Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/proposal

message: 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  at the start of the quote and  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)
thread_title: Response

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I strongly disagree 

message: 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)
thread_title: Wikilink guidance?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Do not remove the guidance on possessives of singular nouns ending in s

message: 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? -- 00:04, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
:Instruction creep. --cesarb 00:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title:  My ideas for further standardization of English dialects used in Wikipedia 

message: 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. -- 21:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  linking allowed in title? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The MoS should remain a style guide 

message: 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)
thread_title: Just a proposal