &#x1f339; (]) 23:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== Is there a MOS guidance that applies to changing between common terms based on the name of the Wiki article? ==
== Diaspora capitalisation ==


Do we have a guideline for dealing with different name, common names for the same thing (] vs ])? The target article, ], has used both names (changed in 2009 and 2022). Sources use both terms but I think the shorted "I4" is used more often in sources. I presume we would follow something like the MOS:ENGVAR where if there is no source preference we go with what the editors used first. Recently an editor, {{u|Kumboloi}}, made a number of good faith changes in linking articles from "inline-four" to "straight-four" to align external article text with the target article name. Is there a guide on this? How should this be handled? ] (]) 14:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I started a discussion on the page ] because I think that the word "Diaspora" should always be capitalised when referring to the Jewish Diaspora. If you use "the Diaspora" it is understood to be in reference to the Jewish Diaspora, so in that case "the Diaspora" is a proper noun referring to the Jewish Diaspora. In all other cases, such as with "African diaspora," "diaspora" is simply a regular noun. I've looked through style manuals and can't find anyone saying that it should be capitalised in this case, but it seems to be common practice if you search for "Jewish Diaspora." Wondering if we could make a clear call on this. It would be helpful for sticklers like me. Anyone care to weigh in? —'''<font color="darkred">Zujine</font>|]''' 01:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


:It's a policy, our ], which largely doubles as our policy on article titles. Generally, for a given thing there's no reason to use a different name in the prose of any other article than one would use in the article about the thing itself, if that makes sense.<span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 14:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
: doesn't show much preference either way in recent times. ] (]) 03:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
::I'm not sure where the naming convention says we should change article text in a case like this. The article in question indicates both names are common (''A straight-four engine (also referred to as an inline-four engine)''). This is also reflected in the two name changes over the years. I don't see where the naming convention says we should favor the target article name vs what the individual article sources are using. Consider a hypothetical, I'm created a Wiki article about the new "CarX". My RS source that says, "CarX uses an ''inline four engine''". Why would I not follow the source vs use the title of our straight four article? This is especially true if if the hyperlink is added later by a different editor. Also, until 2022 the title of the article was "inline". A consensus of 3 editors changed the article name. That's fine but the result is many changes to other articles. If a new consensus of 5 editors reverses the change do we flop back? I think it's less disruptive (makes articles more stable) if we avoid article text changes in cases like this. However, I am interested in knowing what guidance might apply here. ] (]) 15:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::Art, it is almost always preferable to reduce contamination by ] in ngram investigations. Yours on "Jewish Diaspora,Jewish diaspora" does not achieve that. This one does better: . There would still be headings with that "is" in them, so we can assume that the predominance of lower case is a little higher than indicated by these ngrams.
::: I'm interested in understanding this. My motivation in making the edits came down to a suspicion that there was some type of penalty incurred by linking through a redirect page, or that the redirects imposed a maintenance overhead. I hadn't read the naming convention, but if there's no real reason to reduce the number of redirected links, and recognizing that the target page could just as easily be renamed again in the future, I'll stop doing these edits. (Personally, I prefer "inline" to "straight", but I can see how the renaming would help organize the associated pages.) Thanks. ] (]) 15:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::I will not join in that discussion, as a matter of personal preference these days. But I make two observations, apart from the above:
::::My reasoning is ] stresses how we are required to name things, as we are un all editorial decisions, based on WP:V and WP:NPOV (in many cases this boils down to the result of ]). It has provisions specific to the article title and not the body, but much of it is expressing how to apply V and NPOV in deciding what to call things.
::* People need to be far more careful with talk of proper nouns and proper names. (Editors might learn from the greatly reformed article ], which needs just a little more work and a move to ].)
::::If we take alternative names as such—e.g. that, all else being equal, we do take ''inline four'' and ''straight four'' to be synonyms, truly referring to the same thing for our purposes—it makes very little sense to "wall off" which names are used in a particular article, as there are no clear limits on how strictly this would have to be observed. Am I allowed to use any synonymous nouns, verbs, or adjectives in my synthesis that don't happen to appear in my three best sources? On the other hand, naming according to a generalized scope is surely more coherent for a hyperlinked encyclopedia providing tertiary analysis instead of merely refactoring and reshuffling the specific language of our secondary sources.
::* The strong representation, indeed the majority presence, of lower case "Jewish diaspora" in sources is decisive under ] for denial of any requested move to ], if it comes to that.
::::Of course exceptions abound, much of the time alternative names and redirects should be freely used according to syntactical and contextual concerns—but I believe this to be correct mindset to assume by default. I don't think any given article that uses ] needs to be changed. However, in cases like these, I feel it pays dividends to use terminology consistently between pages. If readers are encountering technical or domain specific language for the first time, we create the most helpful and coherent tertiary analysis for them if we zoom out a bit. It makes no sense to prefer '']'' to '']'' just because the book we're citing prefers the former—e.g., in an article about a specific battle, or a broad conceptual article not specific to the Sasanians—our deliberately preferring ''Sassanid'' simply does not aid the reader in becoming familiar with whatever additional context they're going to go to ] for in order to better understand our other article.
::♫♪
::::If I wake up and find this totally incoherent, I apologize. It's hard to speak clearly about naming and reference, though it's one of my favorite things to think about. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 16:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
::::] clearly says: "Piping links solely to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline>]</syntaxhighlight> with <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline>]</syntaxhighlight>." So if a link already leads to the correct article, but using an alternative name that redirects, that's ''absolutely fine'' and nothing more needs to be done. I realize that you're probably not talking about piping, but about changing the link text and link target together – but that too is unnecessary if the existing link target works fine (by redirecting). ] (]) 17:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I concur with Noetica, and go further and suggest that Misplaced Pages, per ], ], ], etc., must consistently resist attempts by special interest groups of any kind to capitalize everything relating to them as if somehow magically special. It's ]. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp; <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>&nbsp; <small>]</small></font> 02:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
::::Right, like "The Beatles" in running prose. Too much reliance on the magic of capitalization. ] (]) 03:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC) ::::Kumboloi, thanks for that explanation. It reaffirms my believe that you were acting in good faith (I hope you took my revert that way as well). ] (]) 19:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:I think there needs to be a good reason to not use the article title in text (and they do exist), and that can be discussed on a per-case basis at the relevant article (or other) talk page.—] (]) 17:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::: Exactly! ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 03:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
::Agreed. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 17:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:Just thought I'd bring it up. I noticed that "diaspora" was improperly capitalised in many articles, which led me to look up the rules regarding the unique case of Jewish Diaspora (ahem, diaspora, excuse me). Thanks for weighing in. —'''<font color="darkred">Zujine</font>|]''' 06:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
:::Just so long as it is realized that THERE RATHER OFTEN IS A GOOD REASON! National language preferences for one thing. Busywork drive-by changes should be strongly discouraged. ] (]) 18:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Goes without saying! <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 19:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I just thought I'd drive by and agree with that. ]] 22:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:The answer the the OP's question is "More or less ''yes''", in the form of ]. Remesense's idea above that article titles policy and its dependent naming-conventions guidelines and essays (which actually defer to MoS on style questions) somehow dictate in-article content. They absolutely do not, or we would simply merge them. However, agreement with the page title can actually qualify as a good reason for a text change under STYLEVAR a lot of time, such as when a old page title (and our mirroring of it in the text) was a misnomer, unhelpfully ambiguous, obsolete, or obscurantist. When such problems don't apply, then having more than one way to refer to the subject is a boon to editors and readers, since it allows us to write less repetitively. But the lead should almost always agree with the title, and start with the term/name in the title and secondarily provide any noteworthy alternative(s). Some exceptions of course apply, such as when a term/name in the title is a colloquialism and used for ] purposes in the title but is not the best way to introduce the first sentence (this is especially common at biographical articles, in which we often give the full "Elizabeth" or "Robert" name of someone more commonly called "Liz" or "Bobby" and given that way in the page title). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::I think they must dictate in-article content to a degree at least—it would make no sense to use a particular name in the title and initial definition (I've been assuming congruence throughout, e.g. no disambiguators considered) and then never again. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 03:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::That's a correlation/causation mix-up. What you're talking about is just ] (to the point of "Don't be intentionally perverse as if with a goal of confusing readers as much as possible") and a matter of ]. It's not an element of title policy or of naming conventions, which do not address article content (except a few of the worst-written NC pages have a statement or two in them about body content that needs to move out of those pages; I've been cleaning those up as I run across them). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 14:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I've been racking my brain trying to articulate exactly what I mean here, but I do not think it is <em>merely</em> correlative. Hopefully that is a useful thought inasmuch beyond just the trivial truth that the language one is exposed to affects the language they go on to use and think in terms of. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 19:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


== Legibility of thumbnails at default size ==
== Beatles RfC ==
{{Moved discussion from|Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Images#Legibility of thumbnails at default size}}
]
]
I am surprised there is no direct statement along the lines of {{xt|If possible, the selection, placement, and sizing of images should allow readers to fully decipher what they are intended to illustrate; thumbnails should be legible with the default base size of 220px without requiring readers to expand them.}} It seems like much of the guidance has this as an unstated goal, but there are cases where it is slightly less intuitive that this is a principle that editors should heed. My one worry is hypothetical quibbling over what any given image is intended to illustrate—is the specific text written on a street sign important for illustrative purposes?—but I feel like that's totally explicable in each instance via editor discussion. It's clear that some appropriate images cannot be legible at thumbnail size in context, either because they are visually intricate or the placement context simply won't allow it, but it seems helpful to state that editors should make an attempt when it is possible. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 16:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Remsense}} Can you give an example? ] (]) 16:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::Clicked around until I found one: at ], it's not really possible for me to discern the field of figures as men sitting at desks rather than just noise. This image should be displayed at a slightly larger size, and maybe cropped a bit.
::Another class of examples is insignia and coats of arms, where arguably key details that would be legible in the original contexts are illegible at thumbnail sizes in infoboxes, especially in cases where there are especially elaborate versions that editors sometimes opt for out of a misplaced sense of completeness (I guess). <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 17:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::]
:::]
:::They're everywhere. ] (]) 21:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::That is something that gives me pause: this seems like a common-sense guideline to me, but either it's so obvious that it shouldn't be a guideline (?) or it's not nearly as obvious to others. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 21:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I've always found it odd that we don't have a minimum size recommendation. Can't tell you how many times I see collages or galleries that have teeny mini images that lack accessibility for all. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 03:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It's a perfectly reasonable thing to do to print articles out (or otherwise have them in a format where the thumbnails are all you get), also. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 03:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I do worry my criterion above is too loosey-goosey to be a good guideline; I don't think there's a problem with speaking in terms of minimum size as such, maybe it's better getting the intended point across? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 03:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Definitely better getting the intended point across. If we try to impose a numeric min. size, people are going to argue about it until the end of fargin' time, based on the behavior of their preferred devices and browsers, and so on. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 03:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC); rev'd. 13:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::What do you think about the potential phrasing first presented—i.e. {{xt|if at all possible, what images are being used to illustrate should be fully legible when scaled according to the default base size}} <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 03:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Lots of unnecessary words. {{xt|When possible, images with text should be legible when ...}} I'm not sure what "according to" the default base size means. Is it really the {{em|default}} base size? Are more than handful of editors reading this going to understand what "base size" means? I thinking there must be a clearer way to get the point across, but the goal seems right. (Speaking of "getting the intended point across": ironically, my previous message had an extraneous word, "than", in it – in a position that reversed or at least badly confused my meaning, so I've removed it.) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 13:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm not sure how to phrase it. It's not just images with text either, it's all images that are added but cannot actually be deciphered without expansion. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 04:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== Commas around incorporated businesses' names ==
You are invited to participate in an RfC at ] on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning that band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 03:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
:Relaunching that discussion again is blatant ]ping. The debate has nothing to do with he Beatles in particular, and is a general MoS issue about whether to change the official names of things that begin "The" to lower-case "the" in mid-sentence just to make the grammar seem better to some people. The discussion should be had here, if it needs to be had yet again at all, which is doubtful. ] and ] effectively forbid falsification of facts to satisfy pseudo-grammatical whims. This is distinct from ] problems, like trying to replicate the all-lower-case font and star-in-place-of-apostrophe styling of the official "]" logo. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp; <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>&nbsp; <small>]</small></font> 02:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
::The involved editors wish to get the widest possible word out so that the most people can respond and the issue laid to rest with finality. Thus the spamming of notices that brings you to complain. Of course, pointing the reader back to a central discussion page cannot be forum shopping since the forum is not being changed.
::Your stance does not conform to the majority of published style guidelines such as ] which recommends lower case "the" Beatles in running prose, and also recommends lower case non-italics "the" ''New York Times'' in running prose, even though the trademarked name of that newspaper is ''The New York Times'', with the "the" in italics and capitalized.
::There is nothing here about "pseudo-grammatical whims"; there is simply a serious and far-reaching style matter to solve.
::Making the "grammar seem better to some people" is not the point; the point is to streamline Misplaced Pages practices to conform to the majority of published style guides. ] (]) 03:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
:::Actually, the point is to make Misplaced Pages correct. Capitalizing "the" mid-sentence is an aggrandizing move. Misplaced Pages doesn't need to do other people's advertising for them. They're "the Beatles," even if whoever designed their official website was either ignorant about correct capitalization or just feeling pretentious. Almost every reputable style guide uses a lowercase T. We should do the same, not make up our own rules. ] (]) 04:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
:::: I agree, and FTR, has a mixed usage, not caps throughout. In fact, of their 12 album summaries at least 6 of them use lower-case. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 04:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


from looking at ], there isn't any guidance on how to deal with names with '']''. multiple articles do any of the following, either with no comma, a comma only before and a comma around the word.
== Trans women once again ==


# {{xt|Mumumu Inc. is a company ...}}
Please don't confuse this with anything similar but different.
# {{xt|Mumumu, Inc. is a company ...}}
# {{xt|Mumumu, Inc., is a company ...}}


I am aware that the commaless and comma style may coexist (sometimes in the same article!), however the second and third styles should likely be decided upon. ] (]) 01:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
WP:MOS says that trans women should be referred to with she/her throughout (except in direct quotes, of course.)
*Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, oh boy! I ''cannot wait'' for someone to say that ''Inc.'' is an "appositive", and therefore the commas have to come in pairs. ]] 01:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Is that the cool way of saying that you don't think it is one? ] (]) 06:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*There is a lengthy discussion at ]. --] &#x1F98C; (]) 09:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*:@] thank you so much for your link and oh dear it really is long. ] (]) 13:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


== An editing policy question ==
However, it looks like (in my experience of studying edits) that many Wikipedians support the rule that they should be referred to with '''no pronouns at all''' before their operation, but then we can use she/her after the operation, despite not being consistent with the above statement. Any questions about which rule is right?? ] (]) 13:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


When I read Wiki policy and guidance pages, I sometimes find ''shall'' used instead of ''will'' to indicate what must be done ''—'' for example, in the ] article, we find: "The more signs that are present, the more likely sockpuppetry is occurring, though no accusations '''shall''' be made unless, beyond a reasonable doubt, one is really certain."
:Avoiding pre-op pronouns seems to be the obvious way to avoid conflict. I would support making this the MoS rule. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp; <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>&nbsp; <small>]</small></font> 02:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
:: So is it your position SMcCandlish that the MoS has got it all wrong when it comes to a definite article in band names but in most other cases we ''should'' follow the MoS? ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 02:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
:::No, trans women should be referred to as "she" regardless of what part of their lives is under discussion. Avoiding pronouns during discussions of their lives before the operations should be permitted but not encouraged. This way, we won't get people putting the "no-pronouns rule" before good, cohesive writing. ] (]) 04:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
:Not using pronouns at all is a good compromise for people with very short last names, but for people with longer names it can be cumbersome. ]] 15:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
::What A.M. said. Talking around the pronouns should be allowed where it does not interfere with good writing, but it should not be our go-to answer to this issue. ] (]) 23:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


Granted that ''shall'' is often used this way in government and judicial documents, I think it sounds somewhat at odds with the more user-friendly ambience Misplaced Pages has tried to create for editors. Besides, ''shall'' is not consistently applied throughout the policy and guidance pages ''—'' for example, in the same ] article, we find: ''"''The closing administrator '''will''' be required to follow the consensus, even if they personally disagree.''"''
== Section hatnote templates ==


— For the above reasons, wouldn't it be in Misplaced Pages's best interests to avoid using the conversationally archaic ''shall'' in these articles and replace it with ''will?''? I doubt that this would make editors with wrongdoing on their minds less likely to behave as desired.
I think section hatnote templates such as {{tlx|see also}} should be changed to section endnotes, since the information they offer is of little relevance before the reader has read the section. Please take a look at ], thank you. --] (]) 18:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
:That's not a categorically true assumption; it varies depending on what the hatnote is and the context in question. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp; <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>&nbsp; <small>]</small></font> 02:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


— But if the decision is made to continue "shalling," then for the sake of consistency couldn't a search-and-replace be done throughout the policy and guidance articles to replace ''will'' with ''shall'' where the word needs to indicate what must be done? ] (]) 16:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
== Spaced endash in dates with spaces but un-spaced in compound nouns with spaces ==


:It's fine, really. This is one of those things the MOS exists to obliquely neutralize—i.e. this is a pretty conjectural position and not worth getting into all-in or all-out discussions over. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 17:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
At ], section 1 says to use an un-spaced endash for date ranges '''except''' when the dates themselves contain spaces, in which case a spaced endash is used (e.g. "1 January 1970&nbsp;– 23 June 1993").
::“Obliquely neutralize” — there’s a new one for me! 😅
::I just thought it would help lighten the bureaucratic tone of these articles to dial down the legalese, as many editors feel increasingly on edge with all the rules and regulations they discover the more they wade into Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 17:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Genuinely, I apologize that I can't talk normal when the situation would benefit from it. Take that how you will. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 17:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Or shall. ]] 17:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::😂 ] (]) 07:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{small|Am losing the ] here, mate. ] (]) 12:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)}}


:::Just be aware that you’ve entered the purview of a global encyclopedia, and that means you will encounter forms of English that aren’t necessarily common locally to wherever you live. ] (]) 17:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Section 2, discussing compound nouns, does not make this exception for components that contain spaces, using an un-spaced endash regardless (e.g. New York–Los Angeles).
::::Is this one of those ] situations where we should stick to a limited number of ]s on a sliding scale (must > should > may)? --] &#x1F98C; (]) 18:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::::@], Although I’m aware of different styles of English in different parts of the world, the ''shall/will'' issue I’ve raised here is more about how Misplaced Pages wants to show officially expected actions in particular situations.
::::Not like , “Today I shall go to the beach” … but like, “Administrators shall hold discussions on the matter for one week before reaching a decision.” ] (]) 12:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Nevertheless, ‘shall’ is still reasonably common usage in formal, official or legal written texts, in the UK, in a way that I don’t think you can say for the US (but willing to be corrected…), and is not considered particularly user-unfriendly. Your observation to the contrary above is therefore pitched from the perspective of a particular Engvar, which was my original point. ] (]) 15:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::@], you're probably right about "how official" ''shall'' sounds to UK and US readers of official documents. And frankly, that word is still used from time to time in official documents in the US, even though much more rarely these days''.'' Even so, here's a thought: if ''will'' would work equally well as ''shall'' in Misplaced Pages policy and guidance documents, why not use it consistently here so as to make "official stuff" sound a bit less bureaucratic but at the same time affirming of expected behavior?
::::::Though I'm American, I doubt that any of our UK cousins across the pond would feel affronted if Misplaced Pages consciously adopted ''will'' in its policy and guidelines. Wouldn't it simply be one more example of Misplaced Pages's intentions of providing as welcoming and user-friendly environment as possible in which to work, while in no way demeaning other varieties of writing?
::::::Alternatively, to avoid the whole ''shall/will'' issue, there are still other ways wording could be done. For example, instead of "Administrators shall hold discussions...,” we could say, "Administrators are to hold discussions ....” ] (]) 11:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::More rules about how rules should be written could be one step forward, two steps back. ]] 12:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Onbiously, you're free to edit how you want, but as a general rule, surely it isn't WP's object, nor that of the MoS, to try and enforce general language preferences on our editors? ] (]) 11:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::: You state the onbious. ]] 12:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Well, @], I think it’s time for me to gracefully bow out of the discussion now. My only Intent in making my suggestion was far from an attempt to ''enforce,'' though I see how it might be interpreted that way''.''
::::::::Instead, I was trying to make a case for a slight change in wording that seemed to me could help Misplaced Pages accomplish its very positive goal of creating an open, light, friendly ambience — just as seniors helping in the Teahouse and elsewhere are asked to do with those who ask questions. I know that as some editors get involved with Misplaced Pages, they come to feel weighed down by many rules and regulations and even become fearful they might make a slip and face serious consequences.
::::::::It was this I hoped my suggestion might help prevent in the long run, with the flip-side benefit of editor retention. ] (]) 12:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


==Discussion at ] (redux) ==
Isn't this inconsistent? <font color="red">—&#91;</font>](])<font color="red">&#93;—</font> 04:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 21:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] -->


:Specifically, input would be appreciated regarding the treatment of derivative proper names (e.g. ]) in running text versus the titles of dedicated articles. Thanks! <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 07:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:This was a long-argued compromise; not perfectly consistent, but not too at odds with styles used and recommended in various guides. The use of spaces in things like New York–Los Angeles is quite rare, in my impression, whereas it is less rare in dates, and there was very little push to change how we do dates. ] (]) 05:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::But I don't think AlanM1 wants to change spacing; he wants to clarify the rule. Perhaps add "excluding dates" to "The en dash in all of the compounds above is unspaced." However, "above" could be interpreted to mean section 2 only, which has no dates. ] (]) 06:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


::<small>Just for the record, I detest {{xt|and/or}}, which the MOS backs me on, but (besides {{xt|...}} instead of the clearer {{xt|}} in quotations) I also detest {{xt|Archimedes's}}. Can't we just use the Latinate genitive {{xt|Archimedis}}? --] (]) 04:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
:::No, actually I '''do''' want to add spacing in the "New York&nbsp;– Los Angeles" case :) This is consistent with the date usage, and looks more symmetrical to me, just like with dates. I did a quick analysis of a google search of "New York – Los Angeles" (and verified it was, as they state, the same result set as with any other separator (i.e. it ignores punctuation chars)). I copied the 561 results that were shown, trimmed the parts before and after the phrase, then removed everything that wasn't "New York" and "Los Angeles" separated by some number of spaces and dash-like characters and sorted the results. This left (unfortunately only) 115 results:
:::As someone who does not particularly despise {{xt|Archimedes's}}, I would cast my even less ramified ;vote for that. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 05:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::*90 were "New York - Los Angeles"
:::*22 were "New York-Los Angeles"
:::*3 were other combinations/typos
:::There are admittedly problems with the methodology, and a more complete study might be necessary, but 90/20 does seem somewhat compelling, doesn't it?
:::If we use less-familiar names, I think it gets more compelling:
:::* "I took the Alpe d'Huez–Angoulême flight"
:::* "I took the Belle Île–Alpe d'Huez flight"
:::* "The Villefranche-de-Rouergue–Les Sables-d'Olonne–La Montagne Noire segments were completely full" (Quick&nbsp;– how many segments is that?!)
:::N'est-ce pas? :) <font color="red">—&#91;</font>](])<font color="red">&#93;—</font> 05:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


==Discussion on ] bio leads==
== En-dash usage ==
See ]. ] (]) 19:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
{{formerly|Continued forumshopping about en-dash usage}}
{{FYI|Pointer to a relevant discussion elsewhere.}}
At ], someone's launched another "hyphens vs. en dashes" RfC with regard to airports, after one RfC and various requested moves have already declined to override MoS on this. Someone seems not to have noticed ] and ]. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp; <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>&nbsp; <small>]</small></font> 02:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
:I would suggest that hyphens seem to be correct for airports. I can not find anyone using en dashes. In our list of US airports all use hyphens except for ], for which the actual name is "Rock Springs Sweetwater County Airport". There are 53 U.S. hyphenated airport names. Some use en dashes, some hyphens. ] uses a hyphen, correctly I would say. Am I missing something? ] (]) 04:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
:Or are hyphens always correct for airports and Wilkes-Barre because of this advice: "Wrong: Franco–British rivalry; "Franco" is a combining form, not independent; use a hyphen: Franco-British rivalry"? ] (]) 04:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
:The following nine U.S. airport article names use en dash:
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*] - actually uses a minus sign, not an en dash
*] - this was moved recently and the RM was probably closed incorrectly, with one support vote and insufficient information.
*]
*]
:Some of the hyphens in the airport list are for old or alternate names. The remaining 28 U.S airports use hyphen. ] (]) 07:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
:: I do not express currently any reasoning about airport names in general, but the comparison of "Wilkes-Barre" to "Franco-British" is completely wrong because of ] and ]. Also, Apteva's use of space-]-space instead of an en dash directly in this posting (which is exactly about the hyphen–dash rivalry) looks as a provoking illiteracy, which does not contribute to establishing of the consensus. ] (]) 11:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
:::The link from "stroke" takes me to an article on hyphen-minus, yet a fifth type of dash type character. I am not aware of any airport name using a hyphen-dash (-), and I used the exact punctuation used in our article names in the list above. Some use an en dash, some a space en dash space, and all are in the list above, although now ] also uses endash. Other than that I am not aware of using "stroke" "in this posting". ] (]) 04:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
:::: The ] is a type of dash, really? Not more than ] is a sort of ], or ] is something of ]. You think of a substitute as a variety&nbsp;– it's not correct. ] (]) 19:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::Actually I was not able to reproduce the hyphen-minus, but by "dash type" I meant "hyphen or longer horizontal line used for punctuation". I thought that should have been clear from the context. So I was saying "flooring" not "wood". At least when I cut and pasted the hyphen-minus into my word processor, it came out as a hyphen. Our article on dashes points out there are more than two types of '''dashes''' using dash in the sense of "not a hyphen or minus sign but a horizontal line used for punctuation", and this guideline says that WP uses two of them. ] (]) 21:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
::Apteva, I don't doubt that you have good intentions; but your zeal in many forums at the same time and on a couple of style issues is getting disruptive. Please don't edit this MOS page to further your present push. I have just reverted that, and I invite others to monitor things also. This page is to serve the needs of editors maintaining 4,000,000 articles. Its provisions have generally been weighed very carefully, by editors with linguistic knowledge and a great deal of style experience.
::If you have questions about hyphens and dashes&nbsp;– and certainly about proper nouns and proper names, on which I see you have picked up some strange folk ideas&nbsp;– feel free to drop in at my talkpage and we can talk it over.
::☺
::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
:::Isn't the relevant section this bit, at ]?: "By default, follow the dominant convention that a hyphen is used in compounded proper names of single entities, not an en dash. Guinea-Bissau; Bissau is the capital, and this distinguishes the country from neighboring Guinea. McGraw-Hill, a publishing house". That seems to me to suggest we should follow the use of a hyphen where that's the official, formal name, maybe even in every case. The airport is a single entity, even if the bits that gave it the name aren't. Also, a quick scan suggests that several of the pages above that are using the endash now were moved from the hyphenated version at the end of last year, so it seems that was the stable principle in practice as well until a while ago. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 11:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
:::ps: and, as ever, this merely reinforces my view that we could save ourselves all a lot of trouble by doing what most online and many print publishers do and forgetting about the specialist use of, and distinction between, hyphens and endashes. But that's another story, and I know its use makes many people strangely happy. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 11:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
::::No, N-HH. Airports are not typical entities of that sort. The default is here overruled; and indeed practice "out there" is variable even for the same airport name. Unlike "Guinea-Bissau", say. Airport names are usually functional artificial constructions with semantic weight, more like definite descriptions than fully autonomous proper names. Contrast "McGraw-Hill", which is in a way fossilised. No one thinks of "McGraw" and "Hill" as meaningfully linked in that name. Not any more.
::::Your view about saving a lot of trouble by obliterating the best-practice distinction that MOS preserves is well and truly noted. Thank you for not going on about it! The community spoke on these issues last year, loud and clear. There was strong endorsement of the distinctions MOS makes, which are far from unusual or freakish. They contribute to a high-quality encyclopedia, with enhanced readability. But I don't want to go on about it!
::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::Well I can only counter that it seems to me at least that they very much are entities of exactly that sort, and that no clear justification has been offered for any decision to simply "overrule" that default. I don't quite get the idea that an airport name derived from a combination of the names of two people or after the two places it serves is any less a "fully autonomous proper name" - whatever that might mean exactly, especially the first half - than the name of a publishing house originally founded by two different people. And at what point might "fossilisation" occur? Some airport names are very old. Some even have their names specifically referred to, in multiple sources such as - even if, I know, those sources are not academic guides to grammar and punctuation - as being "hyphenated". <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 14:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::The hyphenation in that article will not be based on the "correct" name, but since it is an AP story, it will be based on the AP house style. ] (]) 15:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not talking about the hyphenation itself or AP style, I'm talking about their use of the actual word hyphenation to describe the name. Something which is very common in other sources and reports too, including when quoting those involved in determining the name change. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 15:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::I also noticed this, and I made a ]. And I can't find any source saying that they are dashed.... This is exactly what you would expect to find if airport names were hyphenated proper names. --] (]) 16:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::I assume the response to that is, or would be, two-fold though: first, that it's merely loose language from people who are not punctuation experts, and secondly that even if it "is" a hyphen, our style-guide not only requires an endash but mandates us to force the change when rendering it here. Whether any or all of that has any real weight, I'm not sure .... <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 16:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::The second argument would be quite misleading? Both ] and ] happens to recommend a hyphen for proper names of single entities. We can all agree that an airport is a single entity. Maybe someone will want to argue that airports don't have proper names? --] (]) 14:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::They already have of course, not least previously in this very thread ... <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 14:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
'''Enric Naval:'''
* I have answered your point about "sources explicitly saying that these names are hyphenated" at the RFC itself. As I write, you have not responded there. Why not? You are instead continuing to argue ''here'' as if I had not responded! That is unhelpful and uncooperative. If you would prefer that I ignore your points in future, just tell me, all right?&nbsp;♫♪
* The answer I gave at that RFC is one that N-HH predicts, above. My text at the RFC:
:<blockquote>"That's all misleading, Enric. For example, people commonly use 'hyphenated' to mean 'with a hyphen or something that looks like one'. Most writers (and many editors&nbsp;☺) are not style experts, and most are unaware that there are such things as en dashes. See my answer to you earlier, timestamped today at 23:33, (UTC)"</blockquote>
:Answer there, please. It's an RFC affecting naming on Misplaced Pages, and needs to be taken seriously. It is not a political forum for diminishing the effectiveness of MOS.
* You write: "Both ] and ] to recommend a hyphen for proper names of single entities." That is inaccurate and misleading. Both those MOS guidelines are more nuanced. Read them again. In particular, note that the examples you appeal to are not of the form we are discussing here: "X~Y&nbsp;Z". They are of the simpler form "X~Y". There are several examples (like "the Roman–Syrian War") where the pattern relevant to these airport discussions is realised with an en dash.
'''N-HH:'''
* Enric wrote: "Maybe someone will want to argue that airports don't have proper names?" You responded: "They already have of course, not least previously in this very thread." Really? Where? I had written:
:<blockquote>"Airport names are usually functional artificial constructions with semantic weight, more like definite descriptions than fully autonomous proper names."</blockquote>
:If your assertion referred to that statement, please amend and discuss what ''has'' been said rather than some distortion of it.
* You earlier asked for clarification. That was healthier! Now let me explain. Many proper names are fully autonomous. Many are free of any descriptive meaning. Perhaps the names "Amanda", "Rhode Island", "New South Wales" are good examples. I think few people analyse "Amanda" as describing its bearer as lovable, as the etymological meaning would suggest. Nor "Rhode Island" as if it referred to some island, with modification by "Rhode". I can assure you that for typical Australian users of "New South Wales" that proper name does not call to mind "Wales", nor the quality of being either "south" or "new". These are fully autonomous proper names, freed of any original descriptive content. But not all proper names are like that. "Southern Ocean" remains descriptive for many users, though it functions as a proper name. Same for "Northern Territory" (in Australia), and "North Carolina". And so also for very many airport names. Whichever way you manage its punctuation, "St.&nbsp;Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport" is descriptive: it ''is'' an airport, and an international one. And it ''is'' semantically associated with the placenames that are its components. It is not a fully autonomous proper name. It has current descriptive meaning, and is not fossilised like "Rhode Island". If for that reason alone, the semantic distinctions marked by hyphen and en dash are preserved in many sources: in best-practice publishing. And that best practice is what MOS, supported by community affirmations that are endorsed by ArbCom, seeks to emulate.
<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
:]</small></sup> 03:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)]
:* Roman–Syrian War might not be the best example to use, as I can not confirm that using an en dash is supported by "common usage". (an article that makes liberal use of en dash in other places, but not for Roman-Syrian War) Anything that has attained "proper name status" by definition has an established proper name. Anything that has not can clearly use any preferred style convention, such as using an en dash in certain situations and some other punctuation in other situations. Does the spelling of a proper name include the punctuation internal to itself? I say it does. While we tend to eschew stylistic spellings such as WAL★MART, we do include hyphens, spaces and /, but is there really ''any'' proper name that is constructed using an en dash? ] (]) 02:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
:::On the contrary, it's a fine example. First note that most web sites default to hyphen wherever possible (as opposed to sentence-level punctuation, for which many of them reserve the en dash, spaced, like the one you have just linked). But Misplaced Pages prefers sources in print, from quality publishers. Next, so what if few sources use that styling for that war? Misplaced Pages has a consistent style for such cases, and it has wide community backing. This style is applicable to all articles with names like "X~Y&nbsp;War" on Misplaced Pages. Consider the infamous case of ]. is inconsistent (compare p.&nbsp;346 and the index entries with the main choice, which is en dash). has hyphen once, and just a space another time. has hyphen once, and en dash another time. and have en dash; and you can find very many that have hyphen. So what? No, the space, hyphen, or en dash is not a ''part'' of the name, or a ''feature'' of the name. It is ''applied'' to the name. ''Styling'' is applied, according to a ''manual of style''. That's what you ''do'' with a manual of style, like MOS.<br>Not rocket science, in the end.<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
::::I fail to understand why the article referenced deliberately used a hyphen for the war and deliberately used en dashes so many other places other than that they thought that was correct in each case. The MOS does not say to make up preferred spellings. It says use what is correct. I hasten to suggest that anyone named John Lennard-Jones would take severe offense to their name being spelled Lennard/Jones, Lennard Jones, or Lennard(endash)Jones. While an airport is not going to call up wikipedia foundation and complain, they certainly could "roll their eyes" at the use of en dash. It is very clear people can point to the current MOS and say that airport names should per WP:HYPHEN use a hyphen and that others can say that per WP:ENDASH an endash should be used. That is not the question. The question is which is correct? It is clear to me that we need to add an example of an airport, and that example needs to use a hyphen. And I can show you 170 out of 200 books checked that back up that suggestion, and only 6 out of those that use endash. The rule as I see it is very simple. "Hyphenation also occurs ... in proper names", to quote our very own WP:MOS. So, use an en dash if you make up a name with two places and use a hyphen if that name attains the status of being a proper name. As to Mexican American War, out of 100 books checked, only three use endash, and the rest either a hyphen or a space. I would count them if I was settling a discussion about the name of the article, but I would categorically say that in our great ENDASH zeal of 2011, the article is now definitely incorrectly named (for anyone wondering, article names are not used when a diff is given - anything works just as well as the actual article name). ] (]) 08:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
::::And the answer is Mexican-American War (36:2 is far enough). ] (]) 08:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::Noetica, I replied . You have dismissed all those sources, but you have presented absolutely no source that contradicts them. You have provided no style guide that says that airport names are not proper names or that they are dashed.


== Usage of historical place names in infoboxes ==
:::::You claim that airport names are just descriptive names, but this is easily refuted by names like ], ], ]. ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and many others in ].


Some feedback ] would be nice. Thanks --] (]) 19:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::These are not random descriptive names that some wikipedia editor came up with. These are official names which are officially communicated to air transport authorities and then used to create the ]s and other codes. If the official name changes, the codes change. --] (]) 10:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


== When are words being used as-words? ==
::::::No no, Enric. That is all mixed up, like the reminder you have just issued about a question to me at the parallel forum where this is all under discussion. There I have responded to you: ''You asked no such question''. Concentrate! You misunderstand me here too.
::::::Editors, it is a shocking waste of our resources to conduct parallel discussions at two talkpages. Can Apteva and Enric decide where they would prefer to exhume all of this old wrangling, and confine it to one place?
::::::And I have requested a ''speedy close'' to Apteva's ] for ]. Surely we can do without ''that'' Leviathan being revived!
::::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I replied ]. I am hoping that you find style sources that support your particular interpretation of proper names and that you post them there. --] (]) 13:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Still all mixed up, still not reading what was actually said, still reiterating points that were dispatched many times in 2011, still expecting answers but not providing them yourself, still replicating discussions at several forums. Stop it. <font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
Noetica, I understand the principle you enunciate: in proper names when the elements to be joined have significant independent semantic weight (as is the case if the combination is of two cities or nationalities, for example), then use en-dash; otherwise use hyphen. However, this is not easy to apply. Firstly, it's necessary to understand the origin of the name (e.g. "McClellan~Palomar Airport" could, for all I know as a non-American, be named after a person with the surname "McClellan-Palomar", in which case a hyphen should be used, or after two places, or two people, or one of each, in which cases an en-dash should be used). Secondly, it is a highly subjective issue as to when the independent semantic weight disappears. I hyphenate "McGraw-Hill" because I don't know of or remember publishers called "McGraw" and "Hill". But suppose Macmillan merged with OUP and called itself "Macmillan~OUP", then what should I do? To me, both names would have independent semantic weight, but others might not have this awareness, and when would it stop being significant? In summary, the principle doesn't seem suitable for a Manual of Style: it's not sufficiently clear and precise for most editors to use. ] (]) 21:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


It seems to be required by ] that any statement that uses constructions like:
:Fine, Peter. Thank you for reading with care&nbsp;– and for asking a reasonable question and making thoughtful points. In due course I would like to answer those. Meanwhile, see what I have posted at one of the discussions running parallel to this one (also at ], where I call for that RM to be closed):
* {{xt|This concept is called ''Example'', ...}} (also {{xt|termed}}, {{xt|known as}}, {{xt|referred to as}}, etc.)
:<blockquote>"Good, Enric. You got it: I answered there ]]. However, your report of my answer is not accurate. Nor is your take on my view of the matter. Ask what you want ''there'', and I will answer there. On this proviso: this unruly and unproductive RFC and the ill-advised new RM at ] be wound up first. I have personally spent the equivalent of full-time weeks of work on these issues, most of it in 2011. I am prepared to do more; but not in several forums simultaneously just because someone thinks that is a good idea. I don't. Misplaced Pages identifies it as ], as SMcCandlish points out above."</blockquote>
:That is my considered and necessary response to these issues being raised in an especially disruptive way, yet again. It is such disorder that led to the ArbCom intervention in 2011. Those who remember it will not want a repeat!
:So: all in good time, right?
:<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


italicize the term. However, this is almost never consistently done even in many of our FAs (see ], used as an example in the MoS), and many other publications are unbothered. Am I worrying about something that doesn't make a difference in the clarity of many passages?
===Two corrections===
It appears that the example "the Uganda–Tanzania War; the Roman–Syrian War; the east–west runway; the Lincoln–Douglas debates; a carbon–carbon bond" while not commenting that it is a little long (do we really need so many examples?), is in need of two corrections; in the first example, "the Uganda–Tanzania War", war should not be capitalized (see google book search), and it should be "but not {{!xt|the Roman–Syrian War}} (as Roman-Syrian War is a proper name)". The article at ] should also be moved, to ], and if it is a proper name, a better example used, and it be moved to Uganda-Tanzania War. ] (]) 23:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


I just struggle with paragraphs like (adapted from {{slink|Chinese characters|Zhou scripts}}):
== Burma/Myanmar ==
{{cquote|The mainstream script's slow, gradual evolution continued during the ] until assuming the form now known as '']'' within the ]. Other scripts in use during the late Zhou include the ], as well as the regional forms used in non-Qin states. Historically, these forms were collectively known as '']'', a term which has fallen out of favour due to its lack of precision.}}


It just looks weird that maintaining a natural flow in more jargon-y passages requires two terms to be italicized and one not to be. It looks arbitrary, and might even confuse readers if they notice? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 01:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
] gives an exception to ENGVAR for proper names. The ] article is in British English and Burma is preferred by British English. Suppose Myanmar is the ]. Is it okay to primarily refer to it within the article as Myanmar even though it is in British English? ] (]) 09:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
:It doesn't really have anything to do with British vs. American English linguistic/style differences. According to ], it's about which countries recognize the authority of the current military government, who renamed the country to Myanmar. The UN does recognize it as Myanmar, but the UK, US, and Canada do not, and continue to regard it as Burma, according to the article. I don't know whether the UN's recognition (without US and UK) should be sufficient to change enwiki's naming&nbsp;– I just wanted to clarify that it's a political, not a language, issue. <font color="red">—&#91;</font>](])<font color="red">&#93;—</font> 17:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
::(Suppose) media and popular usage does not follow the official usage. Then what? ] (]) 09:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
:Looking at Google Ngrams there don't seem to be substantial differences between English varieties: in all of them ''Burma'' dominates (though many of them will be mentioning the country in an historical context and hence shouldn't count{{spnd}}cf ; any idea how to tell them apart in Ngram results?). As for the general principle, I'd say that in article titles at least, if Word&nbsp;A is somewhat common in both Dialect&nbsp;X and Dialect&nbsp;Y whereas Word&nbsp;B is very common in Dialect&nbsp;X but very rare in Dialect&nbsp;Y, we'd better use Word&nbsp;A, as per ]. ]] 17:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
::nGrams are only for publications through 2008. I don't think this is sufficient in this case, given the significant changes in 2010-11. <font color="red">—&#91;</font>](])<font color="red">&#93;—</font> 15:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:26, 13 January 2025

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

Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style contains some conventions that differ from those in some other, well-known style guides and from what is often taught in schools. Misplaced Pages's editors have discussed these conventions in great detail and have reached consensus that these conventions serve our purposes best. New contributors are advised to check the FAQ and the archives to see if their concern has already been discussed.

Why does the Manual of Style recommend straight (keyboard-style) instead of curly (typographic) quotation marks and apostrophes (i.e., the characters " and ', instead of “, ”, ‘, and ’)‍? Users may only know how to type in straight quotes (such as " and ') when searching for text within a page or when editing. Not all Web browsers find curly quotes when users type straight quotes in search strings. Why does the Manual of Style recommend logical quotation? This system is preferred because Misplaced Pages, as an international and electronic encyclopedia, has specific needs better addressed by logical quotation than by the other styles, despite the tendency of externally published style guides to recommend the latter. These include the distinct typesetters' style (often called American, though not limited to the US), and the various British/Commonwealth styles, which are superficially similar to logical quotation but have some characteristics of typesetters' style. Logical quotation is more in keeping with the principle of minimal change to quotations, and is less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing, than the alternatives. Logical quotation was adopted in 2005, and has been the subject of perennial debate that has not changed this consensus. Why does the Manual of Style differentiate the hyphen (-), en dash (–), em dash (—), and minus sign (−)? Appropriate use of hyphens and dashes is as much a part of literate, easy-to-read writing as are correct spelling and capitalization. The "Insert" editing tools directly below the Misplaced Pages editing window provide immediate access to all these characters. Why does the Manual of Style recommend apostrophe+s for singular possessive of names ending in s? Most modern style guides treat names ending with s just like other singular nouns when forming the possessive. The few that do not propose mutually contradictory alternatives. Numerous discussions have led to the current MoS guidance (see discussions of 2004, 2005, 2005, 2006, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2008, 2008, 2009, 2009, 2009, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2017, 2017 (the RfC establishing the present consensus), 2018, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022). Why doesn't the Manual of Style always follow specialized practice? Although Misplaced Pages contains some highly technical content, it is written for a general audience. While specialized publications in a field, such as academic journals, are excellent sources for facts, they are not always the best sources for or examples of how to present those facts to non-experts. When adopting style recommendations from external sources, the Manual of Style incorporates a substantial number of practices from technical standards and field-specific academic style guides; however, Misplaced Pages defaults to preferring general-audience sources on style, especially when a specialized preference may conflict with most readers' expectations, and when different disciplines use conflicting styles.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.
Section sizes
Section size for Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (157 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 2,657 2,657
Retaining existing styles 2,787 2,787
Article titles, sections, and headings 137 12,678
Article titles 3,406 3,406
Section organization 4,752 4,752
Section headings 3,573 4,383
Heading-like material 810 810
National varieties of English 847 6,626
Consistency within articles 1,230 1,230
Opportunities for commonality 1,882 1,882
Strong national ties to a topic 1,414 1,414
Retaining the existing variety 1,253 1,253
Capital letters 648 18,724
Capitalization of The 984 984
Titles of works 1,232 1,232
Titles of people 780 780
Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines 4,974 4,974
Calendar items 701 701
Animals, plants, and other organisms 5,616 5,616
Celestial bodies 1,249 1,249
Compass points 1,203 1,203
Proper names versus generic terms 1,337 1,337
Ligatures 495 495
Abbreviations 774 8,129
Write first occurrences in full 640 640
Plural forms 245 245
Punctuation and spacing 1,175 1,175
US and U.S. 1,918 1,918
Circa 279 279
Avoid unwarranted use 662 662
Do not invent 874 874
HTML tags and templates 383 383
Ampersand 1,179 1,179
Italics 105 6,366
Emphasis 1,133 1,133
Titles 572 572
Words as words 1,320 1,320
Non-English words 751 751
Scientific names 499 499
Quotations in italics 581 581
Italics within quotations 767 767
Effect on nearby punctuation 638 638
Quotations 1,355 16,801
Original wording 3,026 3,026
Point of view 1,234 1,234
Typographic conformity 5,818 5,818
Attribution 438 438
Quotations within quotations 94 94
Linking 483 483
Block quotations 3,214 3,214
Non-English quotations 1,139 1,139
Punctuation 203 76,952
Apostrophes 2,184 2,184
Quotation marks 394 13,595
Quotation characters 1,035 1,035
Double or single 1,234 1,234
For a quotation within a quotation 869 869
Article openings 729 729
Punctuation before quotations 2,023 2,023
Names and titles 1,331 1,331
Punctuation inside or outside 3,717 3,717
Quotation marks and external links 940 940
Quotation marks and internal links 1,323 1,323
Brackets and parentheses 3,366 4,571
Brackets and linking 1,205 1,205
Ellipses 2,939 2,939
Commas 4,876 8,072
Serial commas 3,196 3,196
Colons 1,868 1,868
Semicolons 3,331 5,721
Semicolon before "however" 2,390 2,390
Hyphens 9,985 9,985
Dashes 939 16,164
In article titles 759 759
In running text 2,195 12,352
In ranges that might otherwise be expressed with to or through 3,063 3,063
In compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between 5,212 5,212
Instead of a hyphen, use an en dash when applying a prefix or suffix to a compound that itself includes a space, dash or hyphen 1,297 1,297
To separate parts of an item in a list 585 585
Other uses for en dashes 543 543
Other uses for em dashes 966 966
Other dashes 605 605
Slashes (strokes) 3,341 3,948
And/or 607 607
Symbols 595 595
Number (pound, hash) sign and numero 2,310 2,310
Terminal punctuation 737 737
Spacing 512 512
Consecutive punctuation marks 1,151 1,151
Punctuation and footnotes 2,179 2,179
Punctuation after formulae 218 218
Dates and time 361 5,083
Time of day 794 794
Dates 1,033 1,033
Months 323 323
Seasons 774 774
Years and longer periods 1,080 1,080
Current 718 718
Numbers 1,884 1,884
Currencies 1,637 1,637
Units of measurement 2,737 2,737
Common mathematical symbols 2,606 2,606
Grammar and usage 62 12,759
Possessives 158 1,918
Singular nouns 975 975
Plural nouns 523 523
Official names 262 262
Pronouns 104 5,804
First-person pronouns 1,494 1,494
Second-person pronouns 2,306 2,306
Third-person pronouns 1,900 1,900
Plurals 2,005 2,005
Verb tense 2,970 2,970
Vocabulary 98 22,675
Contractions 476 476
Gender-neutral language 1,692 1,692
Contested vocabulary 256 256
Instructional and presumptuous language 2,578 2,578
Subset terms 618 618
Identity 1,957 3,604
Gender identity 1,647 1,647
Non-English terms 301 8,016
Terms without common usage in English 1,547 1,547
Terms with common usage in English 400 400
Spelling and romanization 4,917 4,917
Other non-English concerns 851 851
Technical language 1,961 1,961
Geographical items 3,376 3,376
Media files 69 2,791
Images 313 313
Other media 181 181
Avoid using images to display text 884 884
Captions 526 1,344
Formatting of captions 818 818
Bulleted and numbered lists 1,552 1,552
Links 10 1,750
Wikilinks 1,411 1,411
External links 329 329
Miscellaneous 18 13,328
Keep markup simple 1,219 1,219
Formatting issues 1,016 2,981
Color coding 1,245 1,245
Indentation 720 720
Controlling line breaks 2,471 2,471
Scrolling lists and collapsible content 3,164 3,164
Invisible comments 1,554 2,817
How to add an invisible comment 1,263 1,263
Pronunciation 658 658
See also 1,199 4,870
Guidance 1,242 1,242
Tools 300 300
Other community standards 523 523
Guidelines within the Manual of Style 310 1,606
Names 1,296 1,296
Notes 24 24
References 28 28
Further reading 1,206 1,206
Total 227,145 227,145
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconManual of Style
WikiProject iconThis page falls within the scope of the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style
Note icon
This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate.
Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
Note icon
For information on Misplaced Pages's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Misplaced Pages policies of Misplaced Pages's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.
WikiProject iconMisplaced Pages Help Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of the Misplaced Pages Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Misplaced Pages HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Misplaced Pages Help ProjectHelp
TopThis page has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Welcome to the MOS pit


    Style discussions elsewhere

    This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

    Add a link to new discussions at top of list and indicate what kind of discussion it is (move request, RfC, open discussion, deletion discussion, etc.). Follow the links to participate, if interested. Move to Concluded when decided, and summarize conclusion. Please keep this section at the top of the page.

    Current

    (newest on top)

    Pretty stale but not "concluded":

    Capitalization-specific:

    This section is an excerpt from Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Current.

    Move requests:

    Other discussions:

    Pretty stale but not "concluded":

    Concluded

    Extended content
    This section is an excerpt from Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Concluded.
    Capitalization-specific:
    2024
    2023
    2022
    2021

    Any objections to extending MOS:TIES to all nations and regions?

    Currently MOS:TIES qualifies itself to English-speaking nations. However, in an increasingly multicultural world with English emerging as the lingua franca, at minimum in the Western world, why qualify this part of the MoS like that, ESPECIALLY when it also impacts on MOS:UNIT? For example, the European Union has 24 official languages, including English, and multilingualism is one of its founding principles.

    Would it not make sense to extend MOS:TIES to nations (and regions) irrespective of whether they traditionally speak English or not? Because I can see how saying to someone that embraces multilingualism and values Europe's rich linguistic diversity wishing to contribute to an article on a topic with strong ties to their nation or region in the EU, where English is an official language, that in this case that tie doesn’t count (and someone else gets to decide) might be perceived as ... well ... rude and arrogant, which isn't just unnecessary but also unproductive. Would the article not benefit from including anyone with a strong tie to it?

    I must note I would prefer if there was an established international variant, but I also find it practical not to have to waste time and effort trying to work out whether in a given article its meter or metre, organise or organize, or SI first and then imperial, or imperial first and then SI. Because getting it wrong just causes unnecessary consternation, especially if the article is inhabited by one or more "Shelobs". Elrondil (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

    I'm not in favor of this idea. TIES is an exceptional case that should be used only when it's very clear; the main rule is RETAIN.
    In practice I think this proposal comes down to "don't use American English in articles about Europe". I don't agree with that. --Trovatore (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Trovatore: The proposal doesn’t suggest it no longer needs to be clear, nor that that main rule is no longer retain. It simply proposes that MORE voices are heard.
    As for the “don’t use American English in Europe” bit ... that would then only happen if most voices then want that. The solution surely isn’t “but I don’t like that, so let’s exclude them from the set of voices allowed to speak”. Fear not, they may choose American, who knows. Elrondil (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Also not in favor for the reasons cited by Trovatore. Doremo (talk) 07:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    I do object to this.
    Moreover, from what I understand it's a perennial suggestion, so I recommend perusing the last major flare-up of it from June, wherein I happen to embark on a journey from the exact wrong position all the way to the right one, filling your heart with hope for a better future as you follow my progress. Remsense ‥ 论 07:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    If it keeps coming up, perhaps there is something there.
    However, you do highlight its more complex than I originally thought, so back to the drawing board 🤔. Elrondil (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Not a chance. The purpose of MOS:TIES is entirely, only, solely about English-language dialects that exist at a more or less national level and in a formal register suitable for encyclopedia writing. Under no circumstances would we accept an English pidgin/creole or some vaguely identifiable informal habits of English-as-a-second-language users in some country or region as a "variety of English" to accept for encyclopedia writing. If you encounter "Franglais", "Spanglish", "Deutchlish", etc., in any of our articles it should be normalized on the spot to whichever form of standardized English suits the subject best if there are strong MOS:TIES, or to the form that the article already most closely matches (British, American, Canadian, or some other dialect of a country with majority or official and large minority English usage in a formal register). Another way of looking at this: There is no strong tie between Finland and any form of English. Even the "Well, it at least shouldn't be American, but British, because the UK is part of Europe and the US is not" sort of argument fails, because there's more than one national dialect of English in Europe (Irish, for now, and probably Scottish if they have another independence referendum). If there's not a particular encyclopedia-appropriate variety/dialect of English in widespread use in a country, then that country by definition has no strong tie to any such particular variety.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    @SMcCandlish: Thank you for stating very clearly and firmly that the purpose of MOS:TIES is entirely, only, solely about English-language dialects, because THAT means my primary concern of how it relates to MOS:UNIT is a non-issue!
    For the record, I did not, and still don’t, propose that “Franglais” and so on become accepted English variants. Because that would be insane, pointless and not useful. Elrondil (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    If this is something to do with promotion of crore and lakh in articles that pertain to India, there's already a big thread about that at WT:MOSNUM (again), and last I looked the consensus wasn't really changing: they're permissible as secondary units, but always need to be converted because they don't mean anything to anyone outside India and parts of its immediate neighbors (and of course among first-gen Indic diaspora). Maybe the tide has shifted in that discussion; I last looked at it about a week ago.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    No. I wasn’t aware of that thread. Elrondil (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    The thread to which you refer is “RfC Indian numbering conventions”? Elrondil (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don’t think there is any real overlap with the “RfC Indian numbering conventions” thread.
    I also think MOS:TIES is a dog’s breakfast, but happy to leave it alone at this time.
    Are there any objections then to apply the direction from SMcCandlish that the purpose of MOS:TIES is entirely, only, solely about English-language dialects to MOS:UNITS and decouple "respect the principle of 'strong national ties'" from MOS:TIES? For example, change it to "respect the underlying principle of strong national ties as also used in MOS:TIES but in a different context”, and then also qualify the following with only?
    • In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United States only, the …
    • In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom only, the …
    • In all other articles, the …
    Elrondil (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Well, you're been so vague about why you are asking these things, what rationale you could have for making up a new rule or changing any existing one, without any reference to an ongoing and important on-site problem, that all one has been left with is guesswork based on encounters with extant or recent discussions that seem like they could be pertinent. "Are there any objections"?: Yes., I can think of a number:
    1. There is no clear rationale for what you're proposing, much less a consensus to do it. Substantive changes to policies and guidelines (WP:P&G) need consensus or they will not be accepted (unless they, rarely, hit upon something that needed to adjusted and no one else noticed until now, which isn't the case here).
    2. There are strong rationales against it, most obviously:
      A. Your implicit notion that units of measure have no connection to dialect (or "variety" as WP likes to say) is not correct.
      B. Even if it were, it'd be immaterial. The next implicit idea in your proposal (quite central to it really) is that if P&G page X reiterates a general principle from another, Y, and cites the latter for the explanation, such that X applies that principle to X's circumstances because they are reasonably analogous to Y's, that this somehow creates a bureaucratic rules-chain dependency in which every aspect of the context of the cited origin of the principle in Y must also be applicable to the citing circumstances of X. Nothing on Misplaced Pages works that way at all. Cf. WP:WIKILAWYER: it's a mistake to try to interpret our P&G as essentially a legal system (or as something like a procedural programming language, or a chain of dependencies in building software from source code; more than one analogy works).
      C. Because of point B, and because of the guideline's current "where applicable" wording (which is there for a reason and meaningful), your first rewrite idea, of tacking on a bunch of "respect the underlying principle of strong national ties as also used in MOS:TIES but in a different context" verbiage it entirely superfluous. The two versions convey the same meaning, because it is already understood that the principle (not the detail-by-detail contextual specifics) of TIES is being applied at UNITS. This is the way our entire P&G system operates. It wouldn't really be possible for it to be any other way. If UNITS was literally just restating TIES, down to the specifics of exactly what TIES covers, then UNITS would be redundant (in this regard) with TIES, and its wording about this issue would've been deleted long ago and replaced with a simple cross-reference to TIES without further comment. The kind of exemplary and contextual more-than-crossreferencing done at UNITS is entirely normal. And important: an editor looking for "what to do about units" is unlikely to instead stumble upon "what to do about national-level usage disputes", and so would be unlikely to find the TIES principles and then be certain how to contextually apply them (if at all) to units, without being basically an expert in our style guide the way some Tolkien fans learn Elvish.
      D. The next bit of suggested rewriting is to inject "only" into two line items, but this change would have a nonsensical and undesirable result in two ways: It would make those items applicable under no circumstances to anywhere but the US and the UK, respectively (even to former UK colonies with English- and units-usage norms virtually indistinguishable from British in an encyclopedic register); and it would necessitate (to fix that new problem) expanding that into a long list of every country with anything that WP would consider a "national variety of English" with pertinent unit-usage norms. The purpose of those two examples is as examples (not as an exhaustive list) of how to approach these matters. The examples were chosen because they settled previously recurrent disputes. So, what long-term, recurrent, serious problem can you point to that you think your changes would resolve? The examples are not there to serve as the beginning of an ever-growing rulebook to address every imaginable case with a new micro-topical line item to thump. The purpose of giving a general principle and providing some prominent examples is to obviate the need to have a pile of micro-rules. (MOS:NUM is already too detailed as it is.)
    3. The long-term stability of these guidelines is very important, because even small but meaningful/operative changes to them can affect many thousands up to potentially millions of articles, for reasons that almost always resolve to trivial and subjective peccadilloes. That cascading-wave-of-unneeded-changes problem (and all the fighting the endless trivial tweaks would generate) is never more of a danger than when a national-level and frequent usage matter is at issue (and literally millions of our articles do have measures with units in them). See also WP:MOSBLOAT: If MoS, after 20-odd years, doesn't already have a rule about something, then it needs to not have a rule about it, because it is not necessary for the project to do what it does successfully, and MoS is already way too long.
    4. Your "I also think MOS:TIES is a dog's breakfast, but happy to leave it alone at this time" approach does not bode well. Our policies and guidelines don't exist as hills to die on. The purpose of these style guidelines is (aside from the main one of producing intelligible and consistent content for our readers) dissuading style-warring behavior. Arriving with the idea that the rules are broken and that at some forthcoming time you're going to fix them is antithetical to their purpose and to the needs of the community. It largely doesn't matter what any particular line-item in MoS sets out (except when there is objectively a reader-clarity improvement offered by one option over another), only that it sets out, and long-term retains, something that addresses a recurrent dispute pattern and brings it mostly (hopefully entirely) to an end, and/or that it produces better content for our readers – even if that "something" is arbitrary or is a compromise that can't please everyone. Just as a word to the wise, MOS:ENGVAR (including TIES) is pretty much the hardest-fought consensus compromise reached in MoS's history, and is also one of the oldest and most stable, so if you think you're going to make serious changes to it, you are very mistaken. It's like going to Canada and declaring your mission is to undo the country's approach to French and English as official languages.
    This might all come off as harsh, but WP:Policy writing is hard, and the vast majority of proposals to change any P&G are off the mark. There are many devils in many details (thus the length of this), with a lot of nuanced interrelations between different rules (or advice or best practices or whatever you want to call them). Most of the real kinks were worked out long ago. Those that remain are subject to long-term dispute that hasn't produced a workable compromise. There is no such dispute about the material you want to change. And there are sometimes severe costs for making changes that are not vital to make.PS: I've tried hard to find a "yes" to put into this pile of "no", and there is one! Namely, your version is correct that the "scare quotes" around strong national ties shouldn't be there. I just went and removed them, so thanks for that. Otherwise, no element of your draft appears to be clearly an improvement. Here's the original wording: The choice of primary units depends on the circumstances, and should respect the principle of strong national ties, where applicable. Here's yours (presumably also keeping the original's first 10 words and the link): respect the underlying principle of strong national ties as also used in MOS:TIES but in a different context. Mentioning the other guideline by name is redundant with linking to it, and all our P&G pages are fairly (not entirely) consistent in, when practical, using plain English with links around pertinent terms rather than injecting page names. Mentioning it by shortcut in particular is "newbie-unfriendly" and wrongly presumes memorization of our shortcut strings. "Underlying" is a puff word and doesn't serve a concrete purpose in the sentence. (And underlying what? It has no clear downstream referent.) "As also used in" is more redundancy; if we're linking to TIES as the locus of the principle, it's already automatically understood that the principle is applied at the place we're linking to. "But in a different context" is a combination of redundancy with the implication of the link again, and quite odd wording: Why is there a "but" in this? (What it is contrasting against?) "Different" from what? Different in what way? And "context" is conceptually misused in this construction, in that the general principle at TIES is a meta-context, of all usage/style disputes pertaining to national-level English dialects, while use of units is a subset of that, a sub-context, not a conflicting/alternative context. Finally, unit usage is only sometimes a subset of the usage in a national variety of English, thus the original's "where applicable" – a key point that your version drops, despite it seeming to be central to the bee in your bonnet.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Introducing Scottish as an additional form of English would cause mayhem - or at least a shedload of future editing - here. We’ve already had a nationalist-driven push towards replacing ‘British’ with ‘English’ or ‘Scottish’ in bio articles, usually uncited and based purely on supposition or the subject’s birthplace. Fortunately, Scottish Independence appears to be receding as a prospect, at least in the short to medium term. MapReader (talk) 07:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't disagree (and we had a real template at {{Use Scottish English}} in 2013, with an attempt to re-create it in 2016). Several years ago, I tried to get rid of all the "Use Foo English", and related, templates declaring "national varieties" that, in reality, are completely indistinguishable from general British English in an encyclopedic register, and could all collectively be covered by a "Use Commonwealth English" template. ENGVAR only applies to national (not subnational) varieties, and only those dialects that exist in distinct forms and with a formal register (by definition: if you can't write encyclopedia-appropriate material in a dialect, then it doesn't belong in our articles for any reason, so ENGVAR cannot be used to "protect" it from edits). But nationalistic sentiments won out in the end, and we still have all that claptrap, with ridiculous results like articles being tagged with {{Use Jamaican English}}, {{Use Singaporean English}}, etc. (Likewise we have no use of American-splitoff variants, either, like "Use Guam English", etc.) Too many editors who should know better and should think just a tiny bit harder have utterly mistaken the purpose of these as something like "national pride" flags to put on articles, in a verging-on-WP:OWN manner. These tags absolutely do not resolve to "write an article about Nigeria using colloquialisms and grammatical oddities found only in the informal speech and writing of English in Nigeria, which will be confusing to everyone else in the world". If someone tries that crap in response to such a template, rewrite the material per MOS:COMMONALITY and MOS:TONE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    MOS:NOTGALLERY

    At another talk page, I was writing an explanation of why articles should not be swamped in a plethora of images, planning to cite MOS:NOTGALLERY. Fortunately for once I checked first and found that it is just an alias for WP:NOTDB, not a statement that article spaces should not be mirrors of Commons.

    Given that the majority of visitors do so on mobile phones, is there a case for an explicit policy that says that curation is essential, less is more?

    Or would it be enough to change the target of NOTGALLERY to MOS:IMAGEREL (which might need a little expansion because right now it just says Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting. At least a reference to WP:ARTICLESIZE? (which is expressed in terms of word count, not megabytes, so would also need work). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

    I think IMAGEREL would be a better redirect target. I want this to point to guidance that images should be included selectively rather than overwhelming articles with images. NOTDB instead seems to be guidance that images should be relevant and accompanied by text, which is not enough to prevent big indiscriminate galleries. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    I've had second thoughts about this one. It is probably not wise to make NOTGALLERY an exception to the general rule that WP:NOTaaaaaaaa shortcuts all redirect to WP:Misplaced Pages is not. So the better plan is to add a short sentence to the current target to say that Misplaced Pages is not a database of images or a catalogue raisonné; those are among the functions of Wikimedia Commons. Image use in Misplaced Pages articles must comply with MOS:IMAGEREL. I will do that now.
    IMAGEREL needs some work too, to make it even more explicit that to bury an article in a mass of images is sure way to ensure that nobody reads it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    While some types of "galleries" should be avoided, articles on certain visual topics do benefit from many visual examples. I also do not think we should explicitly outlaw the catalogue raisonné model while allowing many other bibliographic lists. One size does not fit all, and such a change would need to be debated with the folks curating WP:NOT and those who work on visual topics. —Kusma (talk) 10:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Pending further discussion, I have removed the reference to catalogue raisonné from my amendment (so that it now reads simply Misplaced Pages articles are not a repository of images: image use in Misplaced Pages articles must comply with MOS:IMAGEREL. to item 4, "Photographs or media files".
    I agree certainly that, in an article about an artist or an artistic movement, it is essential to illustrate the phases of their artistic development. That to me is clearly in keeping with IMAGEREL and wp:localconsensus can determine relevancy. But to include an image of every work in an artist's oeuvre? How is that a valid exception to NOTDB? (and likely a COPYVIO too). And why not show every putter manufactured by ACME Golf Inc? every locomotive made by ACME Rail Inc? every postage stamp (including all misprints) produced by the Austro-Hungarian empire? We have articles so swamped in pointless images that they have become essentially unusable to visitors on mobile. How does that make any sense? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    I would definitely oppose including every work in an artist's oeuvre in an article on the artist, but I want to make sure we do not outlaw List of paintings by Edvard Munch, where the images are perfectly encyclopaedic and just as relevant for identification as the images in List of members of the 19th Bundestag. Tables in such long lists are often not great for small screens, but that is a separate issue from the number of images. Generally, lists are not the same as other articles in their use of images, so the rules should reflect that. —Kusma (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't see a problem with that. Clearly the application of IMAGEREL should (and would) be different between a list article v a fairly broad concept article. To take your example, it would be entirely reasonable to include every image we have in the list article, provided that we use small thumbnails (upright=0.2); conversely (IMO) the bio article about Munch should be curated so that it has just one carefully chosen image to illustrate each phase of the development of his style , with maybe one or two especially notable examples that he did . Surely we don't want to replicate Commons? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Please, let's not compromise the full extent of the encyclopedia by limiting what has always been one of its main features. Images and galleries define and describe just as much as text. That many choose to "read" Misplaced Pages on tinier gadgets should not dictate the coverage and image-styling of encyclopedic content articles. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    The problem we have at the moment with some articles is what David Eppstein describes above as "big indiscriminate galleries" and rote copying of everything in Commons for no evident informative purpose, a form of visual clutter. As IMAGEREL begins, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding". Without curation, the information gets buried in the woodpile.
    I am not proposing a principle that we must minimise the number of images, period. My proposal is that we provide a policy basis that editors can use to say "that point is already adequately illustrated, another image adds nothing new" or "this article had become so bogged down in images that it no longer navigable". I am talking about edge cases here, in most articles it is not an issue. But some have become swamped in an uncritical replica of Commons. This is not to enable wikilawyering, it just makes it easier to explain the rationale. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    As an example of the sort of burying articles in galleries that I would object to, see hexagonal prism, where (at least in its current version) four of its six sections are entirely image galleries (in some cases hidden in collapsed templates, with much of their content peripheral to the main article topic).
    We do need wording that distinguishes this case from List of paintings by Edvard Munch, where the galleries are entirely appropriate, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    But as far as I can see, the List of paintings by Edvard Munch (and similar lists by artists) already complies with IMAGEREL, because the use of images in that article is proportionate and entirely relevant to that context. Conversely, to put all those paintings in the Munch bio article as a giant gallery would not be proportionate (IMO).
    So to focus this discussion, can anyone suggest another sentence we can use to amplify the point made in the opening sentence of IMAGEREL? ("Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding".) How about

    Consequently, each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose: for guidance, see less is more.

    AFAICS, that responds to and respects both the Munch examples above. (FWIW, very few if any of the visual arts articles suffer from this swamping problem. The issue affects high profile articles like Swastika.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    It is entirely enough that we have the MOS:IMAGEREL shortcut. A proposal to retarget WP:NOTGALLERY to that would almost certainly fail, because it's part of a very long-standing set of policy (not guideline) WP:NOTFOO shortcuts to sections of WP:NOT, and such a change would both confuse editors today and render archived discussions of policy misleading. "Ain't broke; don't fix it."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    Audio video guidance

    Hi there, I'm noting a lack of guidance for Audio video content, I've mentioned this at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images. It seems people just edit MOS rather than run through large discussions, but I'm reluctant to start plunging in before getting some help. Here is what i think is needed:

    • Something explaining that the guidance at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Images applies to Audio-video content in most cases, eg regarding relevance, image quality, textual information, offensive images, placement, size, location, availability. Nearly all of the page is relevant, in fact.
    • The download advice might need to be different. Do videos or audio need a warning that they are large files? This is not assumed, it seems.

    There is a case for some separate AV guidance, regarding:

    • Length: should inline videos be shorter where possible? Does this apply to audio clips?
    • Language: if audio or video is original language, should subtitled content be preferred rather than recording originals? Should songs be subtitled where possible? What are the requirements for validating translations (what are the relevant WP policies on translation of original source material that apply?)
    • Rendition: historical accents and historical musical performances might be very rare. Should we say that modern standards are fine, in the absence of authentic reconstructions?
    • Public domain renditions: if audio or video is a rendition of a public domain source, for example a work by Mozart, or a speech by Caesar, what are the requirements for source validation (these should reference WP's general guidelines, but these are mostly focused on secondary sources).

    Jim Killock (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

    • Elsewhere, someone asked whether an RfC would be needed to add guidance on this topic. I think not -- while discussion will be needed on details, I can't see anyone objecting to clarifying that multimedia beyond everyday images should follow similar guidelines to those for image. The question is where to say that. We don't want to duplicate guidance on contextual significance etc., because that creates two things that need to be kept in sync. Probably the best thing is to expand MOS/Images to explicitly cover other multimedia. See BTW Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Music_samples, which has a contextual significance section. EEng 20:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      Thanks very much (and yes that was me!) I agree that MOS:Images would be best, especially to get this started.
      The contextual significance contains much about in-copyright works. That is in general very helpful. In-copyright video samples feels like something rather complex that might need an RFC, and might be best parked until there is a little more in place. Jim Killock (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      @EEng Would it be helpful if I draft up something on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images and ask for feedback? Jim Killock (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      I suggest you wait a while so that the experienced editors gathered here can lend their thoughts. After that, you might take the conversation back to Talk:MOS/Images, but since that page has 1/5 watchers of this one, and you've already put a pointer there to this thread here, it might be better to continue here as you begin to draft. There's no hurry to this, so the slower you take it, and the greater the extent to which others can get their thoughts in, the smoother it will go. (I'm afraid I'm really tied up IRL so the time I myslf can contribute is limited.) EEng 21:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      Happy to wait. I made a stab at below, but I can wait for further thoughts / feedback here. What I've provided relates to historical source content, as most of the AV I've been dealing with falls into this category; I have guessed at some other considerations but it is currently narrower than it should be. Jim Killock (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

    Audiovisual content can also be used for illustrative purposes. Most of the guidance on images above applies to audio visual content. Additionally, consider:

    • Length: inline videos or audio that is shorter will be easier for users to watch. Consider clipping long form content, and linking to the original on Commons, or elsewhere. Longer videos (eg, over 10 minutes) may be more suitable for links than inline video, unless they are highly relevant to the page's subject.
    • Rendition: historical accents and historical musical performances of content may be very rare. Modern renditions are fine, where authentic reconstructions are not available, and may be preferred, where there is uncertainty about the original performances.
    • Musical, poetic and literary content: aesthetic considerations are higher for these kinds of content. Where possible, the performances should be considered good by other editors. Where editors find performances are poor, content should generally not be included.
    • Language: where audio or video is in the original language, subtitles should generally be preferred rather than translated versions, as this reflects the original more closely and text files are easier to correct than mistakes in audio-visual content. Where possible, songs should be subtitled. Original language versions should be made available where where possible for artistic content.
    • Translations of subtitles should be verifiable, but as with other Misplaced Pages content, competent editors can create them. While academic translations are preferred, where subtitle translations are longer than 10-20 words, use of academic translations is likely to constitute copyright infringement. Here, a Wikipedian's translation should ideally be verifiable against an academic translation. (See Non-English sources for further guidance.)
    • Public domain renditions: if audio or video is a rendition of a public domain source, for example a work by Mozart, or a speech by Caesar, the original sources must be valid. The performance should be comparable and follow the original. Where possible, include links on media file pages so that editors can make checks.
    • Sourcing: as with images, sourcing of audio-visual content needs to be copyright compliant. Sources of CC video and audio can include Youtube, Flickr and CC search tools. Care should be taken to ensure the licensing claims appear to be valid.
    • See also: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Music samples

    Jim Killock (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

    The "Language" point is a bit unclear to me. Is it asking for subtitles to be in English or the original language? If the phrase "rather than translated versions" is referring to the spoken or written material, that seems to contradict the phrase "where audio or video is in the original language". Which is also a weird way to say it because the "original language" could be English. Given that this is English Misplaced Pages, an English version should be provided whether or not there is a non-English version.
    Subtitles should be provided for all videos with an audio track, to make them accessible for readers who cannot hear or find it difficult. There are additional guidelines at MOS:ANIMATION.
    Not sure the "Sourcing" point needs to be made, as this is explained in detail for images generally.
    The "Length" point should probably link to the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Music samples and point out the copyright issue when displaying here under fair use. It should say "video" not "videos" to be grammatical.
    I would drop the "Translations of subtitles" point and just link to WP:NONENG for guidance on translations.
    The "Public domain renditions" point does not make any sense to me, and I would just drop it.
    I'm not sure whether the "Rendition" point needs to be made, but if it does, it's confusing. I think it's supposed to be recommending that historically accurate renditions of older works are preferred, if available. Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't, depending on what the purpose of inclusion in the article is. Might be better just to leave this point off; I don't see any similar guidance for audio samples of music. Page editors can decide which samples are best out of those available.
    Another point probably worth making is that a video should be considered an optional part of an article. In other words, any content vital to reader understanding should be included in the text and not be omitted on the assumption that reader will watch the video. Many readers will not be able to view video due to technical limitations, such as using a web browser that is not configured with a video player, or reading an article in another medium such as an app, paper printout, or text-to-speech system (including those who cannot see or find it difficult to read text). There is more specific guidance against putting text in images at MOS:TEXTASIMAGES.
    It's fine for a video to re-explain something that's already explained in the text if having a moving image clarifies substantially, but it seems wasteful for embedded videos to effectively repeat or rephrase the text.
    -- Beland (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks very much!
    • Regarding language, this was meant to be about non-English content, think Bach or Mozart in German or Latin; or Goethe's poetry.
    • On Sourcing, the section on images does not include YT, which is significant for CC video.
    • On translation, the situation for subtitles is a bit different, as usually you cannot use academic in-copyright translations, so this mention is retained.
    • On public domain renditions, this was the subject of a long and unclear discussion recently. Does that help? Take a file such as File:Queen Elizabeth I's Reprimand of an Insolent Polish Ambassador..webm. There is some need for verification, even tho it is not being used as a citation? I've edited it for clarity.
    • On style of renditions, this has come up a few times in discussion, including at the link above, where a user claimed only a Catholic priest could do a Latin audio recording; also at a parallel discussion on LA Misplaced Pages about accents and delivery, preferring a modern standard over historical guesses. I figured the same principle might apply to say reading Shakespeare, or using 16th century instruments; it simply shouldn't be a consideration, but sometimes editors think it should be.
    • I've added the points on (1) text as images, (2) subtitles for EN content, (3) optionality of AV content
    VERSION 0.2
    Audiovisual content can also be used for illustrative purposes. Most of the guidance on images above applies to audio visual content. Importantly, audio-visual content should not be an essential part of a page, which is necessary to understand the whole. This is because not all readers will be able to download or access the content, for example because of technical limitations or relying on text to speech tools. With audio and video just as with any content, relevance is paramount; consult WP:DUE for further context. There must be a clear reason for including the content on the page.
    Additionally, consider:
    • Length: inline videos or audio that is shorter will be easier for users to watch. Consider clipping long form content, and linking to the original on Commons, or elsewhere. Longer videos (eg, over 10 minutes) may be more suitable for links than inline video, unless they are highly relevant to the page's subject.
    • Rendition: historical accents and historical musical performances are not required. Modern renditions of audio are acceptable. For example, there is no need to read Shakespeare with an Elizabethan pronunciation.
    • Musical, poetic and literary content: aesthetic considerations are higher for these kinds of content. Where possible, the performances should be considered good by other editors. Where editors find performances are poor, content should generally not be included.
    • Subtitles for comprehension: In English language videos, an English language subtitle track should always be provided for accessibility. See MOS:ANIMATION for more details.
    • Subtitles for translation: where audio or video is originally in a non-English language, for example a Goethe poem, subtitles should generally be preferred over than translated audio, as this reflects the original more closely and text files are easier to correct than mistakes in audio-visual content. Where possible, songs should be subtitled. Original language versions should be made available where where possible for artistic content.
    • Translations of subtitles See Non-English sources for guidance. Note that longer subtitle sequences may need to be translated by Wikipedians rather than obtained from academic sources to avoid copyright infringement.
    • Embedding text: As with images, rendered text should be avoided in video content. See MOS:TEXTASIMAGES for more information.
    • Public domain renditions: if audio or video is a rendition of a public domain source, for example a work by Mozart, or a speech by Caesar, it must be possible to check the original scores or texts. An editor should be able to compare the performance with the original. Where possible, include links on media file pages so that editors can make checks.
    • Sourcing: as with images, sourcing of audio-visual content needs to be copyright compliant. Sources of CC video and audio can include Youtube, Flickr and CC search tools. Care should be taken to ensure the licensing claims appear to be valid.
    • See also: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Music samples
    Jim Killock (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    This appears to be related to situations such as Talk:Niccolò_Machiavelli#RFC_on_video_inclusion, where a video consisting of a person reading a letter aloud was included in an article, one example of a series of such edits. It is not clear to me that we need a bunch of guidelines about the best form for this sort of application because it is not clear that it is desirable to include such videos in the first place - the cart is being put before the horse. MrOllie (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, I certainly would like to clear up some of the misapprehensions that regretfully appeared in that discussion. It's a discussion I will deeply regret getting involved in for some time.
    I'll be clear about the other discussions and examples of this content for context:
    @MrOllie I hope you can at least see that normally I try to be as collaborative as I can be. there's not much point going further into why that discussion became hard for me. However, policy is the place where we make guidelines to avoid disputes and lack of clarity.
    What meets WP:DUE overrides any other consideration, to my mind so I have added that to the draft text. (With audio and video just as with any content, relevance is paramount; consult WP:DUE for further context. There must be a clear reason for including the content on the page.) Jim Killock (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    As regards the other articles where there was no discussion, just because there was no dissent at the moment doesn't mean there wont be in the future. What happened at the Machiavelli article could just as easily happen in the other ones
    I am also asking you kindly to please stop making the issues with that RfC bigger than what they are. Plasticwonder (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    We can take this discussion in two ways:
    • We can either construtively discuss the principles behind what video content should be allowable; or
    • We can decide that emotions are too high for it and pause it
    I do need this guidance, because there are divergences of opinion on some of the points, and it's important to me to be able to resolve them. But my guess is that if the three of us are just going to rehash the RFC discussion, then that would a terrible use of other people's time and energy. A break off would make sense, in my view. Jim Killock (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    No one's emotions are high but yours, judging by your rather relentless snipes against my character and the fact that you have so much as admitted it in the RfC. You have also stated that the RfC "needed to die" (quite strong words) when I gave you a chance to change your mind, and now you want to pause now that the discussion is nearing a close?
    I do not get what you are trying to accomplish here, to be fair. Plasticwonder (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    It is not needed to rehash the RFC here, but I did feel that fresh eyes on this talk page should have enough context to understand what the proposal is about. MrOllie (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks, I appreciate that as a valid concern. Does the change regarding WP:DUE help, or do you feel more is needed? For context, other points raised in the RFC such as regarding the need to be able to validate translation is also included. Jim Killock (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    I dropped the video from Henry VIII; it seemed like excessive detail. It's already on Defence of the Seven Sacraments where it's a bit more appropriate. But even there, it seems like it violates the video equivalent of MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. Same for Martin Luther and On the Bondage of the Will.
    I also posted that the video for Elizabeth I should probably just be kept on Commons; there's already a general link to the topic there.
    I agree it's not clear that videos of performances of works should generally be included, so I would also be hesitant about specifying anything in particular about those. Uploaded videos cover a broad variety of subjects, including scientific phenomena, buildings, and specific events. -- Beland (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    I would like to understand MOS:TEXTASIMAGES a bit more, especially regarding accessibility in particular, as this is certainly an overriding concern. What makes the text subtitle files inaccessible and not regarded as text? Jim Killock (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Subtitles are, of course, text. They are less accessible than the text in an article because some readers will have technical or logistical difficulty watching video and thus reading subtitles or listening to audio narration. For readers that do watch a video (which presumably has an animation or something which illustrates the subject of the article in a way a still image cannot), it increases accessibility by allowing people who cannot hear or find it difficult to know what is being said or what sounds are happening in the video. -- Beland (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages:Image use policy already says that for user-created diagrams, etc., a source for the underlying data must be included. To me, this applies straightforwardly to videos that are presenting public-domain content. A citation to the original work is kind of implied, but a reference to a specific version or even better an online copy, should suffice. YouTube videos that we're importing into Misplaced Pages as on-article videos are no different than diagrams or maps or explanatory videos uploaded by random Misplaced Pages or Commons users, assuming an appropriate copyright license. The reliability of YouTube is not really in question, any more than the reliability of any given Misplaced Pages editor is, when they are just repackaging information from a different underlying source in a more digestible way. That's different than citing a YouTube video as a reliable source for the information itself.
    I'm not sure I have enough examples to make a guideline about video length. Ten minutes seems way too long for download on a mobile phone, and most videos I would expect to be under a minute. Perhaps there are exceptions, but I'd want to survey how videos are being used now. In the meantime, I would trim the 0.2 version down to reduce scope and reduce overlap with other pages and rephrase and retitle:
    ----
    Video content (v. 0.3)
    • The guidelines on this page also generally apply to videos.
    • Many readers will not be able to play videos, because of technical limitations of their web browser, because they are seeing article content on a different web site or app, or because they are using a different medium, such as paper or text-to-speech system. Some readers cannot see or find it difficult. Videos should be used as a supplement to article material, to concisely illustrate the subject in a way that a still image or text cannot do. Videos should not replace article text, and articles should remain coherent and comprehensive when video playback is not available.
    • Similar to MOS:TEXTASIMAGES, for accessibility and file size reasons:
      • Videos that simply show text should be replaced with text.
      • Videos that simply show a sequence of still pictures should be replaced with an image gallery.
      • Videos of text being read aloud should be replaced with text, or if the sound of words is being demonstrated, audio files (with the text being read in the file caption or in closed captioning).
      • Videos of text and narration with should be converted to article text.
    • The copyright and other guidelines on Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Music samples also apply to video samples.
    • The policies on Misplaced Pages:Image use policy also generally apply to videos.
    • Accessibility guidelines at MOS:ANIMATION apply.
    ----
    -- Beland (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages:Videos has additional suggestions; not sure if it's appropriate to link there from here. -- Beland (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    With your commentary, this makes a lot of sense. I would point out that there was a lot of heat generated over YT reliability in the aforementioned RFC, so it would be good to point that it can be used. YT is not mentioned as a source for images in the images section above; an alternative would be to add it there in the list of common sources, but that also seems odd. I know one can point to the archive discussion, but that is not generally available knowledge for anyone looking at the guidance in future. Jim Killock (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    I added a clarifying note at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for YouTube; hopefully this will not be controversial. -- Beland (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    Unfortunately that has been reverted as "unnecessary". It might make more sense here, because this is about video as illustration, and there is parallel advice for images above about CC content sources. Perhaps it should be parallel advice to this, eg mentioning that YT has a search facility for CC content (and there isn't anything else AFAIK). Jim Killock (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    I started a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Imported YouTube videos. -- Beland (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks - quick observation that we have lost that the guidance for illustrative audio content would also generally derive from the images guidance. The music samples page linked is wholly focused on samples from copyrighted material; there is a lot of PD / CC music material on WP, especially for classical music. Sometimes this could do with subtitling, etc, care in positioning, checks for relevance, etc. Jim Killock (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    OK, what are you suggesting? -- Beland (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think, where appropriate, add audio, eg "The guidelines on this page also generally apply to videos and audio files"; maybe "where appropriate, for instance non-English language audio files should include subtitles". I'm not sure there is much else. Jim Killock (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    And where would you find that addition to be appropriate? -- Beland (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I would amend the title to "Video and Audio content"; I would amend bullet one to "The guidelines on this page also generally apply to videos and audio files". Under "Similar to MOS:TEXTASIMAGES, for accessibility and file size reasons:" I would add "where appropriate, for instance non-English language audio files should include subtitles". The accessibility guidelines could move to be bullet two, in order that audio and video advice is at the top. Jim Killock (talk) 08:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    It looks to me like hardly anything on Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Images applies to audio files, and it seems like the wrong place to go looking for style advice about them. -- Beland (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    For example:
    These seem pretty substantially helpful guidance to me, and pretty similar level of relevance as to video files. Jim Killock (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, most of the material in those sections is not relevant to audio. I'd say if you feel strongly that guidance is needed for audio generally and not just music samples, we should create a new page. Editors shouldn't have to read through a whole page about images just to pick out the occasional tidbit on audio files, if they're only interested in the latter. -- Beland (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    I've posted the 0.3 draft for now, since that wouldn't be changed by adding an audio page somewhere else. -- Beland (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for posting the v 0.3. On audio, I would think about this from a few user perspectives:
    • There is currently no MOS advice at all on audio files and approaching general layout, pertinence, etc. What would the user do? Currently, MOS offers them nothing, so they must either guess or work off examples on other pages.
    • If a user asks for advice, where would they be pointed? (my guess: MOS:Images as closest match.
    IMO, it would be better to offer them something, even apologetically ("There is currently no detailed advice on MOS regarding use of audio files, but the basic principles of WP:DUE and some considerations at MOS:Images may be helpful.") This could be placed at a page relevant to other audio usage files, for example. Jim Killock (talk) 10:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Feel free to propose a draft if you like. It's also possible no particular guidance is needed, if people are able to figure this stuff out using common sense and regular editorial judgement, and if disputes arise, turn to the various policy and guideline pages on topics like due weight. -- Beland (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Given the small amount of material to include about this, and the redundancy that would be required with MOS:IMAGES if "MOS:VIDEOS" were its own page, and given the short nature of the audio samples MoS page, I think the most sensible approach is to merge all of this into a WP:Manual_of_Style/Images_and_multimedia page with a top MOS:MEDIA shortcut (which I'm surprised doesn't already exist as an internal disambiguation page), then MOS:IMAGES, etc., going to sections. We have too many separate MoS pages as it is, and this is an ideal merge of two of them and a proposed third.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Sure, that's a reasonable alternate approach. I think it would work if we put the things that apply across all three at the top, and then make it clear with section headers which those interested in a specific media type should look at without having to read inapplicable guidelines. -- Beland (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    +1 to both of these observations. Jim Killock (talk) 09:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yeps. If we hammer out a videos-related section, I'll be happy to do the work (most MoS merges and the like are done by me because I kind of have a database in my head of all the rules and how they interrelate, and 19 years of observing how misinterpretations, lawyering, and other problems can be avoided by careful wording.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think what we could agree on for videos has been added. -- Beland (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    misleading text in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Dashes

    The text on keyboard entry of dashes in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style § Dashes is misleading. The text or on a Windows keyboard implies a technique specific to windows when in fact it is valid for any OS. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    True. What it should say: "on a Windows keyboard enter them manually as Alt+0 150 (on the numeric keypad) for en dash, and Alt+0 151 for em dash." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    Wrong on two counts:
    1. No. It should not say anything at all, per WP:NOTHOWTO.
    2. And even if it does, those alt codes are only valid for code page 1252 and related. They don't work if the user has a different default code page installed.
    Delete it completely. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    I doubt that NOTHOWTO is meant to apply to the MOS. It's surely helpful for editors and hence should stay, reworded if needed. Gawaon (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Gaewon is correct: NOTHOWTO applies to articles only. MOS is littered with how-to stuff, as is should where the ratio (editor confusion and time saved)/(WP:MOSBLOAT) seems sufficiently high. However, if this starts getting into weeds of code pages and such, it may be best to relegate the whole thing to WP:How to make dashes, with a pointer to that from MOS. EEng 20:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    So why not simply recommend {{mdash}}, {{ndash}} and {{snd}} rather than advise keyboard callisthenics? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, I have always advocated symbolic representations (templates such as you list, or html escapes such as &mdash;) of the various dashes (and in some cases, even hyphens), rather than having them appear literally in the wikisource, so that editors can see at a glance that the right character is present. But even though EEng is pretty much always right, I can't seem to get people on board with this. EEng 20:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I am happy typing the dashes on my Apple keyboards but also happy with recommending the templates rather than giving keyboard-specific advice. What I would like to avoid is warring bands of gnomes going around changing unicode dashes to templated dashes and vice versa. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Edit conflict: yes, different route to the same answer. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    JMF's policy understanding is mistaken above. WP:NOTHOWTO only applies to article content (and other reader-facing content, like portals and the front page features). If it applied to internal documentation, then we would have to delete the entire "Help:" namespace and about 95% what is in "Misplaced Pages:" namespace. However, the technical point JMF raised is entirely correct, and we should not be telling editors to use keyboard codes that will do the wrong thing (or nothing) if they don't happen to be using the "right" code page. To simply recommend {{mdash}}, {{ndash}} and {{snd}} is the sensible approach.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Let's just direct people to Misplaced Pages:How to make dashes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    Is there a MOS guidance that applies to changing between common terms based on the name of the Wiki article?

    Do we have a guideline for dealing with different name, common names for the same thing (Inline-four engine vs Straight-four engine)? The target article, Straight-four engine, has used both names (changed in 2009 and 2022). Sources use both terms but I think the shorted "I4" is used more often in sources. I presume we would follow something like the MOS:ENGVAR where if there is no source preference we go with what the editors used first. Recently an editor, Kumboloi, made a number of good faith changes in linking articles from "inline-four" to "straight-four" to align external article text with the target article name. Is there a guide on this? How should this be handled? Springee (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    It's a policy, our naming conventions policy, which largely doubles as our policy on article titles. Generally, for a given thing there's no reason to use a different name in the prose of any other article than one would use in the article about the thing itself, if that makes sense.Remsense ‥ 论 14:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not sure where the naming convention says we should change article text in a case like this. The article in question indicates both names are common (A straight-four engine (also referred to as an inline-four engine)). This is also reflected in the two name changes over the years. I don't see where the naming convention says we should favor the target article name vs what the individual article sources are using. Consider a hypothetical, I'm created a Wiki article about the new "CarX". My RS source that says, "CarX uses an inline four engine". Why would I not follow the source vs use the title of our straight four article? This is especially true if if the hyperlink is added later by a different editor. Also, until 2022 the title of the article was "inline". A consensus of 3 editors changed the article name. That's fine but the result is many changes to other articles. If a new consensus of 5 editors reverses the change do we flop back? I think it's less disruptive (makes articles more stable) if we avoid article text changes in cases like this. However, I am interested in knowing what guidance might apply here. Springee (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm interested in understanding this. My motivation in making the edits came down to a suspicion that there was some type of penalty incurred by linking through a redirect page, or that the redirects imposed a maintenance overhead. I hadn't read the naming convention, but if there's no real reason to reduce the number of redirected links, and recognizing that the target page could just as easily be renamed again in the future, I'll stop doing these edits. (Personally, I prefer "inline" to "straight", but I can see how the renaming would help organize the associated pages.) Thanks. Kumboloi (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    My reasoning is WP:NC stresses how we are required to name things, as we are un all editorial decisions, based on WP:V and WP:NPOV (in many cases this boils down to the result of WP:COMMONNAME). It has provisions specific to the article title and not the body, but much of it is expressing how to apply V and NPOV in deciding what to call things.
    If we take alternative names as such—e.g. that, all else being equal, we do take inline four and straight four to be synonyms, truly referring to the same thing for our purposes—it makes very little sense to "wall off" which names are used in a particular article, as there are no clear limits on how strictly this would have to be observed. Am I allowed to use any synonymous nouns, verbs, or adjectives in my synthesis that don't happen to appear in my three best sources? On the other hand, naming according to a generalized scope is surely more coherent for a hyperlinked encyclopedia providing tertiary analysis instead of merely refactoring and reshuffling the specific language of our secondary sources.
    Of course exceptions abound, much of the time alternative names and redirects should be freely used according to syntactical and contextual concerns—but I believe this to be correct mindset to assume by default. I don't think any given article that uses First World War needs to be changed. However, in cases like these, I feel it pays dividends to use terminology consistently between pages. If readers are encountering technical or domain specific language for the first time, we create the most helpful and coherent tertiary analysis for them if we zoom out a bit. It makes no sense to prefer Sassanid to Sasanian just because the book we're citing prefers the former—e.g., in an article about a specific battle, or a broad conceptual article not specific to the Sasanians—our deliberately preferring Sassanid simply does not aid the reader in becoming familiar with whatever additional context they're going to go to Sasanian Empire for in order to better understand our other article.
    If I wake up and find this totally incoherent, I apologize. It's hard to speak clearly about naming and reference, though it's one of my favorite things to think about. Remsense ‥ 论 16:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    WP:NOTBROKEN clearly says: "Piping links solely to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace ] with ]." So if a link already leads to the correct article, but using an alternative name that redirects, that's absolutely fine and nothing more needs to be done. I realize that you're probably not talking about piping, but about changing the link text and link target together – but that too is unnecessary if the existing link target works fine (by redirecting). Gawaon (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Kumboloi, thanks for that explanation. It reaffirms my believe that you were acting in good faith (I hope you took my revert that way as well). Springee (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think there needs to be a good reason to not use the article title in text (and they do exist), and that can be discussed on a per-case basis at the relevant article (or other) talk page.—Bagumba (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Agreed. Remsense ‥ 论 17:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Just so long as it is realized that THERE RATHER OFTEN IS A GOOD REASON! National language preferences for one thing. Busywork drive-by changes should be strongly discouraged. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Goes without saying! Remsense ‥ 论 19:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    I just thought I'd drive by and agree with that. EEng 22:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    The answer the the OP's question is "More or less yes", in the form of MOS:STYLEVAR. Remesense's idea above that article titles policy and its dependent naming-conventions guidelines and essays (which actually defer to MoS on style questions) somehow dictate in-article content. They absolutely do not, or we would simply merge them. However, agreement with the page title can actually qualify as a good reason for a text change under STYLEVAR a lot of time, such as when a old page title (and our mirroring of it in the text) was a misnomer, unhelpfully ambiguous, obsolete, or obscurantist. When such problems don't apply, then having more than one way to refer to the subject is a boon to editors and readers, since it allows us to write less repetitively. But the lead should almost always agree with the title, and start with the term/name in the title and secondarily provide any noteworthy alternative(s). Some exceptions of course apply, such as when a term/name in the title is a colloquialism and used for WP:COMMONNAME purposes in the title but is not the best way to introduce the first sentence (this is especially common at biographical articles, in which we often give the full "Elizabeth" or "Robert" name of someone more commonly called "Liz" or "Bobby" and given that way in the page title).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think they must dictate in-article content to a degree at least—it would make no sense to use a particular name in the title and initial definition (I've been assuming congruence throughout, e.g. no disambiguators considered) and then never again. Remsense ‥ 论 03:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    That's a correlation/causation mix-up. What you're talking about is just WP:Common sense (to the point of "Don't be intentionally perverse as if with a goal of confusing readers as much as possible") and a matter of MOS:BETTER. It's not an element of title policy or of naming conventions, which do not address article content (except a few of the worst-written NC pages have a statement or two in them about body content that needs to move out of those pages; I've been cleaning those up as I run across them).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I've been racking my brain trying to articulate exactly what I mean here, but I do not think it is merely correlative. Hopefully that is a useful thought inasmuch beyond just the trivial truth that the language one is exposed to affects the language they go on to use and think in terms of. Remsense ‥ 论 19:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    Legibility of thumbnails at default size

    Moved from Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Images § Legibility of thumbnails at default size
    Noisy haze at 220px
    Noisy haze at 165px

    I am surprised there is no direct statement along the lines of If possible, the selection, placement, and sizing of images should allow readers to fully decipher what they are intended to illustrate; thumbnails should be legible with the default base size of 220px without requiring readers to expand them. It seems like much of the guidance has this as an unstated goal, but there are cases where it is slightly less intuitive that this is a principle that editors should heed. My one worry is hypothetical quibbling over what any given image is intended to illustrate—is the specific text written on a street sign important for illustrative purposes?—but I feel like that's totally explicable in each instance via editor discussion. It's clear that some appropriate images cannot be legible at thumbnail size in context, either because they are visually intricate or the placement context simply won't allow it, but it seems helpful to state that editors should make an attempt when it is possible. Remsense ‥ 论 16:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Remsense: Can you give an example? Magnolia677 (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Clicked around until I found one: at Crony capitalism#In sections of an economy, it's not really possible for me to discern the field of figures as men sitting at desks rather than just noise. This image should be displayed at a slightly larger size, and maybe cropped a bit.
    Another class of examples is insignia and coats of arms, where arguably key details that would be legible in the original contexts are illegible at thumbnail sizes in infoboxes, especially in cases where there are especially elaborate versions that editors sometimes opt for out of a misplaced sense of completeness (I guess). Remsense ‥ 论 17:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    They're everywhere. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    That is something that gives me pause: this seems like a common-sense guideline to me, but either it's so obvious that it shouldn't be a guideline (?) or it's not nearly as obvious to others. Remsense ‥ 论 21:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    I've always found it odd that we don't have a minimum size recommendation. Can't tell you how many times I see collages or galleries that have teeny mini images that lack accessibility for all. Moxy🍁 03:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    It's a perfectly reasonable thing to do to print articles out (or otherwise have them in a format where the thumbnails are all you get), also. Remsense ‥ 论 03:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    I do worry my criterion above is too loosey-goosey to be a good guideline; I don't think there's a problem with speaking in terms of minimum size as such, maybe it's better getting the intended point across? Remsense ‥ 论 03:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Definitely better getting the intended point across. If we try to impose a numeric min. size, people are going to argue about it until the end of fargin' time, based on the behavior of their preferred devices and browsers, and so on.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC); rev'd. 13:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    What do you think about the potential phrasing first presented—i.e. if at all possible, what images are being used to illustrate should be fully legible when scaled according to the default base size Remsense ‥ 论 03:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Lots of unnecessary words. When possible, images with text should be legible when ... I'm not sure what "according to" the default base size means. Is it really the default base size? Are more than handful of editors reading this going to understand what "base size" means? I thinking there must be a clearer way to get the point across, but the goal seems right. (Speaking of "getting the intended point across": ironically, my previous message had an extraneous word, "than", in it – in a position that reversed or at least badly confused my meaning, so I've removed it.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not sure how to phrase it. It's not just images with text either, it's all images that are added but cannot actually be deciphered without expansion. Remsense ‥ 论 04:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Commas around incorporated businesses' names

    from looking at MOS:COMMA, there isn't any guidance on how to deal with names with Inc.. multiple articles do any of the following, either with no comma, a comma only before and a comma around the word.

    1. Mumumu Inc. is a company ...
    2. Mumumu, Inc. is a company ...
    3. Mumumu, Inc., is a company ...

    I am aware that the commaless and comma style may coexist (sometimes in the same article!), however the second and third styles should likely be decided upon. Juwan (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    An editing policy question

    When I read Wiki policy and guidance pages, I sometimes find shall used instead of will to indicate what must be done — for example, in the Signs of Sockpuppetry article, we find: "The more signs that are present, the more likely sockpuppetry is occurring, though no accusations shall be made unless, beyond a reasonable doubt, one is really certain."

    Granted that shall is often used this way in government and judicial documents, I think it sounds somewhat at odds with the more user-friendly ambience Misplaced Pages has tried to create for editors. Besides, shall is not consistently applied throughout the policy and guidance pages — for example, in the same Signs of Sockpuppetry article, we find: "The closing administrator will be required to follow the consensus, even if they personally disagree."

    — For the above reasons, wouldn't it be in Misplaced Pages's best interests to avoid using the conversationally archaic shall in these articles and replace it with will?? I doubt that this would make editors with wrongdoing on their minds less likely to behave as desired.

    — But if the decision is made to continue "shalling," then for the sake of consistency couldn't a search-and-replace be done throughout the policy and guidance articles to replace will with shall where the word needs to indicate what must be done? Augnablik (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    It's fine, really. This is one of those things the MOS exists to obliquely neutralize—i.e. this is a pretty conjectural position and not worth getting into all-in or all-out discussions over. Remsense ‥ 论 17:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    “Obliquely neutralize” — there’s a new one for me! 😅
    I just thought it would help lighten the bureaucratic tone of these articles to dial down the legalese, as many editors feel increasingly on edge with all the rules and regulations they discover the more they wade into Misplaced Pages. Augnablik (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    Genuinely, I apologize that I can't talk normal when the situation would benefit from it. Take that how you will. Remsense ‥ 论 17:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    Or shall. EEng 17:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    😂 Augnablik (talk) 07:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Am losing the will to live here, mate. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Just be aware that you’ve entered the purview of a global encyclopedia, and that means you will encounter forms of English that aren’t necessarily common locally to wherever you live. MapReader (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    Is this one of those rfc:2119 situations where we should stick to a limited number of modal verbs on a sliding scale (must > should > may)? --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    @MapReader, Although I’m aware of different styles of English in different parts of the world, the shall/will issue I’ve raised here is more about how Misplaced Pages wants to show officially expected actions in particular situations.
    Not like , “Today I shall go to the beach” … but like, “Administrators shall hold discussions on the matter for one week before reaching a decision.” Augnablik (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Nevertheless, ‘shall’ is still reasonably common usage in formal, official or legal written texts, in the UK, in a way that I don’t think you can say for the US (but willing to be corrected…), and is not considered particularly user-unfriendly. Your observation to the contrary above is therefore pitched from the perspective of a particular Engvar, which was my original point. MapReader (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    @MapReader, you're probably right about "how official" shall sounds to UK and US readers of official documents. And frankly, that word is still used from time to time in official documents in the US, even though much more rarely these days. Even so, here's a thought: if will would work equally well as shall in Misplaced Pages policy and guidance documents, why not use it consistently here so as to make "official stuff" sound a bit less bureaucratic but at the same time affirming of expected behavior?
    Though I'm American, I doubt that any of our UK cousins across the pond would feel affronted if Misplaced Pages consciously adopted will in its policy and guidelines. Wouldn't it simply be one more example of Misplaced Pages's intentions of providing as welcoming and user-friendly environment as possible in which to work, while in no way demeaning other varieties of writing?
    Alternatively, to avoid the whole shall/will issue, there are still other ways wording could be done. For example, instead of "Administrators shall hold discussions...,” we could say, "Administrators are to hold discussions ....” Augnablik (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    More rules about how rules should be written could be one step forward, two steps back. EEng 12:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Onbiously, you're free to edit how you want, but as a general rule, surely it isn't WP's object, nor that of the MoS, to try and enforce general language preferences on our editors? MapReader (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    You state the onbious. EEng 12:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Well, @MapReader, I think it’s time for me to gracefully bow out of the discussion now. My only Intent in making my suggestion was far from an attempt to enforce, though I see how it might be interpreted that way.
    Instead, I was trying to make a case for a slight change in wording that seemed to me could help Misplaced Pages accomplish its very positive goal of creating an open, light, friendly ambience — just as seniors helping in the Teahouse and elsewhere are asked to do with those who ask questions. I know that as some editors get involved with Misplaced Pages, they come to feel weighed down by many rules and regulations and even become fearful they might make a slip and face serious consequences.
    It was this I hoped my suggestion might help prevent in the long run, with the flip-side benefit of editor retention. Augnablik (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    Discussion at Archimedes § MOS:'S (redux)

     You are invited to join the discussion at Archimedes § MOS:'S. Remsense ‥ 论 21:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Specifically, input would be appreciated regarding the treatment of derivative proper names (e.g. Archimedes' principle) in running text versus the titles of dedicated articles. Thanks! Remsense ‥ 论 07:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Just for the record, I detest and/or, which the MOS backs me on, but (besides ... instead of the clearer in quotations) I also detest Archimedes's. Can't we just use the Latinate genitive Archimedis? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    As someone who does not particularly despise Archimedes's, I would cast my even less ramified ;vote for that. Remsense ‥ 论 05:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    Discussion on American football bio leads

    See here. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Usage of historical place names in infoboxes

    Some feedback here would be nice. Thanks --Flominator (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    When are words being used as-words?

    It seems to be required by MOS:WAW that any statement that uses constructions like:

    • This concept is called Example, ... (also termed, known as, referred to as, etc.)

    italicize the term. However, this is almost never consistently done even in many of our FAs (see Introduction to general relativity, used as an example in the MoS), and many other publications are unbothered. Am I worrying about something that doesn't make a difference in the clarity of many passages?

    I just struggle with paragraphs like (adapted from Chinese characters § Zhou scripts):

    “ The mainstream script's slow, gradual evolution continued during the Zhou dynasty until assuming the form now known as small seal script within the state of Qin. Other scripts in use during the late Zhou include the bird-worm seal script, as well as the regional forms used in non-Qin states. Historically, these forms were collectively known as large seal script, a term which has fallen out of favour due to its lack of precision. ”

    It just looks weird that maintaining a natural flow in more jargon-y passages requires two terms to be italicized and one not to be. It looks arbitrary, and might even confuse readers if they notice? Remsense ‥ 论 01:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    Categories: