Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/proposal

Response

I've now read Jguk's proposals. Thanks for doing this work, Jguk. Overall, I'd say that they seem to streamline things somewhat, and are very clear. I have a few comments, as follows:

Re: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/proposal

Intro

• Note: I'd prefer to delete: " However, copy-editing wikipedians will refer to this manual, and pages will either gradually be made to conform with this guide." for the reasons I argued before.

Capital letters -> Titles

• Question: I wonder whether the second paragraph contradicts the first. The first says that titles are capitalized when used as titles. Therefore, "President Richard Nixon", but "Richard Nixon was the American president." But the second para says: "The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said today..." I would write that as: "The British prime minister, Tony Blair, said today," or "British Prime Minister Tony Blair said" or "Prime Minister Tony Blair said," because the first example does not use "prime minister" as part of his name, whereas the second two examples do.

Punctuation -> Quotation marks

• Note: I would prefer: "Longer quotations may be better rendered in an indented style by starting the first line with a colon, or by writing <blockquote> at the start of the quote and </blockquote> at the end."

Section -> Lead section

• Note: I would prefer: "The appropriate lead length depends on the length and type of article, but it should normally be no longer than four paragraphs," instead of "The appropriate lead length depends on the length of the article, but should be no longer than three paragraphs in any case."

• • I feel we should allow writers to write the leads they feel are appropriate for the subject. Sometimes there's a lot to say by way of introduction and sometimes there isn't. Here are four intros I've written with different lengths, written this way deliberately: Bernard Williams, four paragraphs and probably the longest I would advocate; Ernest Gellner, three long paragraphs; Germaine Greer, three short paragraphs; Night (book), two short paragraphs but appropriate for the subject matter, in my view, which should be allowed to speak for itself rather than being introduced. I wouldn't mind someone changing these in order to improve them, but I wouldn't want to see them changed because of a generic rule in the MoS.

Usage

• Note: I would prefer: "Where an article is on a topic closely related to one part of the English-speaking world, the form of English used should be the standard English that is used in that part of the English-speaking world. A topic counts as "closely related" to a certain country if it is regarded by most people as an intrinsic part of that country's culture, political system, or geography. For example, an article on the Sydney Opera House should be in Australian English; an article on Shakespeare in British English; and an article on the president of the United States should be in American English. Editors should start these articles in whatever form of English they feel comfortable using, but if another editor changes the English to conform to that country's standard form, the change should not be reverted.

Re: Wikipedia:Guidance on applying the Manual of Style

Usage -> Using a standard form of English -> Quotation marks

• Note: Regarding the logical versus aesthetic style of punctuation: with the latter, the mark is not always inside the quotes. Colons, semi-colons, exclamation and question marks always go outside the quotation marks, unless part of the quotation. For example: "Smith said of the charge of "racist": "It's nonsense." Periods and commas are always inside the quotation marks, whether part of the quotation or not.

Usage -> Closely related to one English-speaking part of the world

• Note: agreed, though see above for suggestion about using the word "intrinsic." But that's a small point.

Usage -> Intelligibility -> Purpose of this rule:

• "the verb "to table" means the opposite in American English than it does in British English."
  • Question: What are the two different meanings?

• "the word "should" can mean "ought to" or "must" in British English. In American English it can mean "ought to" but never "must"."
  • Question: I have never heard of this distinction. Does anyone have a reference showing this?

Other punctuation issues -> Oxford comma:

• Note: Saying that the MoS "has no preference" might contradict the "closely related" rule, which states that usage ought to be specific to the country, where a topic is closely related. I agree that there should be no instruction creep here, but it might be helpful to expand a little with, for example," The use of the serial comma is preferred in the U.S., and by some publishers in the UK (e.g. Oxford University Press), but is generally not used in the UK outside these publishing houses." SlimVirgin 07:47, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

On "to table", from the OED:

• v.tr. 1 Brit. bring forward for discussion or consideration at a meeting. 2 esp. US postpone consideration (of a matter).

HTH. Alai 16:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The importance of sensitivity

I wonder whether it might be worth adding a paragraph stressing the importance of being sensitive to other editors' work. I've seen the MoS being used as almost a weapon by some editors (a very small number). It would be good to say explicitly that style issues and issues of national preference should never take precedence over substantive content issues or good writing; and should not be used to start edit wars. I'm not sure how to phrase this, and would need to think about it some more. I feel that if the MoS is to be respected, it must work with editors, not against them, and we should perhaps make that explicit somewhere in the text. SlimVirgin 09:10, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Summary of changes

I've copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) Maurreen's summary of the proposed changes and edited it slightly. I'm just trying to make sure here that we can agree on the character of what is proposed. Feel free to edit in the list, I'm trying to produce an accurate summary.

Please, let's not use this particular section to discuss the merits of the changes -- Jmabel | Talk 22:28, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Changing the style regarding quotation marks.
  • Establish double quotes as a standard, with single quotes to be used only within quotations
  • Eliminate some related discussion.
• Removal of references (e.g. Kate Turabian and the quote at the beginning) from our MoS.
• Removal of the style:
  • For serial commas.
  • Against contractions.
  • Against i.e., e.g., or n.b.
  • About possessives of singular nouns ending in s.
  • About "alternate" and "alternative".
  • For "U.S."
  • For "logical" punctuation (i.e. periods and commas outside punctuation marks)
• Removal of: "Also, we should keep the manual simple and straightforward, with anything too hairy (table styles, for instance) relegated to a linked page."
• Removal of: "If a word or phrase is generally regarded as correct, then prefer it to any other word or phrase that might be regarded as incorrect."
• Weakening of: "Substantive changes should be discussed on the talk page first, or they will very likely be removed".
• Removal of: "or this guide will itself be changed to the same effect" from "Copy-editing wikipedians will refer to this manual, and pages will either gradually be made to conform with this guide or this guide will itself be changed to the same effect."
• Weakening of the "Identity" section, including the style to "use terminology which subjects use for themselves".
• Reducing the section on "National varieties of English",. This would include changing "Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the spelling of that country" to "Where an article is on a topic closely-related to one part of the English-speaking world, that article should be written in a form of standard English used in that part of the English-speaking world."

I'm not sure what the "removal of references" refers to. SlimVirgin 22:35, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Well, all of Maurreen's list is concentrating on what's being removed. And, of course, it's a removal of a requirement to use that style - not a prohibition on it. Indeed, no article currently consistent with the MoS will need to change to comply with the proposal. However, IMO, it's more important to consider what's going in - and also to note the proposal to have a new non-binding Wikipedia:Guidance on applying the Manual of Style. What's being proposed is a reform of the "usage" section to make it consistent with practice, and to bring an end to the practice of some Wikipedians trying to force their preferences unnaturally on others. There's also a proposal to refer to the Manual of Style as being "official style" so that it again has some status. The proposal is aimed at reducing the level of pointless style edit wars that we have. It is a positive proposal. It may need some tweaks - and certainly Wikipedia:Guidance on applying the Manual of Style needs further development - but it's certainly better than the current divisive wording, jguk 22:48, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see how it has any chance of reducing style wars. Thus far, almost all the responses have been along the lines of "I applaud the change where it mandates/permits a style I favour, but deplore that it mandates/permits styles I don't." Likewise as regards bases for deciding what the appropriate style for a given article is: some feel the current MoS favours "national appropriateness" too much, others evidently that it does so too little. By allowing multiple styles for serial commas and punctuation, it'll simply mean that edit wars can break out on those independently of edits wars on spelling and usage, and what's more when they do, we'll have no agreed basis on which to resolve them. Alai 23:36, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think Jguk is just trying to place punctuation, including the serial-comma issue, under the "national appropriateness" umbrella, along with spelling and other usage. SlimVirgin 23:53, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'll grant the proposal does so, at least in theory, but if some British user pops up and insists on a serial comma, or an American user wants to edit quote-punctuation to "logical" style, there's no clear guidance on specifics. Instead we have to have a meta-argument about what's appropriate for a given "national style" (as well as at present, the (meta-)meta-argument about what national style prevails in the case of a given article, and the (meta-)meta-meta-argument about whether to completely ignore the MoS as "not policy"). Alai 06:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't see usage or non-usage of Oxford commas or of what I am calling the "logical" style of quotation mark punctuation as being a "national" issue. That is why the proposal refers to "a standard form of English" not "the standard form of English". Usage or non-usage of Oxford commas is consistent with all forms of standard English - whichever country you are in: some people use them, some don't. As far as I am aware, usage of the "logical" style of quotation mark punctuation is always used in areas outside the American English sphere of influence, and is sometimes used, and sometimes not used, in areas inside the American English sphere of influence. Under the proposal, the "logical" style would always be permissible, but also articles written in American English could be written in the "aesthetic" style.

In my view, all articles currently complying the MoS will automatically comply with the proposed MoS. From what you are saying the Wikipedia:Guidance on applying the Manual of Style page should spell this out - and I would agree with that, jguk 17:04, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If there's no general US usage agreement as to "aesthetic quotes", I'd be (even more) strongly opposed to unnecessarily abandoning the current attempt at "a consistent format" (to coin a phrase). Though there certainly seem to be several US editors here that are extremely insistent on them, and IIRC the Chicago MoS mandates them, so I'm not too clear about that.

I think if you're going to "weaken" the MoS itself, then it's pretty much imperative to give pretty clear and strong guidance on how to determine which (of the now exponential number of permutations) of possible style choices ought to prevail in a given case. (Whether this be national balkanisation, or first come first served, or however else.) i.e., what constitutes "good reason" to change a particular convention. Indeed, I thought that was the whole point of splitting the two. Otherwise, instead of fewer edit wars, there's likely to be more, as serial comma enthusiasts and logical-quotes haters (and vice versa) go to work on any article that offends their eye, others revert them, and there's no means of determining a stable version even in principle, much less practice.

Another point to consider is how this will affect articles that are currently internally inconsistent. I keep coming across these, but hestitate to touch them these days, given how allegedly controversial the current MoS is. Alai 00:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree

Assuming I have understood the proposal correctly, I strongly disagree with most of it.

I have no problem with:

• Changing the style regarding quotation marks.
• Removal of references (e.g. Kate Turabian) from our MoS.
• Removal of our (basically non-commital) statement about Possessives of singular nouns ending in s.

I have no problem with removal of the discussion disparaging "alternate", but I do think we need to retain somewhere the note that alternative commonly suggests "non-traditional" or "out-of-the-mainstream" to an American-English speaker. "Alternative meaning" would suggest, to an American-English speaker, a non-mainstream meaning, not simply another meaning.

I don't have a strong opinion on i.e. and e.g. but I suspect that there is no one would not find "that is" and "for example" at least equally clear, and can imagine someone being confused by i.e. and e.g.; I find that some of our writers use them interchangeably.

Nor do I have a strong opinion on the matter of "National varieties of English", other than to note that many people do not know how to write a national variety of English other than their own, so any rules here are liable to be applied by editors more than by original contributors.

But I disagree with everything else.

• There is no place where serial commas make matters less clear. There are many places where they make things clearer.
• I do not believe that the informal, breezy style implied by contractions belongs in an encyclopedia.
• I can't see why n.b. should ever arise. It seems to be usually inherently POV, like saying "it is important to note that..." In any case, unlike i.e. and e.g., it is obscure enough that I'm willing to guess that only a minority of native-speaker adults even know the term, and I don't think we should use it.
• I'm for retaining "U.S.", if only because we should have a single style for this, and this is the one more common in the U.S.
• "If a word or phrase is generally regarded as correct, then prefer it to any other word or phrase that might be regarded as incorrect." What argument could possibly be made against this?
• I thin it is very important to "use terminology which subjects use for themselves". It is very important to make it clear what terms are seen as disparaging and imposed by outsiders. We should not call an Inuit "an Eskimo". We should not call a contemporary gay man "a homosexual". The manual of style should make this clear.

Jmabel | Talk 22:45, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

There are two responses to this. One - the MoS clearly states that when it disagrees with practice, it will be changed to accord to practice, and that is what the proposal does. Secondly, you are entitled to your opinions, all I am saying is that you should not force people to adopt your preferred style. We have a choice here - accept that others have different styles, or drive them away. I suggest the former is the better way forward, jguk 22:51, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the rationale for the alternate/alternative example was that each has suboptimal connotations for the intended meaning in the "other" variety of English. Thus the point is, "choose some wording that sounds OK in both if possible", as opposed to just pointing out one specific example of a difficulty in one national variety. Alai 00:23, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that a lot of the things that a proposed for removal are very important to the manual. Having a consistent style is, of course, essential to a good encyclopaedia, and these things need to be expressed explicitly somewhere.

The two that I disagree with most are those to allow contractions and to allow abbreviations like i.e., e.g., etc.. Contractions do give a sense of informality which doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. And I think that Wikipedia is better off without such abbreviations, both for the sake of consistency and to make sure it is fully understood.

Apart from those two, I disagree with most of the others, as I think it makes more sense to have them there, for example, the abbreviation "U.S.", if it is more common in the U.S. (which I wouldn't know, not being an American), should be standard. The guides on wording, for example, those regarding differences between varieties of English, and those regarding the preference of known correct words over could-be incorrect ones, should be kept too. I've found references useful in understanding the manual too. I could even go as far to say that I don't support any of the proposed changes - but this is not to say that the work that everyone here's put into this is not greatly appreciated. But I think that more specific (to a certain extent) beats less specific, especially in an encyclopaedia of this size. A mere listing of principles will inevitably result in debate. Neonumbers 11:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also disagree with most of the proposed removals of guidelines. In MHO, a MoS is supposed to provide guidance, not just say "anything goes". I don't have a strong opinion on US vs U.S., and I think i.e. and e.g. are fine, but I strongly support the serial comma, no contractions, and yes to 'logical quotes', especially. I also have issues with splitting off guidelines to a separate page as noted by Kaldari. Niteowlneils 00:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I also object to the idea that we have to "accept that others have different styles, or drive them away". A long-standing, valuable contributor insists on only contributing text that lacks spaces after punctuation in sentences (position statement, contribs). A) Despite the fact eventually someone always adds the "missing" spaces, he has NOT been 'driven off'. B) Should we 'accept that others have different styles', and change the MoS to accept spaceless-prose? Niteowlneils 00:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikilink guidance?

Where is the advice on which words are worth wikilinking? In the sentence: An Icepick is like an awl but for ice not wood' I'd say link awl but not ice or wood. Is there any place that gives advice on such matters? Is it part of the manual of style? Should it be? RJFJR 23:25, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Certainly awl. The others could go either way.

I don't think there is any concrete advice to be found, this is an art not a science. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:32, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) is all there is on the subject. Alai 00:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do not remove the guidance on possessives of singular nouns ending in s

How to handle possessives of singular nouns ending in s has been a contentious issue for which there is no agreed standard. It is vital that the manual of style say something about this issue. Please do not remove this from the manual. A lot of work and discussion went in to the agreed upon wording. Throwing it out the window would send us back into the wilderness of pointless grammar wars. I strongly urge that it be reinsterted into the proposal. Kaldari 23:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see that part has been moved to Guidance on applying the Manual of Style. I honestly can't understand the rational for splitting the manual of style into 2 different pages. What guidance goes on which page seems to be completely arbitrary. What is the logic behind this? Kaldari 23:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Disagree based on procedure

I have some objections to the procedure of presenting this proposal.

• It has no introduction or explaination. What are the changes? Why are they necessary? What do they accomplish? Is the Guidance on applying the Manual of Style part of this proposal or separate? If it is part of this proposal, please explain it as well. I shouldn't have to read back through pages of Talk scattered about Wikipedia to find out what this proposal is actually proposing.
• Each change should be presented separately and justified with an explaination. How are we supposed to debate the changes if we don't even know why each change is being made? A wholesale replacement of the original Manual (constructed through years of debate and compromise on each issue) cannot be swept away in one monolithic change. The merits of the changes need to be addressed individually. If there is some overarching theme to all of these changes that necessitates an all-or-nothing overhaul, please explain it so we can debate that rather than bickering over details.

Kaldari 23:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Give it up, Kaldari. I turned away from this debate because frankly, I'm just sick of it. From what I noticed while I was an active part of the many W:MoS changes that were being made, reverted, subverted, and bickered over for the past half-year, there were perhaps half a dozen people who had such absolutely intransigent and contradictory ideas about what's right that compromise seemed impossible. I for one finally gave up trying to be reasonable, and decided to use the MoS principles that had been established by people with much more experience than any of us, both with Wikipedia and with MoS wars. I had hoped some of these seniors would weigh in heavily (and heavy-handedly) to discourage radical changes, but it didn't happen. I had hoped that reviewing and citing many references from many countries on many issues might have lent some authority to the need for compromise and reasonableness, but I got the impression that the participants wouldn't be impressed by such scholarship, so I gave it up.

I believe that the most likely outcome of this war of attrition of interest will be that a tiny but very vocal minority of relative newcomers (like myself, though I'm no longer among the arguers) will make decisions based not on any significant MoS history, but rather on their tiny minority decision. Many others like myself, who tire of this endless battle, will simply ignore the decisions, realizing that the zeal of these passionate folks, however well-intended, has rendered the MoS irrelevant and unusuable. I, for one, will go on using the styles that I learned from the MoS version that wiser people than I had crafted — people who have unfortunately moved on to other projects, leaving us sophomorons to bicker amongst ourselves.

Sorry to be so bitter, but I'm tired of this crap. Wikipedia could really use all this passion in crafting articles with useful information instead of never-ending arguments about commas, quotes, abbreviations, spellings, and other minutiae. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:26, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily arguing against the content of this proposal, I'm arguing against how it has been presented. I know virtually nothing about the 'scholarship', 'prinicipals', and 'history' that you are referring to. Nor do I imagine that many of other people who have stumbled upon this proposal do. I'm happy to consider any arguments for modifying the MoS, but I don't see any arguments here, just a lot of unilateral changes. I'm sure there are justified arguments for all of these changes, but I'm not going to hunt them down. They need to be presented along with the changes. Either on this Talk page or within the proposal itself. And not just some vague references to arguments past. If people want this proposal to be seriously considered, it needs to be presented seriously. That means a detailed break down of the rational behind all of the changes. Otherwise, how are people going to be convinced this proposal is a good idea? Kaldari 02:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From what I understand, jguk has put forward one argument covering the lot of this: that these matters don't need to be covered in our Manual of Style and should be left to the discretion of individual editors. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:15, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

In that case, he needs to write at the top of the proposal page:

"This is my proposal to streamline Wikipedia's Manual of Style. In my opinion, many of the topics currently covered in our Manual of Style do not require official policies and should be left to the discretion of individual editors. I hereby propose the following:

1. Remove the policy regarding commas in a series. This policy is dumb, etc.

2. Remove something else...

The way this proposal is currently presented is unhelpful, and comes across as being draconian, as there doesn't seem to be any organized way to discuss it, or even understand what it's trying to accomplish. Kaldari 03:50, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Kaldari. I have been trying to follow this, off and on, but I'm still not exactly sure what changes are actually being proposed and why. The MoS should be readily understandable with clear reasoning for policies or lack of policies. Each proposal to change, add or remove a policy should clearly explain what the change is, why it needs to be changed and why the new policy is better than any other possible version. Thryduulf 14:25, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I would oppose the proposal on these procedural grounds regardless of its content. DES 17:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My ideas for further standardization of English dialects used in Wikipedia

In an attempt to at least partially deplete problems on the dialects to be used in articles, I figured I would show my ideas on when certain dialects should be used:

• Articles regarding countries/languages/food/etc. in/from the Americas or territories owned by countries in the Americas (such as American Samoa) — American or Canadian usage
• Articles regarding countries/languages/food/etc. in/from Europe or European territories (such as Greenland) — British or Irish usage
• Articles regarding Oxford University, Oxford University Press publications, or other British organizations prefering OED English — OED usage (in other words, British English using the -ize endings)
• Articles regarding Japan or the Philippines — American usage
• Articles regarding countries/languages/food/etc. in/from Africa — South African, Liberian, or another sort of African usage
• Articles regarding countries/languages/food/etc. in/from parts of Asia other than Japan or the Philippines — Hong Kong or Indian usage
• Articles regarding countries/languages/food/etc. in/from other Pacific nations — Australian or New Zealand usage (exceptions would be territories of English-speaking countries, such as Guam, or nations with English as an official language)

Any comments or further ideas? --/ɛvɪs/ 00:04, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Instruction creep. --cesarb 00:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm increasingly unhappy with the idea of segregating Wikki into British and American regions. It may be only be a small discouragement to people on different sides of the pond to edit in the other's patch but it seems to me to be real. A rule on the basis that both spellings are correct and the page stays with the spelling it had at the beginning seems to be the only neutral solution.Dejvid 18:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with Dejvid here. Whilst I agree that articles which are country specific, and that country uses a specific form of English, those articles should reflect the English usage of that country, any other article should default to original use and articles should maintain consistency. Hiding 11:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

linking allowed in title?

I have a problem with the removal of the line:

"Avoid links in the title and circular definitions. However, most words in titles should be linked to."

It makes the work look sloppy and causes confusion if we include links in the title of articles. This section must remain. --metta, The Sunborn ☥ 21:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The MoS should remain a style guide

I oppose the degree to which this proposal removes the idea of there being a single acceptable style, or range of styles, within Wikipedia. A manual of style ought to establish a house style for a publication. It ought to establish some things as preferred, some as acceptable, and some as unacceptable. The current proposal, if I understand it correctly (and it has been presented in such a way as to make it hard to see just what it does, IMO) increases the degree to which everything is acceptable beyond what I think wise. I don't see any value in splitting the MoS into two documents, one of which interprets the other.

Specifically, I disagree with:

• The removal of "logical" quotes as the prefered form;
• The removal of a specifc statement on singular possesives;
• The removal of the endorsement of the serial or "oxford" comma as the preferred form; and
• The removal of citations of specific authorities. DES 17:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also oppose the weakening of the notion of a style guide. I also oppose every change suggested. The guidelines to be removed would, as has already been stated, lead to confusion. I would prefer if a guideline were inserted to the effect that whilst it is not neccesary to follow the manual of style, reversion of copy-edits which reflect the MoS should be well reasoned and explained on the talk page.

At the moment it seems to state the manual of style will evolve to reflect usage, without ever understanding the reason for usage counter to the manual of style, which seems somewhat flawed. I'm also puzzled people would leave because they don't agree with the MoS. Hiding 19:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just a proposal

Radiant recently removed the proposal tag. I am going to revert. This is a proposal that found little support. Maurreen 15:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)