Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 92

message: Yay or nay? This might have already been discussed before. See Ulrich Mühe and Michael Haneke. I noticed it was a bit of a dispute on the Ulrich Mühe article, so I figured I'd ask here. Rockstar (T/C) 20:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I don't really think it's vivid writing—I think it's gimmicky and amateurish.  This sort of cutesiness is something you'd see on some ridiculous fan site.  It takes one sentence of the millions that the person uttered and imbues it as the most prominent part of their biography?  Plus, imagine if this spread.  It'd be awful.  "God Does Not Play Dice--Albert Einstein was a theoretical physicist who..."  I think this would be fine at WikiQuote, a site founded on the premise that quotations possess some magical significance.  I think it's painfully unencyclopedic and childish, not to mention potentially distorting, here. --JayHenry 22:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that "level of amateurishness" is chracteristic of many serious collections of biographies. Eric Temple Bell comes to mind.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree with Jay. It's a diversion from the standardised role of the lead (standardised loosely, with strong justification IMV). Perhaps on rare occasions it might work; convince me—provide an example. Tony 01:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although I'm not familiar with the biographies in question, I ask this: what objective criteria can we -- as a collaborative project -- possibly have for which quote is most appropriate to include?  Or how do we determine which articles are allowed to lead with a quote? Surely you agree it wouldn't be desirable for every biography to begin with one.  Perhaps a quote works well when one expert author is trying to drive a biography with a particular theme; I really think it falls apart in a collaborative encyclopedia where our theme is Just the Facts. --JayHenry 03:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In Ulrich Mühe, the quote is centrally related to his only claim to notability. If it were reedited to make another equal claim, the quote would be more doubtful; but we can cross that bridge when it is built. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a magazine.  This is journalistic, not encyclopedic style. I don't like pull quotes in WP articles at all, but I tolerate them (i.e. I don't edit them out on sight), but before the lead?  You must be kidding.  If there is consensus on the article's talk page that it is vital, put it after the lead, but really, let's get serious.  A quote like that simply belongs in the article prose at an appropriate point. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 17:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes from an article's subject that precedes the lead paragraph 

message: In certain cases images in Wikipedia should be center aligned and displayed at maximum width. This needs to be allowed for and described somewhere in the manual of style. The examples which are pertinent for me are musical images. These cases include articles whose text discusses critically or in depth the content depicted in an image of musical notation which is wider than it is tall.   Hyacinth 18:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have some examples of this? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alignment and display size of wide images discussed in article

message: Is there consensus on whether to use a historical spelling that is technically incorrect? On this page, we've got a debate (which I started...) over using "Grizzlys" (which is technically correct) over "Grizzlies" (which is historical). Comment? Trekphiler 16:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it that "Grizzlys" is said to be technically correct?  We don't write "pantys".  If they "ys" (including the "s") is part of a proper name, different story (e.g. "Willys" in the military context). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 17:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Y not?

message: The folks at MOSNUM talk have uncovered yet another inadequacy in the autoformatting system—this time concerning the rendering of US-formatted dates with the final comma. The original discussion is here; I recommend that interested users go to the end of that rather long discourse to get the gist of it. Here, I've set out a list of problems with the software, which in my experience are unlikely to be fixed soon, even if another concerted push is made at Bugzilla (usually a brick wall).
Some users would be pleased to see the phrase at MOSNUM "Full dates, and days and months, are normally autoformatted, ..." softened to give people a clear option not to autoformat. This would merely put date formatting on the same footing as the way we tolerate British and American (and other) varieties of spelling in WP, as long as they're consistent within an article. Other users feel that autoformatting should be mandatory, despite the disadvantages.
I now actively discourage the use of autoformatting, for all of the reasons outlined at MOSNUM talk. Your comments and feedback there are welcome. Tony 03:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will MOSNUM itself actively discourage autoformatting? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 17:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd love it to, but people seem strangely attached to this dysfunctional system, and it's hard to gain consensus for what appears to me to be a practical solution: don't make it mandatory, or don't encourage its use, until the multitude of technical issues are resolved. I see one or two FACs going through with unautoformatted dates. Well and good. Tony 02:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More trouble at MOSNUM about autoformatting 

message: The directions and regions section states that composite directions such as south-west may or may not be hyphenated. I am unsure whether an en dash could be used or not – my quandary being whether south-west may infer 'south and west' (together), hence an en dash could be used as per WP:MOSDASH "as a substitute for some uses of and, to or versus for marking a relationship involving independent elements". Could someone please clarify this? Rossenglish 16:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely not an en dash, which stands for "to" or is used for ranges and relationships. Hyphenate, or merge into one word, whichever you like, as long as it's consistent within the article (I've heard of US/British preferences here, but I think there's considerable overlap). Tony 01:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot! Rossenglish 11:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are worried, consider "southwest". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It is compounded when it refers to a region ("the American Southwest"; you will NEVER see that hyphenated, I assure you!), and hyphenated when it refers to a compass direction, as in "we are headed north-west" (this is probably because more specific directions would be near unreadable otherwise: "eastsoutheast", "northnorthwest".)  It is also compounded when referring to some noun that has something to do with a direction, such as a wind or storm ("Boy, that's a really strong northwester!", though such things are often contracted, e.g. "nor'easter", "sou'wester", especially in nautical usage.) References to areas in general are compounded as well ("southeast Bhutan", though -ern is often applied: "southeastern Bhutan"). I don't have the CMoS on hand right this minute, I'm just going by the writing I've absorbed over the last 30 years. My gut feeling is that if it is used adjectivally or to refer to anything other than a compass direction as a noun, it is compounded, unless it is a more specific direction, in which case the hyphenation is necessary for readability ("east-south-east Bhutan", in which case an -ern suffix should be avoided, as it would, I think, grammatically force compounding). I honestly don't think it's a US/UK distinction.  But yes, definitely not an en-dash. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 16:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't take me as calling you wrong, SMcCandlish, but the likes of "south-southwest" would avoid (some of) the readability problem (though might create others of its own).  Of course, this is just hypothetical; I'm certainly not suggesting that such be mentioned on the page. Jɪmp 16:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Directions 

message: In a sports article, I wrote this sentence: "The Longhorns finished the season as the only unbeaten team in NCAA Division I-A football, with 13 wins and zero losses overall."  I chose to write out the one-digit number and use numerals for the two-digit number.  Was this the right decision, or should I choose one way for both numbers?
Also, if I switch them, would one style be preferred over the other?  In my experience, writings about sporting events tend to use numerals more than spelled-out words.  Thanks in advance for comments. Johntex\talk 03:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recon it would be better to sidestep the issue by writing "... and no losses ..." in this case. If the single digit number was non-zero this form of numbers would be in accordance with a respected US style manual.  GilesW 06:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Giles on avoiding the issue with that wording. 0 stuck in the middle of a clause is a problem. MOS says to spell out all or use digits for all of a group of numbers, normally (I think it's the cats and dogs example). But I have no problem personally with "11 losses and seven wins"; but for scores, both should definitely be numbers, with an en dash (7–3). Tony 11:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The numbers 10 to 20 all have one-word names in english, doesn't this make the rule ambigious for them? Roger 19:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Demurrer.  General English rules notwithstanding, it is accepted practice and has been since at least the mid 19th c. to use numerals for all sports stats (probably earlier, but the earliest sports stats I've looked at were from around 1860 or 1870).  So, I'd probably say "13...and 0...", though I agree that "...and no..." works just fine here. In this particular case I don't find "zero" too off-base, since it really isn't quite reportage of sports stats but more a commentary on sports stats.  So, if I'd encountered the "zero" version I would not have edited it to "0".  By contrast if I saw "...won 13 to zero" I would definitely correct it to "...won 13 to 0" or more likely "won 13–0". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 16:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *Thank you all for your helpful replies.  I appreciate your time and thoughtfulness. Johntex\talk 14:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers question

message: The para headed "Square brackets..." does not appear to belong in the Ellipses section. There is a previous section on brackets. Not sure what to suggest.GilesW 06:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's there because square brackets are closely related to the use of ellipses. Tony 14:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How so?  At least on first thought, I am agreeing with GilesW here... — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 16:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using square brackets with ellipses is advised by one of the major styles (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis). So I'd say it's important that we make it clear in the Ellipses section that people are not to do that. Tristan Schmelcher 21:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Ellipses" section, "Square brackets" para

message: I'm seeking consensus at MOSNUM talk for a change in the wording to allow contributors, by consensus only, to use unconverted metrics in scientific articles. Tony 02:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Converting metrics in scientific articles 

message: When displaying the actual award citation for military awards, specifically the Medal of Honor or equivalent I believe it is appropriate to italicize the entire citation.  Since this isn't specifically identified in the Manual of Style I am requesting Clarification. I have been italicizing the citatons and I was informed that this was inappropriate based on the MOS.--Kumioko 19:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give an example?  I've never that I can recall ever seen something like "Sir John Smith, recipient of the Victoria's Cross in 1987...", but maybe that isn't what you mean. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 15:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For an example of one in italics see Jason Dunham.  For an example of one not in italics see Gary Gordon.  I think it looks better in italics and I think for the purpose of this the text within the citation should not be wikilinked as it is in Gary's article.--Kumioko 01:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics 

message: Are we really going to recommend the spelling naive?  — The Storm Surfer 04:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As opposed to what?  If you mean "naïve", let's just not.  We (English speakers in general I mean) drop diacritics from words that become fully absorbed into English (thus "role" not "rôle" since some time around I would guess the 1950s). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 15:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think The Storm Surfer mistakenly thought that naive was an accepted spelling for the word "knave", per the heading on the talk page.  However, if an article exists where the word "knave" is misspelled "naive", then it should be changed, because they are two different words. Stanselmdoc 20:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The last time I saw this, it was explicitly opposed to naïf, which we certainly should not use outside a quotation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think they were more likely implying that, without the diaeresis, the two words would be homophones.  Except that, well, English spelling and pronunciation isn't exactly regular anyway (ghoti, anyone?), so I hardly think one more exception, saying that "naive" is pronounced [nah-eev] rather than [neyv] even without diacritics, will bring the whole thing crumbling down.  After all, nobody writes about "coördinates" these days, do they? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There probably are a few who do but for the majority of us that extra dot on the i is little more than decoration.  Diacritics have no special function in English other than making the word pretty and hinting that it's foreign. Jɪmp 06:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "Naïf" or more commonly "naif", at least as occasionally used in English (I don't speak French, so I'm not sure there) is a noun, anyway, not a synonyms of naive, and means "naive person".  I think but again am not certain that someone is confusing French naïve, French naïf, the English word "naive" derived from naïve, and the increasingly rare English "naif", from French naïf. For MOS purposes, all we need is "naive" and "role" without the diaeresis and circumflex, respectively (though it might not hurt to distinguish them visusally from their French origin words, as many of our readers will have never encountered the accented versions, and thus won't understand what our point is.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 18:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knave! 

message: Regarding this section: "Also note: The term Arab refers to people and things of ethnic Arab origin. The term Arabic refers to the Arabic language or writing system (and related concepts). For example, 'Not all Arab people write or converse in Arabic, but nearly all are familiar with Arabic numerals.'"
There is no ambiguity at all when you pluralize the word "Arab" or another such word such as "European." I think we're adding a needless level of complexity to Wikipedia style by insisting that we must specificy we're talking about people instead of, say, artwork. There is no example of a standard use of "Europeans" or "Arabs" where people are not meant. So I would greatly like to see this guideline dropped. It does make articles read in a more pompous, scholarly fashion, but it doesn't add clarity and encourages people to multiply words for the sake of mood rather than meaning. -- Preston McConkie 18:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identities 

message: I'm considering to compose a draft for what could become a new supplementary guideline to MOS. Initially, I thought about something like "writing as a fan", but it's probably even more interesting to have a guideline on all sorts of "writing with a preconception", be it as a fan, or as a [what's the word for "opposite of a fan"?], hence the WP:PRECON moniker. I imagine the guideline to relate to WP:COI, but with strong emphasis on stylistic aspects. But before wasting hours of my life on this, I wanted to make the round and ask for general opinions (ideally in the form of encouragement). —AldeBaer 13:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need another guideline in this area.  If you find WP:COI and much more to the point WP:NPOV deficient in some way, work for consensus to improve them instead of writing a new overlapping projectpage, I would say. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 15:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read my reply to a similar comment at WP:VPP. —AldeBaer 17:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:PRECON 

message: Is there a consensus on the correct use of these (and if so, where?)?  My mother tongue is British English, and I was taught that meat is hung and people are hanged.  I learned, in recent discussion, that 'hung' for people is not wrong in American English.  Fine, but if the article is not about a specifically American subject (it wasn't), and 'hung' is wrong in British English, isn't 'hanged' to be preferred?  Or is the rule the default one of "don't change it without good reason"? Philip Trueman 12:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also a British English speaker from birth, and just want to confirm that your distinction in use between "hanged" and "hung" corresponds to that which I was taught. As for the other matters you raise, I don't have anything to say at the moment.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The distinction between hanged and hung is also maintained by many American style guides and the American media.  See for example . I think it's more an issue that the usage is becoming uncommon enough that the grammar is regularizing itself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only way a person can be "hung" is as a picture. Bodies are hanged. American English user. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've a mix of AmEng and BrEng, but I was taught in the US the same usage that Philip Trueman (and everyone else, it seems) was. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The OED (hang, v. 3) says that in the context you are referring to, hung is used by some speakers, esp. in the south of England. (Personally (not a native speaker), I think it should be hanged, but if the editor who wrote this originally prefers hung we should probably not change it.) Stefán 20:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. One of the unexpected things about English is how the relationship between weak and strong past tenses have been, and still is, in a state of flux. Dived --> dove is a late 20th-century innovation in North America, and there are others I can't think of at the moment, moving in either direction. Tony 22:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember the word used on Alex Trebek's U.S. quiz show Jeopardy many years ago. Alex said "hanged". "Hanged" is a glaring exception, and I suspect "hung" is on the rise because of the increasing scarcity of hangings and the subsequent unfamiliarity with the verb. —Kanodin 00:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I speak AmE, and I use both hanged and hung, in their respective correct positions. However, despite my vehemently correxting anyone who makes a mistake, I suspect that usage of "hanged" is declining, due probably to its seeming incorrect, as Kanodin pointed out. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!  23:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I'm a British English speaker, I seem to remember Jessica Fletcher (Angela Lansbury) on Murder, She Wrote correcting a child's grammar by reminding him that "drakes are hung, people are hanged". And although Lansbury is British, the show was an American production. WaltonOne 16:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Erm, people being killed by strangulation (or a broken neck) at the end of a rope are hanged, clothes are hung. In my experience, when someone says a person is hung, it is coarse idiom for a very specific physical adeptness. Gwen Gale 17:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know which I say.  Does it matter?  Would it really matter if both forms appeared in the same article.  Are there really people who would care if someone changed their usage on this???Dejvid 11:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a simple matter of correctness. A person executed by hanging has been hanged. All other past-tense uses of "to hang" are "hung". It's pretty simple. And yes, if it's used incorrectly, people will react (to change "hung" to "hanged" where appropriate) in just the same way that "hanged" being used when "hung" is correct looked horribly wrong. "Broke" and "braked" is similar, but less well-established. Why have you revived a discussion from nearly 3 weeks ago, by the way? SamBC(talk) 11:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Correct? says who.  Go back far enough and all English speakers would have used hung.  Who knows what native speakers will be saying in 50 years time.  Personally I suspect hanged will win out completely but snuck has shown signs of making a come back in relation to sneeked. Why do you consider it the job of Wikipedia to prejudge the outcome? Dejvid 12:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Back when the US legal system was still hanging people, it was "hanged by the neck until dead"; confusion of "hanged" and "hung" is about the same as that between "lie" and "lay"; we should use the proper terms, even if the distinction is lost on some of our less-educated or simply-don't-care readers. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 18:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Hanged' and 'hung' 

message: I don't know if there's a standard on Wiki for the pronouns "a" and "an" that precede acronyms.  I've looked and haven't been able to find one.  I have always been taught that when the acronym begins with a "vowel-sounded consonant" (such as n, s, r, l, f, m) that when spoken aloud creates a vowel sound first, that the pronoun before it should be "an", so it would be grammatically correct.  For example, "NAACP representative" would be written as "an NAACP representative", but "NASA representative" would be written as "a NASA representative", because they are pronounced differently.  One sounds like "EN" and the other like "NA".  
Is there a WP standard for this? Do other countries do it differently?  Like I said, all I know is what I've been taught, and I can't find anything on it on the pages I've looked. Thanks, Stanselmdoc 16:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pronunciation should be the guide for both acronyms and initialisms, I think. A SQL server; an SEC spokesman; an FAQ; a FEMA representative. Barnabypage 09:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although, as noted, several of those have multiple pronunciations.  The official pronunciation of SQL is in fact 'ess queue ell', according to ANSI; whereas FAQ is frequently 'fak'.  I expect you could find devotees of 'sek' and 'eff ee em a' if you looked hard enough. TSP 09:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of these can go either way, and it's an unsatisfactory little nook of the language, second-guessing whether your reader's little silent voice will spell out the letters, pronounce them as a word, or go for the whole name (something in me makes me say "frequently asked questions" when I see FAQ). Tony 10:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Perhaps this is a case, then, where trying to establish a standard is futile, and editors should simply go with their preference. After all, while an inappropriate indefinite article might be jarring, it doesn't impede understanding. Barnabypage 10:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It doesn't impede understanding, but it sure does put a crick in the neck of a grammar policeman like me hahahaha.  I agree with the arguments, but I still don't see why a more common pronunciation shouldn't be given precedence (like "an L.A. Times contributor" as opposed to "a L.A. Times contributor").  I guess I'll just refrain from altering too many articles I deem incorrect. Stanselmdoc 14:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Not everyone agrees with this "pronunciation" distinction; I for one find "an NAACP representative" to look funny. But it's such a minor issue, I don't see that the MoS needs to actually say anything about it.  As for the broader issue of whether to use "the NAACP" versus "NAACP" when referring to an organization or whatever, it is entirely whimsical and random; artices should go with whatever is most common for the entity in question.  Shut-in Air Force people work at NORAD, not the NORAD (despite "the" actually being in its expanded) name, while my dad used shop at the BX.  I'm a member of both the ACLU (and not-the) EFF.  <shrug>  PS: SQL is only pronounced "sequel" instead of "ess-kiew-ell" by Microsofty types, so if you like the pronunciation "rule", it should be "a SQL query" except when writing about the Microsoft variant.— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 18:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Standard for ''the'' and ''a'' preceding acronyms

message: Should this be addressed in the style guidelines, if so where? I've always been inclined to disfavor this kind of writing, but I cannot remember seeing it addressed. Thanks in advance for any comment and feedback. dr.ef.tymac 11:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. I mean something even more general than that. I mean the use of parenthesis to indicate a "compound word" [e.g., (foo)bar ] where the compound word is a substitute for two separate words that would otherwise be indicated using "both X and Y" [e.g., both foobar and bar].  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreftymac (talk • contribs) 16:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That sort of creative parenthesis use falls under general poor practice. I'm not opposed to including something in the MOS about it, but I don't think it's really necessary. Strad 00:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: O.k., sounds reasonable -- just checking to verify whether it is generally disfavored practice. Thanks for the reply. dr.ef.tymac 03:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems good for articles. On a talkpage, the usage item(s) as shorter than "one or more items" could be OK.Newbyguesses - Talk 01:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  contractions such as (wo)men as a substitute for "both women and men" 

message: *I didn't write the "Please consider ...". It was "Wikipedia recommends ...", which I've now reinstated. 
*Askari's feeling that this should be put to the whole community, I think, is redundant: that is exactly what is happening here. The recommendations fit squarely within MOS, and this is where MOS changes are discussed. It's open to anyone to post links to this discussion (as Manderson has done at the Village Pump). I encourage this.
*The proposal is far too mild for some editors: I've purposely framed it as a set of recommendations, not as rules, partly because the methods of avoiding generic expressions all have their own disadvantages and, like many options writers are faced with in producing prose, must be weighed up against each other. Thus, I felt that the recommendation should assist in this respect, perhaps more than in most parts of MOS. The potential pitfalls of each option are explicated in the same bullet point, except for the "otherwise reword" option. 
*Accordingly, it is pointed out that the singular they has its detractors. No one is forcing it as an alternative, and Manderson, your point that MOS is endorsing its use by mentioning it as an option has a reverse side: MOS is also providing a reason to object to its use. All things in balance. While in many contexts, the singular they grates with me, and it would be the last option I'd choose; but it was good enough for Shakespeare, Austen and many other greats, and is endorsed by The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. I've seen it in government documents, where I'd have passed over it smoothly had it not become an issue here. See this and this for technical discussions: some in linguistic authority feel that it's not technically wrong.
*Manderson's broader agenda, that MOS should be meek and let people do their own thing, doesn't ride with me. MOS, to me, must balance freedom and cohesion, and does so quite well at the moment. If he takes my comment as a personal attack, I'm sorry, it wasn't intended that way: man used to be understood as including both genders; this is largely not the case now. That's what I meant by "you don't get it": it's about our readers' perceptions, not our own ideological views. It doesn't matter whether the man in chairman has nothing to do with the word man: it is perceived as such by many readers.
*My personal preference is not to mention one as an alternative—well, not until someone presents a good example. It does still seem to be at odds with MOS's Usage section, and my impression is that its use would change the tone of a passage significantly more than the use of the other options.
*Overall, the edits to my proposal have improved it—thank you all. Where I've reverted these edits, I've tried to justify my actions here, and will continue to do so in cases where I don't retain changes made by others.
Tony 04:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience, giving something the "PC label" is done to stifle debate, often but not always with intent. It's almost the Godwin's Law of writing style. I have yet to see a clear counterexample.--Curtis Clark 13:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Whatever you want to propose, it should certainly not encourage writing "he or she", which always sounds clumsy. I would prefer an even weaker preference. Using "he" and "his" in a sex neutral way has been standard English usage for centuries. There is hardly any reasion to start replacing this throughout. −Woodstone 13:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Methinks that clumsiness is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. Think that if you want, but using he to stand for all people is now quite unacceptable in all but the fusty halls of gentlemen's clubs and the like. Look around you. The evidence in publishing is overwhelming that gender-neutral language is the norm. It's embarrassing that WP has not even a recommendation, and that a few people here are doing all they can to subvert what is a non-mandatory recommendation, not a confining rule. No one has to use he or she, certainly not where it might sound clumsy or need to be repeated. There are four or five options for avoiding sexist language, and using them skilfully is now expected of modern writers. Tony 13:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *Got any sources for that allegation? You sound precisely like the people who want to push CE or British English as the sole standard. >Radiant< 14:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I did actually read something mentioning that very recently, can't recall where, but it was linked from a discussion of singular "they"... I'll find it and repost the link in a bit, if no-one else does. I've certainly seen it in guidance from my uni for academic writing. Avoiding gender-neutral "he", that is. SamBC(talk) 14:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could it be this edit by Tony? I would like to believe it wasn't meant seriously... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Woodstone, clumsiness issue aside, I would point out that "it's been this way for centuries" isn't a good argument for anything - for centuries it was held that dark-skinned people were obviously and inherently inferior, for centuries it was held that women couldn't be academics, and for centuries it was held as common knowledge that jews couldn't be trusted. Centuries end. That said, I'm in two minds as to whether I mind gender-neutral masculine or not — it doesn't bother me personally, but I understand why it's considered objectionable. I personally will react to it badly in some circumstances, and not others. SamBC(talk) 14:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue has nothing to do with whether women are considered inferior or not. It just happens to be that the English language uses the word "he" in two different senses. It may mean "a human being" or "a male being". There are many words with several meanings. It is usually not a problem and it is up to the reader to determine which is meant in a specific case. −Woodstone 15:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised to have to debate this in 2007. Not any more is he understood in the first sense, at least not by a significant proportion of English-speakers. Sorry, you'll just have to face up to that change. We're no longer living in the 1950s. That is why most style guides now recommend (some insist) on respecting modern perceptions. Your perceptions don't appear to be modern, that's all. Tony 15:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that Tony has replaced "Wikipedia recommends". I strongly oppose this; I will dispute any effort to add it to the policy. The MOS is not a means for some editors to browbeat others into their stylistic preferences. For the record, if there is indeed a modern consensus on these usages, reminding editors to consider the matter will be more effective, as well as more civil, in promoting the use of such language. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gender-neutral language 1: Responses thus far from Tony

message: * I agree with the concept of the draft, where in certain cases gender-neutral wording can be substituted without detriment.  However, I think providing specific guidelines for employing gender-neutral language is too much, at least at this point in time.  Perhaps something simpler, with specific examples of when not to employ gender-neutral wording, would suffice:
In some cases gender-neutral language can be utilized without compromising the linguistic quality of the article.  Please consider applying gender-neutral wording if appropriate.
There are specific instances when gender-neutral language should not be applied:
* The titles of works, e.g. A Man on the Moon.
* Direct quotations, e.g. "That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind."
* Where all referents are of one gender, e.g. "Apollo 11 was manned by three astronauts."
* When translating text from a language that expresses grammatical gender, such as the French and German languages.
:That last point is possibly questionable, and those who are better versed in grammar and translation could decide if that is appropriate.
:--Dan East 15:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The last point is a can of worms (for example, when translating a phrase of French referring to a bed, we should keep the literal translation using "he" to refer to the bed - and I hope I remembered the gender of "lit" correctly there...). The rest of it is okay, but leans more heavily than I believe necessary towards the "don't bother" angle. SamBC(talk) 19:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regarding this can of worms, gender in many languages is a property of the word (not the object the word is used to describe) therefore, a good translation will give the translated word the appropriate English gender of the object. Examples (from German): "Das Mädchen holt seine Mutter ab" word for word translation "the girl picks its mother up", better "the girl picks her mother up". "Der Beutel. Gib mir den!" - w-f-w "The bag. Give him to me!" - better "The bag. Give it to me!" What one should do, is try to reflect the style of the original text, this would include reflecting whether the author has tried to use gender neutral language or not. Thehalfone 11:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *A Man on the Moon is a better example for titles than The Descent of Man. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another gender-neutral proposal

message: Can we reach an agreement on exceptions to the application of GNL?  These are objective and straightforward, and apply universally.  I would think that both proponents and opponents of GNL would agree to at least the first two.
There are specific instances when gender-neutral language should not be applied:
* The titles of works, e.g. A Man on the Moon.
* Direct quotations, e.g. "That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind."
* Where all referents are of one gender, e.g. "Apollo 11 was manned by three astronauts."
--Dan East 11:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Exceptions to GNL

message: I'm just stumbling into this.  I was going to change "Please consider using" to "Use" as a matter of helpful wikignoming, and was astonished to find here that the English Wikipedia is not officially gender-neutral, doubly so that people are actually debating the point in this day and age.  We're trying to be a serious reference work here, and every other one I can think of is resolutely gender-neutral.  Encountering masculine (or worse, feminine to show you're open minded) in nonfiction prose is somewhere between quaint and cringe-worthy embarrassing.  Using the indefinite "they" only shows you're being informal or haven't figured out how to do it right.  I don't agree that this is political, or hard to enforce, or anything else.  Nearly every reputable encyclopedia, newspaper, textbook, journal, etc., has a gender-neutral policy.  
We're supposed to be out in front of things here on Wikipedia, not rounding up the laggards.  This is one of those places where if the press got wind we're discussing the issue we would become a laughing stock again.  In practice nearly every article here is gender-neutral.  One would have to hunt to find articles that are not.  It is easy to be just as precise and clear in gender-neutral language, and after a little practice it becomes second nature.  If an editor learned English a long while ago when this was not the norm we can be patient, but converting an article to gender-neutral form is a good thing we should encourage.  There are a very few cases, well-defined and understood, where gender-specific words are better.  We can deal with those.  But promoting an article to FA or allowing any other article to be unnecessarily gender-specific demonstrates that we are behind the times.  I think we already have policy-wide consensus on the issue and can say so in the manual of style.  If not, and if this isn't something we can decide over here, we should take the gender-neutral section out, suspend the discussion pending our resolving the matter on the policy pages, and come back only when we have a mandate.  Wikidemo 11:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Wikidemo. Here's the online styleguide of the respected UK Guardian on the subject; its journalists are required to follow it, and I don't think it's out of line with most in-house styleguides:
gender issues
*Our use of language should reflect not only changes in society but the newspaper's values. Phrases such as career girl or career woman, for example, are outdated (more women have careers than men) and patronising (there is no male equivalent): never use them
*actor, comedian: covers men and women; not actress, comedienne (but waiter and waitress are acceptable - at least for the moment)
*firefighter, not fireman; PC, not WPC (most police forces have abandoned the distinction)
*businessmen, housewives, "male nurse", "woman pilot", "woman (lady!) doctor": do not use terms such as these, which reinforce outdated stereotypes. If you need to use an adjective, it is female and not "woman" in such phrases as female president, female MPs
*Use humankind or humanity rather than mankind, a word that, as one of our readers points out, "alienates half the population from their own history"
*Never say "his" to cover men and women: use his or her, or a different construction; in sentences such as "a teacher who beats his/her pupils is not fit to do the job", there is usually a way round the problem - in this case, "teachers who beat their pupils ..."
Tony 12:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahem.  The "Grauniad" is not respected by everyone.  If anything, it has a reputation of being somewhat left-wing and over serious on what can be described as 'politically correct' issues.  Citing it as an example to follow would expose you to ridicule from, say Daily Telegraph readers. I wonder what the style guide for The Sun says. It certainly has a larger circulation than that of the Guardian. The Sun's circulation figures are about 3 million per day, the Guardian about 350,000. This is not to say size is everything, but if we are addressing the widest possible readership for Wikipedia, following the Guardian's lead may not be the obvious way. WLDtalk|edits 20:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And those who do respect dear old Grauniad agree it has a point of view (and rather more reason than we have to appease the scruples of every fraction of its potential paying  readership). Do let us know if you find a style guide for the Sun; its guides for headlines should offer a whole new light for our naming conventions. </irony> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is gender-neutrality not mandatory?

message: Dear fellow editors—I'm posting the summary (now updated) that I'd already prepared for your consideration last week before things became really heated. I've sincerely tried to be NPOV in categorising the participants according to their support or opposition, and in summarising their views in as few words as possible by direct quotation or paraphrase. It may be possible to pore over the list and take issue, and perhaps there are one or two borderline cases. I'm sorry in advance if I've misrepresented anyone (please edit my entry for you if that is the case, but keep as short as possible); however, I don't think the overall picture will change. Of 35 participants, 31 either support or do not express straight opposition to what the debate has come down to: the shortened version. Here are the details:
*23 support, of whom many support the original, full version, and quite a few would be more comfortable with stronger wording.
*6 are unclear, of whom 4, in my reading, might well support the current shortened version if asked now; the remaining 2 are not clearly in opposition, at least to the shortened version. 
*4 oppose, all of them expressing extremely strong views—two of them repeatedly.
That there is overwhelming support for the shortened version is staring us in the face. Unanimity would have been preferable, but I believe that almost all Wikipedians, from Jimbo Wales down, would be comfortable in the notion that there is consensus for that version. I believe that it should be inserted, as Bishonen and PManderson have already done (albeit slightly different wordings), and that we should all move on from this debate. Tony 10:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, Tony is just about the last person who should be writing this. He is simply misrepresenting people's opinions to skew the debate in his favor. This is most blatant in the appeals to emotion and appeals to ridicule he uses to describe the people disagreeing with him. This is such an obvious straw man approach that it's not even funny - and aside from that, it is based upon the fallacy that policy is created through vote count. >Radiant< 14:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *Can you please provide an example of an "opinion he has misrepresented to skew the debate in his favor"?  Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *My opinion was condensed quite accurately, however this process has been too convoluted and confusing.  The current iteration of the clause needs to be clearly stated here so a fresh vote can commence.  Then interpretation will not be required.  If an initial clause is approved we can consider further refinements, such as the exclusions I've been suggesting.  --Dan East 14:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point about GNL in MOS, and its relationship to FAC reviews. I need to clear up a misconception that is being put about, either directly or by innuendo: that I proposed this text so that I can use it in the FAC room to somehow force nominators to change generic male pronouns and the like in their FACs. This is not the case. First, I've been objecting to the use of generic male pronouns in FACs for a long time through recourse to other parts of the criteria, although it is not precisely mentioned there. I've only once encountered resistance; nominators are usually OK about adopting GNL when asked to do so.  I will continue this practice. Second, I certainly won't be using this section to support my requests; if anything, this weakens my ability to place pressure on nominators in this respect, since it frames GNL explicitly as "Please consider ...". It will not be ammunition for reviewers in the FAC room as has been asserted. Tony 16:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Clearly, Radiant! needs to provide examples in accusing Tony of summarizing in bad faith. All it confirms to me is what I felt as the discussion unfolded: at 6-to-1 or better, people support this. We need to contact them all again to confirm in a second "vote"? That doesn't seem sensible. Marskell 16:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This now misstates my position; although that is not bad faith. More seriously, it certainly misstates Jimbo's, who supported only the key sentence;  Woodstone's; and Gwen Gale's, who does not support the longer version at all. I consider using FA to impose this, or any other, stylistic choice (including suggesting it in an oppose) to be disruptive mischief. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhhh, Pma, the one sentence Jimbo supports is the only one that's in there, along with the 'Do not be disruptive' caveat. This is also exactly what Glen advocated. It's also exactly what you advocated. The central sentence, short and sweet. My God. Marskell 19:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you and Radiant have persuaded me, between you, that this text will not accomplish what I want most out of this discussion: to keep demands  on  GNL out of FAC, and, in general, out of editors' faces. Let us see if explicit wording to that effect will satisfy Radiant, which it may. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *The count seems inadequate in representing support for the short form, only, as "support", simpliciter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This increasingly feels like a 19th-century discussion in the 21 century. Many people find it unbelievable that this imbroglio is occurring, and that two or three antagonists can hold us all to ransom with their loud shouting. Now I see that PMAnderson has slapped his usual dispute tag on it. I do hope that people will band together to ensure that this tactic does not remain a fixture on the policy page for long. It appears to be an unreasonable, almost petulant refusal to acknowledge the overwhelming weight of opinion for some kind of GNL. I'm also tiring of this endles bellowing about the supposed use of this very mild—optional—GNL addition as some kind of weapon by FA reviewers. I see that the debate is being pushed and pulled to encompass the whole relationship between MOS and FAC. This is a diversionary tactic, pure and simple, to muddy the waters. Perhaps the aim is that the length and complexity of this debate will bolster the claim of these few antagonists that there is no consensus. I hope we all stand fast against it. Tony 15:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony's count involves counting everyone who has not specifically objected to the short version as in favor of it. This is misleading; until she reverted, I expected Radiant to support it herself. That's one reason I take her dissent so seriously; I don't know who else objects, and is still being quiet. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of consensus on [[User:Tony1/Gender-neutral language (draft)|the gender-neutral language text]] 

message: The MOS needs to specify the placement of references and notes relative to punctuation.  Specifically, if a reference follows a sentence, should it be placed before or after the period?  I thought I read that it should be after the period, but when checking to MOS to verify I see it is not specified.  I see both forms throughout Wikipedia, and worse, both forms within the same article.  The same formatting should apply to references relative to commas as well.  --Dan East 23:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:FN.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I knew I had read that somewhere.  --Dan East 23:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A widely contested recommendation. Do what seems best to you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Manderson contests it, but that doesn't mean it's widely contested. Manderson's agenda—let's not forget—is to reduce the authority of MOS. One of his strategies is to overemphasise individual freedom against the cohesion of the project (which MOS needs to balance carefully). Tony 02:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't describe the guideline as widely contested given that the vast majority of editors don't care about the manual of style. But based on the talk page discussion there's certainly no consensus for it. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So the implication is that there's a default of no consensus unless it's explicitly generated over every point of MOS, here? First I'd heard of that. If you disagree, it's up to you to generate consensus for a change. Otherwise, I don't go with your claim that there's no consensus for the status quo. Tony 03:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion on the two relevant talk pages over the past couple months, involving a significant number of editors, is pretty much evenly split on whether to mandate after punctuation or to allow either style. One of the relevant pages is currently protected due to the dispute and the other is marked as disputed. Given this I don't think it's unreasonable to question whether consensus exists to support the guideline. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References and notes relative to sentence punctuation 

message: Shouldn't this be named Manual of style with a lowercased "s"?--Silver Edge 02:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, to be consistent with the "Capitalization" guidelines. Happy to see it changed. Tony 04:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree--its a quasi-book and should be capitalized accordingly--it's meant to seem parallel to the actual published manuals of style. If we wanted to call in styyle guidelines, that would be something else--but I certainly dont want to go about changing the references throughout WP. DGG (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manual of Style or Manual of style? 

message: Hi.  Is there anything about the use of poetry excerpts in articles not about the poet or the poem? I run into it in some articles and don't find it encyclopedic, but I'm wondering if anybody watching this page knows if and where this particular issue has been addressed before.  The Behnam 04:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give examples of the articles? Barnabypage 12:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd think of this as a case of using a quotation, not significantly different from quotations from other creative arts including fiction writing.  Such quotations could be highly appropriate for a well written X in popular culture article (though very few of them are well written).  Such quotations would probably be needed in articles on poetic form, such as Iambic pentameter, in order to get them up to featured article class.  But we wouldn't use a quotation from a poem (or any other work of fiction) in a scientific article such as Halophila johnsonii.  GRBerry 17:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am disappointed to see that Descartes' theorem doesn't quote Soddy's poem on the subject; although it might be undue weight in the present length of the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can imagine the odd occasion where a brief poetic quote might be appropriate in a scientific article: Luscinia megarhynchos for example! After all, in articles such as cattle or mushroom we discuss cultural uses as well as biology, and if a scientific article's subject has <EM>very</EM> notably influenced poetry it could well be mentioned, and illustrated by a quote. As Septentrionalis says, though, we should be careful of undue weight. Barnabypage 18:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: While I think I've seen it in a few places, off the top of my head I can think of Iran#Poetry, Iranian Azerbaijan#Culture and Iranian women#Women in Persian culture.  Even for a section about poetry, I think we should stick to RS claims about poetry's importance, and who are the important poets, rather than actually including poetry.  I was wondering if the MoS had to say.  I've got to go now, but more on this later.  The Behnam 19:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are bad translations with originals in a non-Latin alphabet, so most of our readers will benefit from neither form. It would probably improve the encyclopedia to remove them; but that's an aesthetic judgment, not a MOS ruling. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course key lines should be quoted--they explain what the article is about. Much better  to quote some actual text rather than to try to describe it--this is not the sort of thing to paraphrase. In general, for a long poem, even a complete stanza is acceptable with respect to copyright, though it might generally be sensible to quote less. I see we often avoid it, and I can't think why--it makes for much clearer writing. I think it should be not just permitted but very strongly encouraged. For non-English, its usually right to give the original or a transliteration to show what it sounds like, and then some sort of a translation--if its a preexisting translation  it of course must be cited. It is highly encyclopedic to show what the article is about--the RS is the reliable place one copies the text from. I suppose one could go to the trouble of finding a secondary RS that includes an excerpt of the original, and cite the whole thing-- even under the most mechanical interpretations of RS and secondary sources, that's acceptable.   DGG (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excerpts 

message: Dear colleagues—As a matter of courtesy and, indeed, correct procedure, I'm alerting you to moves at one of the submanuals to change our long-standing policy WRT not touching material within quotations.
On a broader level, may I state that the coordination of MOS and its submanuals is important for the overall linguistic cohesion of the project, and that the simple flagging here of important issues at submanual talk pages is essential for that coordination. Tony 02:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How silly. Wikipedia cannot, and should not, be coordinated. A handful of bossy editors will not succeed in doing so, although  they may succeed in disrupting the proper function of this page in trying; but if they regard my few edits as an imposition, they will have much more if the general community notices them. Tony, I urge you to consider the discussion at ANI; your position is unpopular, and your use of "submanual" is particularly reprehended. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not Bishonen; read it carefully. And this is wasting my time and that of others here. I suppose by "cannot", you mean "do not". Tony 23:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Cannot" implies "do not", but I neither do nor see how I can; so I will stick with the idiom. Is Tony really deaf to it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Tony 08:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that was funny! Bielle 18:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moves afoot at MOSLINK to change guidance here 

message: There has been some comment at WT:WIAFA that WP:MOSDASH should not be reason to object to featuring an article. If this seems a good idea, it may be best to say so here, as in a more controversial matter above. I would suggest the following, but have not spent much thought on exact wording.
:While English typography has a clear position on these matters, the difference between a hyphen and an en-dash is not very important. This section  should not used to oppose the promotion of a featured article, as long as the typography is clear and consistent within the article. If you think it needs to be fixed, fix it.
Regards, Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the fact that there is a distinction at all shows that the difference is important. Using a hyphen in a number range is questionable form; using it like an em-dash (where an en-dash can be used as well) is just wrong. Strad 01:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but this is the Manual of Style. If good typographic practices are not encouraged here, then where? I'll admit it's unreasonable to oppose promoting an article to FA status solely on the basis of "poor dash use", but I don't think there needs to be a warning here to this effect. I like to think most Wikipedians are well-endowed with common sense :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Starting with Raul. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even if someone opposes for WP:DASH it takes at most a couple of minutes to fix (even on the most complex of articles) and if they opposed only for WP:DASH they'll change to support.  This happened with my first FA, I read the policy, made the changes, and three minutes later it was a non-issue.  I think that MOS is sometimes overly proscriptive, but this isn't really an example of that, because of how unambiguous the guideline and how easy it is to comply. --JayHenry 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. If there are dash problems, they should be fixed, and it's easy to do so. But the MoS is the MoS, and FAs are expected to comply with the MoS. Period. — Brian (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Brian, agreed, but "complying with MOS" (now "following") doesn't mean you have to follow what are mere recommendations or options; MOS is full of them. GNL is one; spaces around em dashes are "normal", but not, in the end, mandatory. "am" and "pm" can be dotted or undotted. There's flexibility strategically built into MOS, which is a good thing in the balance between cohesion and chaos. Tony 05:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony is perfectly right (yes, that is what I meant to say ;}) on what should be the case, but consider this deep and insightful criticism; it is this sort of thing, and the same tone on GNL, that I am trying to avoid. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you explain what is wrong with that "tone"?  "Comment These minor stylistic fixes needed" seems fine to me, and they are minor stylistic fixes that are needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they are not "needed".  They are not necessary; they fall into the same category as the spaces around em-dashes, which have also been FA comments. No article is beyond improvement, but these do not make the difference between a decent article and one of our best. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *I share your concern that one person has destabilized the Manual of Style to the point that people are reluctant to consult it.  Changes to MOS (like any Wiki page) should be based on consensus, and we shouldn't be left wondering from minute to minute what non-consensual change has been introduced here, confusing editors who may want to follow guidelines.  To me, this is a much bigger concern than this FAC red herring.  Dashes are trivial to fix, and shouldn't trouble anyone; they are the kinds of things you only need to learn once in MOS.  It's the ongoing instability of one person tagging sections disputed in spite of consensus that is a bigger problem IMO.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: **I have tagged no section without evidence of strong disagreement from multiple editors. I untagged GNL when my objections were answered, although some editors seem in fact still to dispute the inclusion; they may want to restore it. Almost all of the recent editing has involved that one section, and it should not be cited until its wording is agreed.  I'm sorry Sandy is confused; but I'm not sure that editing this text has much to do with her confusion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *You may say FAC is a red herring, but the last time I tried to fix an FAC article that was being prevented from promotion because of a hyphen issue, I read the MoS and tried to fix the article. The result was the article was called something like "endash madness" so I reverted my changes and bowed out. No one fixed the article so it was not promoted on that basis. I am an experienced editor and if I am intimidated by FAC and its relationship to MoS, then in my view it is important.  --Mattisse 16:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: **Thank you for agreeing. Do you remember which article? It would help to have specifics. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, please provide the example.  I *highly* doubt that Raul failed a nomination strictly on hyphens or dashes; I can never recall seeing that happen. If a FAC comes down to one or two minor things, Raul is likely to insert a comment saying "please fix so-and-so and I'll promote".  I suspect that the failure to follow MOS guidelines may have been an indication that there were other issues of preparedness for FAC.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: **It may well have been a slip, as here; the previous FAC shows that all the objections were dealt with, but not all of them wasn't struck. In this case, some comments were made to Raul, and he put it up again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another non-criterion

message: I am proposing a new guideline page, WP:PGS, on how to create, update, and edit Wikipedia policy and guideline pages.  The purpose is to keep these pages clear, concise, and effective.  This is not meant as a radical departure from existing best practices - it is modeled on the better policy guideline pages, in hopes that the messier pages can be shaped up to their standards.  
I hope we will adopt this as a guideline (after suitable improvements and agreement on what the page should say) so that we can have stylistic consistency among all the policy and guideline pages.  If not, I'll keep this as an essay for now - and cite it as I go about my work cleaning up different pages, to see if it catches on.
I'm also posting a similar notice at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and to Wikipedia talk:Policy and guideline style - probably best to discuss over there.  Thanks for your consideration, Wikidemo 21:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New proposal: policy and guideline style 

message: ... which I changed to appendices.  I can't tell what that section wants to be; it's mixing discussion of appendices with links in a way that implied that sources were "links".  I tried to fix it, but it's still an unclear mixture.  Is it supposed to be a discussion of how to use links only in appendices?  I can't tell what it's trying to be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still a mix and match to me, because sources aren't always links—they may be hardprint sources.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a new section.  It's a re-ordering of the old "external links" section, which had conflated external links with sources and confused which policies and guidelines were to apply.  The old version had incorrectly classified sources as a sub-class of external links, went over the different ways to use sources (in-line and via "ref" tags), but completely glossed over (1) Harvard Citations, (2) templated citations, and (3) the disfavored practice of having a "References" section that is not derived from in-line footnotes.  I reorganized it to give sources and external links equal but separate heading levels within a single section.  Perhaps they should be split into two sections, or external links put somewhere else.  If we are going to talk about sourcing we should mention how to add citations to article text, how to adapt them to footnote or Harvard Reference format, and how to format that in a References section.  Or else simply say that citations should be made, but lack of proper citations a major weakness of most articles, one of the most important style issues there is. Wikidemo 15:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it really seems like a mix and match that needs to be sorted out (links vs. sources) , but I'm not overly excited to wade into major MOS editing considering the current instability introduced by a minority.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New "Links" section 

message: I cannot seem to get it in with all the edit conflicts. It was in the group with Orion (mythology) and I believe it was called William Claiborne. I am leaving this discussion as it has taken me four or five edit conflicts plus getting lost on this huge page.  --Mattisse 17:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Mattisse.  That was just a neglected FAC, with apparently little feedback from the nominator, so what can Raul do?  There it sits today, with External links and Sources combined into one section (how strange?) and a WP:MSH issue in that section heading to boot.  If the nominators don't respond, it may appear that the article was failed because of trivial items, but it just doesn't look like anything was happening.  I think Raul had no choice there. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Claiborne/archive1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that I tried to fix it after reading MoS on dashes and was told I had made a endash hell so I reverted my edits. In other words, a reasonably experienced editor, and an experienced writer in the real world due to my profession, could not even put the requested dashes in correctly. And this was after I asked for an explanation of the endash problem from an FAC patroller because I did not understand the MoS.  --Mattisse 17:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you recall where that conversation happened, so we can discover the weak link?  Was it on the article talk page or your talk page, for example?  One problem I often see is incorrect advice, for example, from GA reviewers.  Someone may have gotten you all twisted up, and there's not much anyone can do about that.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I am merely quoting the comments on the FAC page. I have no idea of the underground workings of FAC or why certain articles are "fashionable" and gather a huge political following and why some very good articles are totally neglected. That is why User:Zleitzen left and nothing has changed. I find it very unpleasant and will no longer be willing  prepare articles for FAC which I used to spend a lot of time doing.  --Mattisse 18:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Zleitzen's worthy article was completely overlooked by reviewers, and it was most unfortunate, but I suspect other factors in his main areas of interest influenced his decision. Sometimes there aren't enough reviewers who are familiar with a particular topic area (and Zleitzen's topics were fairly specific).  My own sense is that some articles are overlooked because they're not quite there, and reviewers find it hard to pin it down.  Claiborne isn't there yet; perhaps that's why people didn't weigh in, I don't know, I was busy.  But I just glanced at it and saw a lot of unresolved issues.  It wasn't only dashes.  I'm still after an example of Raul having failed an article with minor Opposes over significant Supports. I still say this entire dash issue is a red herring; we suggest things that can be fixed during FAC, but Raul does not fail articles on minor issues, and I hope/think we all know that. If he sees a minor issue that can easily be fixed, he's more likely to ask that it be tended to so he can promote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My feeling is that there is an "in club" and that Wiki politics play a huge role as I have seen articles clearly POV garner a huge amount of "Support" despite glaring deficiencies. There have been many cases where the editor has responded quickly to any concerns, only to have the article languish even if the editor plaintively asks for more feedback. I think FAC is more of a popularity contest than anything else and encourages huge, bloated articles. --Mattisse 18:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Popularity has something to do with it; but the real problem is that the substance and writing of William Claiborne were hardly considered at all. Carabineri did come along at the last minute, after the nominator had abandoned Wikipedia, with three minor (and sound) comments on the prose; but before then the "strong oppose" was for linking years.  I would not have linked them myself, but many editors do: for articles on the Peerage, like Earl of Devon, year-linking is quite standard, and recommended by the relevant Wikiproject. I can hardly think it the difference beteen a good and a great article; but if Lonewolf had had different tastes on the matter, William Claiborne would probably be an FA now, with no more attention given to its actual quality than it received in the actual course of events. I grow ever more grateful to Yannismarou for his lengthy and substantive criticisms of Orion (mythology). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More and more I am agreeing with your point of view. Yes, you were very fortunate that Carabineri gave thoughtful, constructive criticism and did not harp on certain issues, even when you did not take his advice.  And yes, I think it was extremely helpful to you because he was concerned with content over nit-picky form. It was helpful to me to watch the interaction and see the article progress. I used to think you were just being balky and obstructing the process.  Now I see the validity of your point of view and commend you for persisting. --Mattisse 22:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and Yannismarou. Sorry I did not remember him.  --Mattisse 23:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  They're not mutually exclusive, you know; one editor can review sources, another can review MOS, another can review prose, another can review comprehensiveness, and so on.  PMA seems to think that one person has to do it all, or that one person doing X prevents another from doing Y and another from doing Z.  I don't follow that logic.  It's much easier for one editor to review content or prose when another has verified the sources or MOS guidelines.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But, in this case, everybody chose to do MOS, and nobody did the others at all. This is understandable: looking for hyphens and linked years is easier than composing  English, and much easier than actually evaluating content - a bot could do most of it; but it is also the least important. We have policies on accuracy, verifiability, neutrality; we depend on clear prose; this is, again, a guideline.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the other side is bad too, possibly as bad as losing a good editor. Suppose it had had all the MOS points right; it could have passed without any but the most cursory looks at content and clarity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh heck, if I'd known it was going to cause you so much angst, I'd have spent the few minutes required to fix them myself. I don't normally do that, because it would open the floodgates. But where there's a clear need for brief, easy bouts of assistance, I'll do it. Is it still an issue in the article? Let me know and I'll act. Tony 01:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FAC is over, and I doubt anyone will renominate; but presumably that will improve the article (or else why make an issue of it in the first place?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Sandy's assessment of the William Claiborne FAC nomination - from the time it was nominated until the FAC closed 6 weeks later, there were few edits to the article and basically zero feedback to the reviewers on the FAC nomination page. It's difficult to keep a nomination open under those circumstances. Raul654 07:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the Claiborne article history, and I just read the MOS dash section. While hyphens vs. en dashes in footnoted page ranges seems trivial to me, it does seem that correcting the problem is pretty straight-forward. Hyphenated words like straight-forward should stay as hyphens (the thing you type on a keyboard), while ranges (like pages 1–3) should use an en dash. The article only had problems with page ranges in the footnotes. If the only feedback was that the change created "endash hell," rather than explaining a well-intentioned mistake, that was uncivil and unhelpful, but I don't agree that a policy change is needed. I just made the changes to the Claiborne article, incidentally. -Agyle 14:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Example of FAC failure because of endashes 

message: I was wondering if anyone wanted to comment on the paragraph concerning Bat For Lashes's nomination for the mercury music prize  - especially the inclusion of the exact time she lost. Take a look at the history and the discussion i have started . I was looking at this page for guidence around writing style (e.g. magazine, encylclopedia etc)but couldn't see anything. At present i feel the paragraph is uneccesarrily verbose and a bit ott given its significance, and slightly fan-ish 3tmx 19:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bat for Lashes, 10:15

message: Radiant!  I haven't been a heavy participant in the discussions here, and when I have, I've actually mostly sided with you.  But there was no consensus to move this page to Wikipedia:Style.  It creates a naming mess for the subpages.  And you really ought to know better than to make a controversial name move in the middle of a heated discussion.  I think you're too close to this issue to make this move and have it not seem pointy.  I saw your talk comments -- that someone will probably "object on bureaucratic grounds" -- that's not what I'm doing at all.  As a neutral party, or someone more or less on your side, I just think this was an inappropriate and rude move.  This move doesn't fix any of the problems being discussed (and again, Radiant! I agree that there are those problems) but I can see this move inflaming tensions.  So it's not bureaucratic grounds on which I object, but a desire to preserve the peace.  What's more, several people objected to this move at the AN thread.  Anyway, you can also review the objections raised here: Wikipedia:Administrators%27 noticeboard/Archive102#Bureaucracy Watch.  Be Bold doesn't mean "disregard the opinions of others," certainly not when you're already in the middle of a clear dispute trying to diminish the importance of the page. --JayHenry 13:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also object to changing the language at Template:Style-guideline‎.  For now, we still have a Manual of Style and it is helpful to label the pages as such.  I would like to see whether others agree before we rename.  The Manual of Style is a fairly old page, and as such I think it's only fair to discuss before renaming it. --JayHenry 12:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not shocked at all.  It is part of a longstanding Radiant behavior pattern that seems to indicate that he thinks (perhaps subconsciously) that he knows better than everyone else individually, and better than the community collectively, what should be what, what is important and what is right, especially when it comes to policies and guidelines.  Symptomatic of this apparent attitude are various instances of designating essays or proposals as guidelines, proposals as rejected, draft proposals as historical, disputed pages as undisputed, etc., etc., without consensus (even the ArbCom has criticized him for this, in the case on the weird old Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Non-notability proposal, but that didn't seem to have any effect).  I do not believe that Radiant does this out of bad faith, but simply loose-cannon chutzpah.  Some people are just like that. <shrug> (and I've been accused of it myself in a few places, so I'm not riding a particularly high horse here).  I appreciate Radiant in a lot of ways as an admin and editor, and frequently agree with him on editorial changes, reversions of nonsense, deletion nominations, etc., but end up disagreeing sometimes very vehemently with him on policy/guideline issues.  So it goes, I guess. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 02:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur that Radiant! seems personally vested in this issue and seems to be overstepping admin bounds; moving a page without even discussing it at the page is questionable, particularly for an admin involved in a dispute at the page.  Several people disagreed with the move at the WP:AN discussion, there was no clear consensus, and the move should have been discussed here first.  Goodness, there are several steps to be undone here.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Redirects are messed up as well; WP:MOS is stalled, maybe more.  What a disruption; best to take the day off of Wiki while the house gets back in order.  I don't want to be the one putting any of these pieces back together when it looks like some irregular "stuff" is going on.  I'm wondering why Radiant! appears to have notified other editors on their talk pages to tend to this move, while never mentioning it on this page?  We also now have GNL tagged as a proposed guideline when it's not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I would agree that there are some concerns of Radiant!'s recent behaviour, but given the user's history and so on, I expect that this is probably due to some sort of misunderstanding, and reasonable chance should be given to peacable resolution. Radiant, your behaviour is getting to feel rather WP:POINTy, just so you know. SamBC(talk) 12:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sam - I fail to see how renaming a single page can be considered disruptive by any stretch of the word. >Radiant< 12:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a very long-standing page, much referred to (especially by shortcuts). Direct links were fine, of course, but links by shortcuts were all broken. That's the most trivially demonstrated disruption. I was also referring to other recent things, like the ongoing GNL saga, but I do honestly believe that you're trying to deal with it all in good faith. I just wanted to make sure you knew how it could look. SamBC(talk) 12:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *(for the record I fixed the shortcuts, of course). >Radiant< 13:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *The GNL saga is a different cup of tea, wherein indeed various people including me could be viewed as disruptive, and which I hope is getting de-messified at the moment. It would seem that most people who object to the renaming issue do so merely because they disagree with me about GNL. Other than that they happen to take place on the same page, the two issues are not actually related. >Radiant< 13:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, I for one put myself as disagree with the move not because of the GNL mess, but because I still haven't seen any discussion about it (despite looking on WP:AN), so I have no idea what the arguments for or against were. But if we're going to discuss that, it shouldn't be in this subsection. SamBC(talk) 13:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: **Rather, the above section. >Radiant< 13:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: ***Indeed, I just fixed a typo in my comment above. SamBC(talk) 13:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I haven't seen one half-good reason put forward to move this page, and I think the way it was done, apparently by subterfuge, was objectionable, and curious in someone who clearly has done good work on WP. I don't understand it. Tony 13:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I have brought this and other issues up on AN/I. Having had the good fortune of rarely having to venture to AN/I, I don't know what usual form is: alert no one or alert everyone involved? People here might have a comment. Marskell 16:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Radiant, as I think you probably really do understand, it's controversial because it caused genuine problems (as documented elsewhere on this page), there isn't consensus for it, this document's name has been stable for a very long time, there is no non-trivial rationale for the move, the move was not proposed even informally on this page much less formally at WP:RM, there were detractors of the idea even at WP:AN were it was discussed (for whatever reason; that's like discussing a category rename at WP:AIV or something), people at an unrelated forum saying they can't see any harm in it but don't see any good reason for it either do not count as supporting voices, it is easy to interpret the move has having no intent but minimizing the influence of the MoS, especially since you are quite involved in disputes here the offense side of which can be summarized as "MoS is stupid and should be ignored", everyone calls it the MoS (or MOS, or Manual of Style) not WP:STYLE so it will render tens of thousands of historical and extant discussions difficult to parse for incoming new editors, etc., etc., etc. And the notion that this is just "moving a single page" comes across as disingenuous, since you know full well that all of the MOS subguidelines would need renaming too. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 02:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No consensus to move 

message: :I concur that Radiant! seems personally vested in this issue and seems to be overstepping admin bounds; moving a page without even discussing it at the page is questionable, particularly for an admin involved in a dispute at the page.  Several people disagreed with the move at the WP:AN discussion, there was no clear consensus, and the move should have been discussed here first.  Goodness, there are several steps to be undone here.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirects are messed up as well; WP:MOS is stalled, maybe more.  What a disruption; best to take the day off of Wiki while the house gets back in order.  I don't want to be the one putting any of these pieces back together when it looks like some irregular "stuff" is going on.  I'm wondering why Radiant! appears to have notified other editors on their talk pages to tend to this move, while never mentioning it on this page?  We also now have GNL tagged as a proposed guideline when it's not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I would agree that there are some concerns of Radiant!'s recent behaviour, but given the user's history and so on, I expect that this is probably due to some sort of misunderstanding, and reasonable chance should be given to peacable resolution. Radiant, your behaviour is getting to feel rather WP:POINTy, just so you know. SamBC(talk) 12:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sam - I fail to see how renaming a single page can be considered disruptive by any stretch of the word. >Radiant< 12:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a very long-standing page, much referred to (especially by shortcuts). Direct links were fine, of course, but links by shortcuts were all broken. That's the most trivially demonstrated disruption. I was also referring to other recent things, like the ongoing GNL saga, but I do honestly believe that you're trying to deal with it all in good faith. I just wanted to make sure you knew how it could look. SamBC(talk) 12:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *(for the record I fixed the shortcuts, of course). >Radiant< 13:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *The GNL saga is a different cup of tea, wherein indeed various people including me could be viewed as disruptive, and which I hope is getting de-messified at the moment. It would seem that most people who object to the renaming issue do so merely because they disagree with me about GNL. Other than that they happen to take place on the same page, the two issues are not actually related. >Radiant< 13:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, I for one put myself as disagree with the move not because of the GNL mess, but because I still haven't seen any discussion about it (despite looking on WP:AN), so I have no idea what the arguments for or against were. But if we're going to discuss that, it shouldn't be in this subsection. SamBC(talk) 13:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: **Rather, the above section. >Radiant< 13:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: ***Indeed, I just fixed a typo in my comment above. SamBC(talk) 13:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I haven't seen one half-good reason put forward to move this page, and I think the way it was done, apparently by subterfuge, was objectionable, and curious in someone who clearly has done good work on WP. I don't understand it. Tony 13:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I have brought this and other issues up on AN/I. Having had the good fortune of rarely having to venture to AN/I, I don't know what usual form is: alert no one or alert everyone involved? People here might have a comment. Marskell 16:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Radiant, as I think you probably really do understand, it's controversial because it caused genuine problems (as documented elsewhere on this page), there isn't consensus for it, this document's name has been stable for a very long time, there is no non-trivial rationale for the move, the move was not proposed even informally on this page much less formally at WP:RM, there were detractors of the idea even at WP:AN were it was discussed (for whatever reason; that's like discussing a category rename at WP:AIV or something), people at an unrelated forum saying they can't see any harm in it but don't see any good reason for it either do not count as supporting voices, it is easy to interpret the move has having no intent but minimizing the influence of the MoS, especially since you are quite involved in disputes here the offense side of which can be summarized as "MoS is stupid and should be ignored", everyone calls it the MoS (or MOS, or Manual of Style) not WP:STYLE so it will render tens of thousands of historical and extant discussions difficult to parse for incoming new editors, etc., etc., etc. And the notion that this is just "moving a single page" comes across as disingenuous, since you know full well that all of the MOS subguidelines would need renaming too. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 02:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues with/from [[User:Radiant!|Radiant!]]?

message: Do we give any guidance for whether we should put the initial letter of a quotation in square brackets when its case is changed from the original?  Like, "[t]his." "[O]r like this."  They are common in American law reporting, and some humanities scholarship, but nowhere else as far as I can tell and certainly not in journalism.  I think they look terrible, and serve no purpose.  Does anyone think they are good? ←BenB4 06:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we do give guidance on that (namely to not do it).  This isn't meant in a mean way, but please read the guideline first before asking whether the guideline says something. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 07:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, and I couldn't find it. I looked again and I still can't find it. Please AGF an give a link when talking about something in a 100+ section page. ←BenB4 16:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It takes around fifteen seconds to find it by going to WP:MOS and using ctrl-F (would be cmd-F on a Mac) to do an in-page search for "bracket", and hit ctrl-G several times (cmd-G, Mac) to jump to subsequent occurrences.  That said, the material was not placed appropriately (it was under Elipses for some reason) and has been moved to the Brackets section. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 23:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I saw your move and I still don't see anything specifically pertaining to brackets used to indicate a change of case. ←BenB4 22:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's under "Other matters": "The sentence-initial letter of a quote may be lower-cased if the quote starts in the middle of a sentence. Where this occurs it is unnecessary to indicate this change with square brackets." Fireplace 22:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[C]ase brackets" 

message: I was reading MOS to see how to format Canadian currency, for an article on tips. WP:$ currently has two examples of dollars, in passing; Australian as AU$1 and U.S. as US$1. If interpreted to recommend two capital letters followed by a dollar sign, then Canadian would be CA$, but the Canadian dollar article says the Canadian government and IMF favor C$, while Editing Canadian English advises $Can or $CDN, and its only mention of CA$ is in software packages. My best guess would be to use C$, but whatever is chosen, it seems that a list of recommended currency abbreviations would be helpful in the MOS. If the XX$ format is recommended for dollars, New Zealand NZ$ and Jamaican JA$ are reasonably accepted, but Bahamas or Barbados (both beginning with "ba") also use dollars. ISO's two-letter country codes (that link also includes ISO's standard three-letter currency names) suggest BS and BB as country codes, so BS$ and BB$ (even if never used before) would be a way to follow the two-letter pattern, but B$ and Bds$ are suggested in Bahamian dollar and Barbadian dollar. Three-character ISO currency codes (BSD and BBD) could somehow be used, but that's inconsistent with using US$ and AU$. MOS suggests linking the symbol to a page about an obscure currency (₮146), which helps clarify the intent in any case. Prospect News' style guide has a list of their own recommended currency abbreviations, as a point of comparison. -Agyle 20:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So why not be bold and create the list? Then we have a place to begin discussion of specific currencies. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 11:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer using the ISO 3 character currency code (CAD) as being the definitive unambiguous version. If use of symbols is desired, I would combine with either 2 or 3 letter country codes as $CA or $CAN. $CDN doesn't lead to any extensible scheme to name world currencies. Mayalld 13:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jody, point taken. :-) I'll try to do that. Any guidance on approach (e.g. Mayalld's opinion) would be helpful. -Agyle 17:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the ISO codes too. Inasmuch as that is used by the banking community, or so says the list, it would be an appropriate guide. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 18:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Create list of suggested currency abbreviations? 

message: I propose the following text under the Identity heading:
* Lesbian or gay male are generally preferred over homosexual (adj.), and lesbians or gay men are generally preferred over homosexual (noun). Same-sex, male-male, or female-female may also be appropriate.
This is consistent with the Associated Press style guide, the New York Times style guide, the Washington Post style guide , the American Psychological Association style guide , and many smaller style guides , , , .  Further, it is common practice on most sexuality articles on Wikipedia to use gay/lesbian over homosexual, so this addition would describe, rather than change, preexisting practice.  Fireplace 13:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "gay male" is redundant. You don't see them using "lesbian female". That would be redundant as well. Or "gay lesbian" since they both mean the same thing. They couldn't just leave it at "a lesbian or a gay". I've never quite understood why they use the redundant in style guides but alas, I had no say so in them. Secondly, it's odd that the American Psychological Association style guide says "homosexual" is a bad term but "heterosexual" is not. If "homosexual" should be replaced with "lesbian or gay male" why shouldn't "heterosexual" be replaced with "straight female or straight male"? "Gay" can be used for lesbians as well since the definition is same-sex attraction/sex. Blah on style guides. I don't see anything wrong with using "homosexual" and feel it's an either/or between the three of gay/lesbian/homosexual. Of course, some of us old timers still prefer "queer", as a political statement I guess, and see it as the same thing as gay/homosexual/lesbian. Only since politically correct organizations and activists has "queer" seemed to have been bannished, although it's becoming more prevalent again among younger "homosexual" crowds as a means of hardcore activism and public statement of "this is who I am!" --  ALLSTAR  ECHO 04:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The justifications for preferring gay/lesbian to homosexual are that homosexual (1) "perpetuates negative stereotypes because of its historical associations with pathology and criminal behavior"; (2)"it is ambiguous in reference because it is often assumed to refer exclusively to men and thus renders lesbians invisible" (APA); and (3) "can be seen as a slur" (Wash. Post).  The justification for using "gay male" over "gay" when referring specifically to men is that "gay" is, as you noted, often used to refer to both gay men and lesbians.  I'm less concerned about the gay vs. gay male point, though.  Again, I see this change as merely describing existing WP practice on sexuality articles -- I don't think I'm calling for any changes.  Fireplace 13:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm skeptical... what about outside articles on sexuality? Is it common practice there, and if not, would it be appropriate? From my personal experience, I know plenty of people who have no problem with homosexual being used, especially in formal contexts, especially when any homosexual may be the referrent - lesbian implies female, and "gay" on its own is often read as "gay male". Others I know prefer it for its symmetry with "bisexual" and "heterosexual". The major point is that "homosexual" is a technical term, "lesbian" and "gay" (and "queer" and so on) aren't. The connotation issues seem debatable. It seems rather more a complicated issue than the initial suggestion suggests. SamBC(talk) 13:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I'd draw an analogy to gender-neutral language.  There too you'll find anecdotal evidence of people who don't feel strongly about using gender-neutral language, but most style guides recommend its usage (and we do too).  Regarding homosexual as a technical term, there are probably certain clinical contexts where it remains appropriate -- that's why my suggested language qualifies the guideline with "generally".  I think that WP's manual of style should reflect both modern English usage (as evidenced in the AP, NYT, WaPo, and APA style guides, see above) as well as current practice on Wikipedia, and I think this suggestion accomplishes that.  Fireplace 14:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identity entry 

message: If one includes (with permission of course) text from another author, as a separate section, what is the proper way to give credit to the source?  (Apparently this issue is complicated by the actual source being an email?)
I originally tried a note as the first line of the section saying it came from the author's email to someone else.  But that was removed ("If it is true it is uncited..."), leaving it with no author attribution at all.  [How should email be cited?]
 
I tried making a <ref> in the section title to text saying where it came from and that it was used by permission.  I was informed this violates the Manual of Style, and you can't have refs in a section title and they moved it to the last sentence of the entire section. This makes it look like only the last sentence was from the source.
 
There must be some way to do properly, and make it clear that an entire section came from another person (and specificly to cite an email as a source).  But I don't do much with Wikipedia, and I can't seem to find it.   Could someone please enlighten me on the proper way to do this within the restrictions of the manual of style?  Nahaj 16:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean you want to cite text from an unpublished e-mail, for example a message you received, that would not be a reliable source (see WP:RS), and shouldn't be included in a Wikipedia article at all. Learning the ropes on WP takes some time. :-) If the e-mail is published in a book or newspaper article, you'd cite the book or article as normal. If you're quoting so much from book or article that it requires permission, I'd consider other alternatives. -Agyle 00:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Formal descriptions in Logic are hard to get right (and sometimes even published ones are shown wrong) and are a lot of work.  So when I had a correct one relevant to the topic, that I could get permission to use, I did.  I didn't realize that this was inappropriate if I received it via email.  I'm still learning, I'll avoid that mistake in the future. Nahaj 13:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main issue here isn't editorial style, it's our no original research  and verifiability policies. Even if this expert had written the text into the article himself (which would resolve any issues of crediting him), we would still require citations for claims that are disputed or likely to be disputed. We don't count an email as a published source for this purpose. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper way to credit a section? 

message: Re: "In the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers (from zero to nine) are spelled out; numbers of more than one digit are generally rendered as digits, but may be spelled out if they are expressed in one or two words (sixteen, eighty-four, two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million).":
Someone at the Stephen Sondheim article recently cited this rule in reverting a spelling-out of the number ten, which leads me to suspect that its wording here could be improved. Here, for perspective, are some citations:
Donald Hall, Writing Well, p.299: 
"Print out the figures except when they are long to the point of being ridiculous. If you can write that a town has 'one hundred and four thousand inhabitants,' write it. If necessity requires precision, '104,627' will do, and 'one hundred and four thousand, six hundred and twenty-seven' might be precious." 
Margaret Shertzer, The Elements of Grammar, p. 125: 
"Spell out numbers from one through ten, except in a series of related numbers. In formal writing, numbers that can be expressed in one or two words are spelled out, but figures may be used in letters or reports."
Hodges and Whitten, Harbrace College Handbook, p. 100: 
"Although usage varies, writers tend to spell out numbers that can be expressed in one word or two; they regularly use figures for other numbers."
I submit that since wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, it needs to use formal prose, and thus the rule should not be worded such that it implies that spelling out one-word or two-word numbers greater than nine is an exceptional practice. TheScotch 05:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does say "generally", and it does say they may be spelled out if expressed in one or two words (which includes ten). The reverter was not justified in reverting and insisting on 10 in the face of objections by other contributors. Tony (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling out numbers

message: :Compromise proposal: Allow either quotation marks or italics for examples.  Demand consistency (one or the other) in individual articles.  Prefer quotation marks over italics for reasons already addressed in detail.  This would have the additional benefit of getting rid of the necessity for editors, not all of whom are linguistically minded, to try to have to figure out whether something is a noun phrase or not. This would also ease backward compatibility problems Tony pointed out. And it would let TheScotch write the way he wants to.  And it would prevent editors who prefer italics from forcing them on others, and mostly vice versa (with the exception of italics being used in an article extensively for emphasis, publication titles, etc., in close proximity to italicized example text).  — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 06:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this compromise proposal is practical and very reasonable. I support it. Tony (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise proposal

message: A lot of users have very bad English use when writing an article in relation to this historical area. It is correct to say 'Commonwealth postal orders',not 'Commonwealth of Nations postal orders'. Some users obviously need to go back to school, or they're just being plain dumb! - (Numismaticman 19:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who says? Strad 20:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's my experience that English-language uses of the term "Commonwealth" without qualification refer to that political entity. Lets try to review Numismaticman's suggestion without rising to the inflammatory way it's put. SamBC(talk) 21:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad English use in relation to [[Commonwealth]]-related articles

message: In the talk page of article Press up in the section "Sub-3rr edit war" the manual of style, WP:ENGVAR, is being referred to as authority that only one term may be used in an article. The British call an exercise a "Press up" while Americans call it a "Push up." The MOS section of variant English calls for using consistent grammar and spelling in an article, to avoid bouncing between color and colour, or check and checque, which makes sense, but in the article Elevator, such devices in the London Underground are appropriately called "lifts" both in a photo caption and in sections about accidents with the devices in Britain. In the Press up article, I have called for using the "push up" term in two captions. First, the caption for a photo of a U.S. Marine, "Image:Marines do pushups.jpg" whose original caption when the image was imported said "Caption: Pfc. Boyd F. Parker, Platoon 2078, Company H, counts out push-ups before completing the strength and endurance course here May 18, 2005. Photo by: Pfc. Charlie Chavez." In addition, another editor demands that criticism of the Marine's form in doing the exercise be included in the caption, when that criticism is original research, and did not come from any independent and reliable source. The other place is  an image  of Doug Pruden, of Canada,  holding two certificates from Guiness World Records, one of which says he did "677 one-arm push ups" and the other of which says he did "the most push-ups using the back of the hands in one hour."  I do not see why the MOS requires or allows these captions to be changed to assert the men were doing "press ups," a term which is virtually unknown in their countries, and whose use is as jarring as would be exclusive use of "elevator" to describe lifts in the UK. What is gained by Wikipedia pretending that a term is used for something in a country where it is unknown? How does it further the purposes of Wikipedia to allow total exclusion of the alternate term for something, after one mention at the beginning of the article that the other term is used in the other country? Please provide your thoughts here, to arrive at a consensus on usage rules and avoid a lame revert war. This is neither spelling nor grammar. If one country receives the courtesy of gaining the article name, does that allow forbidding any use of the other term when referring to instances of the subject in the other country, when there appears to be no "country-neutral" term like "fixed wing aircraft" to avoid using "airplane" or "aeroplane." Should "push up" be purged and banned from the "Press up" article, and should "lift" be purged and banned from the "Elevator" article, or should some variation be permitted?  An editor was given what amounts to a block warning  with the claim that only one term may appear in an article.Edison 23:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In cases where the terms really are completely synonymous except for their regions of use, I think it's reasonable to use only one term throughout the article, except perhaps if there's an entire section specifically about the other one's region. We in the U.S. do have press ups, apparently (I didn't know this until now), and they in the U.K. certainly do have elevators. —RuakhTALK 23:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that, in the case of the article on the subject itself, both terms will be mentioned in the lead as synonymous (or should be) and may then be used reasonably interchangable. After all, the MOS regional-variation-of-english thing is mostly aimed at spelling, not the use of synonymous terms. However, it would seem very odd for the article on elevators to not use the term "lift" at all. BTW, in the UK it's generally considered (IME) that "elevator" is the (very) technical term and "lift" is the everyday term—people using "elevator" in everyday conversation, even formal conversation, will be looked at oddly if they don't have a foreign accent. SamBC(talk) 23:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't an elevator a rising moving footway in that variety of English? I hate the use of the term Commonwealth in this sense. Tony (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  Most people in the UK are at least partially aware of the US use of the term "elevator" but it is used for the moving footway stair thingy.  violet/riga (t) 07:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to be confused with an escalator.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, the moving stairway is an escalator, not an elevator. There's not generally any confusion or ambiguity over the term elevator in the UK, just people don't use it. SamBC(talk) 13:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - head still fried at the moment.  violet/riga (t) 14:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course Edison comes here and only describes his POV rather than presenting a neutral discussion opener.  Please see the discussion at Talk:Press up#Sub-3rr edit war.  violet/riga (t) 07:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please address the content rather than attacking the editor. Edison 04:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Edison is referring to me here: "An editor was given what amounts to a block warning", because it was me who he thinks issued the block warning. However, I maintain that what he says about it is a bit misleading. If one carefully reads what was written, I maintain that no block warning was issued or intended at that time, and others can verify that no block warning has been issued since. Instead, I was merely passing on a view (from violetriga on WP:AN/I) in response to an enquiry I had posted about an ongoing low-level 3RR edit war substituting "press up" with "push up and vice versa. This had started after a survey to gather opinions about a change the name of the article (to the American English term) had reached no consensus on the proposal to change the name. The advice was that the actions that were taking place contravened the 3RR rule in spirit.  The advice about a possible block warning was not about the issue to do with the term that should be used. The issue of which term to use can and should be decoupled from the issue of the edit warring in this discussion.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When User:ddstretch inserted on the talk page of User:Tyguy92 the quote from [[WP:AN/I] from user:Violetriga which included the words "I now gently draw your attention to the advice posted in response to my message at WP:AN/I#Press up:'Since the article remains at press up that term should be used throughout the article and changing it is inappropriate. Tyguy92 should be warned of this and reminded that he is violating the 3RR in spirit and could still be blocked for disruption, but hopefully it won't come to that.' " it did in fact sound rather like a block warning. I, too, hate to see low level revert wars like this, and that is why I seek the views of the community beyond those interested in the one article, to determine if it is a blockable offense to insert the alternative term in an article where one linguistic tradition has the title of an article, or if the purposes of Wikipedia are furthered by allowing some usage of country-specific terminology. The two photp captions I referred to above have now been reverted back to the "press up" version, in the view that only one country's term may be used at all in an article. Edison 04:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A further closely-related question: if several editors at Press up outlaw the use of "push up" in that article to describe the exrecise, should the ban be extended to related articles such as Calesthenics, where the term "push up" is used exclusively for the exercise and Wikilinked, leading to the Press up article when the user clicks on it? Edison 06:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would definitely not be acceptable - standardisation on regional terms/spelling is done on a strictly per-article basis. SamBC(talk) 06:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Now, is there anything wrong with inserting the other term on first appearance of whichever is treated as the main term? This has gone on long enough, and I suspect that very few readers are put off by the less familiar item of this couplet, once they've got it. Part of WP's role is to educate, isn't it? Tony (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not sure what the question is now, but both articles mentioned (Elevator and Press up) seem to be in a perfectly reasonable state (in that regard) at the moment. SamBC(talk) 11:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Press up has done what Tony1 suggests for quite a while, and for long before this edit-warring began.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the above. The question is clear. There has been more discussion than edit warring (at least since I found this issue at WP:AN/I and no willingness to compromise on the part of those favoring the British term. So if the British term is used in the article title, the North American term is banned, resulting in the prsent caption "US Marines count out press-ups" in the Press up article, but if the North American term Elevator is used for an article, the British term is allowed to appear, as in the caption "A set of lifts in the lower level of a London Underground station. The arrows indicate each lift's position and direction of travel. The lift on the right is preparing to ascend, and the lift on the left is descending from the top floor." Seems a bit one sided. Edison 15:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: To be fair, in my (British) experience the two terms are used pretty much interchangably, so I'm not sure how brit-centric it could be. It seems to be really a case of being consistent. The issue with elevator/lift has several aspects to distinguish it from push/press up, such as the difference in length and "technical-ness" of the terms. SamBC(talk) 17:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know the exercise by both terms (and I'm also British).  DDStretch  (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: At one point User:Ddstretch did seem to indicate a willingness to allow the Canadian champion and the U.S. Marine photos to use the "push up" term, but when I did the edit it was promptly reverted by User:Matt Crypto and no further support was given to mixed usage by anyone else at that page. I see this as a more general question and desire a more general consensus, and I clearly do not desire a local edit war among a small handful of editors. I seek a wider review of the correctness of the claim in the edit comments at the Press up page by User:Matt Crypto on 23 and 24 September  that this Manual of Style in its section WP:ENGVAR does not permit any use of the other country's term to describe the subject in the context of that other country: "As you've been told on the talk page, the MoS advises to use one term consistently within an article" and  "Please stop trying to force in American-variant terms. I refer you to the established guideline: WP:ENGVAR."  My interpretation of WP:ENGVAR is that what it forbids is switching the grammar and spelling back and forth, not that it forbids usage of the alternate phrase or term. Edison 17:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with that basic statement (your interpretation). I make no comment as to the specific application at this point. SamBC(talk) 18:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The claimed prohibition based on WP:ENGVAR against using the other country's term at all in the article clearly has not been practiced in other articles. Note the artifcle about the Rooster which has a photo captions "A Barred Plymouth Rock cockerel crowing" referring to a bird of U.S. origin, in a U.S. photo called "Image:Rooster.jpg" and "A cock relaxing in sunlight" applied to an image of U.S. origin titled "Image:Rooster relaxing in sunlight.jpg". The British word appears numerous times alternating with the U.S. word. In another article with the U.S. name as title, Eggplant, the British term "aubergine" appears in two photo captions and several times in the text, sometimes as "aubergine/eggplant." This exclusionary interpretation with respect to different words seems to be a new and extreme one. Edison 18:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Press up" and "Push up:" Are articles limited to one country's term?

message: Blanking out the whole of MOS with a seemingly sarcastic reference to one of us is worthy of instant banning, in my view. Is someone inclined? Tony (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More like a long-ish block. Reported to WP:AIV? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 05:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism on a massive scale 

message: seems to have gone on a copyediting spree that I'm in two minds about. It largely seems to have been changing language to more "everyday" language, although I believe that several instances mean that meaning has been lost. Examples also seem to have been removed in several cases. I haven't reviewed all of the edits, as it's quite extensive. What do people think of this? SamBC(talk) 18:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Largely a bad idea; the meaning changes in particular have to go. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 05:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proofreading/"dumbing down" by [[User:213.42.21.154]] 

message: What do y'all think of using   to alter the spacing between lines so things look better? An editor has done that at Kilogram, and I think it's a bad idea, but I do understand his rationale. —RuakhTALK 19:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that isn't right. Line spacing can be controlled by CSS if the user wants it to look differently to him. We shouldn't add spurious markup like that. But I don't think the MOS needs to comment on it; there are many, many ways that users could do things like this, and we usually just undo them when we find them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Holy crap that was awful!  I cleaned it up, but the article is near-owned by a single editor who appears to be doing all of this and lot of other nonsense (much of it invalid XHTML), so I urge other editors to watchlist this page to prevent it becoming so corrupted again. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 05:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  &lt;sup>&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup> 

message: In the images section, it suggests cases where specifying the width of an image is considered appropriate.
I would assume that, where this was to be applied to the lead image of an article, it would be because the size was to be forced larger than 300px. Otherwise, we're allowing this special case to be set smaller than what a user might choose in their preferences, thus forcing the image to be small when the intent is presumably to make it larger for emphasis.
Perhaps the wording in that section could be clarified to specifically say that the specification of a width is intended to allow the size to be forced to larger than 300 and that it should otherwise not be specified? --AliceJMarkham 11:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable to me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 04:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifying when to specify image size 

message: I think we need to come to some kind of a consensus on how to display the citations for the Medal of Honor recipients.  I have seen at least 4 different variations of the way they are displayed.  Some are using block quotes, some are using Cquote, some are centering it and I have been simply using : to offset it.  I have even seen examples of citations being italicized after I have been told that using italics on a citation is inappropriate. I am going to post this on the talk page for the Medal of Honor also to get a wider consensus.--Kumioko 11:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MOS is already clear on most of this, and the articles need to get cleaned up. Such passages are block quotations. As such they go in .... We do not italicize quotation simply because they are quotations, so don't italicize them.  Use of "qutation marks" around a block quotation is redundant, so don't do that. Centering is a half-assed attempt at approximating block quotation; use blockquote instead. MediaWiki's ":" indentation is not blockquoting, but intendentation; use blockquote instead. And finally,  is for pull quotes, not quotations, so don't use it for quoting medal citations (many would say never use it in an article at all, and that it should only be used on project pages.) I think the only change we need to make is to add that ":" and center are not block quotation, under the subsection about block quotations. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 04:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I agree with all points but, and this may seem like a dumb question but just for my own clarification what is the problem with using ":" rather than blockquote.  It uses less characters and it displays the same on the screen (at least in internet explorer and firefox).  Plus its easier for novice editors to understand : than the syntax of blockquotes.--Kumioko 03:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the result of using ":" is only a left indent, while a proper blockquote indents the text from both margins.  This often isn't obvious due to the ragged left margin; if the text is justified, it becomes easier to see the difference. Kirill 03:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quoting citations for the Medal of Honor and other awards 

message: I'd really like to see "Omit needless words" from Strunk & White included in the WP MOS. Can we agree that this is a good principle for Usage? (Or somewhere else?) – Scartol · Talk 15:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What, like "in order to", note that/remember that, "outside of", and the like? Tony (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, exactly. – Scartol · Talk 17:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: No. —RuakhTALK 16:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  An explanation ≠ needless words. – Scartol · Talk 17:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know, except that my explanation is simply that we can't agree on that, because I can't agree to that. I think it's a stupid and ridiculous rule. People like Strunk and White think that because they have good writing styles, they know what the rules of good writing styles are, and that's simply not true. I mean, in one sense it's true: they know the rules on a subconscious level. But in the relevant sense, it's not: they see and recognize bad writing, but frequently misjudge where the writer went wrong, and then they codify that into a "rule" that no good writer follows. Then they add a caveat in their introduction about how good writers don't necessarily follow these "rules". It's ridiculous and idiotic. I really hope that Charlotte's Web outlives The Elements of Style, because it will be a sad thing if White is remembered for the latter rather than the former. —RuakhTALK 18:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're killing me here. I think Elements of Style is perhaps the best book ever written about writing (with the possible exception of Nelson Algren's Nonconformity. Most writers I've ever read (Maya Angelou, Stephen King, Jamaica Kincaid) agree with them on this rule. But this isn't the place to debate it, so I'll just say you're wrong (that's a joke) and let it go. – Scartol · Talk 18:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They may think they agree, but their writing shows otherwise. King, for example, is famous for gratuitously injecting brand names into otherwise acceptable sentences. —RuakhTALK 21:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you mean the sort of ruthless striking of needless verbiage that would change your question to: "I'd really like to see "Omit needless words" from Strunk & White included in the WP MOS. Can we agree that this is a good principle for Usage? (Or somewhere else?)" ;-) — Dave (Talk | contribs) 16:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't think WP:MOS applied to talk pages. I could go through my phrase above and defend each word, but that would be asinine. I guess people aren't into including ONW. Alas. – Scartol · Talk 17:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I thought the fact that I struck words from my own sentence as well as from yours and that I winked at you at the end would have indicated I was funnin' ya. I guess people aren't into including humour on talk pages either. Alas. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 17:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I knew you were funning, but I was pretty serious about including it. I also have a headache today, which means I have trouble appreciating humorous responses right now. But thanks for trying. Alas. – Scartol · Talk 18:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, apparently not everyone agrees (see above). However, I agree with you that this may not be the best spot for such matters. Thank you for your feedback. – Scartol · Talk 18:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a simple admonition to "Murder your darlings but do no harm" might do the trick? It has the advantage of brevity. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 19:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Re: "Of course needless words should be omitted. That's pretty much a tautology.": I disagree completely. Perhaps we're interpreting "needless" differently? For me, a word can be unnecessary — needless — but still serve a purpose. —RuakhTALK 21:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recognize that a debate over "needless" is a problem for this proposal. However, I want to bring attention to another issue: is this necessary for the MOS? I feel mission creep. I certainly see such a guide for efficient writing as useful for the project, but I also think some priority is in order. I think everything currently in the MOS should be observed before we begin asking editors to increase the word economy of articles. Consider a simple gesture: Wikipedia welcomes editors to make stylistic edits. These edits should increase the ease of reading and understanding of articles. Ease of reading and proffering a sense of understanding can often work against each other (an explanation can easily be so simplistic that the reader acquires no understanding), which would require editors to manage local consensuses. I think that rub is reason enough to leave the issue out of the MOS completely. WikiGnomes need no mention of frugal prose in order to improve articles, and it is no secret that simple (not simplistic) language is made of Win. People scrawl complex and redundant text because they either lack parsimonious writing skills or lack the time to justify every introduced word. Editors are not horrible writers because they missed the TPS Memo or failed to read the MOS--there are bigger problems that we would have to solve before such a mere mention on the MOS would fix bloated articles. —Kanodin 22:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Do writers really use words they don't think they need? Strad 22:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes of course they do. Our writers aren't paid by the word, so it may not be as common here as elsewhere.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Editors here deliberately insert words they know aren't needed? I have a hard time believing that. Even if there are some instances of that, it doesn't happen with enough frequency to warrant inserting advice like "omit needless words", which is on the order of "spell correctly". Strad 23:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Redundancy is a far greater problem than faulty grammar or spelling. My experience in negotiating text with non-native speakers suggests that redundancy is a problem across all languages. It's certainly a major problem in English WP articles. I'm unsure whether mentioning the problem in MOS is going to help: the devil is in the detail, and the detail is hard to generalise and too bulky to exemplify comprehensively in a styleguide. However, I'm keen some time to propose a few items that shouldn't be used in an encyclopedic register, such as "Remember that" and "Note that"; these are, of course, problems of tone as well as of redundancy (i.e., let's not tell our readers what to do and what not to do). There are others that might be included as examples, where no one disagrees, although they should not be framed as proscriptions, I think. We already have a proscription of the "of" in "September of 1988", and for good reason. Tony (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think it is a problem, and one that I have if I am rushed. Someone wrote (Euler, Voltaire, Pascal?) "I must apologise for the length of this letter. I did not have the time to make it shorter." I think that having non-professional writers writing under their time-constraints adds to the problem, and is not easily solvable.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that quote. WP will always be push and pull, mediocre and good writing. All we can do is make it a little easier to write well and a little harder to write badly. TONY (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (I heard the quote was from Wilde. But then almost any such quote will get assigned to him (and Bernard Shaw) at some point :)) 4u1e 10:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur that this overall idea is too much of a "how to write well" piece of advice that it is a matter of MOS's more narrow definition of "style". Do like Tony's very specific proposal a few topics below, though (at #Usage section, point #1). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 04:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add "omit needless words" into "Usage" section? 

message: Greetings! I posted a question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (headings)#Use of subheadings as first-level as a matter of style preference but it appears as if there aren't that many people watching that page to give me feedback. Could someone here offer some input? Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still looking for some more input on this. Any participation would be appreciated. Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subheadings style 

message: :Hi, sorry, I don't know how to answer your question, but it's interesting that you should raise a matter from that submanual here right now. Only an hour ago I left a note there asking why on earth it's a separate page from this one, when (1) it's rather short, and (2) most of its information is duplicated here. Rationalising the small amount of info that is not here and relocating it here would, I think, be good housecleaning. Does anyone object in principle? Tony (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw your post and wondered that myself. Perhaps it exists only to give expanded examples? --Rkitko (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's not worth the disadvantage of having to coordinate the text with MOS (the wording is slightly different in a number of cases, I see). The talk page is moribund. It's more convenient for readers to see the extra 20% of information here, in one place. Most of the other submanuals are substantial in their own right, and could not easily be integrated here. Tony (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *Merge per the above. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 04:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal for [[WP:HEAD]]

message: Perhaps I missed a discussion on the topic, but shouldn't all biographical articles be reviewed to remove those incorrect commas between a name and the designation Jr. or Sr.? This would require a redirect from the incorrect version to the correct version to avoid having to fix the links within the text of hundreds of other articles, but correct style is correct style. --NameThatWorks 18:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punctuating names