Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 10

message: A massive chunk of information seems to have been carelessly lost in this edit.  I am talking about the section on External Links in particular.  This is referenced as WP:MOS#External Links from a number of places.  E.g., the editing help, the external links page and so on.  Given the amount of editing that has  gone on, I'm not going to do an immediate revert to the version from November 24 before that edit, but I think it might be a good idea, at least until the material is moved elsewhere and/or correctly linked.  Comments anyone?  Mozzerati 10:01, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
:The edit was to replace the Manual of Style with a shorter version that had been discussed beforehand. The references to that discussion should be somewhere in the archives (though, I'm afraid, I don't know where). From memory, I think the material on links got moved to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) on Maurreen's suggestion, though I stand to be corrected.
:However, this Manual of Style is a living document, feel free to propose any changes you think are appropriate, jguk 19:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The earlier discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Draft trim (November 2004). Maurreen 22:50, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Massive lost information

message: Maurren, where did you move this to? . The reason I ask is that I felt Jeff Q's comment was worth keeping. SlimVirgin 10:31, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
:It's all at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (jguk's changes). Sorry, I meant to note that and forgot. Maurreen 10:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: jguk's changes

message: The statement requesting SI units seems a bit strong.  While a good guideline for most cases, there are fields of study and practice where other units, whether from inertia or convenience, are widely used either alongside or in place of SI units.  For example, in talking about distances within the solar system, millions of kilometers can be reported, but the astronomical unit is such a convenient yardstick that it, too, is widely used.  The world petroleum industry works on barrels, not liters, and when talking about petroleum production, the barrel is the unit to discuss it in.  Even in the most metrified of countries, the weather is reported in degrees Celsius rather than Kelvin.
There should be some statement that when common practice uses other-than-SI units, then those units are acceptable.  (I see this analogous to the Jimmy Carter vs. James Earl Carter example. Shimmin 14:02, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
:I don't think SI units have to always be used. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Style for numbers, weights, and measures. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 19:33, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This probably belongs at Wikipedia:Measurements Debate. —Simetrical (talk) 23:59, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  SI always ? 

message: Hajor, you mentioned the U.N. as a possible model. I'd like to learn more. Do you know of any U.N. style references, especially online? Maurreen 07:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. It's probably too close to the UK/EU to be a validly neutral mid-Atlantic option, though. Basically, preference goes to the first option listed in the Concise Oxford -- thus, judgement, adviser, labour, realizes and organizations and all (but analyses & dialyses); more frequent hyphenation than you'd normally see in AE; dd mmm yyyy; quote marks within punctuaction -- heck, it's BE with zees, ok?  Haven't got a link to the UN style guide, but the ITU's is here (warning! link to MS Word doc file). –Hajor 15:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I've added it to the Style guide article. Would be good for that article to link to a Canadian style guide also. Maurreen 06:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the style guide of the International Red Cross Federation: , if anyone's interested in that. Flo 03:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: U.N. style

message: Maybe we can break the impasse by referring to this page as "official style"? Then we advise the reader that "this page is official style. Whilst we prefer you to edit using this style, don't worry, nothing will happen to you if you don't, and the content of your contributions is more important than whether you take note of this page or not. However, in time, copyediting Wikipedians will edit articles to comply with the Wikipedia official style. Please accept this as a good way to improve readability of Wikipedia as a whole - and, in particular, you should not revert them". 
I think a compromise on "official style" may both satisfy the requirements that this page has to be adhered to, whilst also making it clear that non-compliance is not a behavioural issue that could get you banned, jguk 22:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Two thoughts: first, we'd have to seek broader consensus than just the editors on this page to call it "official" whether the next word is style or policy, and secondly, it probably isn't true that copyediting Wikipedians will edit articles to comply with it, because some copyediting Wikipedians don't agree with its contents. Can I ask: why are you so keen that it shouldn't be a guideline? As I said previously, guidelines do have some influence. SlimVirgin 23:03, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand how Wikipedia policy is made. It is a somewhat murky custom ("procedure" is going too far). Generally it is what Wikipedians accept it to be. Policy can be made by general acceptance of a principle - indeed, whilst some policies, such as the 3RR, have become accepted only after a vote, most have not. In this case, Wikipedians do generally accept the Manual of Style as a point of reference for style and accept what it says. Also, there was no dispute when the Manual was amended to explicitly state that it is policy. (The text of the manual strongly implied that it had authority before then.) The conclusion is simple: it is policy. Your removing of the references to it being policy have not achieved consensus (and also you seem to be willing to support it having official status), and I therefore intend to replace the references to it being so. If you wish to bring a poll to declassify it as policy, or make a formal proposal that the Manual of Style ceases to have any official status, then do so. But IMO that would be very unwise, fuel edit wars, and distract many people from more productive development of Wikipedia, jguk 09:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: An idea

message: jguk, if you want to use "International English" what dictionary, stylebook, etc., do you have in mind? Maurreen 08:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't wish to. I was merely illustrating that it would be a bad idea for the rules on usage outlined on this page to be described as anything other than "policy". Edit wars will reign if we suddenly come out and say there's no policy about using American English for American topics, British English for British topics, Indian English for Indian topis, etc. jguk 08:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But we don't have to come out and say it, as such i.e. make an announcement. And as I said above, guidelines do have some force. SlimVirgin 08:30, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
If it's decided that this page is not policy, it would only be proper to announce it big and often in order to dispel most Wikipedians' misconception that it is policy, jguk 19:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: A large proportion of the "Welcoming committee", maybe most, refer to this page when welcoming new Wikipedians. Plus, I have seen many Wikipedians who have never edited the page or commented on this talk page who have referred to this page. I think this page is, and has been accepted as, policy - however, please note my suggestion above about referring to this page (and by extension all MOS pages) as "official style", jguk 23:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling). It's a reference page I created, like Wikipedia:Manual of Style (guidance) Nobbie 11:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "International English"

message: This page is now about 46 kb. I suggest that the sections on national varieties of English be split to a different page. Maurreen 08:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we do need a reorganisation of some description, but can we wait a week or so until the above discussions have been resolved? Thanks, jguk 08:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not understanding each other. Never mind. Maurreen 17:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page split?

message: OK, just to make sure ... I think this is something probably at least acceptable to most of us. Are there any major objections or suggested wording tweaks to the following?
*Articles on European Union institutions and documents should use British and Irish usage and spelling.
*Article on institutions and documents of the Organization for American States should not use British English. Canadian English is fine for those articles. Maurreen 06:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a vote?  Thought I was joking about that.  Alai 08:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Alai, I like your wording. But what is "CogDissing"? Maurreen 07:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry:  causing cognitive dissonance.  Alai 08:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrapping this up

message: For a Manual of Style to work, it needs to be policy. That doesn't mean that you will get banned if you don't follow it (you can only get banned for behavioural issues). It does mean that if your edits are not in compliance with it, in due course copy-editing Wikipedians will alter them so that they do comply.
It needs to be policy for the following reasons:
*(i) Disagreeing editors will edit against it, saying "it's not policy" if it is not policy - this is particularly true of the US v non-US English usage sections that we have!
*(ii) If it's not policy, other editors will be free to develop and promote their own Wikipedia Style Guides - this would be unwelcome.
*{iii) We have enough edit wars as it is - having this page as policy gets rid of some.
*(iv) The goals of the Manual of Style - consistency and standardisation - cannot be met without it being policy.
Comments please? jguk 11:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not getting into the "policy" debate. But ...
#Some people do knowingly, deliberately and possibly vehemently go against the style guide regardless.
#Other editors are free to develop other style guides. Maurreen 02:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: MoS as policy