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 01:28, 14 October 2012 editRegentsPark (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,736 edits Undid revision 517657706 by Neotarf (talk) I can assure you that this was no biased by "representations" on ANI. The world doesn't end with an RfC. Let it go.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:16, 1 January 2025 edit undoMike Christie (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors70,519 editsm Reverted edit by Mike Christie (talk) to last version by FlominatorTag: Rollback 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header |WT:MOS |search=no }}
{{Mbox
{{FAQ|quickedit=no|collapsed=no}}
| type = content
{{Round in circles|search=yes}}
| image = ]
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
| text= This page (along with all other MOS pages and ]) is subject to ] ]. See ]
|target=Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive index
{{#switch: {{NAMESPACE}}
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive <#>
| {{ns:0}} = ]<!-- Template:Article probation -->
|leading_zeros=0
| {{ns:Template}} = ]
|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 = 200K
|counter = 131 |counter = 228
|maxarchivesize = 900K
|algo = old(7d)
|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===
<!-- ] 16:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC) -->
(newest on top)
{{collapse top|Collapse archived section}}
<!--
]</small></sup> 08:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)<br>Restored again, for the same reason.–<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)]
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":'''
* 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 />
'''Capitalization-specific:'''
{{Excerpt| Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters|Current|subsections=no}}
}}


===Concluded===
Noetica removed these words – "though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole" – from this lead sentence:
{{collapse top|left=y|title=Extended content}}

<!--Please put newer additions at the top, by order of closure. -->
<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>
* ] – Use en dash not hyphen in four paired names? ''Result:'' Yes.

* ] – 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.
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:
** 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.

* ] – 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.
*"The MoS presents Misplaced Pages's house style, to help editors produce articles with consistent, clear, and precise language, layout, and formatting."
* ] – ]: "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.
*Consistency in language, style, and formatting promotes clarity and cohesion; this is especially important within an article.
* ] – 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.
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)
* ] – ] (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 ].
{{outdent}}
* ] – 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".
The first sentence of this section inadvertently misrepresents what happened. The sequence of events (all on 12&nbsp;August&nbsp;2012):
** Related: See numerous previous deadname-related and more general GENDERID discussions listed below.
* SlimVirgin restored some wording that had been long absent from MOS ()
* ] – Proposal to merge a "guideline in all but name" into MoS. (Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' consensus to promote to a guideline (after some significant revisions).
* Curb Chain reverted that restoration ()
* ] – Peripherally related to ] and ]. (Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' Consensus to increase to 250px.
* Noetica restored what SlimVirgin had added, except for what Curb Chain objected to ()
* ] – ] 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.
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)
** ] – 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.
]), 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)]
** 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.
: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)
* ] – 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).
::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.
* ] – 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.
::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)
* ] – 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 ].
:::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!'''
* ] – 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.
:::Consider three propositions:
* ] – 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.
::::'''P1''': There is a hard requirement for consistency within articles, where MOS presents options.
* ] – 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."
::::'''P2''': There is no hard requirement for consistency between articles, where MOS presents options.
* ] – 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.
::::'''P3''': In groups of articles ''on similar topics'', similar styling is better than an unprincipled or random selection of styles.
* ] – 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.
:::Who disagrees with any of those, and why? (''Not'' a rhetorical question.)
* ] – 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).
:::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.
* ] – 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".
:::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.
* ] – 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".
:::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
* ] – ] / ] and Northern Ireland again. (Sep.–Oct. 2023) ''Result:'' No formal closure, but near-unanimous consensus against using national flags as ethnicity symbols.
:::: I agree with Noetica's general principles here, but would formulate the propositions to take account of the following.
* ] – 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).
::::* for P1 and P2, "where MOS presents options or is silent".
* ] – ] 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).
::::* 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).
* ] – 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.
:::: 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.
** ] – Above question was raised at a specific article as a "local consensus" matter. (Aug.–Sep. 2023) ''Result:'' unanimous opposition to 24-hour time.
:::: 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.
* ] – 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".
:::: 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)
* ] – 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.
:::::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)
* ] – 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 ].
::::::Yes, but adding such a rule will allow editors to ].] (]) 01:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
** 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 ].
::::::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?
** ] – Proposal to move the MoS material into WP:BLP. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' Procedurally closed as "premature".
::::::I would in effect reverse your judgement on the two reasons you mention, like this:
* ] – Should the en dash have spaces around it; should it be an em dash? ''Result:'' moved to spaced en dash.
::::::* "Let's make this article match a related one" presents an excellent reason for a change in style.
* ] 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.
::::::* "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.
* ] 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.
::::::To use the reason that you favour (the second reason cited here) is contrary to current provisions in MOS, at ]:
* ] – 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.
::::::<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>
* ] – 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.
::::::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.
** ] – ditto. ''Result:'' Procedurally closed as a ] of the RM above.
::::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
* ] –&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".
:::::::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.
* ] – 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.
:::::::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.
* ] – Proposal to move section to naming-convention guideline. (June 2023) ''Result:'' no pro or con input; re-opened (Jan. 2024) on main MoS page.
:::::::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)
* ] – 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.
::::::::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)
* ] – essential information, or icon cruft? (Mar.–Apr. 2023) ''Result:'' "There is consensus against inclusion of rank icons."
::::::::::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)
* ] – involves ] and ]. (Feb.–Mar. 2023) ''Result:'' no consensus to use "v"; continue to use "vs." or "vs" as suits the ] of the article.
:::::::::::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)
* ] – 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.
::::::::::::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. -- ] (])
* ] – 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.-->
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.
{{block indent|1=<nowiki />

{{Excerpt| Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters|Concluded|subsections=no}}
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)
{{collapse bottom}} {{collapse bottom}}
== RfC: Internal consistency versus consistency across articles ==

{{Archive top | 1=I'm restoring Nathan Johnson's close. Please see my note at the bottom. --] <small>(])</small> 21:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC) "This RfC was about the sentence "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole." In particular, whether the phrase "though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole" should be included or not. There were two reasons to remove the phrase: that it is superfluous and that Misplaced Pages should be striving to be consistent across all articles. These are two very different viewpoints that are arguing for the same change in the guidelines, but the net effect of the change would be that it would increase arguing over what was meant in the MOS. Those who wish to retain the phrase (or oppose removal) basically are arguing that consistency across Misplaced Pages articles is not, nor has ever been, required, and even if it is superfluous it should be reiterated in this sentence. The consensus of the discussion was to oppose the removal of the phrase. -] (]) 11:52 am, 4 October 2012, Thursday (9 days ago) (UTC−4)" }}

]</small></sup> 22:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)]

------------
The RfC was opened on 1 September. It asked whether the words "though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole" should be removed from the lead sentence: "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole."<p>The RfC was by an uninvolved editor, ], following a request at AN/RFC. He concluded: "The consensus of the discussion was to oppose the removal of the phrase." Noetica reverted his closure twice, asking that it be closed by an admin. I am therefore going to ask an uninvolved admin to endorse or overturn the closure. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

===RfC===
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)

:
{{Collapse top}}
==== 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)
*'''Oppose removal''' (support re-insertion as case may be) per ENGVAR, CITEVAR, Date delinking case etc., and to douse the idiotic edit warring by those seeking to enforce style consistency over content judgment. That pigheaded editing is a far bigger problem for the project than minor style differences here or there. Life is inconsistent, the world is inconsistent, Misplaced Pages reflects that. Accept it and go do something useful. ] (]) 13:20, 12 October 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)

====Presentation of evidence for and against "not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole"====

I think this discussion might benefit from a summary of the evidence presented. Please limit discussions to things that can be verified (rather than discussing reasoning alone). I have paraphrased four other editors below and I invite them to replace my words with their own as they see fit. ] (]) 04:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

=====Non-hypothetical evidence for and against "not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole"=====

This section is for listing problems, such as fights and edit conflicts, that have actually happened. Practical experience falls under this category. Please show how the wording "not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole" caused the problem or would have prevented it. Contributors, please post links to the relevant changes, talk pages and archives whenever possible. ] (]) 04:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

* Enric Naval cited arbcom case "Findings of fact" (Enric N, please feel free to replace these lines with a brief explanation of why you think this discussion is relevant and why you think the inclusion of these words would have prevented problems.)

* Enric Naval cited arbcom case "Date delinking" (Enric N, please feel free to replace these lines with a brief explanation of why you think this discussion is relevant and why you think the inclusion of these words would have prevented problems.)

* Noetica said that the Mexican-American war page has to do with this issue. (Noetica, please feel free to replace these lines with a brief explanation of why you think this discussion is relevant and why you think the exclusion of these words would have prevented problems.)

* Quiddity cited the infobox discussion below as evidence that the absence of the words "not necessarily..." from the MoS can cause fights. (Quiddity, please feel free to replace these lines with a brief explanation of why you think this discussion is relevant and why you think the inclusion of these words would have prevented problems.)

=====Hypothetical evidence for and against "not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole"=====

This section is for listing problems or advantages that you believe would or could happen but haven't witnessed. PLEASE BE SPECIFIC. Don't say "this wording will be misused" or "this wording will keep Misplaced Pages running smoothly"; say how you think it will be misused or keep things running smoothly and why. Contributors, please include links where relevant. ] (]) 04:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

* Mirokado is concerned that inconsistency between articles that a reader regards as closely related will deliver an inferior reader experience (for example not knowing where to find corresponding information in each article). --] (]) 00:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
::''This view is shared by many who oppose re-insertion of the contested wording.'' ] (]) 01:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

* Mikorado cited many articles dealing with the works of Anne McCaffrey and said that inter-article consistency facilitated making repairs and improvements by saving the editors' time and making any remaining issues more visible. --] (]) 00:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
::''Mikorado expressed a concern that reinsertion of the wording might cause some editors to render the articles inconsistent and therefore harder to repair and improve. (Feel free to reword or correct the previous sentence and attribute to yourself if you see fit to do so.) No specific case has been cited. Move this point to non-hypothetical if even one such case can be found.'' ] (]) 01:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

* Mikorado cited many articles within List of Horror Films and said that inter-article consistency facilitated making repairs and improvements by saving the editors' time and making any remaining issues more visible. --] (]) 00:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
::''Mikorado expressed a concern that reinsertion of the wording might cause some editors to render the articles inconsistent and therefore harder to repair and improve. (Feel free to reword or correct the previous sentence and attribute to yourself if you see fit to do so.) No specific case case has been cited. Move this point to non-hypothetical if even one such case can be found.'' ] (]) 01:22, 6 October 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)

::We should probably add that this is a restoration vs. endorsement of removal rather than an add. The words "not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole" were originally in the MoS. This is about whether to put them back, not whether to add them for the first time.
::Ideally, disagreements on Misplaced Pages are supposed to be decided by the preponderance of sources and evidence rather than by the preponderance of proponents. So far, only one person has offered real evidence that having or not having this phrase in the MoS would make any material difference in the reader or editor experience, and that is Eric N, who cited disputes in which the idea of internal consistency was involved. Mirokado cited a few hypothetical problems but nothing has actually happened. A lot of the opposition to re-adding these words has been "this is unnecessary" rather than "this would cause problems." Most of the support for re-adding these words has been "the absence of these words can cause problems." ] (]) 19:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
:::Just to clarify, while there may or may not have been a ''request'' to close the RfC, it is my understanding that the bot would have removed the tag tomorrow but when the thread got archived with the tag in it the RFCbot removed the tag ''from the archive''. In any case, in closing an RfC what is important is not a tally of votes, but a summary of arguments. In my view, I have already commented that a consistent style is ''necessarily not'' possible across WP as a whole, and was not expressing any view one way or the other about the inclusion or exclusion of that or any other part of the sentence. I would also like to add that the words "An overriding principle" are a bit over the top, as that would tend to indicate that there were other principles that were not as important. This RfC reminds me of the problem of drafting anything by committee. What actually works is for one person to go off and write a proposal, and then have the committee edit and improve it, or even reject that wording. When a committee tries to write something it takes forever to discuss each word. ] (]) 20:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
::::Note that Apteva has changed the archiving time to 60 days and has also altered various other archiving parameters. Apteva also notes on my talk page that "There are about three copies of one of the RfC's in one of the archives left over from other times that RfC was un-archived, and they can all be simply deleted from the archive, but that has not reached the top of my to do list."
::::] (]) 08:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::Those are technical changes. The bot has already moved on to /Archive130, and when the archive was unarchived the internal bot counter was inadvertently changed back to 129 which would have meant that new archives would go back on /Archive129 instead of where they belonged, on /Archive130. 600k is in my opinion horrendously large for archive pages. Mostly this page had been manually archived, and many of the archive pages are on the order of 25k, not even 200k. An edit summary noted that the archive was being split into smaller archives. The bot automatically archives any thread with no response in 7 days, and the RfC was split into sections that are getting replies and those with no responses, so it seemed easier to just tell the bot to slow down until the RfC is closed, particularly because there were two of them open at the time. In another 5 days both will have expired and the archiving can go back to 7 days. ] (]) 05:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
:::(edit conflict) Actually, Darkfrog24, if you check the links, and I did, the contested words are not present on the page, awaiting possible removal. They were removed last year. And SMcCandlish and Noetica both presented specific examples of problems that had been caused by that phrase before it was changed. On the other hand, no one has shown anything negative that has actually happened in the last year without the contested phrase. ] (]) 20:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
::::I didn't say that they were currently on the page and that we were discussing their removal. I said that they used to be on the page and we were discussing reinserting them vs. endorsing their removal after the fact: "This is about whether to put them back, not whether to add them for the first time." As someone pointed out, a year is not so long for the MoS. If the person who removed it had discussed it on the talk page first (not required, but on this page it often helps), then the change probably wouldn't have gone through, if this discussion is any example.
::::I read SMC's and Noetica's posts and I didn't see any specific examples of anything, but they do both go on and it's possible that things got buried in the rhetoric. What evidence did they present? Noetica said "Look at this Mexican-American War discussion" but didn't say what he thought that discussion had to do with this one. ] (]) 05:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::And the contested words used to be <nowiki> *NOT* </nowiki> on this page. Rather you should be asking with what discussion they were inserted in the first place, and with what edit summary.
:::::You didn't seem to have any trouble finding the evidence presented by SMcCandlish and Noetica when you argued against it in the above discussion. But this is not summary material, it is just a repetition of arguments already in the (rather long and unorganized) discussion section. You were invited before to make a summary of why this material should be added, and you did not do so.
:::::] (]) 07:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::Neotarf, I most certainly did and do have trouble finding the evidence that Noetica and SMC may or may not have presented: . They both said "inter-article consistency is desirable" but didn't cite any cases in which the wording in question caused any problems with the possible exception that Noetica said "read the Mex-Am war page" but didn't say why. That's not an argument against evidence. It's a request for evidence. You seem to have missed this the first time, so I'll be more explicit: If you saw something that I did not, please point it out to me.
::::::Maybe you and I aren't using the word "evidence" the same way. I would consider what Enric and Mikorado did to be evidence. Enric cited disputes that actually happened, with a link. Mikorado referred to specific articles and events and said why those articles might be threatened. It was hypothetical, but it made sense. Noetica and SMC both expressed a bunch of opinions, but I don't consider that to be evidence.
::::::Neotarf, you will note that I said, "This is about whether to put them back, not whether to add them '''for the first time'''." I am not trying to trick anyone. I feel that there is a difference between restoring wording that used to be there and proposing new wording. Technically, the whole MoS used to not be there.
::::::I actually did give a summary of why I think the wording should be restored. It's a few threads up under "oppose removal."
::::::As for "what discussion and with what edit summary," Quiddity dug that stuff up a couple weeks ago. Hit CTRL-F for "legwork" and you'll see a bunch of links. ] (]) 18:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
::::Re: "''no one has shown anything negative''" - see the huge thread about infoboxes below! (and '''all''' the grumbling about it in many elsewheres, where the rubber meets the road). Site-wide-Consistency is one of the main arguments in favour of "infoboxes everywhere, regardless of objections".
::::See ]. See ] ("''Consistency in style and formatting promotes clarity and cohesion; this is especially important within an article''"). See the very strong opinions that different groups with different priorities bring to other xVAR discussions. See ].
::::We clearly still hold the value of “though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole”, but removing that phrase from this MoS page removes the ''explicit'' mention, and makes it merely ''implicit'' in the minds of those who follow it in various circumstances. Removing it moves us closer to being a bureaucracy. It should be retained (replaced), for the same reasons that IAR needs to be stated explicitly and also repeated in many places. —] (]) 21:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


==== Premature closure reversed ====

With I reversed a non-admin closure of the RFC. Clearly there is no consensus, so the RFC should be closed by an admin. The editor (]) erred in not realising this, and by less than competent summation of the issues. In particular, he completely failed to distinguish ''consistency in general'' (the purpose of all manuals of style, including MOS) and ''consistency where MOS allows choices''. This distinction is crucial among the issues confronting us in the RFC, in a number of ways.<br>As a central participant, concerned at least as much about due process as about the outcome of the RFC, I have been absent from Misplaced Pages for the last week for personal reasons. I mentioned one reason on this talkpage, and put a note at my talkpage. Meanwhile, Darkfrog wanted some summation from each side. I will be able to provide my summation within the next 24 hours. I ask to be given a chance to do that.<br>If this RFC results in insertion of the contested wording, I will consider issuing a new RFC to address the genuine issues that have been aired in the course of this one. The conflation of utterly separate types of consistency has seen a great deal of time wasted. The proposer of this RFC should have known better, and so should a number of participants. An RFC should be framed, and discussed, in a way that keeps separate issues separate&nbsp;– from start to finish.&nbsp;☺<br>'''Addition:''' Even as I wrote, the editor reverted my reversion. I have , but will not do so again.<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

:I concur that this discussion is not finished yet. Noetica did right in reverting the closure.
:Yes things would be simpler if certain ideas were kept separate. The biggest example of this is that, as can be seen on other WP: pages, Misplaced Pages favors intra-article consistency and not necessarily inter-article consistency. The issue that SlimV raised was whether or not WP: MoS should say so, not whether the rule should be changed, but both issues have been discussed in this thread. ] (]) 23:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

:Noetica is simply incompetent. There is nothing special about admins closing RfC. -] (]) 14:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Noetica is many, many things (I could tell you stories) but he has ''not'' shown himself to be incompetent. If you believe that Noetica has broken a rule or acted improperly, then explain yourself or file a complaint. There's no need to use insults. ] (]) 01:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

::Thank you Nathan. And thank you for not caring (see my talkpage). Surely it is appreciated when non-admins step in to clear backlogs of work that admins normally do; but I think you misjudged, this time. <font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

:'''Agree''' to keep discussion open. Darkfrog has done some framing of the policy problem and Noetica has returned and wishes to respond. Since there is no consensus, perhaps further discussion will help clarify the issue. It would certainly save time in the long run if the issue could be dispensed with. ] (]) 18:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

:I am a little delayed (beyond the 24 hours I had expected). I will submit a summary later today. In Australia, that is; so let's say on 6 October by UTC. <font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Noetica, you seem to be making this up as you go along. There is absolutely nothing in the policy which prefers an admin closure over a non-admin closure. Any RFC "". I suggest you undo your reversions, and start to play by the same rules as the rest of us. ] (]) 18:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:No, Safely Anonymous. I am acting in good faith to preserve due process. See remarks I have just posted below. There is nothing in policy or anywhere else to preclude my actions, prompted by wild irregularities in the conduct of this RFC. (It was already closed by the BOT, note!)
:<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
::You didn't "preserve due process". You reverted the closure, which was made by an uninvolved editor, because you, an involved editor, disagreed with his assessment. What kind of chaos would result if every editor did that "in good faith" whenever they disagreed with the result of an RFC? 23:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

=== Noetica's RFC summation ===
]</small></sup> 14:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)</small>]

;Procedural problems

There have been problems with this RFC from the start, and they have obscured the issues most unproductively, as I will show below. Procedural problems include these:

* ''Biased wording in the advertising of the RFC.'' Some of that was fixed at my insistence, though reluctantly (on evidence from refusals to reword things for accuracy at my request ''before'' the formal RFC). At the head of the RFC my correction can be seen.

* ''Poor oversight by the proposer of the RFC.'' SlimVirgin has done little to keep things on track, except twice to ''hide'' my own efforts at recording the state of the voting (though all acknowledge that this count is not the sole or main consideration in an RFC).

* ''Replication of entire votes, including prohibited copying of signatures.'' My attempts to rectify that chaotic development were also reverted in part by SlimVirgin. They are what prompted me to register the votes in one place; but in an apparent assertion of ownership, I was overruled. I gave up such attempts. The RFC remains sprawling and barely navigable.

* ''Loss of the RFC tagging.'' The RFC was archived, but SlimVirgin did nothing to rectify this. It was left to Neotarf (a far less experienced editor) to sort the mess out. Neotarf did well, but the status of the discussion as a legitimate RFC has been left uncertain.

;History of the text in question (November 2008; August 2011)

* SlimVirgin was the editor who originally inserted the contested wording ("...&nbsp;though not necessarily throughout the encyclopedia as a whole"), with of 21&nbsp;November 2008.

* SlimVirgin's edit summary ''does not reveal in any way that she added it, or even which point she was addressing exactly'': "(→‎Consistency: created new header to emphasize this point; removed sentence from previous section that seemed to contradict it)". The intent of the edit cannot be determined from that summary.

* No evidence has been adduced in this RFC that SlimVirgin's edit was discussed first, or had any sort of consensual backing.

* Tony edited to rationalise the early part of the page, with of 4&nbsp;August 2011.

* Tony's edit summary ''did reveal the intent and effects of his edit'': "(Rationalise unruly bunch of mini-sections ('principles'). Reduce negative angle. Rm repetition and redundancy. See talk page.)".

* Tony's edit ''did'' refer to discussion on the talkpage.

* The section on the talkpage that Tony initiated ("") drew considerable participation. The discussion Tony started runs to just under 4,000 words (about eight A4 pages).

* The discussion Tony started ''did'' make reference, with a diff, specifically to SlimVirgin's text:
:<blockquote>And the "general principles" section that these were stuck into had its start in by SlimVirgin. Probably, in retrospect, saying "General Principles" made it a magnet for people with an agenda to sneak things into. </blockquote>
::<blockquote>Well, Slim's good with this stuff, but probably didn't envisage that it would become the unruly forest we now see. </blockquote>

* Tony's removal of the contested wording was unchallenged for more than twelve months (till a few weeks ago).

;My position

* The central purpose of Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style (MOS, with WP:MOS as its main page) is to present style guidelines for all Misplaced Pages articles. As discussion above shows, this natural account of manual of styles in general has been endorsed by ArbCom, and no one has offered any plausible alternative purpose for having MOS at all.

* The great majority of MOS provisions are what I call '''singular guidelines'''. That is, they recommend ''just one option'' among possible alternative style choices. This follows naturally from its central purpose; to the extent that it does not select form the range of possible alternatives, it fails as a manual of style.

* In just very few areas, ''more than one option'' is allowed for. These '''MOS-permitted alternatives''' include systematic variations in English (like US or British), variation in choice of dash for sentence punctuation (spaced en dash or unspaced em dash), management of possessives ending with an /s/ or /z/ sound, and so on.

* '''The contested wording fails to make clear the crucial difference between ''singular guidelines'' and ''MOS-permitted alternatives''.'''

* The crucial difference ''can'' be extracted from wording that comes immediately after (like this, in MOS as it stands right now: "<u>Where more than one style is acceptable</u>, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason. Revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.") But in practice, such a continuation is ''not'' cited at article talkpages: just the text finishing with the contested wording.

* The best evidence for this and related confusions can be found in this very RFC and the discussion leading up to it (all underlining is mine):

:*"I am opposing the removal because <u>style consistency across articles has always been discouraged</u> since the 'date delinking' edit wars years ago. <u>It's clear and concise.</u>"
:::

:*" Hum, my bad. A better wording: <u>'enforcing consistency across articles has always been discouraged'</u>."
:::

:*"&nbsp;'I feel like it, I raised it on the talk page, and no one objected within a reasonable time frame,' is sufficient reason ".<br>...<br>"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.' <u>However, 'We have to make these articles match because they're closely related in subject!' is false."</u>
:::].]

:*"I do not believe that we should add P3 to the MoS"<br>"We shouldn't add more rules without a good, non-hypothetical reason."
:::

:*"We should assume that anything written down in the MoS will be cited as gospel on article talk pages."
:::], where Enric and Darkfrog are among those who insist on conflating ''singular guidelines'' and ''MOS-permitted alternatives'' for crusading purposes).]

:*"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."
:::

:*"The <u>policy</u> is that cross-article consistency is permitted but not required."
:::], which by the way includes inter-article consistency as a basic principle.]

:*"The MoS does not have a default position for inter-article consistency."
:::

:*"The MoS does (or used to and should again) state <u>that intra-article consistency is its purpose</u>."
:::

:*"<u>Inter- but not intra-article consistency</u> strikes a balance between neatness and the diversity of opinion among our editors."
:::

:*"I disagree with 'In groups of articles on similar topics, similar styling is better than an unprincipled or random selection of styles.' <u>his has never been a requirement.</u>"
:::his has never been a requirement." Of course there is no explicit and particular "requirement" that one should avoid what is random and unprincipled in style choices. But if we appeal to common sense at the head of MOS pages, that would seem to include orderly and principled decision-making.]

:*"The problem is what is a group?"
:::

:*"I suspect that while the argument about obvious groups is superficially attractive, due to the problems lack of clarity in defining a group, <u>it will eventual lead inexorably towards harmonisation of style over large parts of Misplaced Pages</u>."
:::

:*"There has never been style consistency across articles on WP,&nbsp;..."
:::

:*"There has <u>never been consensus to introduce style consistency across articles</u>; on the contrary, there has always been opposition to it."<br>...<br>"There has always been an understanding that internal consistency is required when it comes to style issues, but <u>not consistency across articles</u>."
:::

:*"The problem is that the second and third paragraphs contradict each other. <u>The second says we have a house style; the third says we do not.</u>"<br>...<br>"<u>The second paragraph says there is a house style, but the third paragraph says there isn't, so there's a contradiction right there.</u> It matters less if the two paragraphs are read together, but the separate anchors mean they might not be. <u>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?</u>"
:::

:*"The words in question were in the MoS for quite some time, <u>and were removed without discussion</u>."
:::

:*"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."
:::

:*"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 <u>its removal, as Enric Naval pointed out, leaves room for other interpretations</u>, contributing to wasted time in needless debates about inter-article consistency."
:::

:*"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."
:::

:*"Removing <u>the explicit allowance for editors to not be required to conform to the tittle of MOS</u>, through a change by the MOS-most editors, is troubling on multiple levels."
:::

:*"Oppose removal/retain - This would also seem to fall afoul of WP:ENGVAR, among other things..."
:::

:*"Ideally nothing would depend on such a fine balance of words, but experience of Misplaced Pages editing suggests to me that <u>either wording will be used by those who cherry-pick the MOS to support a prior position</u>. <u>'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.</u> Unfortunately many editors are not 'sensible'."<br>...<br>"I'm concerned that removing the wording will encourage uncooperative behaviour,&nbsp;..."
:::

* '''In light of the evidence just given, I oppose any simple patchwork solution to optimising the wording of MOS's lead: ''especially'' the restoration of wording that brings such serious and counterproductive confusion.'''

* I propose that the contested wording remain excluded from MOS, and that there be a new discussion toward accommodating all points of view about the status of MOS within Misplaced Pages. That seems to be the issue to which most of those wanting the wording restored have gravitated, rather than what it actually says.

* If somehow this chaotic and compromised RFC were to succeed, anyone should feel free to start another one on more rational principles to address what remains totally muddled in this one (including in the proposal the removal of wording discussed here). I might do that myself, if I can find the time.

<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

:Noetica, I think you are overestimating the level or order that is required of an RfC and the specificity of the actions required of the person who starts it. Is it nice if things have a clear structure? A lot of the time. Did SlimV break some rule or act irresponsibly by not enforcing such a structure (and is controlling other people in that way even reasonably possible)? No.
:Maybe Eric N and those others whom you cite were not misunderstanding the MoS. Maybe you have misunderstood it. The only thing that we know for sure is that you and they (and I) ''do not agree''. The fact that someone disagrees with you is not evidence that you are right and they are wrong.
:The statement "We have to make these articles match because they're closely related in subject" is false. I'm referring to rules, to what the MoS requires, which is why I chose the words "have to." Does the MoS require inter-article consistency? No it does not. But it doesn't forbid it either. That is why I find "I like it. I raised it on the talk page and no one objected within a reasonable amount of time" to be a good defense of optional changes.
:By "cited as gospel," I mean "taken as a rule that is not open to exception or deviation," not "treated as one would treat a religious text."
:When I say, "In practice, the MoS is a set of hard rules," I mean that people can be censured and punished for disobeying it. "The MoS is just a guideline, so I can ignore it if I feel my changes make the article better" is no defense at all to an AN/I.
:The MoS does not have a default setting for inter-article consistency. No part of it says "inter-article consistency is required." It explicitly permits editors to make their own choices with respect to British and American English, the serial comma, etc. etc.
:What evidence? Noetica, you have not presented any evidence. You've only presented opinions: some of your own, and some of others, many of which you seem to have misunderstood.
:You mentioned the Mex-Am War talk page again. What exactly do you think that that event has to do with the inclusion or exclusion of this wording? No, it is not obvious from looking at that talk page. (And the word "gospel" does not appear on it.)
:Maybe the reason why "everyone has failed to mention the distinction between singular guideline and MoS-permitted alternatives" is because allowing people to use incorrect English isn't the issue. This entire discussion has been about what you call MoS-permitted alternatives from the start.
] (]) 20:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

===Time to close this (RfC for re-insertion of "not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole")===
The RfC had been open for 33 days, and it was closed by an uninvolved editor, so I can't see any reason not to respect the closure. Restoring a sentence to a guideline shouldn't require this level of meta discussion. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
: It obviously does because the added text is wholly inadequate to address the issues it purports to deal with. The only way of closing the rfc at present would be "no consensus" which would mean restoring the text which had been stable for a year or so. Actually I would be quite happy with that... And I will not accept a non-admin closure of this either, it is far too contentious. --] (])
:: Why wouldn't you accept a non-admin closure? What is special about administrators that means they, and only they, can close this?!? --]''''']''''' 19:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

::Administrators adjudicate policy disputes, and hence are solely authorized to close, say, contested Afds. There is nothing in WP policy or guidelines which says uninvolved editors cannot close contested RFCs, since they are not binding. Noetica's idea of closing the discussion with Noetica's own lengthy summary (an involved editor's summary) seems not ok. Asking for an administrator to arbiter what is essentially an editorial dispute is not ok either. Reverting an uninvolved editor's closure is acceptable on grounds the summary is incorrect, but not on the grounds he (specific case here) is a non-admin. ] (]) 21:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
::::I made a summation for the side that opposes insertion of the contested wording. Did you miss where there was discussion of each side doing such a thing? I clearly labelled it as ''my'' summation. Surely anyone is welcome to do one of those. Make your own, if you like. But stick to facts&nbsp;– and opinions that are supported by evidence and argument. As I do, right?<br>And this is not simply an "editorial dispute", as you call it. As if we were dealing with a mere article! No: we are dealing with Misplaced Pages's core style resource, affecting 4,000,000 articles. Spot the difference.<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::A highly flawed and misleading summation in which you consistently if unintentionally misrepresent the meanings of other editors' statements and present no evidence in favor of your position. ] (]) 15:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Clearly we disagree about that. But remember: it was ''my'' summation, of the sort that I believe ''you'' had called for, some time back. You replied to it, as you were entitled to. And I let your reply stand, giving you the last word (as things stand). Good enough? If you make a similar summation of your own, I will reply to it. Will you give me the last word, when I do so?<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::::No I didn't ask you to do that. I invited you to present and explain evidence, specifically your comment that the discussion o Mex-Am page has to do with this discussion.
::::::::You are not being gracious by not removing other people's comments. That is ''required'' of you. ] (]) 00:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::* You made a summation, Darkfrog. And you invited others to participate in such a process: "I think this discussion might benefit from a summary of the evidence presented. Please limit discussions to things that can be verified (rather than discussing reasoning alone)." Neotarf independently made a summary. I too chose not to proceed in the exact way the way you had set up, because I regarded it as skewed and disorganised. After announcing clearly that I would do so, I gave a summation from my point of view. I labelled ''my'' summary clearly: as mine. You did not do such a thing. I now invite you to make a summation that overtly presents things as ''you'' see them (not purporting to be a summary for all sides). Forgive me if I misunderstood: I thought you were in favour of people presenting such epitomes from the various points of view. You answered my summation, and I then let you have the last word. How long would you like this to drag on?
:::::::::* You write: "You are not being gracious by not removing other people's comments" . Sorting through others' dirty work, one gets dirty hands. This RFC was a disgrace from the beginning&nbsp;– from before the beginning, in fact. I have a particular interest in due process. Quibble selectively as you like; and I will act as I see fit in accord with policy and guidelines, in the interest of MOS as I see it. And therefore in the interest of Misplaced Pages, as I see it.
:::::::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes, a summary of the ''evidence'' as opposed to the previous parts of the discussion, which had focused primarily on opinions and hypothetical reasoning. No, the summation that you gave was not what I asked you to do. I'm not saying that you have to do exactly what I tell you to, but then you don't get to say that this was "of a sort that I believe you had asked for," as you do above.
::::::::::Disorganized? It was divided up by subject and then by chronology. It might not have been set up the way you would have done it, but it was not disorganized.
::::::::::I've already presented things as I see them. The participants in this discussion have already read and responded to everyone's opinions. That's why I thought a new angle, evidence, might be more productive. More than half of the participants support reinsertion of the wording, but that's not how consensus is supposed to work. More than half of the ''evidence'' would be another matter.
::::::::::Refraining from removing other people's comments is not due process. You don't get to pat yourself on the back for not doing something that you're not supposed to do anyway.
::::::::::And there is no need for an sic next to my words. My usage is correct. Informality does not require an sic. ] (]) 02:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::First, I put "an sic" next to my quotation of your words because I would not want anyone to think I introduced an error into them. Look again: "You are not being gracious by not removing other people's comments." It struck me, and it may strike others, as a strange construction that possibly has one "not" too many. So a "''sic''" is justified and normal. Assume good faith.<br>Second, I am not obliged to do what you asked me to do, as (obviously!) neither you nor anyone else has an obligation to do what ''I'' want.<br>Third, I ''explicitly'' chose to narrow my evidence to the copious misunderstandings that are evident on this page. That is potent evidence, and easily checked in one place. You ask for more? Sorry, I have given all that is needed, and spent far more time than I can justify on this RFC (if indeed it is still an RFC).<br>Fourth, I wrote: "I regarded it as skewed and disorganised." So yes: as you rightly diagnosed, we disagree. Surprised? I made my own solution, neatly labelling it.<br>Fifth, move on now?<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::Strange construction does not merit an sic. And no it does not have too many nots. I am not being a saint by not stealing from you. You are not being gracious by not deleting other people's comments. Count before you sic. As for assuming good faith, don't push your gosh darn luck; you've already had plenty of benefit of the doubt from me.
::::::::::::Noetica, I just said that you aren't obliged to do what I tell you. I also said, "If you don't do what I tell you, you don't get to say 'I'm only doing what ''you'' told me!'" No, I didn't ask you to post a long list of your own arbitrary opinions peppered with misinterpretations of other contributors. Again, '''you can do your own thing, but then you don't get to claim that it's my thing.'''
::::::::::::If you didn't have time to post, you wouldn't be posting. My guess? You're having a grand old time. ] (]) 04:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Keep guessing, Darkfrog. I find all of this most unpleasant, and a serious intrusion into things that I ''have'' to get on with, to meet real-life obligations and deadlines. You could simply drop the business of "an sic". I wish you would! I used "''sic''" in good faith, and I explained why I used it; but you refuse to leave it at that. ''Do'' just leave it at that, OK? You said that I misinterpret others' comments; I chose to let you have the last word, when you alleged that in answer to my extended submission above. Happy? I say you misinterpret me; but I ''really'' want not to dwell on any of that now. Enough!<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::There actually ''is'' a way to get people to stop replying to you on a thread. Instead of telling other people to shut up or complaining that you have a million other things to do, all of which are more important than the discussion or the people who've been talking to you, you stop posting on it yourself. ] (]) 13:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

:::Noetica reverted Nathan Johnson's closure twice, with the edit summary: "Revert closure of RFC by User:Nathan Johnson; controversial RFCs should be closed by admins; this was premature: actions had been asked for and were pending; failed to distinguish points about consistency 1. where choices were allowed and 2. generally)".

:::The RfC had been open for 33 days, so there was nothing premature about the closure. There's also nothing controversial about the RfC. Nathan has closed RfCs before and the request for closure was made on AN/RFC, so it all seemed to be in order. I've requested an uninvolved admin to endorse or overturn the closure, but it really shouldn't be necessary. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

:::Noetica is now reverting my explanation for the closing admin. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

::::Yes Slim; and I have in good faith reverted your reversion of my action.
::::'''In fact the RFC was already ended, by the BOT.''' Before Nathan got to it. From ]:
::::<blockquote><u>There are several ways an RfC can end: the bot can automatically delist the RfC,</u> the RfC participants can agree to end it, or it can be ] by any uninvolved editor.</blockquote>
::::That can be read as final; or it can be read as just one element in the disruptive and irregular trajectory of the RFC from the start. And ''that'' can be read as an excellent reason for abandoning the proposal in the RFC&nbsp;– on procedural grounds alone.
::::Yes, I reverted Nathan's closure: twice, because he reverted my reversion. There is nothing at ] to preclude my doing so&nbsp;– as an experienced editor in good standing, deeply concerned about due process and the calm and consensual development of MOS. I gave my reasons, and I have just now given ''more'' reasons. I did not revert the action of an unvinvolved admin, note.
::::''My reversion was endorsed by Darkfrog, the most vigorous proponent of the views that I reject in the RFC.''
::::'''The best solution: leave it. Start again, if anyone wants to. But let any future RFC be conducted fairly, honestly, without the appearance of ownership by any party, and with a question that is transparent in its intent and useful in its scope.'''
::::♥
::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

:::::He has reverted again. This is one of a series of reverts and clarifications from Noetica during this RfC, and editing other people's posts, adding his own opinion in bold, attempts to keep a running tally of votes, reverting when it was removed, topped off by twice reverting an uninvolved editor's closure, and now twice reverting my explanation for the closing admin -- which I have had to request only because of his reverting. It has been really unacceptable behaviour. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

::::::What Nathan "closed" was not an RFC any more. The RFC had been ended by a bot (see ]).
::::::My use of bold, and other devices, has been in response to your own faulty presentation and later inadequate management of an RFC that you initiated, Slim. ''That'' was disruptive, on your part. I am entitled to keep things readable, and to work toward an orderly structure and process where ''you'' did not.
::::::You are involved, I am involved. If you act in a partisan way, or against the provisions of ] or ], someone ought to counteract that. You are an admin, with very high standing in the community; I am not an admin, and am in an extremely vulnerable position. But I will defend due process here, and I will explain my actions and meet the requirements of policy and guidelines to the best of my ability&nbsp;– in the face of abuses by others. It is a great pity that ''uninvolved'' parties do not intervene similarly, so far. It has been left to my own good-faith efforts.
::::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This should be evaluated by someone who is "sufficiently experienced", "impartial", and "familiar with all of the policies and guidelines that relate to the proposal". (see ]) This is a policy page, not a wikilove kitten page, and IMHO needs to be closed by an admin, and not someone who is helping out with the backlog but "doesn't care" (see Noetica's talk page). The boxing and summary should be done by the closing admin, not the person bring the RfC.

One of the troubling things about this RfC is that no one really understands what it is supposed to do. That was clear enough from the extensive comments. The first time the wording was introduced, there was no explanation or edit summary, at least not that was brought out in the rather confused discussion above. Likewise when this RfC was introduced, the new language was just inserted without much of a rationale. Maybe that's where any new attempt at a consensus should start.
--] (]) 00:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

:*Well, yes. Except that it is not a ''policy'' page but a ''guideline'' page. One of the most important we have, in fact.
::I say it again: the RFC was delisted by the bot, and according to ], that ends it. Just like a similar one at ], which simply fell of the edge due to neglect, intractably bad management&nbsp;– and eventually, despairing lack of interest. But then, we have grown accustomed to RFCs running counter to the provisions at ]. A shame.
::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Guideline, yes, sorry, I was going to double check before I posted. At any rate ] applies to both policy and guideline. --] (]) 01:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:*I really wish people would void themselves of this idea that any tricky closure, or anything in any way related to policy, should be handled by an admin. That is absolutely not the case. Misplaced Pages content and policy is built by editors. Secondly, are you not embarrassed to pull a quote that far out of context? You're making the case that an admin should close this, so you use this quote, ''"sufficiently experienced", "impartial", and "familiar with all of the policies and guidelines that relate to the proposal"''. The sentence that you pulled that from is this: "This does not require the intervention of an administrator, but may be done by any sufficiently experienced independent editor (an impartial editor not involved in the discussion) who is familiar with all of the policies and guidelines that relate to the proposal." ] (]) 00:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::*But Nathan was clearly out of his depth, and unfamiliar with the many complex procedural and other niceties in the case; ''and'' the RFC had already been delisted by the bot. Nothing tricky about that, right? It's clear from ]. If the proposer of an RFC is so negligent as to let it slip away into the archives, that should tell us something about its merits.<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::*You didn't like the way Nathan closed it, so you called him incompetent and reverted him. That's no way to carry on. You were far too heavily involved to revert the closure. Do you really think it was helpful, let alone pleasant, to start tossing "incompetent" around? People disagree with RfC closures all the time. It's in the nature of the thing. Rather than reverting, you should have brought it up on talk, or gone to one of those 3rd opinion noticeboards, or just taken your lumps. Regarding the bot's intervention, that seems to be something you've picked up on tonight. You certainly didn't mention it when you reverted. What did the bot say? Is it a competent bot? Whatever it said, I think that to attempt to overturn Nathan's closure on a technicality goes against the spirit of what we're trying to achieve here. ] (]) 02:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::Actually, Nathan called Noetica incompetent. If Noetica said anything like that to Nathan, then he didn't do it here. ] (]) 03:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::More exactly, Noetica didn't say "incompetent", but he did say "anything like that to Nathan": Nathan's response escalated that comment a little further (the ]). ] (]) 04:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Ah, I see. That certainly amounts to insults on both sides. ] (]) 15:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::No, it does not. I commented on Nathan's ''actions''; Nathan issued a judgement concerning ''me'' (with which you disagreed, in fact). There was no further escalation from ''me''. I wrote: "Thank you Nathan. And thank you for not caring (see my talkpage). Surely it is appreciated when non-admins step in to clear backlogs of work that admins normally do; but I think you misjudged, this time."<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Note that "Thank you for not caring" sounds like obvious sarcasm, but ]. ] (]) 01:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::Noetica, if I were to say, "your actions are those of a big fat drama queen," wouldn't you think I was calling you a drama queen? If you leave sarcastic comments, you don't get to say that you didn't escalate. ] (]) 04:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::"Sounds like obvious sarcasm, but it wasn't." Want to know what I would think? I would think you were for the second time in this sprawling discussion resurrecting old, old material in an especially provocative way. The last person borrowing that particular trope of yours for political effect is now enduring a one-year block, and an indefinite topic ban from all MOS and TITLE matters. Take care. And move on.<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

::::*Do you say the same about Darkfrog's endorsement of my reversion? He would have ''liked'' the close, but he agreed that it was flawed and he had no problem with my action. To his credit!<br>Your assumption about ''my'' motives is against ]. I was ready to let things take a different course; but if people want to go by the wikilawyering letter of the law, I must resort to the details in ] and other provisions&nbsp;– where, by the way, there is ''nothing'' said against such actions as I have taken. Unlike the actions of some others involved here.<br>I do not toss "incompetent" around. It's not something I would bring in lightly. But I now give the facts as I read them. So do you&nbsp;– anonymously, of course.&nbsp;☺<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::Why would I have liked the conversation to have been ended by an outside party? People were still talking and new voices were still welcome. Does the closer get to decide the issue or something? ] (]) 03:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::To be clear, Darkfrog: that ''outcome'' would have suited you, I thought. But not the means by which Nathan sought to produce it. As I have said, it is to your credit that you responded as you did in the circumstances. I am glad that there are some of us who want due process and wise judgements, even if we disagree about how those judgements end up. The quality of RFCs is declining. That should be of concern to us all, regardless of our more particular opinions.<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::*I shouldn't have put incompetent in quotes, and I'm sorry for that, but it's essentially what you said. I'm not going to get into a discussion about who did what after you reverted. or about your motives. You were a heavily involved editor who reverted an RfC closure because he didn't like the result. That's the crux. You keep going on about "due process" as though you have some great wrong to right, but don't you think every editor on the wrong side of an RfC closure feels that way? Due process, if that means anything at all within the context of WP, would have been to let the decision stand, and to enter into discussion about your reservations. ] (]) 11:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::I believe reinserting the contested wording to be right and proper, but why would closing the RfC have resulted in said reinsertion? Sure, the preponderance of evidence is in favor, but how often does that matter around here?
::::::People should continue to discuss this matter if they aren't finished and new voices should still be welcome. I don't think you and I have the same ideas about proper procedure and due process, Noetica. ] (]) 15:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Fine! I do not withdraw my compliment to you, Darkfrog: it is to your credit that you endorsed my reversion of a closure, even though the closure favoured your position. Apply what gloss you will.&nbsp;<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

::It is my understanding that, besides the bot ending it, the participants can also just agree among themselves. In fact, ] also says "Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue, and whether editors are continuing to comment." It's probably better to leave it open for too long than to close it too early. Clearly the disputed wording was being interpreted in at least two ways, and further discussion may be able to unravel that. --] (]) 01:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Well, they might agree on various things among themselves&nbsp;– with difficulty, of course, if the proposer comes in and closes parts of it that she doesn't like, which happened in the present case at least three times. But this is not a simple question of "deciding how long to leave an RfC open". It was ''not'' open, after the bot delisted it. So it could not be "left" open. That's in accord with ]; and it makes sense. If there's so little happening that it gets archived and delisted, something is not useful or fathomable about the RFC. A new one should then be started, along better and fairer lines.<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
*Goodness gracious. There's a lot of people here who keep insisting that admins have special privileges in closing RFCs. Quite simply, and with all due respect, this idea is total and complete bullshit, and I'm not sure where it gets into the mindset here, but it really has never been a standard. Admins '''do not have any special powers in declaring consensus''' on any matter; in cases where Admins are granted priority, is always in cases where doing so potentially requires the use of an administrator tool (blocking, deleting, or protecting) and even in those cases, it is sufficient for a non-admin to close the discussion and evaluate it, and get an admin to enact the results. There is absolutely no requirement or mandate for any discussion which doesn't even need an administrator to enact the results of, to involve an administrator at all. Now, admins may, as experienced editors, often close discussions, but a discussion closed by '''any uninvolved and sufficiently experienced editor''' is perfectly legitimate, and doesn't need confirmation by an administrator. At all. Stop trying to make Administrators out to be more than they are. There's no policy page, no guideline, and no requirement written ANYWHERE on Misplaced Pages that non-admins can't close discussions like this one. See ], and note the lack of "only admins can close RFCs". Stop it already. --]''''']''''' 04:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:*You misrepresent what is said, Jayron. And I will thank you to restrain your language in your "fucking" edit summaries, all right? (And you're an ''admin''?)<br>I agree with you that admins are not absolutely required for closing these things; but we are entitled to expect better judgement in closing contested RFCs, and there is ''some'' hope of that from admins, who have higher standing for a good reason. That's the theory, anyway. In practice, the admin who ''started'' the RFC on such a shaky footing then left it to tumble into a mess. So there you go.<br>Just as there is nothing anywhere requiring admins to do such a closure, there is nothing anywhere to stop me from reverting a premature closure that showed poor judgement. I acted in good faith, and Darkfrog (holding opposing views) endorsed my action. You have a problem with that? Think about it then; and if after that you still have a problem, with me or my actions, take it to my talkpage. But please: keep a civil demeanour ''chez moi''.&nbsp;♥<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::*I've not mentioned you by name. Feeling guilty? --]''''']''''' 17:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::*Guilty? Not in the slightest. Make your meanings clearer, and you will get even clearer answers.<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::*That might be your theory, but it's not mine; it's not in the policy, nor is part of the WP ethos. Why do you think the admin icon is a mop and bucket? You're asserting that an admin typically has better judgement than his non-admin homologue. If that were the case, it would be reasonable to go the whole hog and give admins primacy in all content disputes. And wouldn't that be fun! ] (]) 11:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:* Well, here is of a user requesting an admin closure of an rfc. Two admins responded favourably to the request, both contributed to the closure and nobody seems to have objected. My apologies if that is not as routine as I had assumed. Even if formally admins have no "special privileges" it is common practice to ask them to help when peer interactions are making no progress. A closure by an uninvolved admin once discussion has died down (or is merely going in circles) would be helpful in this case. --] (]) 12:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::*That's fair enough, Mirokado. If people want to post there ask an admin to close an RfC, that's up to them. Personally, I don't like that idea at all, but if others do, good luck to them. But this is something completely different. This is overturning an existing closure because it was not made by an admin, and that really is not on. Surely, you can't support that. The argument that admins are in some way more competent to deal with matters of content than non-admins runs counter to everything that WP is about. And if you've ever glanced at RfA, I'm sure you'll have seen that ability to contribute to the content side of WP is not high on the list of prerequisites. ] (]) 13:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
*Noetica, by your own argument, summations should not be removed from the talk page; in general, something on-topic should never be removed from the talk page, except for archiving. So you should put back Nathan's summary and SlimVirgin's summary of summary, probably at the tail end of the discussion. You have the right to overturn a closure (admin or non-admin), so you don't need to put back either closure. Beyond that, I don't think it makes any sense to ask for admin help here when there is no editorial consensus. If an admin hands down a specific judgment, it will just be an imposed one. If it sticks in spite of that, we would have set a wrong precedent for WP. The "no-consensus" summary (probably about right) would not work because there is the question of what it means: to keep current wording, wording as it was a month ago, a year ago, four years ago? I see debates on all those issues. I suggest you close the discussion (a purely technical procedure, with no summary or evaluation added) and start a new thread asking explicitly whether the part-in-question should be 1. included or 2. removed. This means we don't need to worry about what was in the article when. I would say every line in an article should have justification for being there, and so the onus of consensus is on those wanting inclusion. That last part, I realize, is the crux of the practical side of the issue.

:One point on the theory and practice of admins closing such discussions. The theory is that admins are the same as the rest except for policy decisions on Afds, user blocks and so on. The practice is that their opinions carry a tad bit more weight because they, on average, have more editing experience than others. But here we have plenty of experienced editors already contributing to the debate, and taking an admin's word as the final one is just elevating them to a position WP policy doesn't entitle them to, and, in all fairness, one I haven't seen any admin asking for. ] (]) 20:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

::I don't think I agree that anyone has the right to overturn a closure after 33 days. If it's closed prematurely, then yes, but 30 days is the default, and no one had commented for some time. So the closure was valid and the closing editor was uninvolved. Starting yet another RfC with the same question seems like overkill. We already had a discussion before this RfC, where there was consensus to include the words in question; that was on 31 August (see ). Noetica would not accept that consensus, so I started the RfC on 1 September. He did his best throughout it to turn it into a mess, then he overturned the closure on 4 October. To open yet another RfC to please just one person makes no sense. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::By "right" I meant a procedural right in the sense such a revert would not attract sanctions (short of being 3RR). RFCs, including closing summaries, aren't binding. If a closing summary is unacceptable to an editor (in this case, to two editors) then the dispute is still on.
:::There is the issue several experienced editors did oppose inclusion, even though they were a minority (as per the list you posted, and which Noetica edited out of present existence). To me, content of an article should be justified by consensus; if there is no consensus it should be there, it shouldn't be there. ] (]) 21:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::::Yes, but the rationale for refusing to recognize the closing summary is invalid. Claiming to not recognize the validity of the closure because the person doing the closing wasn't an admin is a non-reason. It would be like claiming that because it wasn't closed on a Wednesday, it can't be valid. If there's a real reason to oppose beyond "It didn't close the way I voted" or "It wasn't closed by an admin", then I don't see what the actual objection is. Can you bring up a problem, beyond either of those two reasons? --]''''']''''' 21:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::I agree the admin/non-admin thing is nonsense. After all, most of the admins voting here actually voted for the proposal to begin with (you, jc37, the proposer, and, I think PBS), so the closure accorded with their views. No point asking me about the objection to the closure; I think the closure should probably be discussed standalone, if there is consensus, not necessarily unanimous, that the summary should be respected, the issue is done. The objection closure was too early seems strange if the thread had gone into the archives because of inactivity. But I can't speak for the two editors who objected to it. ] (]) 21:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

::* Churn, if you look at the sorry history of this RFC, you will find ''me'' preserving what others had written: keeping everything open and visible, and explaining my actions to keep the RFC in conformity with settled procedures. You will find SlimVirgin, in her occasional entries here, hiding and reverting such attempts to keep order. You will find her, as the proposer of the RFC, ''selecting a portion of it'' and declaring it to be closed discussion, and attempting to draw administrative attention to that ''selection''. If I have once or twice, in reverting grossly anomalous actions here, left some remarks off the page, that was not my intention. It is how reversions work though, isn't it? I have no problem with any such remarks being restored. Please go ahead and do that, if it's important to anyone.<br>I think it is clear: the appropriate closure would be, or will be, "no consensus". That should not itself be controversial. We can hope that an admin, or indeed a suitably experienced and impartial editor, can see that pretty clearly. It is in a way inevitable. The sooner we get such a closure, if the RFC is not deemed to have simply lapsed on closure by the bot (according to explicit provisions at ]), the better. Then we might move on, having learned that such thoroughly flawed RFCs will encounter resistance for their serious procedural shortcomings. The stakes are too high for such RFCs to become the norm at vital policy and guideline talkpages.<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Slim:
:::* I am not surprised that you find Nathan's "closure" acceptable. But I contrast your attitude with Darkfrog's, who endorsed my overturning it even though he supports your proposal and therefore might have been pleased with the content of Nathan's judgement. You speak of "rights"? I question your "right" to start an RFC with non-neutral and inaccurate advertisement to the community, against the explicit provisions at ]. I question your "right" to assert ownership of the RFC, censoring well-explained efforts to document its course when ''you'' had simply gone missing. I definitely question your characterisation of my orderly efforts to remedy the disorderly actions of others. Or wanton inactions, which were also a problem. And I question a great deal more; but we have to move on. Let's all learn from this, yes? Another RFC might well be justified: properly and fairly conducted, and with a proposal that truly addresses concerns unearthed in the one we should now be abandoning.
:::Churn:
:::* You speak of "the list posted, and which Noetica edited out of present existence". That is fully explained above. That's how reversions work; but let any remarks be restored. I would welcome that. Don't expect me to do ''all'' the work, though! Now, do you speak also of Slim's suppression of ''my'' earlier list? Did you track that also, as you selectively track my actions? Your count of who might be displeased by Nathan's "closure" is also rather wayward. If you want to avoid interminable churning of issues here, don't make careless statements that cry out for correction. Move on?
:::Jayron:
:::* There was a complex of reasons for opposing Nathan's "closure". Don't simplify unreasonably, or you will just prolong pointless to-and-fro when we ought to be doing something more productive, now.
:::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::::But the whole point is you should have reverted what you disagreed with, the closure, and moved the summary comments to the end. You removed those comments, don't you think you should restore them as a courtesy? Is the argument others have done it a justification, even if true? Yes, I did read the running-poll debate, and the final disposition, of collapsed but present, seems good. I am focusing specifically on your actions not because of non-neutrality but because your actions are the latest ones and hence are more visible. Where did I count who might be displeased by Nathan's closure? I said two people have objected to it; is that a wrong statement? Are you reading an implication "just two" there? I maintain, of the three reasons you gave, the non-admin and too-early aren't valid because of policy and because discussion had been inactive long enough for thread to be archived; the third, incorrect summary, would be valid if there are others agreeing with you. If there are, I would say the dispute continues, with present disposition 'no consensus.' To me, 'no consensus' means 'no consensus to include.' That conclusion depends rather strongly on how you justify your overturning of the RFC closure, and how much support you have on that. ] (]) 23:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::It may be your "whole point", Churn. That does not make it ''the'' whole point. I have already explained my actions to put things back on track according to the provisions for RFCs at ], and said that if they are imperfect, others can do some of the work too. By all means, restore any remarks that were incidentally removed. You still ignore or excuse, interestingly, some of the much larger anomalies to which I have adverted. If my actions are "the latest", ask yourself why I resorted to those actions. Or better, read and fully absorb the reasons I have already given you for those. Where are Slim's reasons for ''her'' actions, anyway? Including in the discussions that preceded the RFC. Let's just leave it all behind, as an unredeemable mess. There is clearly no consensus to insert confusing text that was removed, with accompanying discussion, more than a year ago. Address the real underlying issues, fairly and collegially, and we'll all be better off. So will MOS; so will Misplaced Pages; so will the readers, ultimately. That's what it's about&nbsp;– not maintaining one's cherished text in MOS at all costs.<br>Can we move on now, really?<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::Noetica, you are not the angelic defender of order. You are the defender of your own personal preferences and your own ideas about how RfCs should work. There is more than one right way to hear everyone out. Absolutely no one but yourself has said anything about procedural shortcomings. All objections to Slim's proposal except yours have had to do with its substance.
:::::As for "clearly no consensus," chuck the "clearly" and one could argue either way. More than half of the participants supported it and far more than half of the evidence supports it. ] (]) 00:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::* Not invariably angelic. Who is? But I am a staunch defender of order, in the best ways that I know.
:::::* Personal preferences? Hardly. Not unargued ones, at least. There is much in MOS that I think is ridiculous, but I leave it alone. And I defend it against arbitrary removal.
:::::* My ideas of how RFCs should work are the community's ideas, as captured in ]. If people here don't like that, let them take it up at ]. Or the village pump, maybe. Don't blame someone who stands out for insisting on those consensually derived provisions.
:::::* There is clearly no consensus either way. If we discount merely confused votes that mix up two kinds of provisions in MOS (see my detailed account of this in my summation subsection, above), there is not even a numerical majority in favour of the misunderstood wording. When there is no consensus either way, accept it. And work on the underlying issues, which really need to be articulated in an ''honest'' RFC, conducted as the community expects. The sooner the better.
:::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::WP:RFC does not contain the large number of formal rules that you are acting as if it contains. If there is something in WP:RFC outlining the specific structure that an RFC ''must'' have or stating that the person who initiates the RFC has very specific duties which Slim has failed to perform, then point to the line. If your ideas came from the community, then the community is something other than WP:RFC.
::::::No numerical majority? There's been a numerical majority in every single count. You'd have to do some serious cherry-picking to get an even split. ] (]) 02:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Did you read what I wrote, a few lines above? It was this: "If we discount merely confused votes that mix up two kinds of provisions in MOS (see my detailed account of this in my summation subsection, above), there is not even a numerical majority in favour of the misunderstood wording." Keep misreading and misrepresenting, and we'll be here forever. Can we put it all behind us, and in future work according to ]? For a start read the bits about neutrality and delisting by the bot; note the omission of any prohibition on reverting incompetent closures; read the whole thing, preferably. And read what the community says at ], also. Both Slim and I edited at others' contributions; I have explained my own reversions, and I have twice said that I have not the slightest objection if anyone will undertake the work of restoring anything incidentally removed along the way. Do it yourself, if it bothers you! The intent was plainly not to stifle ''comment''. Then compare Slim's actions; and note for example how signed votes (including actual signatures) on this page are ''still'' replicated, misleadingly, through her intervention.<br>Give it a rest. I will when you will! Move on.<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Of course I read what you write. I just don't agree with you. Cutting out the contributions of everyone whose votes displease you, perhaps because you would prefer to believe that they didn't understand the issue, would be cherry-picking. You consistently claim that people who don't agree with you must have misunderstood something.
::::::::And of course I have read WP:RFC. It doesn't contain the content that you claim it contains. You've accused Slim of doing wrong by not enforcing a strictly structured RfC, but WP:RFC doesn't say that anyone has to. It doesn't outline a strict RfC structure at all. This idea of a "proper" RfC structure is not coming from WP:RFC. It's coming from you. ] (]) 04:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Laughable and entirely unsupportable misrepresentation of my actions, if doing that were not a serious departure from productive talkpage behaviour. Tell you what: I will resist the inclination to refute it in detail. This has to stop somewhere.<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::"Entirely unsupportable"? You do know that your posts are recorded, right? ] (]) 13:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I step away from the keyboard for a moment, and look what happens to this thread! The subthreads have become impossible to follow; I will put my points all together.
*I don't know if it was me Jayron was cursing out with the F-bomb in the edit summary, or someone else, but at the risk of being hectored about "feelings", I will respond to the issue of who should close that Jayron seems to be upset about. True, there have been non-admins close discussions, but they are the type you will see a few months later with an RfA where everyone votes to support because "I already thought they were an admin". The same with admins who close the discussions. Although admins are expected to know something about different areas of the Misplaced Pages, the editors who follow these pages are used to seeing certain admins participate in the discussions and have an idea about whether they have clue or are familiar with the issues.
*Is Darkfrog (sic)? No, the usage sounds perfectly normal to my version of AmE. The way it is phrased I interpret to be a way to soften a criticism. But Noetica should be humored since he uses OzEng, and as I understand it, they do things a little differently; I have even heard that in the antipodal lands, they walk upside down. But Darkfrog has not introduced an error.
*Did Darkfrog make a summation? No. I'm afraid I was the only one who tried to summarize the rationale for the proposal, and it was the same as the first rationale ''against'' the proposal. The so-called summation was a comment added after the ivote, and was more of a rhetorical question. If comment was seriously expected, you would think it would have been presented in the discussion section. I suspect the real problem isn't lack of understanding, but lack of agreement.
*It's clear there is no consensus, and advertising in additional forums just produced the same result on a larger scale. If the original requester still wants to pursue the idea, perhaps it should be reworked to address the issues that were brought up, and a new discussion should focus on something like "Should the MoS be ignored for all articles?" or "Should projects be able to opt out of MOS?" Or "Should projects be encouraged to set requirements for articles in one category in the areas where variations are permitted?" or whatever.
--] (]) 01:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

=== Does anyone agree with the reasons given for reverting Nathan's closure? ===

Noetica's primary reason for reverting was that a "controversial RfC should be closed by an admin". The above discussion shows that he is a minority of one in that opinion. Noetica has argued, at length, that the validity of the votes should be decided according his own criteria. Jason's "failure" to use Noetica's criteria was another reason that Noetica gave for reverting him. It seems to me self-evident that Jason is not obliged to use Noetica's criteria, any more than he's obliged to use mine or any other participant's. Jason's job was to assess the opinions and thought processes of ''all'' participants, which he did. Subsequent to his revert, Noetica has mentioned that the bot had delisted the RfC before Jason closed it. Well, the bot did exactly that, it delisted it; it removed it from the list. It didn't declare that all bets were now off, and we must start again. The RfC was open for 33 days. All interested parties must already have seen the listing. The hours between the delisting and the closure made no difference at all.

I don't feel that Noetica, a heavily involved editor, should have reverted Nathan, an uninvolved editor. I don't feel that Noetica has found any support for the reasons he gave for the revert: it should have been an admin, Jason didn't use Noetica's criteria, a bot had delisted the RfC. Noetica's ''cri de guerre'' throughout all of this has been "due process". Surely due process now is that Nathan's closure stand, and the text be included in the article. ] (]) 12:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:It's my understanding that an RfC tag is a request for new voices and new participants. Because the conversation is ongoing (or was before we all got sidetracked into a discussion of whether or not the RfC tag should be removed), I believe that it is still proper to invite new participants.
:The rules do not seem to require that the person who closes the RfC be an administrator.
:As for deciding the issue, more than half of the participants support re-inserting the contested wording, but that's not how consensus is supposed to work (it's often how it ''does'' work, but that's another matter). I'd like to look at the evidence of the practical consequences of this wording. Four different contributors claim to have seen problems that they attribute to the presence or absence of this wording, and I'd love to hear from them again or from anyone who's witnessed something similar. ] (]) 13:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::That's reasonable Darkfrog,but I think there's a limit to how many new participants we can attract. I'd also be interested to see concrete examples. How about we a drop a line to those four and see what they come up with; then, after that, if nothing's changed within the RfC, we go with Nathan's closure? Consensus is always the thorniest issue. At some point, someone has to make a decision, even if it's to declare no consensus. In this instance it was Nathan who made the call, and he was fully qualified to do so. ] (]) 14:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

:::The point of an RfC is to create a framework within which a decision can be made, however imperfectly. The framework is "30 days discussion as the default maximum (can be closed earlier if there are no objections), with closure by an uninvolved editor." People can revert a closure if it happens before the 30 days is up, or if the closer has previously taken a side and therefore shouldn't be the closer, or if there has been inappropriate canvassing or inadequate publicizing, but otherwise closures are respected. There would be no point in holding RfCs otherwise.

:::This RfC was held according to the normal standards for a guideline RfC. It was publicized on the usual bot pages and on the PUMP, GA and FA pages. It was left open for 33 days. Someone requested closure on AN/RFC, and an uninvolved editor weighed up the consensus, which reflected the consensus of the previous discussion. It also reflected reality (namely that cross-article consistency is not, as a matter of fact, required). There is therefore no reason not to respect Nathan's closure. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

::::I couldn't agree more. The problem is that Nathan's closure was not respected, so we have to decide where to go from here. ] (]) 22:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

:::::There's nothing to stop us from re-respecting it. The only alternative is another RfC. Given that I started this one by apologizing for being repetitive (an informal discussion had already established a consensus on August 31, but Noetica objected), it would be absurd to start a third one just because Noetica has objected again. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

:::::Again from ]: "If consensus for broad community support has not developed after a reasonable time period, the proposal is considered failed. If consensus is neutral or unclear on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal has likewise failed." Also: "It is typically more productive to rewrite a failed proposal from scratch to address problems than to re-nominate a proposal."
::::::--] (]) 23:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

:::::::That's about proposing new guidelines or policies. It has nothing to do with RfCs. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::::I don't see why not. How big does it have to be to qualify? One paragraph? Ten pages? It's new, it's a proposal, and it's a guideline. Policies and guidelines have a unique position. --] (]) 18:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
This closure was premature.

The original discussion died down about halfway through, and the initiator of the proposal made a request for early closure. But there was some disagreement about the early closure. This request was postponed, and in the meantime, notices were placed on various pages. This drew in a few more votes and comments, about equally divided, as before. Again the discussion died down. At this point, I wrote a summary of the positions and started a new section for tallies, since the the discussion seemed to be finished and the tallies had not been updated. This triggered a new round of discussion. At the time of the latest attempt at closure, several questions had been asked, and the problem reframed in several ways, but responses were still being awaited.

I don't think it's too fair to dump on the editor who attempted the closure, since it was done in good faith, although evidently without being familiar with ], which states "Misplaced Pages has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of articles" or with ]s for policies and guidelines, that asks that a closing editor be "familiar with all of the policies and guidelines that relate to the proposal", consider whether "major concerns raised during the community discussion been addressed", and whether "the proposal contradict(s) any existing guidelines or policies". The editor's statement "The closure was neither premature nor incompetent, but you've cleverly exploited my not caring. You may continue arguing about something that no readers actually care about." should pretty much answer any questions about that individual's level of attention to nuances of policy and guideline. It is admirable that they responded to a request to help out with the backlog, especially on these pages that seem to have so many hidden landmines for the unsuspecting newcomer, but they didn't seem to have noticed that the discussion had indeed started up again.
--] (]) 23:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

:The RfC was over. The bot had archived it because no one had commented for seven days. You unarchived it but prematurely removed the bot tag (on 28 September). Then a few of you started discussing whether the words to be restored had ever been in the MoS (yes, they had). But there was no new discussion, no new issues. That discussion petered out too. Nathan then came along on October 4 (33 days after the RfC had opened) formally closed it, and summed up consensus. Then suddenly Noetica claimed (a) that an admin had to close it, which is not correct; and (b) that the closure was premature, which is clearly also not correct. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:::No I did not "prematurely remove the bot tag", the bot removed the bot tag with the edit summary "Removing expired RFC template." I had to revert the removal later in order to take the discussion out of the archive, but I restored it as the last step. --] (]) 01:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:I don't agree that the closure was premature, Neotarf. There was no on-going substantive discussion at the time of the closure, and there hasn't been any since. It's true that Nathan's response to Noetica's insulting remarks was somewhat petulant, but that has no bearing on the closure itself. Anything said after the revert clearly could have not been used as justification for the revert. I can't accept that this RfC has to be closed by someone familiar with the minutia of the MoS. The question in the RfC is not one that requires any particular specialist knowledge. It deals with a concept that pretty much every editor is familiar with. And let's not forget that it's the job of the closing editor to assess the consensus among the arguments put forward within the RfC itself, nothing more. ] (]) 11:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

::I believe that rearranging the issue so that we could view it from the POV of evidence rather than by the number of people who agreed with one side or the other (not that that can't work too) counts as new material for the purposes of this thread.
::I do believe that the closure was premature but I do not believe that an admin has to do the closing. My only objection to Nathan specifically was that he resorted to name-calling. ] (]) 00:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

:::What is your suggestion now, Darkfrog? I noticed on August 11 that these words had been removed and I . I was reverted. I began this discussion . The bot archived it and Noetica objected to me unarchiving it, so I had to restart it . We achieved a majority to restore the words on August 31. Noetica reverted. I therefore started the RfC on 1 September. On October 4 Noetica twice reverted .

:::As a result it has now been two months to discuss a sentence that we all know is demonstrably true -- Misplaced Pages does not as a matter of fact require style consistency across articles. If you're not going to support Nathan's closure, what do you suggest? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::::Of course it does, and there are probably some bots operating on that premise. You should probably go back and read the comments everyone gave with their ivote. You may think you know what you wrote, but does everyone interpret it the way you do? Proofreading is more than looking for typos. --] (]) 02:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

:::Darkfrog, you've mentioned a couple of times that one side of the debate has a numerical majority and that the same side has put forward by far the strongest arguments. That, essentially, is consensus. If we don't act now and implement the proposal, then we are left with the version supported by a numerical minority and by far the weakest arguments. You've also mentioned that some editors were going to provide examples which will shed new light on the issue. I feel that if they were going to do that, they would have done so by now. We can't wait for ever. If such examples do exist they will surface at some point, and we'll all face-palm and make the appropriate adjustment to the article. ] (]) 11:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::::Minor distinction: I said "evidence," not "arguments." Evidence includes things that people have observed. Arguments are demonstrations of logic that can include hypothetical situations. There have been several decent arguments on both sides.
::::"Act"? What action do you suggest? ] (]) 18:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::If evidence is presented which will settle the discussion, that will be great. I rather feel that if it existed, it would have been presented by now. By "act", I mean put the amended version of the text into the article. The article can have only one version of the text. There is a version which is supported by the numerical majority and the strongest arguments. There was consensus in favour of putting that version into the article in the RfC. As things stand, it is not in the article. I feel that it should be. Once the RfC decided that amended version should be in the article, the change should have been made immediately. ] (]) 19:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::Actually, it is the arguments FOR the proposal that have not been summarized. What is broke? What is it trying to fix? I don't care if someone presents either "evidence" or "arguments" for the insertion of the language; I would love to see either. I haven't seen anything beyond some wild yearning for expression that MOS is supposedly inhibiting. Is this proposed language meant to weaken MOS so people can insert dashes and hyphens and capitalization all over the place whenever they have a creative urge to do so? Because those are the people who are all over this thread and the proposal is worded in a way that is very hard to interpret. Can someone cut through the woo factor and provide some clarity to this issue? --] (]) 19:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

*I see multiple editors objecting to the closure on grounds discussion wasn't over. Almost by definition, that means there is no consensus to accept the closure. Debating whether they are right becomes a debate over a debate over a debate.
:Another point. On WP, if an edit sticks, it is assumed to represent consensus. Per ]: " Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." That means SlimVirgin's addition of the wording four years ago was per consensus. It also means the removal a year ago also reflected a consensus, a new one changed from the old one. From the very next sentence on WP:CONSENSUS: "Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached." The latest addition by SlimVirgin was disputed, so the existing consensus before the RFC was not to have the material there. The RFC, in my opinion, has ended in no consensus, since the "include" group doesn't have an overwhelming majority of votes, and the subjective weight of arguments is strong on both sides. That means the existing consensus from before the RFC, not to include, stands. ] (]) 01:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

::This is why we have RfCs with a default 30-day closure, rules about publicizing, rules against canvassing, and uninvolved editors to close them. So that someone makes a decision regarding current consensus (not four years ago, or one year ago), based on arguments and based on numbers, and then we move on. The problem with this page is that the normal decision-making processes seem not to apply. I'm not talking only about this RfC but apparently right across the board. It's in everyone's interests to get that sorted out, whether you agree or disagree about any particular issue. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

::: I rather agree with Churn and change, and I think I would even if I wanted the addition. If there are any further attempts to add this text before a proper closure in favour of doing so, I think we should escalate this somehow. I will be commenting further, I hope later this evening European time, but real life calls for a while... --] (]) 13:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

{{od}}
Since we have been asked for our detailed opinions about the undone closure:
* Nathan posted the closure at 2012-10-04T15:52:43. This was about two and a half days after Darkfrog posted the Presentation of evidence... section () at 2012-10-02T04:47:15, with until then, no responses to that section (I responded a bit later). There was an ongoing thread about the bot archive and probably others in progress too (it is getting difficult to keep track...). The bot's archival was reversed indicating that at least some participants did not feel that the discussion was ready to be stopped. For these reasons I think the action was premature.
* Here is Nathan's rationale:<blockquote>This RfC was about the sentence "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole." In particular, whether the phrase "though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole" should be included or not. There were two reasons to remove the phrase: that it is superfluous and that Misplaced Pages should be striving to be consistent across all articles. These are two very different viewpoints that are arguing for the same change in the guidelines, but the net effect of the change would be that it would increase arguing over what was meant in the MOS. Those who wish to retain the phrase (or oppose removal) basically are arguing that consistency across Misplaced Pages articles is not, nor has ever been, required, and even if it is superfluous it should be reiterated in this sentence. The consensus of the discussion was to oppose the removal of the phrase. -Nathan Johnson ()</blockquote>
* The final sentence is both clearly inaccurate as just a bald statement since there was (and is) obviously no consensus and an unsupported statement of opinion, with no attempt to explain how this conclusion was arrived at, despite quite a long preamble. We need at the appropriate time at least a summary of which arguments are most persuasive and why, mention of discounted arguments and why, which policy(ies) were regarded as most relevant and so on. And not too long! Not easy.
Thus in addition to it's being premature, I think the closure was flawed. --] (]) 00:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
:*Surely you can see the flaw in that argument. People start an RfC when they cannot reach agreement among themselves. The idea is to get as many people as possible to participate, and everyone agrees to abide by the final decision of an uninvolved editor. Anyone who participates in an RfC implicitly signs up to that contract. Here, you're reneging on your agreement. You don't like the decision so you're simply refusing to accept it.

::You're also confusing two kinds of consensus. There is the consensus that counts, the one assessed by Nathan, which took into account all of the views expressed in the RfC, and there is the consensus between 3 or 4 of you who are not happy with the result. You 3 or 4 have decided that there is not a consensus between you to ratify the RfC--big surprise!--so you're not going to let it stand. As I wrote below, if you're allowed to get away with this, then you've just invented a way for any small group of editors unhappy with the result of an RfC to sabotage it. Well done!

::You have absolutely no grounds for preventing the new version being added into the article. You said that the closure was premature, so I asked you to provide evidence of on-going discussion. You came up an exchange from last week about bot-settings. I mean, come on! You're also unhappy with the brevity of Nathan's closing remarks, and your cohorts would prefer an admin. Well I see we've had an admin closure, which stretched in its magnificence to two sentences. I genuinely hope you'll support my revert of that closure. ] (]) 11:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


==== I'm going to add the text back into the article, per the RfC ====

I'm going to add the text back into the article. From the section above, the only remaining justification for the revert appears to be that the closure was premature. I'd say that is demonstrably not the case. The only discussions we've had in the last few days have been meta discussions about the closure, about the nature of consensus, and so on. At the time Nathan closed the RfC there had been no substantive discussion of the question in the RfC for several days and there has been none since. The RfC ran its course, and consensus was assessed by an uninvolved editor. To anyone considering reverting my change, I would ask that you point out here where the on-going discussion is. For the record, I commented within the RfC as 87.112.91.134. ] (]) 11:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
: Obviously jumping the gun. I will revert. --] (]) 13:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::"Obviously jumping the gun" is no argument at all. I've put it back in. ] (]) 14:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:::IP 146, what do you regard as a "substantive" discussion of the question? Why do you say that it's not "substantive"? --] (]) 16:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::::I mean discussion relating directly to the question put in the RfC, discussion that could conceivably change someone's mind about including the text in the article. Without that the argument that the RfC was closed prematurely doesn't hold water. ] (]) 17:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::::Neotarf, I see that you've reverted claiming that there is no consensus. That's ludicrous. Nathan made the decision on consensus when he closed the RfC. You're involved in the RfC; it's not up to you decide whether or not there is consensus. ] (]) 17:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::That is obviously under dispute. Why don't you let the dispute play out, and let everyone have their say? Sheesh. When someone wanted to update a tally, there was a major freakout because discussion was still going on. Why be in such a hurry to stifle discussion now? There isn't a deadline you know. --] (]) 18:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::The RfC decided the question. The amended version should be in the article. Two or three of you who are not happy with the result are refusing to allow that happen, thereby claiming there is a dispute. If editors in every RfC carried on like that, it would wreck the entire process. ] (]) 19:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

===Filibustering===
Can I point people to our policy on consensus which states {{gi|Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process.}} Can i remind everyone that Misplaced Pages is built by consensus and sometimes that means people moving away from their positions and coming to an accord. In the interests of this case, perhaps it might be best to examine the nub of the issue. The point is whether Misplaced Pages applies consistency across the entire encyclopedia as well as internally in an article. This is demonstrably not the case, the MOS makes the point itself by noting that when in dispute use the style of the first major contributor. This is why some articles use colour and some use color. If the MOS allows for such differences in style, shouldn't it therefore say so? Why would it not do so? If the fear is in the words themselves, can we not create a new set of words that please us all? Building a consensus does not allow anyone a finger on the nuclear button to disrupt any discussion by offering unilateral positions. Editors need to collaborate to find a common ground and remove the personalization of the issue away from she said he said and into an area of commonality. I would hate to see people become too frustrated over this issue. It's just an encyclopedia built by a group of people that will be changed when we're all long dead and buried if we've done our parts right. ] <small>] </small> 22:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:*Actually, the point of this conversation was whether or not to reinsert the words "though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole." The idea that the MoS requires ''internal'' consistency but does not require inter-article consistency has been around for years. The original issue here was what the MoS should say about that. Then ''that'' dredged up other ideas about what the purpose of the MoS should be.
::And Hiding makes a point. Maybe "not ...whole" isn't something that can get consensus either way, but is there some other text that could? ] (]) 02:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
:*Indeed. And the filibustering seems to be paying off. Three or four editors have used brute force to prevent the result of an RfC standing, and now a tame admin has come along and re-closed it in their favour. ] (]) 11:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

===Postmature closure?===

I thought this thing was long dead and gone. Slim Virgin failed to convince people that we should add the odd clause that she inserted claiming it was being "restored". As far as I can tell, the whole basis for this mess was this lie. We didn't buy it. Move on. Or if I missed something, what? ] (]) 02:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
:There have been heated disagreements, Dicklyon, but no one has told lies. The contested wording ''was'' in the MoS for quite some time, so it is accurate to say that this was about restoring or reinserting it. Hit CTRL-F for the word "legwork" if you want proof. Quiddity dug up some relevant changes. ] (]) 02:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
::Ah, yes, I just studied the history some more. I see now that it was out for over a year, and that for quite a while earlier, until May 2010, it included a bit that clarified the intent, saying "Therefore, even where the Manual of Style permits alternative usages, be consistent within an article." That is, it was more about encouraging consistency. Without this last sentence, it seems to be more about permission to be inconsistent, i.e. to ignore the recommendations of the MOS as long as an article is internally consistent. That's the nuance that many of us object to. If it were restored in whole, it might be less of a problem. ] (]) 03:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
:::There's some extrapolation here, but I was under the impression that ''no one'' objected to reinserting ''that'' part of the sentence and that the whole conversation was about "not necessarily ...whole." ] (]) 05:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
{{Collapse bottom}}

'''Note:''' I've restored Nathan Johnson's close. There is no reason why an RfC cannot be closed by an editor in good standing and this editor does appear to be in good standing. The request for closure was sitting on AN for quite a while, the RfC itself saw no new opinions coming in for several days, closing it was a reasonable action. --] <small>(])</small> 21:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

:And I have re-restored it. Noetica complained that it wasn't an admin closure, and now we have an admin endorsing that it was a valid closure. Noetica should stop stonewalling the consensus in this page with non-existing requirements that are in conflict with ]. --] (]) 22:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
{{archivebottom}}

== Resolving the underlying infobox "ownership" issue ==

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 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.'''

{{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.)}}

— <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)

: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)

::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 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 just want to comment to say I agree with DGG's analysis above. The current practice is that once there is agreement that a certain type (topic) of article should have an infobox, we do indeed put infoboxes on all articles of that type. This is not the same, for example, as citations, where different articles of the same type could have different citation styles. But I also agree that the MOS is not the place to decide what infobox to use. For many topics it would be better decided by a wikiproject. For types of articles that span many wikiprojects (e.g. biographies), the discussion should be on the village pump. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 14:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

== Three corrections ==
<!-- ] 06:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC) -->
{{RFC|lang|rfcid=AF706A6}}
Please comment if there are any questions. ] (]) 19:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

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. <s>(already moved)</s> ] (]) 23:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

*'''Comment.''' I have reverted Apteva's undiscussed move of ], which was apparently done to prove a point here and not in the interest of the article itself.<br>This section attracted no comment before Apteva elevated it to an RFC, probably because Apteva is pushing on proper names, en dashes, and hyphens at several forums at the same time&nbsp;– including an RM, now closed as not moved, for the long-settled ]. I have explicitly said, on this talkpage and elsewhere, that general issues with WP:MOS guidelines should be raised ''as'' general issues, right here. Not at several locations, and not as particular sparring points. It seems to me that this RFC is yet another waste of time. I comment on one detail only: yes, obviously many examples are needed in the guideline. Even more than we have now, perhaps. Some editors are still refusing to accept the principle it is based on as consensual; and Apteva, for example, is playing hard by appeal to inconsequential differences among the present examples. If any element of the long and meticulous community consultation on dashes in 2011 needs review, let it be done in an orderly and informed way. Some recommended background reading for those interested: the article ], most of which is now accurate. (It needs a move to ].)<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
*:It was a correct move. Uganda–Tanzania war is not a proper noun and is not capitalized. Nor was it undiscussed. The date and time in the above discussion shows that it was pointed out on September 27 that it should be moved, and that it was not moved until October 5 (and a check of the edit history will show that I noted that it had been moved when I opened the RfC on October 7). Clearly plenty of time and some for anyone to disagree with the proposal. Seeing none, I took it as approval, not an unusual response. Should an RM to move proper noun come to my attention I would object. And I think that would be the consensus. The word phrase "proper noun" did not enter use until about 1890. The dictionary, if it contains "proper name", defines it as proper noun. The two terms are interchangeable. I have called for an RfC because I am not going to get into an edit war over the Revert. In the BRD cycle, after R comes D. There had been no response, so I am asking for a response. I do not believe that a review of a clearly embarrassing discussion needs to be reviewed. Proper names use hyphens and our MOS says so. 10,000 books use a hyphen and maybe a 100 use something else. Case closed. I would like to remind everyone to focus on the issue, not the editor, though. WP is never an authority on anything, proper nouns included. WP articles can never be used as a RS. ] (]) 02:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:::These topics have already been the focus of much long and pointless argumentation that wasted the time of multiple editors, time that could have been spent elsewhere, like in creating content. I don't understand the point of reopening these discussions so soon after they have finally and painfully been settled by consensus. --] (]) 08:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
::Congratulations to Noetica, the ] article has just been cited by no less an authority than ] at ]. --] (]) 08:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
::::There are still improvements that are needed - fix the misleading and incorrect examples. If someone wants to argue that proper nouns are not capitalized or that sentences do not need periods, not questions of course, then certainly their time is better spent elsewhere, but if someone insists that Roman-Syrian War is spelled with an endash they will have a very hard time supporting that premise. Is War capitalized in "Uganda-Tanzania War"? Possibly, but if it is the punctuation is a hyphen and not an appropriate example of where to use an endash. If war is not capitalized, Uganda–Tanzania war is an example of where an endash is used, and the capitalization needs to be fixed. In both cases the current article needs to be moved - either to Uganda-Tanzania War or to Uganda–Tanzania war. There are always people who misspell things, and use incorrect punctuation, and that is why there is an edit tab and a move option. ] (]) 03:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
===Comet Hale-Bopp===
This example: "Comet Hale–Bopp or just Hale–Bopp (discovered by Hale and Bopp)" needs to be removed because used either with or without the word "Comet" this is still a proper noun and therefore uses a hyphen, as supported by the thousands of reliable sources that use this punctuation. According to Google Books there are 31,900 sources, the overwhelming majority of which use a hyphen. It is not even close. ] (]) 22:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:Nonsense. Many of those reliable sources do use the en dash, which confirms that it is simply a styling choice. The fact that many sources have a style that substitutes hyphens in the traditional role of the en dash, and that the Google books OCR can't tell the difference, does not mean that WP needs to adopt that style. There's nothing special or unique about Hale–Bopp here. Your concept of "proper noun, therefore hyphen" is unsupportable hallucination. ] (]) 01:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::Not nonsense at all. There are ''some'' sources that do use en dash, but if there were ''many'', as in ''many more than use hyphen'', then statistically at least one would have appeared in the first ten. Out of the first 100 how many use hyphen? Out of the first 1,000 how many? Google books has 32,900 to look through. I strongly disagree with the supposition that an OCR can not tell the difference as there are a huge number of occurrences in google books of both endashes where they are appropriate and em dashes where they are appropriate. While it is far easier to do a text search, I am completely confident in my assessment that there are no endashes in the first 10 results that I obtained. As was pointed out before, any suggestion of "many" needs to also include "out of how many", as saying there are 432 examples of using Hale-Bopp with an endash sounds impressive until you find out, say, that that was out of 32,000, with 29,000 using a hyphen and 3,000 using a space, just as a made up example. Proper noun hyphen is not fiction. It is in our MOS and I really have yet to see any example of a proper noun that does not use a hyphen. I am ''not'' saying they do not exist. I can certainly imagine that if someone named Hale-Bopp and someone named Lennard-Jones discovered a comet it could be called the "Hale-Bopp–Lennard-Jones Comet, to distinguish between one discovered by Hale and someone named Bopp-Lennard-Jones, or by one person named Hale-Bopp-Lennard and one named Jones. Normally exceptions to rules are pretty easy to find. It is academic to find them, but still interesting, and I really have not seen one. One editor perhaps looked for examples of endashes in WP article titles and came up with two that are not proper nouns and two that are using incorrect punctuation on WP. Since when has WP ever been considered a reliable source? ] (]) 04:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Nonsense. Several of them DO in fact appear in the first page of 10 hits on Google Book Search (with previews). You need to actually look at the previews to see how they are styled, as the OCR does not distinguish hyphen from en dash usually (and sometimes it sees en dashes as em dashes—I was going to say like , but it turns out that one really did get typeset with an em dash, due to some amateur typographer's blunder). If en dashes do show up sometimes in snippets, in probably from books that they got electronically, as with , where you can tell they got it electronically because if you zoom way in the letters aren't blurry or pixelated; they're being rendered from text. The same effect is often seen in Google Scholar, where papers with en dashes often show up as hyphen, but not always; in spite of that, nearly half show up on the with en dash. It's not an usual style like you're making it out to be. ] (]) 05:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::::Am I hearing an echo? 5/20 is a long way from "nearly half". It is 3 to 1 in favor of using a hyphen. Which is correct based on that information? Clearly a hyphen. ] (]) 06:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

For now I have changed "Comet" to comet, per p. 48 of the New Oxford Dictionary for Scientific Writers and Editors, and per our article on the comet, which does not capitalize the word comet - hence an endash is correct as it is not treated as a proper noun. There is an open RM to move the page to Comet Hale-Bopp, treating it as a proper noun. Sources clearly favor proper noun status. Halley's comet, on the other hand, does not favor proper noun status and can also be corrected. ] (]) 16:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:Please see ]: "The policies, guidelines, and process pages themselves are not part of the encyclopedia proper. Consequently, they do not generally need to conform with the content standards. It is therefore not necessary to provide reliable sources to verify Misplaced Pages's administrative pages, or to phrase Misplaced Pages procedures or principles in a neutral manner, or to cite an outside authority in determining Misplaced Pages's editorial practices. Instead, the content of these pages is controlled by community-wide consensus, and the style should emphasize clarity, directness, and usefulness to other editors."
:The "New Oxford Dictionary for Scientific Writers and Editors" does not have any authority over Misplaced Pages. The Misplaced Pages house style for comets is here: ].
:--] (]) 18:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::Irrelevant. The name we have chosen is "comet" not "Comet". Using "Comet" gives it proper noun status, and it becomes Comet Hale-Bopp, with a hyphen, not an endash. the section referenced says to use the common name, and if none, give it proper noun status (how generous). The example, Comet Hyakutake, is littered with references that use comet and ones that use Comet. ] (]) 18:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::: IMHO, recalling high school grammar classes might be of help here. Is the word "comet" a part of the name, or it just reiterates what the name is about? In other words, can we leave "comet" out without loss of meaning? Does ''the (c/C)omet Halley-Bopp'' resemble ''the "New York Times" newspaper'' and ''a McDonald's restaurant'', or, rather, ''The Wall Street Journal'' and ''the White House''?
::: To my feeling, that particular space object is called ''Halley's Comet'', and another one is called ''Hale-Bopp Comet''. Since the names of space objects (planets, stars, comets, galaxies, constellations, etc.) are always capitalised (e.g., Mars, Jupiter, Neptune, Aldebaran, Vega, Milky Way, Sun, etc., etc.) , the word "comet" should also be capitalised in all the instances, since it is an inseparable part of that object's name. Rules as to dash/hyphen should apply accordingly. <span style="font-family: 'Candara', sans-serif; font-weight: bold; text-shadow: #AAAAFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class: texhtml">]</span> 19:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:::: Of course ''Comet Hale-Bopp'' (however hyphenated) is a proper noun. ''All'' names are proper nouns. Some sources may choose not to capitalize it; that's a style decision (a poor one in my view, but style rather than grammar). But even in those sources, it's still a proper noun &mdash; that's a grammatical rather than stylistic category. --] (]) 20:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::That may be obvious to any number of people, but it is not obvious to the people who write ], or Articles as in scientific articles published elsewhere. In both cases the spelling of the dictionary is used. Why would we write a style guide that no one was using? Style guides should follow what we are doing, not make up rules that no one uses. I suggest that Comet should be changed to comet in ] to agree with common use. We use sun and moon when 99.9+% (probably a lot more 9s for sun than moon) of the time we actually mean Sun and Moon, and it is ridiculous to capitalize it, and not done in common practice. Our style guides need to follow common practice, not introduce peculiarities. ] (]) 21:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::: Your reference to "common use" seems misguided: ''Sun'' and ''Moon'' are always capitalised when used as names of celestial bodies (i.e., not in ''sun lotion'', ''sunbathing'', ''moonlight'', etc.); so are Earth, Mercury, etc. As to your removal of capitalisation in "Comet", I would thus suggest you refrain from making edits that deliberately violate ]. Any such changes should be reverted. <span style="font-family: 'Candara', sans-serif; font-weight: bold; text-shadow: #AAAAFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class: texhtml">]</span> 21:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Speaking only for myself, I am ''not'' making any edits that violate the MOS. The MOS says that proper names use hyphens, so I am moving articles that are proper nouns and use an endash, like, for example, Mexican-American War and Spanish-American War. Doing that brings them into compliance with the MOS. I am removing the examples in the MOS that are not in compliance with the MOS. The MOS says that proper nouns use hyphens, and has three examples that are proper nouns yet use an endash. One of them, comet Hale–Bopp, is not capitalized in our article, is not capitalized in a respected dictionary, and yet is capitalized as an example in our MOS. What's up with that? What I do need to do, though, is politely ask editors to read the section of the MOS on hyphens and note that there actually are places they are used - like in proper nouns. We all need to get on the same page here though, and if someone can show me 10,000 books that use an endash in Mexican-American War, and that there are less than use a hyphen, by all means that is what we also should use. But no matter how some editors came to the conclusion that Mexican-American War should have been spelled with an endash so they are going to use one, if in fact that is not a reasonable decision, it needs to be re-opened. In case no one has noticed, out of 4 million articles, there are some that have errors, and that is where I would prefer to spend my time. Fixing errors - like the spelling of Mexican-American War. ] (]) 02:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::: shows about 50% capitalize "Comet". ] (]) 23:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::::True. But how many dictionaries capitalize Halley's comet or comet Hale–Bopp? ] (]) 02:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::::: on the OneLook list capitalize the "C". Some capitalize it inconsistently. None on my list uncapitalize it consistently, although comes closest. ] (]) 04:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::But now I found elsewhere. ] (]) 05:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

== Punctuation and footnotes ==

I would very much like to add the following to this section:<br />
- - - - -<br />

In contrast to scientific articles, ref tags are ''not'' placed immediately following the name of a scientist, but following the content that is referenced.

*''Example'': Humanistic psychologist Carl Rogers stated that the individual needed an environment that provided them with acceptance, empathy, and approval.{{Dummy ref|11}}
- - - - - <br />

The reason is that in more and more articles (anyway, the ones that I see) the ref tags are put immediately behind the name, just as in scientific articles. The problem is that is becomes unclear where the referenced content finishes and the unreferenced content starts.<br />
For instance, "Rogers{{Dummy ref|11}} stated that the individual needed love. Love is the most important need for a human being. Without love, people can get depressed."<br />
In this case, there is no way to know where Rogers statements finish, and the editor's opinion starts. I would like to point this out to some editors and be able to refer to the manual of style. So that's why I wrote this extra example. ] ] 08:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
:Too specific, and ambiguous. My impression is that by "scientific articles" you mean "articles in scientific journals, as opposed to articles in wikipedia", many of which ''are'' scientific articles. Just say references follow the facts they are referencing. If a specific editor is violating that you can {{tl|welcome}} (subst:welcome) them and point that out. ] (]) 18:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
:Added a section to ], though to help avoid this happening. ] (]) 18:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

::It's a ] issue. If the editors at the article in question want to use that style, they're permitted to. Your only recourse is to ]. ] (]) 21:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

:::I agree with ]. Suppose the Harvard style is being used. Then you would get something like "<u>Rogers (2009)</u> stated that the individual needed love. Love is the most important need for a human being. Without love, people can get depressed" (where "Rogers (2009)" would be linked). This style is perfectly acceptable in Misplaced Pages, but doesn't correspond to the advice that "references follow the facts they are referencing". ] (]) 10:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
::::But how would we know where Rogers' statement finishes? If it is Rogers who thinks that people can get depressed or an editor who thinks so???? ] ] 17:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::Which is why that style is rarely used - but as pointed out it is still a valid reference style. I am guessing that someone could find an FA that uses it - throughout. ] (]) 07:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

== Maths styling and readability ==

I want to make a case for including, as a style guideline, that all math using symbols other then the basic arithmetic symbols, be 'transcripted' into ordinary language. I don't mean that the math be replaced by ordinary language descriptions, but that displayed math have accompanying text that reads as if the math were being spoken. The case is very simple:

1) There is a huge problem of innumeracy in the general public, even among very intelligent people.

2) Part of this problem has nothing to do with the difficulty of understanding relations of quantity and so forth, but a simple inability to *read* math. Often people's eyes glaze over at the appearance of math because they simply cannot associate any sounds or meanings to the symbols.

3) I realize that the meaning and often the pronunciation of various symbols is covered in specific entries about the symbols but...
a) This is not universally the case. There are symbols without specific entries, and those that have them require either the symbol itself or its name to be found.
b) Math symbols are often displayed as graphic images, thus the symbols cannot be individually selected, linked or searched unless one already knows the name of the symbol.
c) People are reluctant to search lists and read about symbols when they just want to grasp the basic concept the math is expressing. Instead, they go away thinking, "this is not for me..."

4) An alternate possible solution would be to include a list of every symbol used on a page with a link to the specific entry for each, perhaps in a sidebar. But this solution is inferior because:
a) Symbols often have context dependent readings. For example '—>' may read 'implies' or it may read 'goes to' or 'maps to' etc. Disambiguation has to occur in context.
b) Even in the same context different mathematicians will sometimes read expressions differently. There is no one canonically correct reading for many math expressions.
c) It requires people to leave the page and come back, perhaps without the information they sought.
d) It is a little like telling people, "learn the math before reading this". But in some cases that is exactly why they are here... trying to learn the math!

5) The problems of reading math expressions and understanding them are related but separate problems. In some cases one does need to "learn the math" before understanding, but there are numerous cases where simply being able to read the expression conveys sufficient information to result in a satisfactory understanding of the article, <em>including the unfamiliar math</em>.

6) For the same reason we don't encourage highly technical articles laced with specialist jargon. The function of an encyclopedia is to transfer specialized knowledge to a general audience. We don't allow foreign language quotations to go untranslated. We oughtn't allow math expressions to remain impenetrable.

] (]) 16:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
(sorry, thought I was logged in)
] (]) 17:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

:I think that means that at ], for example, {{oiint|intsubscpt=<math>{\scriptstyle\partial \Omega }</math> |integrand=<math>\mathbf{E}\cdot\mathrm{d}\mathbf{S} = \frac{Q(V)}{\varepsilon_0}</math> }} becomes something like (this is surely wrong; I didn't bother to look anything up because the details don't matter) the dot product of the electric field with the infinitesimal change in the surface, integrated over an infinitesimal change in the volume, is equal to the electric charge of the volume divided by the electrical constant. If that is your idea, I think that is harder to understand than the equation. The article's preceding paragraphs explain the equations to some extent. The ] is harder to understand, not easier (perhaps because my editing over there is frustrated by the "science not babytalk" faction) because it "simplified" mainly by omitting the verbal explanation. So how would you write that? And do you really think editors would even read any further nagging about readability?] (]) 20:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

::Yes! I think that's much more useful. Let me stress again that I am not advocating this as a <em>replacement</em> for the equation. I can at least look up "the dot product" and I know what an infinitesimal change is and what an electric field is (and could look them up if I didn't). I <em>can't even look up</em> a circle with two kind-of-extended "f"s (or perhaps "s"s) drawn vertically through it and two greek subscripts that I may or may not be able to name. Looking at the equation only, I don't even know that infinitesimals are involved. But perhaps you are trying too hard to deliver the meaning of the equation. That is labor the reader must undertake. I notice your code uses the term 'partial omega' for the subscript, and if I look up "dot product" the wiki page nowhere has the circle with two function signs drawn through it. So this must be "<something>subscript partial omega". What I am asking for is what you would say if you were reading the text aloud to a companion who's comprehension of the meaning of the math was not an issue. How do you read it to yourself? Do you just say to yourself, "oh, Maxwell's equation" and then substitute your understanding of the meaning without ever referring to the symbols themselves? The explanation of the meaning must be something else again, and stand apart. For instance, I might read a differential as, "dxdt" or as "dx over dt" or as "delta x delta t". There is not one "right way" to do it. I might be reduced to "d times x divided by d times t..." and I may have no clue what it means, but at least it can be read. I am looking for analogues of readings like, "the definite integral from a to b of y with respect to x...", or "take the integral from t-nought to t...".

::As for the problems of getting consensus and editor resistance or push back... those are real problems I don't want to minimize. I think it is a matter of lobbying for the usefulness of it. Along with reminders of the purpose of an encyclopedia.. it is not to glory in one's superiority or have conversations with one's peers. I agree with the no babytalk guideline. I am not suggesting talking down to anyone. Merely providing additional verbal information that some (I think many) people would find useful. If done properly, it should not interfere with readability, but enhance it for most people. Those who see it as an unnecessary crutch can skip over it. That is not ideal, but it is, I think, preferable to skipping over the math itself, which many people currently do. In any event, thank you for entertaining the idea. Obviously it will not be an easy sell to math editors, who are the least likely to perceive a need for it, and who have much invested in their own math competency, unless they are also zealous educators. ] (]) 23:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

::P.S. I looked at the SI units page you link to above. It is very good; very clean. The table provided on the symbols and notation is great! But consider a simple example: <math>\mathbf{\nabla \cdot}</math> Is this "the dot product of the divergence operator and" or "the divergence of" or "divergence times..." All the above? None of the above? Uneducated, I read "the funny down pointing triangle that is the divergence operator, not delta followed by a dot that probably means multiplication". I want to know how it is commonly read. Then I can worry about its function in the equation. We have difficulty associating meaning to symbols we can't name, I think. ] (]) 00:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

:::I agree that Wikipedian editors are more driven by vanity than helpfulness, but there is no easy solution without paying them. If readers don't at least recognize that the surface integral symbol (I found the explanation in the table) is some kind of ], then are we really doing them a favor by inviting them to look up ], ] etc.? This is a physics article. We have other articles that describe ]. So if we're leading them into a trap they won't understand, then isn't "learn the math before reading this" more helpful? And even if a verbal description does more good than harm in this case, is that true of every case, such as the much simpler ] for instance? Or should we let editors use their discretion for individual articles? And even if we should have such verbal descriptions for ''all'' articles, what will another guideline accomplish that ] isn't doing already, besides the familiar dangers of ]? Most Wikipedians won't read it, and the ones who do will use it for edit wars as in the thread immediately after this one. ] (]) 04:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

::::Thanks again for engaging with me on this matter. I am coming around to your point of view. I have spent more time looking over the symbol lookup table, and I see that there is a column in the table for "reads as", which is pretty much what I was asking for. I can see the duplication of effort that would be entailed in making that part of every article. I guess my problem reduces to individual cases where a symbol is used that is not in the table... I started this train of thought after trying to read something on the "Affine transformations" page. I have looked at the source.. The symbol is 'varphi' and I was able to look it up. I found the page on phi discusses this. It is a varient font form of phi, found mostly in older fonts, and is deprecated for mathematics. I am content to address this on the Affine transformations page, and take it as an isolated instance. I may add it to the symbol table with a note, so others will at least have a chance of seeing it there, if I can figure out how to do it. I still think there is a problem with symbol lookup... a kind of catch 22 where you need to know the name of the symbol in order to be able to look it up efficiently. And most users won't go to the page source to read the markup. (I didn't think of it myself, initially.) But I can see my suggestion is not really a good fix to those problems. ] (]) 16:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::Just a note here &mdash; Baon appears to have misinterpreted a remark in the ] article. There is nothing "deprecated" about <math>\varphi</math>. It is a perfectly normal mathematical symbol and is used quite regularly. --] (]) 22:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:Only four articles are listed at ] (version of ).
:—] (]) 21:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

:A discussion about pronouncing mathematical symbols is at .
:—] (]) 16:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

:If you visit the Unicode code chart index at , and scroll down to the heading "Symbols and Punctuation", and find the subheading "Mathematical Symbols", you can select thereunder a sub-subheading or a sub-sub-subheading. For example, you can select "Supplemental Mathematical Operators", which is linked to http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2A00.pdf.
:There, below the table with a width of 16 cells, the symbols are listed, preceded by their respective hexadecimal encodings and followed by their respective official Unicode names. For example, the symbol ⨀ is encoded hexadecimally as 2A00 (<code>&amp;#x2A00;</code> produces &#x2A00;) and has the name "N-ARY CIRCLED DOT OPERATOR".
:By reference to the names of symbols in these pages, at least in theory a person can read a mathematical formula without necessarily understanding what they mean. In some respects, the process is similar to reading a passage orally, and spelling orally an unfamiliar word whose pronunciation one does not know or can not articulate.
:—] (]) 16:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

:See the category "Mathematics" at (])
:and the category "Math & Statistics" {{sic}} at
:and the category "Mathematics" at (])
:and the category "Math" {{sic}} at (])
:and search results for '''mathematics''' at (])
:and search results for '''mathematics''' at (])
:and the category "Mathematics" at (]).
:—] (]) 01:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC) and 06:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

:See http://www.math.cornell.edu/~hubbard/readingmath.pdf (])
:and http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~fateman/papers/speakmath.pdf (]), with an unlinked reference to www.dessci.com, that is to say, http://www.dessci.com
:and http://www.access2science.com/jagqn/More%20Accessible%20Math%20preprint.htm
:and (]).
:—] (]) 23:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC) and 23:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

==== Arbor-tree break ====
To remain within the honored traditions of this page, we cannot discuss "Maths styling" without first duking it out in a long, to-the-death debate about the title of the debate itself. Should it ''Maths styling'' or ''Math styling''? I'm sorry to introduce a discontinuity, but critical points must be integrated in such differentiations, though it's a slippery slope. ] (]) 05:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
:This is not the place to make individual decisions. Maths is probably British English, and Math American English. ] (]) 06:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::Please tell me you knew I was joking. Please. ''Please.'' '''I beg you.''' ] (]) 14:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
::Yes, "maths" is British, and EEng is satirizing the rest of the page. ] (]) 07:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
:The word ''mathematics'' complies with ] (version of ).
:—] (]) 00:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

== Spaced vs unspaced em dash ==

A certain well-intentioned user named ] keeps replacing unspaced em dashes in hundreds of Misplaced Pages articles with ''spaced em dashes'' (preceded by a non-breaking space). This is contrary to ]; still, Hydrargyrum maintains that his is the correct way because he has "completed a typing course". I recognise that there is no single way of using em dashes: '']'' and the '']'', for example, recommend unspaced em dashes while '']'' and a few others propose that these be spaced. However, ] has expressly stipulated that em dashes should not be spaced on Misplaced Pages. The above user argues that "the information at ] was developed by incompetent individuals operating in an information vacuum, who apparently never took a course in typing, nor are they familiar with how line wraps are handled in browsers and other software" (]). What, if any, action should now be taken – either with regard to restraining Hydrargyrum or allowing other styles in ]? Thanks. <span style="font-family: 'Candara', sans-serif; font-weight: bold; text-shadow: #AAAAFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class: texhtml">]</span> 22:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

:I ask such people to read ]. If that doesn't work, others might try something more coercive. ] (]) 23:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

::Thanks, good read, I posted the link, let's see. Little optimism remains: ] has been asked to stop changing dashes his way already several times in the last few months – to no effect. <span style="font-family: 'Candara', sans-serif; font-weight: bold; text-shadow: #AAAAFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class: texhtml">]</span> 00:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

:Remember to advise a user (as I've done in this case) if you are going to discuss their behavior somewhere. <font color="red">—&#91;</font>](])<font color="red">&#93;—</font> 04:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

::As often when it comes to style discussions, they seem rather overconfident that they are "right" and that everyone else, or any different punctuation style, is "wrong". The reality of course, as appears to have been pointed out to them, is that there are alternatives, which are simply a matter of choice - and that the most commonly seen and used alternatives in the real world for dashes in running prose are the unspaced emdash and the spaced endash. MOS happily allows either. Common sense and the MOS would both suggest an editor shouldn't be making mass changes between the two of them - let alone changing either to the rarely seen spaced emdash. Nor do I think there's much need to change the MOS to add that third option (and even if we did, changing to that format in individual cases from one of the other two would still be utterly pointless). <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 09:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

:::This is related to ]. Some people take upon themselves to change hundreds of articles between two accepted styles in order to ensure consistency, and they refuse to take hints. The MOS needs to make really clear that this is not acceptable. If the MOS doesn't say this clearly then editors can't use the MOS to stop this sort of behaviour. --] (]) 09:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


== Retain or remove citation indicators in quoted text? ==
::::Not really related. This is about an editor who is changing to an '''unacceptable''' style (per the MOS). <font color="red">—&#91;</font>](])<font color="red">&#93;—</font> 16:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


Is it acceptable to remove citation indicators – ¹ or (Gorgon, 1993) – that appear within quoted text (this would be to improve readability). I'm not referring to citing quoted material, but to citation marks ''within'' quoted material. Thanks! ] (]) 12:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::::: I also find spaced emdashes preferable for setting off parentheticals. Unspaced emdashes give an unwarranted sense of connection between the two words they join; parentheticals, almost by definition, should more tightly group the words contained within them than to the words outside. Endashes, on the other hand, do not seem appropriate for parentheticals at all. I think if the MoS does not permit spaced emdashes for parentheticals, this should be changed. --] (]) 03:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::The editor appears to still be changing dashes in violation of the MoS, even though several editors have asked him to stop. I have given him a warning on his talk page. Let me know if I need to follow up on it. Cheers. ] (]) 20:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


:Yes. References to footnotes are usually silently omitted, as they are not a part of the text flow anyway. ] (]) 11:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:Perhaps a modification of the guidelines in the MOS for use of the hyphen, en dash and em dash should be considered. There are technical reasons for doing so. By default, most browsers and text editors break text automatically after a hyphen (ASCII 45, HTML code &amp;#45;); I have never encountered one that doesn't, unless it is forced to display in "no-wrap" mode. This is not true of the en dash and em dash characters, however. Over the years I've encountered some software that breaks lines after these characters, ''but most don't.'' Instead, what one most often sees is a break ''before'' the en dash or em dash if it is unspaced, putting the dash in the first column of the next line. Although you will no doubt find examples in print publications where this occurs, this is generally considered bad practice in typography and typesetting. It slows down reading and comprehension. How wo<br>uld it feel if type<br>-setters interru<br>ted text at random places within words and used hyphens in rando<br>-m fashion? It would make reading such text much more time consuming, would it not? By forcing the hyphen or dash to be the last visible character before a line break, it prepares the reader's brain for what is to follow, requiring less mental effort on the reader's part.<br><br>Since we don't have any control over what browser software a visitor to Misplaced Pages will use, we cannot predict how that browser will handle all types of dash characters. Moreover, we don't know what type of display equipment a visitor will be using; it could range from sub-VGA to XVGA, so we can't predict where lines will end within the browser window. Moreover, not all users run their browsers maximized, so even on an XVGA display, they may be viewing Web content in a sub-VGA window. That being the case, how would you go about providing the best reading experience for the site visitor?<br><br>Since Misplaced Pages isn't a typesetting system, we have limited options in controlling where characters will appear in a given line of text. One way that we can control the position of en dashes and em dashes is to precede them with a non-breaking space (&amp;nbsp; or &amp;#160;) and follow them with an normal space (ASCII 32, HTML code &amp;#32;). This guarantees that a line break will not put those characters in in the first column of the following line. Another way of doing it is with zero-width spaces. There is a zero-width non-breaking Unicode character (&amp;#8288;) and also a zero-width Unicode space character (&amp;#8203;) that would allow en dashes and em dashes to appear unspaced, yet retain the desired control of where the line breaks.<br><br>Some have presented the argument that it doesn't matter whether one uses an en dash or an em dash. Indeed, one may find pathological examples in print where the typesetter has used en dashes in place of em dashes, particularly when text is arranged in narrow columns and an em dash might appear disproportionately wide. It's not good policy, however to do so in Web content. The technical reason for this again, we cannot predict what kind of hardware and software a Misplaced Pages visitor will be using. The reader may be using the default screen font, or due to "accessibility" requirements may be using a substitute font, something that one can do with most modern browsers. The hyphen, en dash and em dash can look confusingly similar, depending on the screen font. Hyphens are generally not offset by spaces, and when one uses an unspaced en dash or em dash in such a situation, it can lead to ambiguous interpretation of a line of text: Was the writer pausing and interjecting an incidental thought, or is that some strange compound word? By offsetting an en dash or em dash with spaces, it leaves no doubt in the reader's mind what the writer intended to convey.<br><br>If you enjoy abusing your readers, go ahead and insist that the present MOS ''must'' be followed without question. If, on the other hand, you ''care'' about your readers, consider what I've written here.&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;]<sup>] ]</sup> 23:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::Thanks. Is this addressed in the MoS? I couldn't find mention ]. This would seem a common situation when citing academic sources. ] (]) 15:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I added it while doing some other cleanup. It's entirely normal to silently (not with "...") remove inline citations from quoted material, since WP isn't providing the source info, and to the reader it will be just be frustrating (they'll go looking for "Smith 1997" or whatever, and not find it). If our article is also citing the same source, then linking the quoted citation to our citation might be useful, but shouldn't be seen as manadatory. A general principle of quotation (inline or block) is to only quote what is pertinent, what is contextually necessary for our purposes; otherwise we're wandering into over-quotation which is both poor writing and apt to be a copyright issue unless the source is public-domain. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 13:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Thanks. Your addition is helpful and doesn't seem to overcomplicate things. I realized the primary aim with quoted material is not to forensically reproduce it from the source (as I'd kinda been doing), it's to accurately represent the meaning as it appears in the full context of the source. Which makes minor silent adjustments for readability fine, provided meaning is strictly preserved – comprehension and judgement are of course required. ] (]) 17:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)


== MOS:NOTLATIN and the Americanist phonetic notation ==
::Thank you for presenting your case on the proper page for it, not throughout Misplaced Pages. I have verified that a line break can occur before an unspaced em dash, and those who write rules here (not me; note that some people here write style manuals as their real life job, not (ahem!) as a lesser part of some other job) haven't discussed that issue, to my knowledge. And yes, an unspaced em dash could look like an unspaced hyphen depending on the font. ] (]) 01:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::The identified problem is not unique to the em dash. The problem is that browsers use a widow/orphan control scheme (also called text flow control) which responds poorly to the user's preferences for font size, window size and for image placement. Putting a non-breaking space in front of the em dash does not fix the problem. The problem is virtually the same for unspaced em dashes, spaced em dashes, unspaced en dashes, spaced en dashes, and every sort of hyphen. People here must get past the world of print and settle for the imperfect world of browsers where your writing is going to display in ways over which you have no control. Hydragyrum is tilting at windmills; there is nothing anybody can do to make the em dash work consistently online. The problem is not limited to Safari or Chrome or Mozilla or Internet Explorer—it is all-pervasive. Misplaced Pages's established em dash style is fine as it is. ] (]) 04:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


Hello, per the discussion at ], I thought it may be best to start a discussion here. We have come to a bit of a stand-still regarding the status of ] (NAPA). Per the discussion, several languages in the Pacific Northwest Coast use Americanist Phonetic Notation and as it stands, it is recognized as a non-Latin script in the system. The challenge is that there exists no recognized romanization system for NAPA, per NOTLATIN’s requirement for romanization of non-Latin scripts, nor is there an incentive to do so.
== Modification to MOS:IDENTITY ==


In typical usage beyond Misplaced Pages, words in Northwest Coast languages rendered in NAPA are typically left as-is, with no romanization, or with a transliteration if there so exists a historical example. However, those transliterations are few and far between, and are often inconsistent as they differ author to author. It would not be a sustainable system, because those words only constitute a small portion of the lexicon.
A few weeks ago, there was a proposal at ] to modify the wording of MOS:IDENTITY, specifically Point 2; the archived discussion is . It gained some traction, but it died down without any kind of resolution, so I want to raise it again. The specific change being sought is;


My question is whether NAPA should/would be recognized as a Latin script for the purposes of WP:NOTLATIN. NAPA derives heavily from Latin script, with the exception of a few Greek letters. Those letters represent various sounds, and each one serves a specific purpose. If it is not recognized as a Latin script, what would be the best course of action to allow various words to conform with WP:NOTLATIN, since there is no existing romanization system, and any generated romanization therefore would mostly be in violation of ]. Any insight on this would be greatly appreciated. ] (]) 19:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
{{xt|"Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's gender at the time of notability as reflected within the prevalence of mainstream ]. Identity changes thereafter should be dealt with chronologically but should always follow the conventions used with prevalence in mainstream sources."}}


:Sounds Latin enough to me. ] (]) 11:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Instead of copying over the rationale, the link to the archive shows Berean Hunter's rationale, and other examples are provided in the thread. If people think this would be better discussed elsewhere, that's fine, but since the waters at VPP have been tested this seems like the most logical place. ] (]) 17:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
:I made a similar proposal back in May ]. I agree with Blade that we need to follow what mainstream sources say rather than get ahead of these sources by making a judgment based on an individual's statements. ] (]) 18:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
::Does this mean we'll have to change ]?? ] (]) 18:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Yeah, it would. ] (]) 18:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
::::What would the template's words have to change to?? ] (]) 18:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::Hadn't thought about it... that'll obviously need some work. ] (]) 18:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


::Agree. The concept of a "romanisation" of NAPA doesn't make sense to me. In fact, NAPA in some ways strikingly resembles romanisation schemes for Cyrillic, and Cyrillic variants that have been used to transcribe or write down previously unwritten languages, so much that in the past I've wondered if UPA and NAPA originally ''arose'' as romanisations of Cyrillic-based transcriptions. --] (]) 01:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Can you clear up the '''exact''' meaning of this proposed rule?? Is it any similar to the following:


== Stale advice: slashes have been line-breaks since 2005 (Unicode 4.1.0) ==
''Trans women who are notable for being trans women should be referred to as she/her. However, trans women notable primarily for an event before the operation of surgery for a reason that has nothing to do with being transsexual should be referred to as he/him as if they were cisgender men''. ] (]) 22:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
:Almost. The first sentence is right, but the idea is to refer to, say, ] as "he" when he was identifying as Tom Gabel and "she" after coming out in public as a she. Make sense? ] (]) 00:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
::You mean, we should assume that trans women '''actually were men''', not women trapped in men's bodies, before the operation?? ] (]) 00:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
:::To couch it in less loaded, more policy-based language, it's to avoid outright misleading revisionist history such as ""she captained her tennis team at Horace Mann" (in the article on ]); specifics are in the linked VPP conversation. We at Misplaced Pages aren't here to play psychologists and pass judgment on whether or not they were ''really'' men or just women all along, we're here to report facts; in the cases of Grace and Richards, among others, they were notable under different names and sexes and our articles should reflect that. And this also works the other way too; the article on ] should be treated the same (and as of writing is actually a good example of what I'm shooting for). ] (]) 01:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
::::''Notable under different names and sexes''?? This phrase actually '''does''' imply the statement I was asking above whether we should assume. ] (]) 19:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::The sex the person was commonly believed to be at the time. I think this is a slam-dunk. We do not &mdash; we must not &mdash; take a position on whether a person's "real" sex is. The choice to retroactively apply a sex change to previous notable events is nothing short of advocacy of a particular point of view; it must stop. --] (]) 20:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


{{alink|Slashes (strokes)}} says "On the other hand, if two long words are connected by an unspaced slash, an {{tl|wbr}} added after the slash will allow a linebreak at that point."
This section can be archived, just like any section of a talk page. I remember from 2004-2006 the "Georgia moving poll" which was wasn't archived for a long time. (It was at ]; now it's in an archive.) Can we put this discussion in a similar area so that it won't be archived too quickly?? ] (]) 17:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:Not sure... anyone familiar with this talkpage have suggestions? ] (]) 22:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


I've recently tweaked a couple of articles doing this, and realized that my browser will allow breaks after slashes without any special markup. This is part of the . Looking into the archives, it was added to support breaking URLs between and .
== Disclaimer ==


It's been 19 years. Do we still need this advice? I ask because ''some'' parts of WP are aggressively backward-compatible: {{tl|wbr}} still expands to <code>&lt;wbr/>&amp;#8203;</code> since apparently IE7 and earlier don't support <code>&lt;wbr/></code>. But I seriously doubt that WP is ''consistently'' backward-compatible; I'm sure there are lots of more recent edits where the editors didn't see a problem with long /-separated lists on their browsers and didn't do anything tricky. ] (]) 17:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Are there any guidelines on how to include disclaimers in articles? In a separate section or a footnote, at the start/end of the article,...? I am preparing ] and would like to add a disclaimer "section/paragraph" saying roughly the following: ''Most of what is known about the rebellion including the exact dates are due to a single historical source, the ]. All exact dates in this wikipedia article should therefore be taken with a grain of salt in view of their origin.'' ] (]) 09:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
:There's ], which should handle it. I'll have a look at your draft, but what you want to do is include somewhere ''in the article itself'' that the dates aren't certain; same thing we do with ]'s purported age. ] (]) 17:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
::Thanks. So a separate section titled: "Historical source" or something like it would be fine? Should that go to the beginning or end of the article, or it does not matter? ] (]) 11:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Probably the first paragraph after the lede section; that's what I've seen in most articles. However, if it fits better somewhere else (c.f. ]), go with wherever that is. ] (]) 03:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
::::Thanks. ] (]) 09:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


:Look at Good articles (or former Good articles) from years ago they read like they do now and it just shows that the Manual of Style will stay exactly the same as it has been for 18 years unfortunately. ] (]) 02:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
== MOSQUOTE vs PERCENT ==


==Input needed on disagreement over where the lifespan goes in relation to a baronetcy or a peerage title==
] reads "a few purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Misplaced Pages's conventions without comment" and later "Spaces before punctuation such as periods and colons: these should be removed as alien to modern English-language publishing.". In to my opinion this includes and percent numbers. For instance if a quote includes something like "15 %" it should be changed to "15%" per ]. Am I right? -- ] (]) 08:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
] and I disagree on where the lifespan goes in relation to a name that includes a baronetcy or a peerage title. It started with Muéro removing honorifics from the lead of several articles on peers (many of which I have on my watchlist), following the recently changed guidelines at ]. This is not controversial, but in their edits, he also removed a comma unrelated to the honorifics, but called for by ] ("''Don't let other punctuation distract you from the need for a comma, especially when the comma collides with a bracket or parenthesis''").
:I would consider this a minor typographic change that does not involve any qualitative change to the underlying quote. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small><sup>]</sup> 10:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
::It can also be considered as conversion to house-style. -- ] (]) 10:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


I pointed this out to them, and they acknowledged the error, but then they instead started to leave another comma in place, a comma that was required by the now obsolete guideline. I can't find the guideline in the history of this article, but it went something like this:
::<small>(As the editor who raised the altering of the citation <code>quote=</code> with Magioladitis)</small> I'd be happy to see ] linked in ] under the list of minor typographic changes, and preferably for ] to explicitly make a statement on citation <code>quote=</code> applicability. The general altering of citations literals in <code>title=</code> and <code>quote=</code> by semi-automated/] methods can be problematic though, as can be seen by the examples in . —] (]) 11:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
:''For people with a baronetcy or a peerage, the post-nominals should be separated from each other, <u>and from the name</u>, by a comma, for consistency's sake.'' (my underscore)


That is the comma Muéro left in place, and the result was this:
::"Spacing in quotes can be altered to comply with ] and ]" would be suffice? -- ] (]) 12:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
John Doe, 1st Baron Doe, (1 January 1801 – 31 December 1881), was a Whig politician ...


I pointed out to Muéro that this is also wrong, and that punctuation rarely – if ever – precedes a parenthetical expression. But they are adamant that it should be there.
:::"]" might be too broad as it includes date-reformatting. Perhaps the test would be whether a reformatting change would prevent the locating of the original citation; so removing a space in {{xt|"15&nbsp;%"}} to get {{xt|"15%"}} probably doesn't impair locating of a source much; but renaming the <code>title=</code> of a work from {{xt|"25 October - The Romanian Armed Forces' Day"}} to {{!xt|"October 25 - The Romanian Armed Forces' Day"}} significantly changes the ability to find ''that work'' by ''that name'' in an alphabetical card index, or Google. The second paragraph of following ] shortlinks talks about ''date'' reformatting, so perhaps that is possibly too broad. Perhaps the simplest would be to encourage quotation reformatting when used in the main body of an article, but even to go as far as to ''discourage'' reformatting within the {{tlx|reflist}} as the references aren't there to be ''read'', but are there to allow the reader to locate additional reliable information easily. This would allow cases where a reformatted quotation is used inline, but the "raw material" is left untouched in the <code>quote=</code>. It could even be suggested that in the case of extensive reformatting of a quotation in the body, that the original can be preserved in the {{tlx|cite}} for clarity. —] (]) 15:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Ah yes, You are right. I only meant the addition of non breaking space in 12-hour time. And In general I am referring only to addition/removal of whitespace. -- ] (]) 16:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Since you say "Spacing in quotes" I think it is perfectly fine, and the dates stuff is not relevant. '']&nbsp;]'', <small>22:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC).</small><br />
::::Please ''do'' correct the space. And commas reversed with periods in numbers, as the continental Europeans do, and currency symbols after and spaced rather than before and unspaced. ] ] 03:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::I disagree with making changes inside quotations. For what purpose? The advice of changing curly quotes with straight quotes and single quotes is fine, but spaces? Why? And "commas reversed with periods"? There is nothing wrong with that style, no matter how strange it may look. If the quote is really wrong can be used, but it should not be changed. ] (]) 04:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::So no, "Spacing in quotes can be altered to comply with WP:PERCENT and WP:TIME" should not be added for two reasons - it is bad advice and it adds nothing to the MOS. If it said "spacing in quotes can ''not'' be altered" that would be one thing, but of course spaces are sometimes altered. Saying that something "can be altered" says nothing. It implies that they can also not be altered, and if someone alters them they might have done it appropriately or might not have. So what good is it? None at all. ] (]) 05:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::What about "Spacing in quotes must be altered to comply with WP:PERCENT and WP:TIME" then? The problem is that it is optional? -- ] (]) 17:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::No, the question is why would anyone want to refract a quote. It is no longer a quote. ] (]) 22:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Manual of Style reads "This practice of conforming typographical styling to a publication's own "house style" is universal." -- ] (]) 22:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::::And that statement in the MOS is simply false. It is not universal practice, especially in respect of more substantive changes to formatting and typography. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 22:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::I disagree. Usually a quote is written in a book in the first place just following the rules of the given book. Or it appears in some media again following the rules of the given media. I've never seen a a quote in any of the popular internet media to follow different writing style than the rest of the site/portal/media. The same should hold here. Having or not having a space between a number and the percent symbol is only a matter of preference and the quote should be written following the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style. -- ] (]) 22:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
{{od|9}}I agree with Magioladitis. N-HH is ignoring the word "this" in the MOS statement. It isn't any change in formatting and typography that is universal practice, it is the specific changes listed in the MOS that are universal practice. ] (]) 23:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:I understand what it is trying to say perfectly thanks; nor is it likely that the precise stipulations of one MOS reflect "universal practice". As to the first response, it may well happen "usually" (although I doubt anecdotal evidence can show that conclusively). Equally, WP may decide to have an MOS that inists we do things that way. However, it is simply not a ''universal'' practice - that explicit statement is simply not true. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 23:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


So here we are. I'd like input from the project, and I'm sure Muéro would like that too.
::Then delete it. It clearly adds nothing to the MOS. It is an explanation of why it is done and looks a little foolish pretending to be universal. Here is why I do not think we need to be more explicit about refractoring quotes than to remove all caps. A politician gets quoted exactly as they say something no matter what they say, swear words included. If they misspell a word, we use , but we do not correct it. If they use incorrect punctuation we can add a parenthetical, but we do not correct it. There are just too many quotes where the punctuation is an important part of the quote for us to be "universally" changing it, just to make it look pretty. I ''want'' to know if a politician knows the difference between a hyphen and an endash or whether to put a space before a % sign (or how to spell potato). I do not want us to make corrections like that inside a quote whether they are a politician or not. I want to see what punctuation Thoreau used or Dickens. ] (]) 06:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


The discussion originated on ], but I'm copying it here, and closing it there, while notifying them.
== RFC: shall changes in beginning of sentence case be allowed in quotations? ==


===The discussion on Muéro's talk page===
See ] for a post archive closure of the RFC. ] (]) 03:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello.
NB: The closure was done here: before the archive was moved. ] (]) 03:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


Thank you for your contributions. Regarding your edit of ], and similar edits removing postnoms per the new guidelines, please don't remove the comma '''''after''''' the parenthetical birth–death expression. It's supposed to be there per ]: "''Don't let other punctuation distract you from the need for a comma, especially when the comma collides with a bracket or parenthesis''".
== "Adaptations of The Thing" vs "The Thing (adaptations)" ==


Thank you. ] (]) 15:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Where in MOS is this discussed? I notice that there is ], and until a few moments ago, ], when it was moved to ]. I prefer the "Thing (adaptations)" form, because it puts the modifier last, and the name of the work first, which is of greater importance to the reader, the author, and us, IMHO. Modifier-last conforms with:
*Thing (film)
*Thing (novel)
*Thing (1987 album)
That is, the various instances or forms of a work are ''always parenthesized.'' I argue that "(adaptations)" is a superclass of ''instances of a work'' on Misplaced Pages, rather than an extant ''subject'' to which the works themselves are subservient.
Yet somehow a creeping, "standard" has been put forth, and is being acted upon ''en masse'', solely by ] ]. Discuss? --] (]) 16:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:Modifier-last is used when the "correct" title cannot be used. In this case, an article listing adaptations of ''The Thing'' could not be correctly titled "The Thing", so ] (or ]) would be correct. An article on the 1987 album would be titled "The Thing", except that it's not the primary topic for that title, so a parenthetical qualifier is tacked on to the title. -- ] (]) 17:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::Yes, Neelix linked ]. Trimmed too much over time, now lacking enough rationale to answer my concerns, and a rationale stretched quite thin when applied to plurals, IMHO. See discussion (my viewpoint, anyways) back at the bottom of ]. Reopen here if ''you'' see fit. --] (]) 18:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Reopen what here? Your question as to why the qualifier isn't needed here? -- ] (]) 18:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::This is not a MOS issue, but a title issue. I recommend discussing either on the talk page of the article or at ] ] (]) 00:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::::Well, that's unexpected. I would have thought ] was moved out of MOS for space reasons, not for "not MOS". No? --] (]) 04:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::The farther I dig into the history of "don't imply subsidiary articles" or words to that effect, the less I find. It started out as partially a technical issue (old server software would literally create subpages if a slash was in the title). Over time, the explanation and rationale has been trimmed, and its application expanded to include parentheticals, to the point that it's a nearly empty imperative, without rationale. It's depressing. At some point, I had hoped to see discussion, consensus, or precedent mentioned, but nothing so far, using Wikiblame. In case anyone wondered, that's what I've been doing in spare moments, all day.
:::And yes, I'm starting to think that policies and guidelines should also have inline citations, linking to their origin discussion & consensus, precedent in other encyclopedias, or to an external manual of style, just to prevent the kind of endless spelunking I'm now forced into, just because a policy doesn't seem to make ''prima facie'' sense.--] (]) 04:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


:Ah, good catch. I can't wait for the day when nobility titles are also excluded entirely, which would make that comma unnecessary anyway. ]<sup>(]/])</sup> 15:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::::] is a similar idea, though far from completion. ] (]) 05:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::I see no reason for documenting changes other than is already available from the history. The basic principle of WP is that it does not matter who or why or when someone adds something as long as it is correct. In article space everything needs a reliable source, and because of the need for verifiability, needs a reference. In WP space everything only needs to make sense, and if not, that is what talk pages are for. Adding references is helpful in some cases, but in most cases they are not needed. That is what articles are for. ] (]) 07:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::::No one's forcing you into spelunking. The distinction given above between titles and their qualifiers makes ''prima facie'' sense. -- ] (]) 10:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::Agreed. It is a detriment to the project to use parenthetical disambiguators to distinguish articles from their parent articles, both because parenthetical disambiguators have a well-established, disparate purpose and because subtopics by definition represent only a portion of the scope of the term indicated thereby. ] (]) 14:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


::Hello again.
== Article titles ==


::Thank you for your understanding. Re: your latest edits, you're now leaving a comma in place that shouldn't be there.
This sentence


Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild, (29 April 1936 – 26 February 2024),
:"The Manual of Style applies to all parts of an article, including the title. See especially punctuation, below. (The policy page Misplaced Pages:Article titles does not determine punctuation.)"
^ ^ ^
A B C


::Commas A and C are paired, comma B should be removed along with the postnoms that followed it. Commas rarely precede parentheses.
is, to put it mildly, absurd. Policies always trump guidelines, but policies do not specify everything, that is what guidelines and common sense are for, but to say that a guideline determines punctuation of an article title is not possible, and has created the absurdity of thinking that Mexican-American War should be called "Mexican–American War" (with an endash instead of a hyphen) just because ''if it was not a proper noun'' it would be spelled with an endash. Well it is a proper noun and it is spelled with a hyphen. But really, the idea that a guideline can say that a policy does not apply is completely absurd. Which is anyone going to follow, the policy or the guideline? The policy every time. Now if it was the other way around, if a policy felt a need to say, but please ignore such and such a guideline, never mind how absurd that is, that would work, because the policy gets precedence over the guideline. Just my two cents worth. I recommend deleting the entire sentence as absurd. ] (]) 02:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


::Cheers.
::I lost you between "policies do not specify everything, that is what guidelines and common sense are for" and "to say that a guideline determines punctuation of an article title is not possible&nbsp;... Which is anyone going to follow, the policy or the guideline? The policy every time." ]? ] (]) 03:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::The only word between those two quotes is "but", an unusual place to get lost. I am having a hard time figuring out what is being asked. The only question at hand is, should the above sentence be removed? Arguments for or against need to be couched not on the clarity or lack thereof of ''my'' summary of the issue, but on the merits of the sentence being in the MOS. ] (]) 03:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::I meant that what comes before "but" seems to contradict what comes after "but". If you recognize that policies do not specify everything, then why isn't title punctuation an example of something a policy wasn't intended to specify? ] (]) 05:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::The point is that the MOS ''does not'' over ride the policy. If someone finds a policy reason for using punctuation in a certain manner, that is what will be used ''regardless'' of what the MOS says, but I have not found any examples of that being the case, hence clearly no reason for the sentence even being in the MOS. I think it is there because someone wants a ridiculous justification for the ridiculous conclusion that Mexican-American War ''should be'' spelled with an endash, even though ''no one'' does. It is nothing more than trying to make a ], and a waste of all of our time. ] (]) 06:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::The bureaucratic answer is, in your own words, "policies do not specify everything". For example, if you read ] (admittedly a guideline, but the same ] logic applies) you might think ] should be in quotes as a song, but ] says it's "generic" (at least the words aren't; the only words you can sing to Kyrie are "Kyrie&nbsp;..." or a translation). OK, so only the music guideline covers that detail.
:::::::The practical answer is that laughing off the Mexican–American War debate, one of the biggest debates we have ever had, is completely inconsistent with complaining about wasting time. ] (]) 18:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::::The fact that ] is a policy and ] a guideline shouldn't be given too much weight, as it's a bit of historical anomaly. Not much of what is in ] can really be called policy, as it's most full of guidelines. Nevertheless, if there's a conflict between them, point it out and let's talk about it. ] (]) 04:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::I find the words guideline and policy to be carefully chosen and uniformly applied - and not just an accident. A great deal of discussion goes into which items should be a policy and which should be a guideline. ] (]) 06:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::They are more carefully chosen now than they used to be. Early on there were few debates (as most did not consider it an important distinction) for example WP:V was turned from a guideline into a policy with (I suspect with no debate on the appropriate talk page) back in April 2005. Likewise what is now ''Article Title'' received its banner in 2005 but it had been in the "Category:Misplaced Pages official policy" since after being "One of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines" before that. Of course since then there have been intermittent debates on whether the central MOS page and AT should be a policies or guidelines and each time the status quo has been kept. To understand the reason for the sentence you have picked out you will have to read the talk page archives, and who was in favour of what. Personally as I have stated before () that I am in favour of removing this sentence for similar reasons to those you have given. -- ] (]) 16:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::This appears to be part of a campaign being carried out in multiple threads and multiple forums to reopen the n-dash wars that were settled in 2011. For example, see here --] (]) 20:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


::] (]) 17:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I stayed away from the hypen/en dash thing, but given that it's being discussed here, I also find the en dash usage odd-looking. It's often at odds with what I would write and with what I see written elsewhere. I have no examples to hand as I've not collected any. But I do wonder about the origin (the sources) of the rules we adopted. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::I don't think that makes sense. If someone doesn't have a nobility/royalty title, there is no comma before or after the life span. When adding the nobility/royalty title, the pair of commas should go before and after the nobility/royalty title. Why, when adding the nobility/royalty title, would the life span get looped into the comma pair? ]<sup>(]/])</sup> 17:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::It is not the rules that are being questioned, but some of the examples used that do not follow those rules. The correct use of a hyphen, endash, and emdash is relatively subtle, but I think what we have is mostly correct - other than in at least three of the examples, and in at a minimum dozens of articles that were moved in 2011 to follow the "Mexican-American War" misspelling by using an endash. According to "New Hart's Rules", style guides only address issues where more than one style is perfectly acceptable in writing, such as using "co-operate" or "cooperate", both of which are implied as valid, but the book also uses the word "bemade" to mean "be made".


====Step by step====
:::::::::"''No appeal need be made to stylistic conventions or record kept of them where text is incorrect''". That would apply to names, of which it only says that names use hyphens. I think that point has been missed by the advocates of "Mexican-American War" spelled instead with an endash.
I think it makes perfect sense. You don't put a parenthetical expression '''''after''''' punctuation, do you?
Let me take this step by step. Normally, the first sentence would be something like this:
John Doe was a Whig politician ...


Now let's add that he was a peer:
:::::::::On hyphens is says "''If an author has consistently applied a scheme of hyphenation, an editor need not alter it, although a text littered with hyphens can look fussy and dated. Editors can find the dominant form of a particular compound in a suitable current dictionary such as the New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors.''"
John Doe, 1st Baron Doe, was a Whig politician ...
^ ^
A B
The commas A and B are paired, i.e. the "parenthetical" title is set off at both ends (unless when there is other punctuation, like at the end of sentence). Let's see what happens without the closing (second) comma:
John Doe, 1st Baron Doe was a Whig politician ...


If the commas aren't paired, the sentence reads "1st Baron Doe was a Whig politician", and "John Doe" is left dangling at the start of the sentence.
:::::::::There are examples where either a hyphen or an endash could be used: "''Note that in US style an en rule is used to connect a prefix and a compound (the post–World War I period).''" Implying that others would use "the post-World War I period" (with a hyphen instead of an endash). ] (]) 00:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


Now, let's add the life span. Where do we add it? Before punctuation.
{{od}} Slim, the sources of the rules were discussed at great length in the deliberations of 2011. We even had tables of abbreviations (like CMOS for Chicago Manual of Style) to make it easier to compare and contrast the style guidance of dozens of different guides. Feel free to look into it, so you won't have to just wonder about it. As for "odd-looking", I'm not sure what you mean. To me, it's odd to the see the tight binding of a hyphen where the relationship of parallel items is what is intended. Many people never learned about the typography to signal that, since it wasn't in the realm of the typewriter, or of Microsoft Word, to get that right. Mac users had a better chance, since Steve was inspired by typography and had both en dash and em dash on the keyboard from day one, but many people still didn't learn it, since having it available was not enough. People who make docs with TeX and LaTeX are more likely to have learned about en dash, since you have to get past it (--) to make an em dash (---). ] (]) 20:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
John Doe, 1st Baron Doe (1 January 1801 – 31 December 1881), was a Whig politician ...
^ ^
A B
The commas A and B are still paired. See?


] (]) 23:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:Hi, thanks for the explanation. I avoided that whole discussion and I'm afraid I still don't understand it. Could you explain briefly why Mexican-American War is wrong? It seems correct to me, and using an en dash doesn't. It would matter less in the text, but bolded in the title does look odd (odd as in devoid of meaning, unusual, perhaps just unnecessary or perhaps an error). ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::There's several aspects to this debate of course, starting with the broader issue of whether WP should employ a hyphen/en-dash distinction at all when it comes to compounds and prefixes. Many, possibly even most if you exclude book publishing, online and print publishers don't bother and simply rely on the hyphen for the whole range of such links (and it's not simply because they are "wrong" or not sufficiently sophisticated). I still don't understand why a general-use website like WP, where the editing system makes it difficult to add en-dashes anyway, decided to make the switch at some point to start bothering about it. It makes editing more complicated and leads to endless disputes on the secondary issue, as here, on how to apply the distinction in specific cases, such as the ones under debate now. We have incredibly complicated and detailed rules, formulated after months of haggling, and we still don't have any clarity – in the Mexican-American/Mexican–American war case, we have people citing real-world examples/practice and title policy and/or their interpretation of the rules here to back up each alternative, with equally valid arguments; when at the end of the day the average reader doesn't give a toss, were they even to notice the difference. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 22:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


:The nobility title is a nonessential appositive. Commas go before and after a nonessential appositive. I'm assuming you don't consider the lifespan, which is never set off by commas in a Misplaced Pages article, to be a part of the same nonessential appositive somehow, right? If it's not included in the nobility title nonessential appositive, then it goes outside the commas. ]<sup>(]/])</sup> 00:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::Slim, it's not that the hyphen is "wrong", but that we have adopted the style of recognizing the type of distinction that the en dash versus hyphen signals. That the distinction is meaningful can be illustrated with this particular example, though. The hyphen is used when a compound noun is used as an adjective. When the the compound noun ] is used as an adjective, as in a Mexican-American neighborhood, or ], or ], the hyphen is used to signal that those are about Mexican Americans. If we had a war against or involving primarily Mexican Americans, we'd probably call it the Mexican-American War. To signal a different interpretation, a relation between parallels, in this case a "versus" or "against" relationship, we use the en dash in ]. As N-HH points out, many authors and editors and styles don't bother to try to send such signals to their readers, and many readers don't notice. But for those who notice, and sometimes even for those who don't, the looser coupling of the longer dash helps to get the right message across. That's why so many many guides recommend the en dash for such roles. The fact that styles and guides vary meant that we had to work to hammer out the right compromise for WP. ] (]) 05:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
:::I agree. The hyphen used in an adjective or noun subordinates the first item to the second. So an X living in country Y would be X-Y while a Y living in country X would be Y-X. The second part of the hyphen is the main part, and the first the qualifier. But this convention means we can't link two nouns in an "equal" fashion, as is required for a construct such as the "Mexican–American war." That is where the en-dash comes in. ] is not disagreeing with this; Apteva's claim is that in a proper noun: Mexican-American War, which is what a title is, the convention is to use a hyphen and not an en-dash, against the convention when the phrase is not a proper noun. I would like to see some sources cited for the claim. ] (]) 05:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
::::I can provide a small list of names that are similar to this. My source is 1) do they appear in a dictionary 2) how do they appear in books and 3) how do they appear in other sources. I really do not think that I am at all out of line in thinking that the vast majority of editors have been applying the same convention. Use a hyphen in a proper name. Use endash otherwise using the endash rules. ] (]) 06:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::Hi, that wasn't a rhetorical question objecting to your suggestion; it was a real question. I went and checked. Online, the en-dash is, in general, absent in both content and titles. That is not surprising because most keyboards don't have one. The Chicago manual does not provide an explicit exemption for titles (proper nouns) for its en-dash rule. However that doesn't mean it requires en-dashes in proper noun titles. It does require the use of en-dash in constructs such as the University of Wisconsin–Madison, but that is mentioned as an exception. It requires a hyphen, not an en-dash, for abbreviation compounds such as U.S.-Canadian relations (''The Chicago Manual of Style'', 15th ed. 2003. 6.85 and 6.86 pp. 262–263). The APA manual mentions it in passing for equal-weight compound adjectives, but that is it. The MLA doesn't mention the en-dash at all, using just the dash (two hyphens, often an em-dash) and the hyphen. I would say we leave the current guideline wherever it is at now, assuming there is a guideline. ] (]) 21:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


::No, it doesn't. Sure, the lifespan parenthetical isn't part of the appositive, but neither are the commas, which is demonstrated by the fact that at, if the name and title occurred at the end of a sentence, there wouldn't be a comma; there would be a period/full stop:
::::::Following on from that, why won't we allow article titles to use a hyphen in titles like Mexican-American war? Most keyboards don't have an en dash, most publishers and style guides don't recommend one for that usage, so why did Misplaced Pages get locked into using one to signal a distinction of no consequence? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
... {{xt|Joseph Smith bequeathed the manor to his nephew, John Doe, 1st Baron Doe (1801–1881).}}
:::::::Well, I would say it is unclear what style guides recommend. Note that manuscripts (the focus of APA and MLA) and books (the focus of Chicago House) don't have "article titles"; they have book titles, chapter headings and so on. As to your specific questions, I don't know the history of why the ] guideline says all sections and their headings should follow same punctuation rules; I notice somebody has proposed taking that out. ], the policy, allows it and requires a redirect from keyboard-friendly titles. I would say the rules for Article Titles should be in ], the policy, since administrators effectively decide it by ruling on contested moves (NACs are disallowed there), and, in general, administrators do not enforce guidelines. I would also say article titles should contain only characters people can type, because otherwise they will mostly come in via redirects. However, I suspect this has been discussed to death before. ] (]) 22:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


::You wouldn't place the parenthetical outside the sentence like this, would you?
=== Digressions from the topic ===
... {{!xt|Joseph Smith bequeathed the manor to his nephew, John Doe, 1st Baron Doe. (1801–1881)}}


::Ergo: normal rules apply, which is that punctuation doesn't precede a parenthetical. (The exception being when there is a complete sentence inside the parentheses, in which case punctuation occurs both at the end of the preceding sentence, i.e. before the parenthetical, and before the closing parenthetical, as shown here.)
==== Hyphen examples ====
::Commas go before and after an appositive (unless there is other punctuation), but that does not necessarily mean immediately after.
{| class=wikitable
!Name!!Hyphen!!endash!!Percent
|-
|Spanish-American War|| || ||
|-
|Mexican-American War|| 172 || 5 || 97.2%
|-
|Philippine-American War|| || ||
|-
|Wilkes-Barre|| || ||
|-
|Seattle-Tacoma International Airport|| || ||
|-
|Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport|| || ||
|-
|Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport|| || ||
|-
|Comet Hale-Bopp|| || ||
|-
|comet Hale–Bopp|| || ||
|}
Birds do not need checking, as they are specifically mentioned.


::] (]) 10:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
]</small></sup> 08:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)</small>]
:::"Punctuation doesn't precede a parenthetical" is not a rule at all. It's just something you made up.
:::If the parenthetical were being applied to the nobility title, then the parenthetical should go within the commas that set off the nobility title. But the parenthetical is being applied to the actual name of the person, which came before the nonessential appositive that is set off by commas.
:::If you dislike the placement of the nobility title between the name and the lifespan parenthetical, I wouldn't disagree. I'd happily remove the nobility title entirely from the lead sentence (or heck, the whole article). Or put the lifespan parenthetical first, and then the nobility title. But wherever the nobility appositive is being stuck, it gets set off by commas. That's the rule. ]<sup>(]/])</sup> 13:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::This one is simple: a comma is ''never'' placed immediately before other punctuation. Instead it's placed ''after'' them or, in case or semicolons and periods, omitted altogether. While ] doesn't say so quite explicitly (supposedly treating it as one of these common sense things that everybody already knows?), it gives an example of how to do it correctly: "Burke and Wills, fed by locals (on beans, fish, and ngardu), survived for a few months." (With the second parenthetical comma ''after'' the closing bracket.) So, by analogy, "John Doe, 1st Baron Doe (1 January 1801 – 31 December 1881), was a Whig politician" is indeed correct. ] (]) 08:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:Concur with the OP and with Gawaon on the typographical point; we don't use a comma right before a round-bracketed parenthetical, nor does much of anyone else in the world. One might make an argument that "logically", in the way a computer program would approach logic, there should or could be one there, and this is the direction Muéro has been going, but human language does not operate on such a basis, being a matter of convention combined with expediency, not a matter of a JSON-like syntax in which a comma that really should not be needed to parse the material must be present anyway or the operation will fail.<p>That said, we do have several interrelating issues in play in this titles and post-noms sector that are worth cataloguing and considering in some detail:</p>
:# Something like "Xerxes Youill Zounds, Grand Poobah of Elbonia–Brobdingnag (3 May 1571 – 24 July 1644), was ..." is {{em|always}} indicating the life-span dates. If there is a need to specify the duration of a peerage, including a change in titles, that should be done in plain English in the article body, and is not going to be lead-sentence or even lead-section material. It's body material, like "Upon the death of his father, Zounds became 3rd poobah of Elbonia on 12 December 1629. He was elevated to 1st grand poobah of Elbonia–Brobdingnag on 20 June 1639 by High King Korki IX of Kerblachistan. Zounds was also the bishop of Lilliput from ca. 1630 to 14 February 1633, when he was defrocked by the archbishop of Elbonia."
:# As an anti-classist myself, I still have to observe/concede that "don't include any titles or post-noms because they are classist" is not a viable position. WP is ], and when any such title or honor (whether earned or hereditary or otherwise) is pertinent to a notable article subject, it should be covered, more prominently the more important it is within the context of their notability. (See below for an idea toward suppressing lead inclusion when not related to notability at all but a late-coming add-on to the pile of someone's life aachievements.)
:# There's a been a very long-standing {{lang|la|de facto}} consensus to always include peerage titles {{em|and}} important post-nominals (but not academic or professional titles or post nominals like "Dr" or "PhD", or guild/union stuff like "]", "]") in the lead sentence. Virtually every applicable article has been written this way.
:# A recent-ish RfC (I seem to have lost the link to it – help me out?) with probably much too low a turnout upended part of this, and now has us remove the post-nominals from the lead {{em|sentence}}. This has not sat well, and actually introduces some writing problems that the RfC participants did not anticipate. For example, WP does not, except in an article on the subject being abbreviated, introduce an acronym/initialism unless it is going to be re-used later in the same article. But if our bio subject's investiture as a ] is covered in the body only, the point at which this is done has no need to a "KCB" appearing at that point, since "KCB" is used as a post-nominal not otherwise and would not be re-used later in the article; the result is that the "KCB" that applies to this person has no logical place to go in the article any longer, since it was actually only pertinent in the lead sentence, attached to the person's name. We could do something very awkward like state that this knighthood entitles/entitled this person to use "Sir" or "Dame" and the post-nominal "KCB", but this sort of blather would have to be repeated throughout many thousands of articles, and was already very concisely conveyed by the original lead sentence without having to spell it out and micro-] the bio article with detailia about how a particular order's nomenclatural rules operate. Simply showing rather than telling was better.<p>So, this really should be re-RfCed, at a higher-profile venue like ] so we are certain that the community at large really wants to impose this lead rule change and its problems all in the name of shaving a few characters off the lead sentence. "The postnoms will be in the infobox anyway" isn't the (or an) answer, since not all bios have infoboxes, and there is staunch resistance to adding them in many cases. A potential compromise might be to not include postnoms in lead sentence but in an infobox when one is present and has a parameter for it.</p>
:#Even without revisiting that with a better RfC, the present wording at ] is daft: "post-nominal letters may be included in the main body of the article, but not in the lead sentence of the article". This has already lead to dispute about whether it means post-noms are banned from the entire lead or only the literal lead sentence, because it only addresses the lead sentence and the post-lead-section article body. The correct answer (if you look at the RfC discussion and the alleged consensus arising from it) is that this should instead read something like "post-nominal letters may be included, but not in the lead sentence of the article"; there was no consenus to ban them from the entire lead section. However, this runs into the problem above: Because post-nominal letters are used directly with full names, and generally only upon first introduction, there effectively is no practical place for them, in the lead section or in the article body, other than the lead sentence (except arguably in an infobox if it's there and has a place for this information).
:#Next, there's a misapprehension here (evidenced in the beginning of this thread) that this anti-postnom RfC result somehow also means to remove peerage and nobility titles from the lead. It does not. They are a different category of thing and were not addressed in that RfC. It is possible that a consensus might be reached to remove peerage titles when they are not pertinent to the subject's notability (e.g. that would have been the case with ] had he remained an actor/director/producer only and not taken a seat in the House of Lords). There are also many life baronetcies created late in the life of the recipients and to little public awareness; a case can be made to exclude them from the lead sentence and probably from the entire lead section. But this is something for a consensus discussion on an article-by-article basis, or for a new RfC if we wanted a categoric rule of some kind about it.
:#A side issue is that some parties from the nobility and peerage wikiprojects have, by ] behavior, programmatically usurped the {{para|name}} parameter of {{tlx|infobox person}} and its offshoots, abusing it to hold the peerage title, when that really belongs in {{para|postnom}} since it is in fact post-nominal (it's just not a post-nominal abbreviation). See ] for the typical absurd result. Because this has been done to thousands and thousands of articles and involves yet another "wikiproject rebellion" against the norms of the entire rest of the project, I suspect this is probably best addressed with another WP:VPPOL RfC so there can be no doubt about the community consensus level of the result (which will obviously be to stop having our infobox blatantly lie to our readers that Margaret Thatcher's {{em|name}} is "The Baroness Thatcher". For the Thatcher case, the obvious solution is: {{para|name|Margaret Hilda Thatcher}}{{para|honorific_suffix|Baroness Thatcher&lt;br /&gt;{{tlp|Post-nominals|country{{=}}GBR|size{{=}}100%|LG|OM|DStJ|PC|FRS|HonFRSC}} }}, and this is what agrees with the lead of the article. (Note lack of "The" before "Baroness".)</p><p>These infoboxes are also failing ] by including honorific {{em|salutation}} phrases like "The Right Honorourable" that are not part of the name in any sense, but used when writing a letter to such a person or when introducing them as speaker, and so on; that sort of information does not belong in a bio article (much less thousands of them robotically) but in an article on forms-of-address etiquette and probably again in the article on the title (baronet or whatever the case may be).
:There are probably other issues to address, but this is a lot already. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 13:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)


== Any objections to extending MOS:TIES to all nations and regions? ==
] (]) 20:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)</small>]
==== Discussion of hyphen examples ====
]</small></sup> 08:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)</small>]<br>
Good, Churn. As an avid collector and analyst of style guides, I would be most surprised if a source could be found for Apteva's odd claim. The editor appears to be working from something in WP:ENDASH that is pretty well unrelated:
:By default, follow the dominant convention that a hyphen is used in compounded proper names of single entities, not an en dash.
:* {{xt|Guinea-Bissau}}; Bissau is the capital, and this distinguishes the country from neighboring Guinea
:* {{xt|McGraw-Hill}}, a publishing house
That provision started off restricted to place names, like ] and ]. Those cases are clear enough, and each has a hyphen for its own distinct reason; but many place names whose components refer to entities that are more easily separable are treated more variably. "Poland~Lithuania" for example has been a difficult case, resolved on Misplaced Pages with the disambiguation page ] (and a redirect from ]). That fits with the provision in MOS.


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.
Later, ] generalised this provision to cover cases like ], because like the geographical examples it is utterly fixed in usage with a hyphen. That is what I call a "fossilised proper name". It is never analysed in terms of separate entities "McGraw" and "Hill".


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 qualifier "by default" is crucial. It stands prominently at the start of this provision, which has nothing to do with those proper names having the quite different structure "X~Y&nbsp;Z", where "X~Y" is understood in the way Dicklyon and Churn explain above. This is all perfectly standard, and in accord with the style resources that extensive discussion in 2011 determined would be followed on Misplaced Pages. But I am reluctant to enter into debate about ''any'' of that while Apteva wages several connected campaigns at several scattered locations. He or she is initiating RM discussions and the like for pointy "political" purposes, in a most disruptive way. When all that has settled down, it will be possible to consider any problems with WP:ENDASH calmly and reasonably ''here''. But let's bear in mind that most of it has been thoroughly talked through last year anyway. ♫♪


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)
<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:39, 12 October 2012 (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.
:I have not checked all of the examples in endash, but I do know of at least three that are incorrect and need to be removed or repaired. Comet Hale-Bopp is either not capitalized or spelled with a hyphen. Uganda-Tanzania War is either spelled with a hyphen or an endash and war is not capitalized. Roman-Syrian War is definitely spelled with a hyphen. There are also some cases where it should be more clear that either a hyphen or an endash can be used, but consistency within an article for that word combination should be used - post-World War I can either use a hyphen or an endash. The whole focus on the MOS should be in helping editors, not forcing them to change everything. The vast majority of our editors and readers neither know nor care what a hyphen or endash is, and could not care less if the mark on the screen is a few micrometers longer or shorter. New Hart's Rules says that consistency locally is more important than consistency globally "It is, of course, vital to make sure that individual forms are used consistently within a '''single text or range of texts'''. If an author has consistently applied a scheme of hyphenation, an editor need not alter it, although a text littered with hyphens can look fussy and dated. Editors can find the dominant form of a particular compound in a suitable current dictionary such as the New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors." (emphasis added) ] (]) 06:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
: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 ==
::The fact that you're forcing a choice between capitalization and the dash shows you haven't quite got the concept. The dash shows a union of two distinct entities, as for example in a war. Capitalization is irrelevant. In fact, when combining people's names, there is a strong tendency to go with the dash, even in sources which otherwise don't bother with it much, to distinguish cases of a single person with a hyphenated name. So, one entity: hyphen, two entities: dash, and being a proper name is not a factor. — ] (]) 07:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Trust me, I understand that part. I also understand why 10,000 books use a hyphen for Mexican-American War - because the style guide says to use a hyphen in Mexican-American War. But it is not an "odd claim" that names such as Mexican-American War use a hyphen. It is an "odd claim" that they do not use a hyphen, and the examples in print of an endash are few and very far between, and not anything that can be taken seriously as representing common use. What I am saying is the research is good, but if the conclusion makes no sense it is time to try to figure out what went wrong, and I think it comes down to only one sentence. Names use hyphens. Apply that and you end up with 10,000 books that spell Mexican-American War with a hyphen, 10,000 bird name articles with a hyphen, and who knows how many airports, wars, and towns in Misplaced Pages with a hyphen. ] (]) 07:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
::::There is no such rule, AFAIK. Many sources simply don't bother with dashes. (Probably the majority of sources use hyphens for date and page ranges as well.) But for those which do, being a name is irrelevant. It would also be a problem with the many mathematical and scientific theorems/theories, where people are more careful to use the dash. — ] (]) 07:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::It is very true that many sources only use hyphens, but in books it is far more common to see endashes and emdashes used instead of hyphens, but hyphens for every name within that book, even though it liberally uses endashes and emdashes in the same way that our MOS uses them. Their style guide says the same thing ours does - names use hyphens. They just follow that advice. ] (]) 07:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::Our style guide doesn't say that, and you need a ref to show that "theirs" does. — ] (]) 08:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


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.
WP:MOS:


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, ]?
Hyphenation also occurs in bird names such as Great Black-backed Gull, '''''and in proper names''''' such as Trois-Rivières and Wilkes-Barre.


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)
New Hart's Rules:


: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)
Use a hyphen in newly coined or rare combinations with -like, '''''and with names''''', but more established forms, particularly if short, are set solid: tortoise-like, Paris-like, ladylike, catlike, deathless, husbandless


::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.
(emphasis added)- ] (]) 08:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
::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 ==
:Apteva, I'm not at all an enthusiast for the current MOS guidance on hyphens versus dashes. (I waste far too much of my time "correcting" entries at ]; new editors to this page almost never notice the two uses of en-dash as opposed to hyphen in each entry.) But you aren't properly addressing the MOS; the issue isn't ''names'' per se but distinctness of entities.
:] has expressed the underlying principle very succinctly: "one entity: hyphen, two entities: dash, and being a proper name is not a factor". Your examples above show nothing about names. "Black-backed" as an compound adjective has a hyphen regardless of whether it is part of the name of a species of bird. "Trois-Rivières" is a combination of a number and a noun; it's analogous to "one-woman" in "he's a one-woman man", which would only ever be hyphenated. The fact that it's a name is irrelevant.
:The real problem is different: when does a compound which began life by referring to two entities become a reference to a single entity? "McGraw-Hill" obviously once referred to "McGraw" and "Hill", but as these now don't have independent resonance it is argued that the compound refers to a single entity and so should be hyphenated. "French–British rivalry" refers to rivalry between the French and the British, i.e. to two distinct entities, and so should have an en-dash according to the MOS. "Mexican–American wars" referring to more than one such war between Mexicans and Americans again obviously refers to two distinct entities and should have an en-dash. But, from what I see as your perspective (perhaps wrongly), it could be argued that if the noun phrase "Mexican~American war" refers to one single war (whether or not "war" is capitalized) then a single entity is meant and a hyphen should be used. (To be clear I don't see this as a valid argument but it does test the principle.)
:As another problematic example for the principle, consider double-barrelled names. If such a name is of "long standing" then it is hyphenated as it refers to a single person. But if two people with surnames "Smith" and "Jones" get married and decide to call themselves "Smith~Jones", should this novel combination, which still clearly refers to two entities, have a hyphen or an en-dash? Convention rather than the principle rules here, I guess. (But then why rule out convention(s) in other cases?)
:In summary, the principle "one entity: hyphen; two entities: dash" is a semantic test and is not easy to apply in practice. If it is to continue to form the basis of MOS guidance it needs some further clarification, if this is possible. ] (]) 10:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
::Yes, the 'name' thing misses the point entirely. Apteva, your MOS and Hart's examples have nothing to do with dashes.
::As Peter said, there is a point where a dash becomes a hyphen. Austria~Hungary is a case in point: you could even see that as a political statement, with a dash indicating a union of two constituent states, and a hyphen indicating a single state named after two ancestral states. And indeed the perception of the degree of unification may have changed over time. You get essentially the same thing with people's names: a dash in a theorem named after two people, because it's a union of their work, but a hyphen for a child named after two parents, because even though a child is a product of that union, no-one presents them as half mom, half dad. The publishing house would originally have been McGraw–Hill, but we're now long past the point where both McGraw and Hill are dead, and no-one remembers who they were, so now it's simply a company with a double-barreled name, like the child. The Mexican-American War, with a hyphen, would be a war of Mexican Americans, just as the Russian-American Company was a company for Russian America. There will be cases which are indeterminate, just as there are when a city or country changes its name and we debate which name is better for the title, but such cases are relatively rare. — ] (]) 12:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Right. There will always be indeterminate cases, as with many other deployments of the limited resources of punctuation against the far more rich and subtle semantic nuances in the language itself. Just like the limited resources of an alphabet, pitted against the subtly varying sounds of any natural language. Problem cases do not count as refutations of anything, in these domains; solutions are expected to be optimal, not perfect. Kwami has given a good account of the McGraw-Hill-type cases. Now, another way to think about double-barrelled surnames: just as ''a parent-teacher'' has a hyphen, because the same person is both parent and teacher, so in a way Mary Smith-Jones is both a Smith and a Jones! She might equally have been called a Smith after one parent, or a Jones after the other. She is called both, like the parent-teacher. It all makes a good sort of sense; that is why the guidelines in MOS are in good accord with best practice, as captured in many other major style resources. <br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
::::The problem with Peter's and Kwami's theory is that McGraw-Hill has always been written with a hyphen, see , a period where both founders were still alive.


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:
::::For "American-Mexican War", as Peter pointed out, some people take Mexican-American as a compound adjective for "War", with the same role as "Spanish" in "Spanish Civil War". --] (]) 13:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


* 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.
:::::But no. That account of McGraw-Hill doesn't have to be taken literally. It gives a schematic way of thinking about the name for such an entity. People need to understand: the theoretical foundations of punctuation are underdeveloped. The linguistic literature on it is extremely sparse, for example. Nunberg did famous pioneering work a couple of decades ago, and it's been rather stagnant since then. Again, don't expect perfection: and don't be so ''dogmatic''! It is not computer programming: these are "naturally" developing sets of conventions, sometimes in competition, all aiming at effective communication of what needs highlighting in written language beyond what mere letters can achieve. Misplaced Pages has chosen a high-quality, best-practice set from the competing alternatives. Any change would affect 4,000,000 articles, and is not to be entertained lightly. Or approached with the certainty that is born of ignorance. <font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:08, 12 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.
:::::::When opposing the hyphens in airport names, the account of McGraw-Hill was a posited as an example of how compounded proper names started having a dash and eventually changed into having a hyphen. If McGraw-Hill was never written with a dash, then the whole point of the account becomes moot, independently of whether it's literal or not. --] (]) 15:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::I think Noetica raises a valid point that comes up in many of these MOS-related debates that have been going on for years. There are some cases where there is no consistency across the English language. In some cases, it's an ] issue, and as such our convention is to keep British subjects in British English, Australian subjects in Australian English, etc. Other times, however, the inconsistency isn't dialect-dependent. It's just that there is no universal, accepted standard across all sources (I'm also thinking of the currently running dispute of The Beatles vs. the Beatles which is occupying such a large proportion of the Misplaced Pages servers now). In cases like this, where there is clearly no agreement between reliable sources, or widespread agreement on usage, the more important issue is consistency across the project. We need to establish a set of common-sense and easy to follow rules which is supported by enough well-respected style guides to be supportable, but we're never going to be able to reach a universal agreement with all reliable sources because they don't agree with each other. So since it doesn't matter ''which'' convention we pick, but we do need to pick one and make it the site-wide standard. And then just be done with it, and not keep revisiting it every six months because someone comes along and decides that just because they're personal favorite style guide disagrees with our usage, it's got to be overhauled yet again. Perfect agreement is impossible, so we should stop looking for it. Set a rule, stick to it, and be done with it. --]''''']''''' 14:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::But a lot of the discussion here is not so much about what rules to have or whether to change them in any substantive sense (although that broader debate does exist, all the way to whether to have the hyphen/en-dash distinction at all; my preference FWIW), but how to apply the rules we do have to specific cases and groups of cases, such as airport names, Mexican-American War etc. The point is that even with these complex rules, we very definitely do not have best practice, clarity or a rule that we can stick with - because people have different views of what the rule means, as the above thread and countless past arguments demonstrate. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 14:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
*N-HH, I'm unsure of some of your meanings. Andreas, I agree with much of what you say, particularly the point that style typically varies in sources, no matter how much the most authoritative style guides on both sides of the Atlantic might huff and puff about various issues. Often, experts and those used to seeing a stylistic usage every day (e.g. ignore hyphen as unnecessary) forget that their text needs to be easily read by semi- and non-experts too—people who ''don't'' see these items every day. WP writes for a broader range of readers than just experts. Every reputable publisher, including en.WP, has its house rules, and I must say that there's sometimes tension in those publishers between stylistic disharmony within the expert fields to which they contribute publications, and from one chapter/article to another within their portfolio. It's not an easy task, sometimes. So WP faces calls to be inconsistent in its use of the dash to link parallel items (mandated by many authorities), because the sources are inconsistent, either between (or within) themselves, or against the major styleguides. My feeling is that we've reached a good compromise in many cases, and that Mexican–American is the right call here, given the large body of examples we have of analogous items with a dash. ] ] 14:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
*:I agree that the correct punctuation of Mexican–American wars to refer to multiple wars between the US and Mexico is correct with an endash, and that French–British rivalry is correct with an endash. I also agree that probably 99% of the people with an Apple computer with all three hyphens or dashes on the keyboard have never had a clue what the other two were for. I can certainly remember experimenting with them to see what they looked like and trying to pick the one that looked right. The MOS is not a top down organization where you put into the MOS that every third letter has to be red and all of a sudden 4 million articles are affected. It is bottom up. People write articles and a MOS is written so that new articles look sort of like the ones that already exist. In cases where something new comes along, like an endash that as late as 2007 was banned from FA titles, and was only used in 1% of the cases where it should have been used, I found it annoying to have a copy editor who clearly knew nothing about the subject come along and change a hyphen to an endash - even though the change was correct, such as Bose–Einstein statistics. The advice from New Hart's Rules would be that if an article or group of articles are consistently spelling Bose-Einstein statistics with a hyphen, leave it, as local consistency is more important than global consistency. I have no objection, though, as we are running out of articles to add and running out of content to add (or are we?) to go back and spend time bringing the 1% that use an endash up to 80%, but what I object to is spilling over into articles like Mexican-American War that use a hyphen, and what I object to is even discussing whether it should have an endash. Of course it uses a hyphen. There are though, actual situations where two words and two punctuations are equally valid and that also applies to hyphens and endashes, and I would recommend treating those as British English and American English (it is Brit speak to use a hyphen in post-World War I and Am speak to use an endash). The status right now is that of the spillage into names like "Spanish-American War", relatively few have been tainted with an endash, so the collateral is relatively small, but needs to be corrected. As to where we are on the 1% to 80% spectrum of text that really should use an endash, I have no guess - it could be 2%, it could be 79%. I doubt it is 99%. We had an editor embark recently on changing emdash to nbsp space emdash space, for example. But no, changes to the MOS do not make changes to 4,000,000 articles. It is the other way around - changes to 4,000,000 articles bring changes to the MOS, so that the 4,000,001st article looks like the rest. And yes, avoiding titles with an endash is preferable. Is it really going to kill anyone to use California (1840-1847) in the title and California (1840–1847) in the text? It certainly avoids a lot of redirects, and do three pixels really make that much difference? ] (]) 18:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


There is a case for some separate AV guidance, regarding:
==== Break 1 (Article titles) ====
I looked for MoS compliance on dashes by clicking "Random article", and searching for dashes or hyphens that should be dashes according to MoS. This almost always means ranges (pp. 56–58 or date ranges) or list punctuation, the most common places for dashes or hyphens that should be dashes. Out of 20 such articles, 11 used dashes, 6 used hyphens, and 3 used both. As for whether we ''should'' use dashes, I tend to sympathize with ] but the last time we had an RfC, nobody like that showed up at all, so it's hard to claim a silent consensus. And if you want to avoid redirects for better performance, you need to argue with ] and ] first. ] (]) 19:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
However, when I first encountered the dash rules, compliance was non-existent. ] (]) 20:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
:So compliance is roughly 55%, counting the mixed ones as non-compliance. ] (]) 20:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
::But counting like that tells only part of the story. 3 of the 20 did not apply a consistent style, so they are beyond the pale entirely. Of the 17 that ''did'' apply a consistent style, 11 complied with the MOS guideline. That's roughly 65%; roughly two out of every three, in that small sample.<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


* Length: should inline videos be shorter where possible? Does this apply to audio clips?
=== Should the sentence including article titles in the scope of MOS be deleted? ===
* 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).


] ] 20:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Back to the main question, are there any objections to deleting the sentence "The Manual of Style applies to all parts of an article, including the title. See especially punctuation, below. (The policy page Misplaced Pages:Article titles does not determine punctuation.)"? If not, it will be deleted. ] (]) 05:54, 13 October 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:
:Yes, I object. It make no sense for title style to deviate from the style used in article text. ] (]) 06:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


* '''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.
:Absolutely. '''I object most strongly.''' When you settle down to discuss one question at a time in an orderly way, and ''only'' at the appropriate location (which is indeed here, for the present question), I will give my reasons.<br>♫♪<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
* '''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.
== Use of &amp;nbsp; with ellipses and dashes ==
: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)
{{cquote|
:::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)
* Use non-breaking spaces (<code>&amp;nbsp;</code>) only as needed to prevent improper line breaks, for example:
::::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:
** To keep the ellipsis from wrapping to the next line ({{xt|"France, Germany,<code>&amp;nbsp;</code>... and Belgium"}} ...).}}
::::* ]; ] 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 don't get this. How is
: France, Germany,
: ... and Belgium
worse than
: France,
: Germany, ... and Belgium
(or the analogous case with dashes)? —] (]) 19:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


::Maybe that example should be chucked in favor of a better example. I see NBSP used a lot between units and their values. ] (]) 20:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC) 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)
: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)
::: That's listed too, and I agree it's worthwhile. —] (]) 20:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
::Wrong on two counts:
::# No. It should not say anything at all, per ].
::# 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? ==
:::&amp;nbsp; is used in many situations enumerated at ]. The question is whether we should also use it in front of every ellipsis. If we should, I have often complained that the ] phrase "only as needed" is misleading because it goes on to say the nbsp ''is'' necessary with each normal use of an ellipsis. ] (]) 20:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


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)
::::Art, I recall that this was discussed before. I said then, and say again now, that the point is accurately expressed with the present wording. A &amp;nbsp; may indeed be advisable ''with'' every ellipsis; but where does it go? Sometimes before, sometimes after&nbsp;– ''only as needed to prevent improper line breaks''. No, we should not use it in front of every ellipsis. In this case, we need one only ''after'' the ellipsis:
::::<blockquote>These were his exact words: "...&nbsp;we are still worried".</blockquote>
::::That's to avoid this happening:
::::<blockquote>These were his exact words: "...<br>we are still worried".</blockquote>
::::But in this case we need a hard space only ''before'' the ellipsis:
::::<blockquote>"Are we going to France&nbsp;...?" he asked.</blockquote>
::::And that's to avoid this happening:
::::<blockquote>"Are we going to France<br>...?" he asked.</blockquote>
::::In a third case, the hard space after the ellipsis is overkill, because there is no harm in a break that may occur there:
::::<blockquote>"France, Germany,&nbsp;...&nbsp;and Belgium"</blockquote>
::::This is fine:
::::<blockquote>"France, Germany,&nbsp;...<br>and Belgium"</blockquote>
::::The ellipsis guideline may need minor fixes to explain things better. I've said that for a long time! But the guidance itself is pretty standard, and robustly adapted for online use. Compare the shockingly poor treatment of ellipses in CMOS, which has improved only a little in CMOS16.
::::Similar points can be made about a spaced en dash (in any of its uses). When one is used in punctuating a sentence, for example, it marks some sort of a break in sense from what precedes it&nbsp;– like the effect of a colon, perhaps. It's preferable not to have that dash turning up at the start of the next line, almost as we would not want a colon wrapping to the next line. Sometimes it makes little difference; but sometimes it looks awful and might obscure the meaning. In online work, we do not know how different text will be rendered on different browsers with different individual settings (window size, text size, and so on). So the guidelines must be more foolproof that those for more static printed text, traditionally in the hands of professional typesetters.
::::♫♪
::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::Yes, I noted that it was discussed before. No, I didn't say "in front of every ellipsis"; I said "each ''normal'' use of an ellipsis". "normal" refers to the "France, Germany,&nbsp;... and Belgium" situation, which I encounter as a proofreader much more often than the other cases. If you disagree about which use of the ellipsis is most common, I will prepare statistics. I'm not talking about rewriting the whole guideline. Can we simply remove the misleading word "only"? ] (]) 22:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::We don't disagree on anything important then, Art&nbsp;– except that "only" is crucial, as I have once again explained. How is it misleading? I agree that ''you'' have trouble with it, and please don't get me wrong: that is important input! But I don't see the original poster having trouble with that word "only". Do you?
::::::Why not draft an alternative text here, carefully laid out as it would appear in MOS itself, so we can work on this together?
::::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:10, 12 October 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)
:::::::The original poster asked why we have an nbsp with an ellipsis at all. Why is a break after Germany worse than a break after France? I don't have an answer to that question. While explaining it, I mentioned my long-standing objection to "only". He didn't ask about that word, and I can't explain why nobody else objects to that word. One alternative text would be to simply omit the word "only", so I don't see what there is to lay out.
::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)
::: 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)
::::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.
::::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 ] 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)
::::] 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)
::::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)
::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 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 ==
:::::::How is "only" misleading? From the standpoint of most editors other than MoS insiders, it is strange to use an nbsp at all. So their first reaction to using an nbsp only as needed, would be: why do we need it at all? It certainly wouldn't be: why don't we use it ''twice'', both before and after the ellipsis? And yet the guideline goes on to recommend an nbsp with every ellipsis (apparently not just the main France Germany & Belgium case). It also explains that we don't use two nbsps, just in case anyone thinks we should. For most editors, an unexpected nbsp with every ellipsis is more of a "Wow!" than a "What, only one?" I believe my previous analogy was "Use a space suit in space only as needed, for example if you want to breathe." ] (]) 23:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
{{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 ==
::::::::Thanks for clarifying, Art. Three points in answer:
::::::::* To the original poster: It's just a norm of good typesetting that the indication of an omission should come before any linebreak, so that the fact and the context of the omission are immediately apparent to the reader. Such norms are respected by some publishers and not others. Penguin, I think, is happy for all sorts of punctuation to shift to the start of the next line. But the long-standing practice here has been to respect such norms, especially with judicious use of &amp;nbsp;.
::::::::* Art, if you think that removing the word "only" would help, I will not object. But I think we should then give one or two examples of undesirable breaks that the use of &amp;nbsp; will avoid. Perhaps those that I offer above, yes?
::::::::* In reviewing for ] I came across a live example that is relevant here, where I had failed to use &amp;nbsp; and the line did indeed break badly on my screen, at the end of a quote like this:
:::::::::<blockquote>"."</blockquote>
:::::::::(Just to demonstrate that the less "normal" cases do occur.)
::::::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:53, 13 October 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.
::::::::: How would a line break after "Germany" make the omission and its context less apparent to the reader? What's next, "to&amp;nbsp;do" (i.e., avoiding a –ha ha– split infinitive)? —] (]) 08:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


# {{xt|Mumumu Inc. is a company ...}}
:::::::::: Something like the way having a period, a question mark, or a closing parenthesis or quotation mark at the start of a line would. The ellipsis is different in its precise logic from each of those, and a sentence-punctuating dash is different again. But there are relevant similarities here. Also, note that I did not speak of the omission and its context being ''more'' or ''less'' apparent; I spoke of ''immediacy'': "...&nbsp;so that the fact and the context of the omission are immediately apparent to the reader." Often it's like that: the reader can be delayed, irritated, or distracted if the information doesn't come quickly and naturally, or just where it is expected.<br>I don't make the norms, and I didn't design human perceptual psychology☺; but I have made efforts to understood both, and both are relevant to good punctuation and good disposition of text on a page or a screen.<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
# {{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)
:::::::::My answer didn't get saved last night. "examples of undesirable breaks" I usually don't object to adding more explanation, but since you asked, it would add a lot of text without explaining anything I missed. I can easily imagine that omitting an nbsp can result in a line break at that location. But if you think readers need more explanation, it should go at ] because it is explaining how nbsp works. Or you could explain some things about nbsp that really are mystifying: it assumes we all recognize bad line breaks when we see them, but in practice I add nbsp only in places that closely resemble the examples, rather than try to guess what the consensus may be on this page, or worse, the consensus on the page I'm editing. Is this related to "only", or is it a separate idea? I don't see how removing "only" would make examples more helpful, because "only" makes sense only to editors who were somehow expecting multiple nbsps, and we already have a red-colored example discouraging multiple nbsps. ] (]) 20:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
*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)


== Talk pages == == 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 ] 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."
It was mentioned above that a lot of discussion on this talk page is about how to apply the MOS. That is like going to an article and discussing the ''subject'' of the article instead of the ''content'' of an article. For example, it is not appropriate to go to the talk page of Abortion to discuss whether abortion should be legal, but it is appropriate to go there to discuss whether the article should say that in some places they are legal, and the article should say that is legalized murder, or that is not legalized murder (both are oxymorons by the way, and neither are appropriate). Ideally the place for all discussions on the application of the MOS would be on the article talk page that is being discussed or at the help desk, and not here for the same reason. And if it turns out that the MOS is FUBAR, bring it up here. ] (]) 20:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
:If you want to discuss whether abortion should be legal, you go to a blog, not Misplaced Pages. Assuming you don't want MoS applications to be driven off Misplaced Pages completely, I don't think that analogy works at all. So where should we discuss whether a specific article conforms to MoS? If everybody agrees what MoS is saying on some specific issue, then I suppose the article talk page is appropriate. If not, then I suppose we come here to discuss what it really means&nbsp;– especially if the same issue applies to multiple articles. I hope we don't need another rule on the subject; we have way too many rules as it is. ] (]) 22:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
::Discussion takes place on the talk page of the page to be changed. If the meaning of the MOS is unclear, that is not a discussion of how to apply it but a discussion on how to change the MOS. When an issue applies to multiple articles there is normally a wikiproject where the correct interpretation can be discussed. But questions about whether to use an endash or a hyphen within an article do not belong here, they belong at that article or at the help desk. Questions on whether endash should be used in titles belong at the talk page for ], which says nothing about endash, or at the article talk page. Questions about whether Mexican-American War is spelled with an endash or a hyphen belong at ], not here. Questions about whether the MOS is correct do belong here. Talk page guidelines are at ]. If too many people are asking style questions here the banner at the top of that pages talk page can be added here - {{tl|metatalk}} ] (]) 04:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
:::No. ] ] 05:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
:::If discussion takes place on the talk page of the page to be changed, then removing dashes from titles changes the MoS, which rightly or wrongly claims to regulate title punctuation. According to the Arbitration Committee, questions about dashes including the Mexican–American War were settled ]. The talk page guidelines say to avoid off-topic posts; is that your point? If so, it's circular reasoning to assume it doesn't belong at the MoS to prove it doesn't belong at the MoS. The actual Mexican–American War debate took place on several pages, with no attempt to exclude anyone who was interested. That sounds better than having some nobility class decide who gets to discuss something. Editors often agree to centralize a discussion, but only when everyone has been notified if they are likely to be interested. ] (]) 07:53, 13 October 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.''"''
See ]. I will certainly take a look at the Arbcom decision and bring it up again. Everyone makes mistakes. Even me when I thought I did. ] (]) 08:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


— 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.
==American/British English changing==
{{user|Tuesdaily}}


— 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)
Are the changes this editor is making permissible? Since 2008, has made no other contributions to Misplaced Pages other than to change American English to British English and is starting to look like a ] with his editing. While some of it is appropriate, not all the articles he is changing have ''strong'' national ties to England. I came across it at the ] article, which is essentially a professional wrestler of English descent who wrestles in America and who was most notable in America. In addition to that, I was the original author and I used American English. My concern is that he has made thousands of these changes and that is his entire editing history. A cursory glance is some of the topics, for example, may be like the Steven Lewington article, like his changing the date usage on album articles of a British artist when American English was used before. Regards, — ] ] 08:23, 13 October 2012 (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. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 17:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
== Apteva needs to stop the disruption now ==
::“Obliquely neutralize” — there’s a new one for me! 😅
(<small>I am restoring this section that was blanked by Apteva. Users are reminded that this page is under ArbCom sanction, as indicated by the notice at the top of the page. --] (]) 08:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)</small>)
::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)
In recent weeks, ] has been the most active contributor to this talk page, pushing his idiosyncratic theory about hyphens, dashes, and proper names. He has started at least three RMs based on this theory. As far as I can see, he has not been able to convince anyone to buy into his theory, and his RMs have been roundly opposed, as have his proposals here. I have not had time to read everything that he has written here recently, but on scanning it appears to be just same old same old. I think the vigorous pushing has become too disruptive, and needs to stop now. Does anyone agree, or have a good idea how to encourage a good resolution to this dead horse? ] (]) 06:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
::::Or shall. ]] 17:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::😂 ] (]) 07:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:I agree that his or her behaviour has become disruptive, and I agree that something might need to be done about it. I hold off from concrete suggestions, for the moment.<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::{{small|Am losing the ] here, mate. ] (]) 12:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)}}


:I would also point out the comments of IP user 146.90.43.8 / 67.208.235.66. This user, as IP 146.90.43.8, has made multiple changes and reverts to the project page without consensus. --] (]) 09:02, 13 October 2012 (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)
::::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) ==
::Pardon? Would you care to expand on that? ] (]) 20:27, 13 October 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)<!-- ] -->
::: See ] if you don't understand the term. The rest appears to be fairly clear. --] (])
::::I've made two edits to the project page. The consensus for them derived from an RfC which ran for over a month. I understand the term. ] (]) 21:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


==Discussion on ] bio leads==
I have restored this section again, after Apteva collapsed/hid it as "off topic". The question before MOS editors is whether anyone supports what he is trying to do here, or if not whether they have good ideas how to help bring the disruption to an end. Of course, if he stops, no further comment or escalation is needed. ] (]) 22:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
See ]. ] (]) 19:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


== Usage of historical place names in infoboxes ==
== ANI discussion ==


Some feedback ] would be nice. Thanks --] (]) 19:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
An ANI discussion related to this page, in particular about the recent RFC, has been initiated by IP user 146.90.43.8 at ]. --] (]) 14:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:16, 1 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 16,636
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 3,049 3,049
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 226,980 226,980
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

    Retain or remove citation indicators in quoted text?

    Is it acceptable to remove citation indicators – ¹ or (Gorgon, 1993) – that appear within quoted text (this would be to improve readability). I'm not referring to citing quoted material, but to citation marks within quoted material. Thanks! Tsavage (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

    Yes. References to footnotes are usually silently omitted, as they are not a part of the text flow anyway. Gawaon (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks. Is this addressed in the MoS? I couldn't find mention MOS:QUOTE. This would seem a common situation when citing academic sources. Tsavage (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
    I added it while doing some other cleanup. It's entirely normal to silently (not with "...") remove inline citations from quoted material, since WP isn't providing the source info, and to the reader it will be just be frustrating (they'll go looking for "Smith 1997" or whatever, and not find it). If our article is also citing the same source, then linking the quoted citation to our citation might be useful, but shouldn't be seen as manadatory. A general principle of quotation (inline or block) is to only quote what is pertinent, what is contextually necessary for our purposes; otherwise we're wandering into over-quotation which is both poor writing and apt to be a copyright issue unless the source is public-domain.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks. Your addition is helpful and doesn't seem to overcomplicate things. I realized the primary aim with quoted material is not to forensically reproduce it from the source (as I'd kinda been doing), it's to accurately represent the meaning as it appears in the full context of the source. Which makes minor silent adjustments for readability fine, provided meaning is strictly preserved – comprehension and judgement are of course required. Tsavage (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

    MOS:NOTLATIN and the Americanist phonetic notation

    Hello, per the discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Muthkwey, I thought it may be best to start a discussion here. We have come to a bit of a stand-still regarding the status of Americanist phonetic notation (NAPA). Per the discussion, several languages in the Pacific Northwest Coast use Americanist Phonetic Notation and as it stands, it is recognized as a non-Latin script in the system. The challenge is that there exists no recognized romanization system for NAPA, per NOTLATIN’s requirement for romanization of non-Latin scripts, nor is there an incentive to do so.

    In typical usage beyond Misplaced Pages, words in Northwest Coast languages rendered in NAPA are typically left as-is, with no romanization, or with a transliteration if there so exists a historical example. However, those transliterations are few and far between, and are often inconsistent as they differ author to author. It would not be a sustainable system, because those words only constitute a small portion of the lexicon.

    My question is whether NAPA should/would be recognized as a Latin script for the purposes of WP:NOTLATIN. NAPA derives heavily from Latin script, with the exception of a few Greek letters. Those letters represent various sounds, and each one serves a specific purpose. If it is not recognized as a Latin script, what would be the best course of action to allow various words to conform with WP:NOTLATIN, since there is no existing romanization system, and any generated romanization therefore would mostly be in violation of WP:OR. Any insight on this would be greatly appreciated. Ornithoptera (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

    Sounds Latin enough to me. Gawaon (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
    Agree. The concept of a "romanisation" of NAPA doesn't make sense to me. In fact, NAPA in some ways strikingly resembles romanisation schemes for Cyrillic, and Cyrillic variants that have been used to transcribe or write down previously unwritten languages, so much that in the past I've wondered if UPA and NAPA originally arose as romanisations of Cyrillic-based transcriptions. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

    Stale advice: slashes have been line-breaks since 2005 (Unicode 4.1.0)

    § Slashes (strokes) says "On the other hand, if two long words are connected by an unspaced slash, an {{wbr}} added after the slash will allow a linebreak at that point."

    I've recently tweaked a couple of articles doing this, and realized that my browser will allow breaks after slashes without any special markup. This is part of the current Unicode line-break algorithm. Looking into the archives, it was added to support breaking URLs between Unicode 4.0.1 (2004-03-30) and Unicode 4.1.0 (2005-08-29).

    It's been 19 years. Do we still need this advice? I ask because some parts of WP are aggressively backward-compatible: {{wbr}} still expands to <wbr/>&#8203; since apparently IE7 and earlier don't support <wbr/>. But I seriously doubt that WP is consistently backward-compatible; I'm sure there are lots of more recent edits where the editors didn't see a problem with long /-separated lists on their browsers and didn't do anything tricky. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

    Look at Good articles (or former Good articles) from years ago they read like they do now and it just shows that the Manual of Style will stay exactly the same as it has been for 18 years unfortunately. This0k (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

    Input needed on disagreement over where the lifespan goes in relation to a baronetcy or a peerage title

    Muéro and I disagree on where the lifespan goes in relation to a name that includes a baronetcy or a peerage title. It started with Muéro removing honorifics from the lead of several articles on peers (many of which I have on my watchlist), following the recently changed guidelines at WP:POSTNOM. This is not controversial, but in their edits, he also removed a comma unrelated to the honorifics, but called for by WP:COMMA ("Don't let other punctuation distract you from the need for a comma, especially when the comma collides with a bracket or parenthesis").

    I pointed this out to them, and they acknowledged the error, but then they instead started to leave another comma in place, a comma that was required by the now obsolete guideline. I can't find the guideline in the history of this article, but it went something like this:

    For people with a baronetcy or a peerage, the post-nominals should be separated from each other, and from the name, by a comma, for consistency's sake. (my underscore)

    That is the comma Muéro left in place, and the result was this: 

    John Doe, 1st Baron Doe, (1 January 1801 – 31 December 1881), was a Whig politician ...

    I pointed out to Muéro that this is also wrong, and that punctuation rarely – if ever – precedes a parenthetical expression. But they are adamant that it should be there.

    So here we are. I'd like input from the project, and I'm sure Muéro would like that too.

    The discussion originated on Muéro's talk page, but I'm copying it here, and closing it there, while notifying them.

    The discussion on Muéro's talk page

    Hello.

    Thank you for your contributions. Regarding your edit of Frederick Curzon, 7th Earl Howe, and similar edits removing postnoms per the new guidelines, please don't remove the comma after the parenthetical birth–death expression. It's supposed to be there per WP:COMMA: "Don't let other punctuation distract you from the need for a comma, especially when the comma collides with a bracket or parenthesis".

    Thank you. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

    Ah, good catch. I can't wait for the day when nobility titles are also excluded entirely, which would make that comma unnecessary anyway. Muéro 15:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
    Hello again.
    Thank you for your understanding. Re: your latest edits, you're now leaving a comma in place that shouldn't be there.
    Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild, (29 April 1936 – 26 February 2024),
                                  ^                     ^                                   ^
                                  A                     B                                   C
    Commas A and C are paired, comma B should be removed along with the postnoms that followed it. Commas rarely precede parentheses.
    Cheers.
    HandsomeFella (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think that makes sense. If someone doesn't have a nobility/royalty title, there is no comma before or after the life span. When adding the nobility/royalty title, the pair of commas should go before and after the nobility/royalty title. Why, when adding the nobility/royalty title, would the life span get looped into the comma pair? Muéro 17:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

    Step by step

    I think it makes perfect sense. You don't put a parenthetical expression after punctuation, do you? Let me take this step by step. Normally, the first sentence would be something like this: 

    John Doe was a Whig politician ...

    Now let's add that he was a peer: 

    John Doe, 1st Baron Doe, was a Whig politician ...
        ^              ^
        A              B

    The commas A and B are paired, i.e. the "parenthetical" title is set off at both ends (unless when there is other punctuation, like at the end of sentence). Let's see what happens without the closing (second) comma: 

    John Doe, 1st Baron Doe was a Whig politician ...

    If the commas aren't paired, the sentence reads "1st Baron Doe was a Whig politician", and "John Doe" is left dangling at the start of the sentence.

    Now, let's add the life span. Where do we add it? Before punctuation. 

    John Doe, 1st Baron Doe (1 January 1801 – 31 December 1881), was a Whig politician ...
        ^                                                  ^
        A                                                  B

    The commas A and B are still paired. See?

    HandsomeFella (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

    The nobility title is a nonessential appositive. Commas go before and after a nonessential appositive. I'm assuming you don't consider the lifespan, which is never set off by commas in a Misplaced Pages article, to be a part of the same nonessential appositive somehow, right? If it's not included in the nobility title nonessential appositive, then it goes outside the commas. Muéro 00:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
    No, it doesn't. Sure, the lifespan parenthetical isn't part of the appositive, but neither are the commas, which is demonstrated by the fact that at, if the name and title occurred at the end of a sentence, there wouldn't be a comma; there would be a period/full stop:
    ... Joseph Smith bequeathed the manor to his nephew, John Doe, 1st Baron Doe (1801–1881).
    You wouldn't place the parenthetical outside the sentence like this, would you?
    ... Joseph Smith bequeathed the manor to his nephew, John Doe, 1st Baron Doe. (1801–1881)
    Ergo: normal rules apply, which is that punctuation doesn't precede a parenthetical. (The exception being when there is a complete sentence inside the parentheses, in which case punctuation occurs both at the end of the preceding sentence, i.e. before the parenthetical, and before the closing parenthetical, as shown here.)
    Commas go before and after an appositive (unless there is other punctuation), but that does not necessarily mean immediately after.
    HandsomeFella (talk) 10:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
    "Punctuation doesn't precede a parenthetical" is not a rule at all. It's just something you made up.
    If the parenthetical were being applied to the nobility title, then the parenthetical should go within the commas that set off the nobility title. But the parenthetical is being applied to the actual name of the person, which came before the nonessential appositive that is set off by commas.
    If you dislike the placement of the nobility title between the name and the lifespan parenthetical, I wouldn't disagree. I'd happily remove the nobility title entirely from the lead sentence (or heck, the whole article). Or put the lifespan parenthetical first, and then the nobility title. But wherever the nobility appositive is being stuck, it gets set off by commas. That's the rule. Muéro 13:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
    This one is simple: a comma is never placed immediately before other punctuation. Instead it's placed after them or, in case or semicolons and periods, omitted altogether. While MOS:COMMA doesn't say so quite explicitly (supposedly treating it as one of these common sense things that everybody already knows?), it gives an example of how to do it correctly: "Burke and Wills, fed by locals (on beans, fish, and ngardu), survived for a few months." (With the second parenthetical comma after the closing bracket.) So, by analogy, "John Doe, 1st Baron Doe (1 January 1801 – 31 December 1881), was a Whig politician" is indeed correct. Gawaon (talk) 08:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
    Concur with the OP and with Gawaon on the typographical point; we don't use a comma right before a round-bracketed parenthetical, nor does much of anyone else in the world. One might make an argument that "logically", in the way a computer program would approach logic, there should or could be one there, and this is the direction Muéro has been going, but human language does not operate on such a basis, being a matter of convention combined with expediency, not a matter of a JSON-like syntax in which a comma that really should not be needed to parse the material must be present anyway or the operation will fail.

    That said, we do have several interrelating issues in play in this titles and post-noms sector that are worth cataloguing and considering in some detail:

    1. Something like "Xerxes Youill Zounds, Grand Poobah of Elbonia–Brobdingnag (3 May 1571 – 24 July 1644), was ..." is always indicating the life-span dates. If there is a need to specify the duration of a peerage, including a change in titles, that should be done in plain English in the article body, and is not going to be lead-sentence or even lead-section material. It's body material, like "Upon the death of his father, Zounds became 3rd poobah of Elbonia on 12 December 1629. He was elevated to 1st grand poobah of Elbonia–Brobdingnag on 20 June 1639 by High King Korki IX of Kerblachistan. Zounds was also the bishop of Lilliput from ca. 1630 to 14 February 1633, when he was defrocked by the archbishop of Elbonia."
    2. As an anti-classist myself, I still have to observe/concede that "don't include any titles or post-noms because they are classist" is not a viable position. WP is not a socio-political activism tool, and when any such title or honor (whether earned or hereditary or otherwise) is pertinent to a notable article subject, it should be covered, more prominently the more important it is within the context of their notability. (See below for an idea toward suppressing lead inclusion when not related to notability at all but a late-coming add-on to the pile of someone's life aachievements.)
    3. There's a been a very long-standing de facto consensus to always include peerage titles and important post-nominals (but not academic or professional titles or post nominals like "Dr" or "PhD", or guild/union stuff like "ASC", "PGA") in the lead sentence. Virtually every applicable article has been written this way.
    4. A recent-ish RfC (I seem to have lost the link to it – help me out?) with probably much too low a turnout upended part of this, and now has us remove the post-nominals from the lead sentence. This has not sat well, and actually introduces some writing problems that the RfC participants did not anticipate. For example, WP does not, except in an article on the subject being abbreviated, introduce an acronym/initialism unless it is going to be re-used later in the same article. But if our bio subject's investiture as a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath is covered in the body only, the point at which this is done has no need to a "KCB" appearing at that point, since "KCB" is used as a post-nominal not otherwise and would not be re-used later in the article; the result is that the "KCB" that applies to this person has no logical place to go in the article any longer, since it was actually only pertinent in the lead sentence, attached to the person's name. We could do something very awkward like state that this knighthood entitles/entitled this person to use "Sir" or "Dame" and the post-nominal "KCB", but this sort of blather would have to be repeated throughout many thousands of articles, and was already very concisely conveyed by the original lead sentence without having to spell it out and micro-WP:COATRACK the bio article with detailia about how a particular order's nomenclatural rules operate. Simply showing rather than telling was better.

      So, this really should be re-RfCed, at a higher-profile venue like WP:VPPOL so we are certain that the community at large really wants to impose this lead rule change and its problems all in the name of shaving a few characters off the lead sentence. "The postnoms will be in the infobox anyway" isn't the (or an) answer, since not all bios have infoboxes, and there is staunch resistance to adding them in many cases. A potential compromise might be to not include postnoms in lead sentence but in an infobox when one is present and has a parameter for it.

    5. Even without revisiting that with a better RfC, the present wording at MOS:POSTNOM is daft: "post-nominal letters may be included in the main body of the article, but not in the lead sentence of the article". This has already lead to dispute about whether it means post-noms are banned from the entire lead or only the literal lead sentence, because it only addresses the lead sentence and the post-lead-section article body. The correct answer (if you look at the RfC discussion and the alleged consensus arising from it) is that this should instead read something like "post-nominal letters may be included, but not in the lead sentence of the article"; there was no consenus to ban them from the entire lead section. However, this runs into the problem above: Because post-nominal letters are used directly with full names, and generally only upon first introduction, there effectively is no practical place for them, in the lead section or in the article body, other than the lead sentence (except arguably in an infobox if it's there and has a place for this information).
    6. Next, there's a misapprehension here (evidenced in the beginning of this thread) that this anti-postnom RfC result somehow also means to remove peerage and nobility titles from the lead. It does not. They are a different category of thing and were not addressed in that RfC. It is possible that a consensus might be reached to remove peerage titles when they are not pertinent to the subject's notability (e.g. that would have been the case with Christopher Guest had he remained an actor/director/producer only and not taken a seat in the House of Lords). There are also many life baronetcies created late in the life of the recipients and to little public awareness; a case can be made to exclude them from the lead sentence and probably from the entire lead section. But this is something for a consensus discussion on an article-by-article basis, or for a new RfC if we wanted a categoric rule of some kind about it.
    7. A side issue is that some parties from the nobility and peerage wikiprojects have, by WP:FAITACCOMPLI behavior, programmatically usurped the |name= parameter of {{infobox person}} and its offshoots, abusing it to hold the peerage title, when that really belongs in |postnom= since it is in fact post-nominal (it's just not a post-nominal abbreviation). See Margaret Thatcher for the typical absurd result. Because this has been done to thousands and thousands of articles and involves yet another "wikiproject rebellion" against the norms of the entire rest of the project, I suspect this is probably best addressed with another WP:VPPOL RfC so there can be no doubt about the community consensus level of the result (which will obviously be to stop having our infobox blatantly lie to our readers that Margaret Thatcher's name is "The Baroness Thatcher". For the Thatcher case, the obvious solution is: |name=Margaret Hilda Thatcher|honorific_suffix=Baroness Thatcher<br />{{Post-nominals|country=GBR|size=100%|LG|OM|DStJ|PC|FRS|HonFRSC}} , and this is what agrees with the lead of the article. (Note lack of "The" before "Baroness".)

      These infoboxes are also failing MOS:HONORIFIC by including honorific salutation phrases like "The Right Honorourable" that are not part of the name in any sense, but used when writing a letter to such a person or when introducing them as speaker, and so on; that sort of information does not belong in a bio article (much less thousands of them robotically) but in an article on forms-of-address etiquette and probably again in the article on the title (baronet or whatever the case may be).

    There are probably other issues to address, but this is a lot already.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

    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)

    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)

    Categories: