Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (style guide errata)

message: I've moved a list of where all the Manual of Style-type guidance can be found to the top of the page. (i) It will be easier to see what policies we've got now; (ii) It will shorten that annoyingly long contents list; (iii) it's slightly shorter. Hope this isn't seen as too controversial. (And I'm not attached to the linking sentence I've added at the top of the new list. If anyone can think of better wording, please change it.) jguk 20:38, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a drastic change, but I consider it an improvement. It's centralized things, eliminated a lot of redundancy, and drastically reduced the page and table-of-contents size. Derrick Coetzee 23:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it, partly to get the table of contents higher. Maurreen 04:02, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: The main point I have re: Maurreen's change is that many of the "guidance" bits really are policy and should be in the specialised section. These are Wikipedia:Captions; Wikipedia:Categorization; Wikipedia:Cite sources; Wikipedia:Explain jargon; Wikipedia:List; Wikipedia:Naming_conventions; Wikipedia:Proper_names. I'd rather rename these as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (captions), etc.. and put them in the first section. (I thought this too radical to do straightaway, without discussion, though.)jguk 06:21, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't clear to me, but I liked it better how it was before. Maurreen 21:06, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Maurreen, you've removed the guidance on Captions, Identity, Specific countries (and the references to the style guides within that section), When All Else Fails, Do Not Get Fancy, and all the other stuff that was at the end of the article. May I ask why?  jguk 06:27, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an accident that I didn't realize and can't fix on this computer without reverting. Apparently the page is too long for me to edit on this computer. My apologies. Maurreen 07:30, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reformatting

message: For what it's worth, I think the elimination of all contractions on this page was a bit hasty. Some of the resulting expressions, such as "Do not get fancy", seem quite awkward to me. I'd also argue that Wikipedia's tone in general is more informal than paper encyclopedias and so benefits from more conversational wording (I also used this to argue for singular they.) While eliminating contractions is often acceptable, I would suggest it be avoided when it results in a stilted or awkward expression. Am I alone in this? Derrick Coetzee 16:18, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it was needed, especially because the style guide isn't part of the encyclopedia per se. For that matter, I'd be OK with eliminating the style guide's rule against contractions. Maurreen 16:26, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments above. Personally, the non-contraction style do not seem awkward to me in the examples. But people use different kinds of English and are used to different kinds of English. If most disagree, then I have no horrible objection to changing Wikipedia style. But unless a new consensus appears, the recommendation should remain and the style guide should follow it. Jallan 01:16, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a better solution for the Manual of Style would be to use different expressions that don't seem so awkward without contractions? "Keep it simple" would work instead of "Don't get fancy". (Although I agree that contractions are becoming more and more standard in English writing, and there are places where it seems appropriate to retain them.) Aranel ("Sarah") 03:20, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: That's a good idea. I don't feel strongly either way, but I'm a big believer in work-arounds. Maurreen 03:27, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree with Derrick Coetzee. The advice on contractions should be removed. Different articles adopt different styles. It would be inappropriate to use contractions in an article with a very formal style, and no doubt would be quickly edited out where there are inappropriate. But similarly, it is inappropriate to force a "no contractions" rule on articles that do not adopt a very formal style. Contractions are part of standard English: there should be no absolute ban on them. I propose leaving this discussion open for a further week to 20:00 on 3 November, and if there are no strong objections (or objections are in a clear minority), then I'll delete the section. jguk 06:45, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Jguk is going further than Derrick Coetzee. Jguk is the only person supporting changing the contractions policy. Maurreen 17:30, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Contractions

message: Along the lines of what Jallan suggested about organizing supporting material for the style guide, I've been working on organizing the archives topically. One of these is called "Visual presentation." 
I'm not sure what's the best title. Other options include "Layout" or "Design." What do you think? Maurreen 07:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I like "Visual presentation".  "Layout" or "Visual design" would also be OK.  Just "Design" would be bad, because the term has such a broad meaning.  —AlanBarrett 19:02, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Visual presentation

message: I've created a new template to make it easier to navigate between all the various bits of guidance. I'll try it on this page first and roll it out more generally if people are ok with it. The template itself can be edited on Template:Style. jguk 10:38, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're going to put all of that into a template, maybe you should add the "Further information" section to it. All of it is "further information." Maurreen 17:38, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm tempted to add Wikipedia:How to edit a page and Wikipedia:The perfect stub article (and also Wikipedia:The perfect article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article which don't appear as "further information"). The other stuff in "further information" isn't really guidance on style, so wouldn't be suitable for the template. jguk 17:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New template

message: In my opinion, the top of the style guide is looking worse. The body text is now somewhat crowded and the intro is boxed in. Maurreen 05:54, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: On further review

message: :This is also a reorganization. I think the two should be handled separately. Maurreen
::The simplest way to trim the style guide would probably be to put the section about links on its own page. Maurreen 00:22, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added my comments on the discussion page for the draft trim. I wonder if the above might be better moved there also, with a prominent and bolder announcement of the draft trim appearing instead. This would keep the draft time discussion quite separate from any discussion of substantive changes. Jallan 04:57, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I moved most of my response. Maurreen 06:12, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments