Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:41, 15 January 2016

Manual of Style

This page falls within the scope of the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Misplaced Pages's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Misplaced Pages policies of Misplaced Pages's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:MOS

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228Auto-archiving period: 7 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Template:MOS/R

For a list of suggested abbreviations for referring to style guides, see this page.

Looking for MOS of Talkpages

I am looking for an MOS of Talkpages. BTW while looking I found this instead Help:MOS - which I believe needs some work - don't you? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me

See WP:TALK and WP:INDENT and WP:THREAD.—Wavelength (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Right. Those are as close as you'll get. MoS applies to encyclopedia content, not talk pages.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  13:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wavelength and SMcCandlish: what I had in mind is something like MOS for talk-pages: for example should wikiproject banners appear before or after oldxfd templates etc. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me

I'd raise the issue at WT:TALK. It's not an MoS matter. MoS is about mainspace content.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  21:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Help:Mos looks like interestingly obscure help pages. Looks like one guy's 3-week project from 2010, hopelessly incomplete and out of date. What would you propose doing with it? Dicklyon (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

That Help page may indeed need some work; however, it should be remembered that it is part of a series of Help pages, as seen at the bottom of the /5 page and at H:GS. Happy New Year! Paine  19:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Tony1/Beginners' guide to the Manual of Style would make sense as a replacement for Help:MOS. The incomplete one is not very helpful, and its tabular navigation is almost unusable (you have to click exactly on a single character).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  13:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Plot and secondary sources

The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible. If a plot summary includes a direct quote from the work, this must be cited using inline citations per WP:QUOTE. Sometimes a work will be summarized by secondary sources, which can be used for sourcing. Otherwise, using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points.

(Emphasis mine.) Do we really not prefer secondary sources for the plot when they feasibly exist? It's just all the same that it's sourced or unsourced? – czar 22:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction is a ghost town, so I'm bringing this here. Does anyone have more information on our general/historic practice of leaving plot sections unfootnoted (with the assumption that it is sourced to the work itself)? I understand that the footnote is omitted because it's sourced to the work itself (which has its own issues), but I don't understand how this is reconciled with due weight, in which we cover an aspect of a topic in proportion to its degree of secondary source coverage. Why do Plot sections get carte blanche for paragraphs of unsourced detail in situations where not a single secondary (or, hell, primary) source found the plot aspects worth covering? My watchlist is littered with IP editors deciding of their own accord what plot details are important rather than, as we do with everything else everything on the encyclopedia, looking to secondary source guidance on the work's important plot points. I don't see why plot is exempted from our standard practice. At the very least, are we not in agreement that we prefer to source plot sections to reliable, secondary sources over primary sources like the work itself? czar 04:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Czar, my only contributions to fiction pages have been rock operas (not sure, possibly only one rock opera, and I did not source the plot summary), so I'm not pretending I know. I'm just responding on principle to the valid point you raise. I think there are at least two reasons secondary sourcing can be important in a plot summary. The first is the issue you raised about what plot points should be included. Without external guidance, it's just opinion vs. opinion, unless an actual consensus can be formed. We cannot consider ourselves authoritative on this issue, so no individual should be the gatekeeper for plot summary content. That would beWP:OWN anyway. It sounds like a little WP:BRD is the only option without secondary sources or existing consensus, unless there is actual guidance on the matter that I missed when I wrote my one plot summary.

The second reason secondary sourcing can be important is when things are implied or in some way not made explicit. We cannot interpret things without violating WP:OR, so interpretations have to be sourced. Some writers use ambiguity intentionally to give readers their own experiences, or to prolong interest in the work once the reader has finished reading it. Character motivations are often obvious, but if the author does not connect the dots explicitly, that also has to be sourced. (I recall reading this in some guideline... I think. It was a while back.) Anyway, that's my $0.02 worth. Spend it wisely :P Dcs002 (talk) 05:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I've done TV shows and episodes, so I think I can comment here. It's easy to find secondary sources if the sources actually cover plot points. If they don't, what should be used in lieu to it? You can't just omit the plot summary because it would be unsourced. The TV's MOS group had developed a set of guidelines which allows the episode to be used as a primary source without it developing into a free-for-all. SciGal (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Dcs and SciGal are both right. I've worked on some episodes for books and TV shows, and both those issues are real.

The plot description is considered "straightforward observations of facts," which are allowed under WP:PRIMARY and, let's face it, WP:COMMONSENSE. Including basic summaries of works of fiction in articles about those works is just something that encyclopedias are expected to do, and, like SciGal says, most of the reliable sources include reactions to the plot, not summaries of it. In most cases, some plot summary is necessary to the article. How is the reader supposed to understand the social impact of Frankenstein if we don't tell them that it's about a doctor who makes a monster and that the monster was actually well-behaved for most of the book? Now, I could say, in one sentence, "The monster was naturally good and only turned to violence after years of rejection, which only happened because its creator had abandoned his responsibilities," and that's concise, but am I right? Even if I am (and I am), it's still original research. It is far better to simply relate the events of the book: where the monster went, what attempts he made to make friends, how people reacted to him, and let the reader come to his or her own conclusions.

For the plot section, the big editorial decision is how much detail is warranted and which facts and events are important enough to earn the space (fans of a book or show tend to want to include a lot of information). This is where secondary sources come in. If multiple articles or reviews mention the scene in which the monster reads the Bible, then you can use that as evidence that the scene is important enough to mention in the plot summary, that it is not an excess or inconsequential detail. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

To come at it from a different angle, it is recognized that encyclopedic coverage of a work of fiction is not comprehensive without a concise plot summary. However, rarely do published works outside of classics and popular contemporary works do detailed analysis of a plot come from secondary sources. Since the work itself is primary, but verifyable, a concise plot summary with implicit sourcing to the work itself is reasonably acceptable. As long as the plot does not engage in OR, the plot can be verified by anyone that otherwise can access the work. But if OR is needed, or additional information that is not clearly obvious to the causal viewer (eg we're not going frame-by-frame to capture one tiny plot detail) then that does need sourcing even if to, say, a director's commentary or an extra featurette that is not part of the primary work. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• Precisely. I'll explicitly cite plots of works to secondary sources when the work may be lost etc. But if I have the work in question, and I have read it, I do not explicitly state that the reference is the work itself, as that is already implied. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

it is recognized that encyclopedic coverage of a work of fiction is not comprehensive without a concise plot summary

My question is mainly about proportionality. I think MOS:PLOT should reflect the weight premise of the encyclopedia that a plot is covered in proportion to its importance as determined by secondary sources. This is to say that the Film WikiProject's guideline of 400 to 700 words makes sense for their plot-heavy feature films, and perhaps even for a book or game that has sources that reaffirm the plot's central importance to the work (ideally with a litany of think pieces discussing elements of the plot, for modern media at least). But for other novels, academic books, games, and art films, for example, the plot—or whatever exists of one—may have no central importance to a work, and which directly opposes the quoted statement's declaration of plot importance to all fictional works. Not all fictional works need plot summaries: the plot summary should be proportional to the plot's degree of coverage in reliable, secondary sources (and if that's not enough, then also proportional to the standard for the medium, e.g., that early fighting games rarely have plots). czar 05:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction is not a ghost town; well, not completely one. I saw you there, but editors have been over the sourcing aspect of plot sections a lot, which is why MOS:PLOT addresses it. Also see Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability/Archive 63#How wide is the "original research" exception for articles on fictional works?, which shows a recent discussion concerning this topic. The television show, film, play or book is the source; therefore, we usually do not need to add inline citations to plot sections. If someone engages in WP:OR, it is usually fixed by someone who has seen or read the material. The WP:OR policy is not simply about material being unsourced. The reference currently in its introduction states, "By 'exists', the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source." As for WP:Due weight, that can apply in some plot cases, but I don't think we should state that we shouldn't add plot material because sources aren't interested in covering the plot detail in an in-depth way. Sources are usually more so focused on the WP:Real world content in relation to the fictional content. And WP:TVPLOT and WP:Film plot are guidelines that exist partly to keep plot summary lengths under control. I think "art film" can fall under WP:Film plot. I'm not sure about the "other novels, academic books, games" aspects you are worried about; you can see how WP:BOOKS, WP:Games and WP:Video games do things, but I would think that academic books and games that are not video games do not need a plot section. Our video game articles (and their characters) do have plot sections, though. See, for example, Metal Gear Solid and Cloud Strife; those are sourced. Video game plot summaries are commonly sourced with inline citations, often to the video game itself. Popcornduff recently tagged the Metal Gear Solid Plot section as too long, but that is a long game and I don't see what can be safely cut from that section. Then again, it's been a long time since I played that game. Soap opera plot summaries can also be a different story, for reasons I noted in the "How wide is the 'original research' exception for articles on fictional works?" discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Readability is more important than plot comprehensiveness, IMO. If making sections a reasonable length (ie shorter) means cutting even significant details, so be it. Besides, in my experience, plot summaries are often overlong thanks to bad writing as much as too much detail. Take the opening sentence of the MGS example, for example: "The story is set in 2005..." can simply become "In 2005...". That's over half the words from that sample cut right there. (I'd trim the summary myself but I haven't played it in years either.) Popcornduff (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Popcornduff, that's where we disagree. I'm all for readability, but usually not at the expense of important detail. Leaving out important detail is not reasonable to me unless there is simply too much plot to cover all the big points. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Daria Gleissner

Consensus at Talk:Daria Gleissner was to keep the Gleissner instead of Gleißner. However, I have noticed several other[REDACTED] articles whose titles include ß (Marith Prießen, Nadine Keßler, Verena Faißt, Lena Goeßling, Lisa Weiß, Jennifer Harß, etc). Should they all be changed to ss, or should Daria Gleissner be changed to Gleißner. I think they should either all be ß or all be ss. Joeykai (talk) 09:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment my preference is for "ss" consistently, but this does raise the perennial issue of how far we anglicize the spelling of foreign names, and there seems to be no consensus on this. For a somewhat more extreme example, we have Võ Nguyên Giáp, Battle of Nà Sản and Điện Biên Phủ, but Battle of Dien Bien Phu and Ho Chi Minh (not "Hồ Chí Minh"). So the default seems to be article-by-article consensus. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Should be ss, because English-language sources consistently use that. The ß character isn't a diacritic, so the diacritics rationale doesn't apply to it. There are a few other characters (Icelandic, etc.) that probably also need to be addressed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  21:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The (or one) relevant section of the MoS states

"Foreign proper names written in languages which use the Latin alphabet can include characters with diacritics, ligatures and others that are not commonly used in present-day English. Misplaced Pages normally retains these special characters, except where there is a well-established English spelling that replaces them with English standard letters."

Formatting for clarity, I presume it is to be understood as

"Foreign proper names written in languages which use the Latin alphabet can include

1. characters with diacritics,
2. ligatures and
3. others

that are not commonly used in present-day English.

Misplaced Pages normally retains these special characters, except where there is a well-established English spelling that replaces them with English standard letters."

Though "others" is apparently intended to mean other special Latin characters, such as ß (LATIN SMALL LETTER SHARP S, Unicode 00DF) and Þ (LATIN SMALL LETTER THORN, Unicode 00FE), the way the sentence is formulated, it is not really coherent English.

At the very least, it is not a model of clarity, so it probably needs rewording.

--Boson (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

See German orthography reform of 1996#Sounds and letters: "ß and ss".

—Wavelength (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

double vs. single quotes

I notice that WP:MOS#Reasons to prefer double quotation marks to single quotation marks is different than it was a year ago (when it said "... double rather than single quotation marks as primary" ). Now (and for most of this year), it says they're recommended for quotes: "In most primary or top-level quotes double rather than single quotation should be used." But then it gives an example that isn't a quote:

Searches for "must see" attractions may fail to find 'must see' attractions.

So, which is it? Does MOS recommend double quote marks (except for quotes-within-quotes and a handful of specific exceptions) for all the usual uses of quote marks, or only recommend them for quoted material? (I'll be happy either way, I just need to know.) - Dank (push to talk) 04:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I've heard no change from the advice, nor noticed any. Not sure who has been hacking on the "reasons" section. Ah, here is the problem. See if you can patch it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for researching that. Although some clarification at WP:MOS would be nice, I can live with it as is (since the example given makes the point clear, I think), as long as I know how people interpret it here at WT:MOS ... I know that in the articles I've copyedited the past year for FAC, there's been no change in practice. I was reverted in some work I did at FAC yesterday, and I want to make sure I'm on solid ground before I say anything. - Dank (push to talk) 15:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

degrees Kelvin

See the featured article section of WP:ERRORS. Does any MOS page have something to say about "degrees Kelvin"? I'd also be open to dropping the "Kelvin", and linking "degrees" to Kelvin, if that would help. - Dank (push to talk) 05:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Errors in use of SI unit#Unit names are not a matter of style. Dicklyon (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Or perhaps I'm too hasty, after ready Dank's comments there. I'd say that WP style is, or should be, to use SI unit names correctly per the prescriptions of the BIPM since 1968: . I've never seen anything in WP suggesting otherwise. Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Going with kelvin, still interested in feedback. - Dank (push to talk) 06:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's a bit of feedback: "degrees kelvin" is always incorrect and should never be used. Period. The unit's name is the kelvin. It is not a disambiguator to indicate which scale, it is a fixed quantity in and of itself. If you ever see "degrees kelvin" in an article, fix it immediately. oknazevad (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

PS, dropping "kelvin" and linking "degrees" to kelvin is ass backwards, sorry.

PS, this isn't a style issue, it's a factual issue. oknazevad (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, the answers have been loud and clear. - Dank (push to talk) 18:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems to have been resolved. Just to confirm there's a degree Celsius and a degree Fahrenheit, but degree Kelvin? No way. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

"winningest" in sports articles

It seems that some sports writers like to use pet words like "winningest" which are not familiar to many readers, even American English readers. (I have lots of athlete friends from college and I have never heard them use that word. I am also a photographer who has worked for student newspapers at the University of Virginia.) To me, it's apparent that they should be redacted to standard form along the lines of "best-performing coach/team/etc. by wins" especially since winningest is often used for both absolute number of wins and winning percentage. For that matter, I note we have placed a filler boilerplate on the wikilink winningest, and that we do not use the word "winningest" in the titles of any articles. I would like to solicit consensus on the use of this word. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: Even the University of Virginia student newspaper for which you worked commonly uses the word. E.g., here, here, and here. Cbl62 (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a perfectly cromulent word.oknazevad (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Winningest" is a well-established word in the American English language recognized by such sources as Merriam Webster (here), Los Angeles Times (e.g., here), The New York Times (e.g., here), The Wall Street Journal (e.g., here), Newsweek (e.g., here), Associated Press (e.g., here), Reuters (here), Chicago Tribune (e.g., here), The Boston Globe (e.g., here), The Washington Post (here), USA Today (here), The Dallas Morning News (here), Atlanta Journal-Constitution (e.g., here), The Philadelphia Inquirer (e.g., here), and Newsday (e.g., here). IMO, the word is appropriately used in articles about America sports topics, where the word is commonly recognized and used by dictionaries of American English and by the nation's most prestigious media outlets. Cbl62 (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• It's a perfectly legitimate word in formal American English. One person's personal lack of knowledge of a subject is not the grounds for rewriting the entire English language. As noted by Cbl, all major dictionaries and and reliable sources use it without any indication that it's anything except perfectly acceptable formal English. I have no reason to why the OP has never heard it until recently, but that's why we don't base Misplaced Pages guidelines on one person's personal experience. We base it on reliable sources. As noted by the sources cited above, it's a fine word and thus is perfectly acceptable in any article. --Jayron32 03:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Your claim of universal acceptance of this as "formal English" is flatly untrue. The American Heritage Dictionary , Oxford dictionaries , and dictionary.com all show "winningest" as "informal". WP articles should be written in a formal WP:TONE.

"Winningest", like many informal words, is also potentially imprecise and ambiguous. Is the "winningest" coach or team the one with the highest average number of wins per season? Or the most lifetime wins, period? The "winningest" pro golfer or race driver could be the one with the most games or races won, or the highest total earnings won in a year's tour (or lifetime), or etc. This is another reason for avoiding it. Jeh (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity. It means "having the greatest number of wins" (see here), not having the highest winning percentage. This is how it is used on Misplaced Pages. The fact that it can also be used in other ways (e.g., "winningest smile") doesn't mean it must be stricken. Many words have alternate definitions. Cbl62 (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Winningest?!? I've never heard the word before and I can think of no situation in which it is not possible to convey the intended meaning with widely (and internationally) understood vocabulary. Remember the principle of least astonishment. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

"Most wins" when? Per season? Per career? (A strange and even meaningless way to compare people, since different people have different length careers.) Note that dictionary.com doesn't define it as "most wins" but rather "winning most often"; AHD says "more successful or winning most often"; Oxford simply says "Having achieved the most success", which again is vague (how do you define "success"?) Just because you haven't encountered uses other than the one you think of doesn't mean the other uses aren't prevalent. A sports commentary column in a newspaper is one thing, but an encyclopedia should always use the most precise, unambiguous wording possible, and "winningest" is very far from that. Nor have you answered the "informal" point. Jeh (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Without even looking it up (to see what it means), I'd judged it to be too informal for normal use in WP articles. Also has a cheap ring about it. Tony (talk) 08:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a good approach. Let's just ban words "without even looking it up", because to one's ear, it has a "cheap ring about it." Forget about the fact that Encyclopedia Britannica and The New York Times use it, it sounds "cheap" to me. Brilliant analysis, Tony! Cbl62 (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I generally try to avoid sarcasm and apologize if my comment appeared pointy, Tony. I actually felt that the term had a dissonant quality when I first began encountering it on Misplaced Pages, but when I learned that the word had gained widespread acceptance in virtually every major American media outlet, I concluded that the term is appropriate, at least when used in the context of American sporting topics where its usage has become common and accepted. Cbl62 (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Tony1: I agree completely. Jeh (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• It is clearly a valid word in American English, but per WP:COMMONALITY alternatives that work in all varieties of English should be used in place of it where possible (which I imagine would be most situations). Jenks24 (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• The word is used in an informal context in the US (where I live) but no way is it encyclopedic enough to use in Misplaced Pages articles - even sports articles. I support the removal of the term and replacement with more formal wording in all articles. Perhaps someday in the future it will be considered formal, but that's certainly not the case as of now. Rockypedia (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• I particularly appreciate the arguments and evidence provided by Cbl62 and Jeh and it would be helpful if others could provide similarly substantive contributions to support opinions on this topic. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Encyclopedic/unencyclopedic is too ill-defined be of any use. It's another way of saying "I like it/don't like it". The closest policy we have is Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not, which contains nothing suggesting we can't use words like "winningest". There is no policy or guideline saying formal English is mandatory. WP:FORMAL/WP:TONE is from a mere essay, that is, advice or opinion "for which consensus has not been established." We have citations saying this is standard or informal American English, not slang or a neologism. H.W. Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, p. 146, says winningest is "without stylistic taint." The New York Times has used the word hundreds of times for the last ~100 years. The Columbia Encyclopedia uses "winningest" in its entries for Tony La Russa, Greg Maddux, Eddie Robinson Lenny Wilkens and Bill Belichick. Encyclopædia Britannica uses "winningest" on Bobby Bowden, Martin Brodeur, New Jersey Devils, and sixteen other articles. Encyclopedia Americana uses the word in its Michael Phelps article. Surely actual encyclopedias can tell us what is encyclopedic, rather than mere opinion? For some six+ years (until this issue became a few editors' pet peeve) the Featured Articles 2005 ACC Championship Game, 2008 Orange Bowl, Roberto Luongo, plus 3 Featured Lists and 9 Good Articles used the word, with nobody complaining on the talk pages, "I don't understand what winningest means!" The meaning is unmistakable even if you've never seen it before (unlike petrol, lorry, or other UK English we use frequently). A couple talk pages have comments from UK editors who erroneously claim it's "not a word", but the suggestion it is ambiguous is not supported by any facts. Every proposed alternative is more wordy without offering any more precision. Words like "successful" and "victorious" have the same ambiguity as winningest, none of them telling us if it is best win/loss ratio, or most absolute wins. Successful also can imply commercial or other success, while winningest at least is about contest wins. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Some editors are continuing their campaign to excise the word from Misplaced Pages. This edit from today is an example that belies the professed concern over ambiguity, as the word "winningest" (a word with a clear meaning: having the most wins) is replaced with "most successful" (a word that is utterly unclear and completely muddies the meaning). I realize that many individuals "don't like" the word (especially Brits, where the word is not widely recognized), but it is a word that has wide acceptance in American media sources and is applied with clear meaning in sports context by the country's leading media outlets. I don't advocate trying to impose the word on other parts of the encyclopedia, but in the context of American sports, but it has a clear meaning there, and efforts to excise a perfectly valid and widely-used word from our Misplaced Pages vocabulary is simply a case of 'I don't like it'. Cbl62 (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I want to add that we don't need an entry in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style saying "You are allowed to say winningest". But when you note the fact that the encyclopedia that uses the word more than any other is the more British than British Brittanica itself, it underscores how much we need to ignore, and hopefully stop posting, mere opinion about what is a "proper word". Even if you're from the UK, I think Brittanica is a WP:RS, not some random editor. So we should be drafting language for the MOS which says that the tone and level of formality, and word choice, we use is guided by sources, like dictionaries, and style guides, and examples, like real encyclopedias and respectable media. A similar discussion at Talk:Volkswagen emissions scandal agreed that while the NYT, BBC, CNN, WSJ, etc are highly reliable for facts, many editors thought the actual words found in our best sources, "cheated", "caught" were mere "tabloid" and "slang". Why? Because they said so. The MOS should give respect to sources when it comes to word choice. Similarly, FAs and GAs carry some weight, since they represent consensus, far more than a mere essay. WP:OSE is releant to low-ranked articles, not Wikipeda's best content as judged by many editors, and this should be reflected in the MOS as well. At the very least, it should say we aren't going to toss a word under the bus because an editor with no reliable sources doesn't like it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• As this word is most commonly used in American sporting articles, we ought to notify the relevant American sporting projects so that they can provide any input they may have. I left a neutrally-worded note on two talk pages here: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject College Basketball#"winningest" and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject College football#"winningest. Other relevant pages should probably be notified as well. Cbl62 (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• "Winningest" is an abhorrence of a word. But if we accept that its usage can be limited to American sports articles, then we can probably cope. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Entirely reasonable. We Yanks have always been a little rough around the edges, and nobody is trying to impose the word outside of its accepted context (i.e., we shall not reference Tony Blair as the "winningest" Prime Minister). Cbl62 (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it's a reasonable compromise if we can be assured that it is indeed a word whose use is limited to the U.S. context outside of Misplaced Pages. ElKevbo (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• • "Winningest", while perfectly cromulent, is informal in usage.

    Misplaced Pages articles, and other encyclopedic content, should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary depending upon the subject matter, but should follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable. Formal tone means that the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner.

    This may change for this particular word, but as we see from comments in various locations, attracts a lot of negativity right now. "Most successful" is too vague to be a good replacement, but "most victorious" is exactly right. There can be no complaints about usage or meaning. --Pete (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• As a count of victories potentially includes moral victories, you proposed phrase has a different meaning than the word you are attempting to replace. --Allen3  04:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Come on, now. It is not too informal for the Encyclopedia Britannica. Nor is it too informal for serious reporting (not just opinion pieces) in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Boston Globe, and every other major American newspaper -- I didn't realize that Britannica and every major American newspaper were verbal ruffians. Cbl62 (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, Pete, the essay you quote concedes that we "should follow the style used by reliable sources". America's most reliable and respected media outlets use "winningest" (not "most victorious") in American sporting contexts. Cbl62 (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

If we look to specialist writing areas, we also encounter jargon. Sports articles are full of terms which are incomprehensible to an outsider. We should aim for clarity overall. --Pete (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Understandability is not the issue. Nobody has ever seriously asserted that they don't know what it means. The fact that everyone who dislikes the word was able to rewrite it, without having to ask what the original author meant, is proof that nobody has misunderstood the word. The real objection is that it "sounds wrong" based on a prescriptivist English point of view. We should look to style guides, like Fowler, and models like Brittanica and the NYT, to tell us what is an isn't "proper English".

I would be persuaded to change my mind if anyone could show evidene that this word is any harder to understand than the rest of Misplaced Pages. This isn't Simple English Misplaced Pages, after all, and even if it were, "winningest" would probably be the preferred word to achieve clarity for readers with smaller vocabularies. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Winningest" only recently attracted attention as a sideshow to an unrelated conflict among editors. Prior to that, where is the evidence among these many, many articles that it attracts "a lot of negativity"? I've seen poorly written Misplaced Pages content that drew many questions from readers, but not this word. And while everyone is entitled to their opinion that Misplaced Pages should be formal, are you aware that no policy or guideline says formal English is required? No matter how much you quote WP:FORMAL, it still lacks widespread consensus. If it had such support, it would be a guideline.

And as Cbl62 suggests, what constitutes a proper tone has to come from somewhere, and I would think Brittanica, NYT, Columbia Encyclopedia, H.W. Fowler, etc are the reliable soruces we have always looked to to settle everything. Not opinion, not voting. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

That's what bothers me most: I don't know how much of this is (the edits, not the discussion here) is driven by a sincere objection to the word and how much is driven by a petty desire to foment conflict among editors who dislike one another. The fact that the word was recently raised in several ANI discussions between and about editors who apparently dislike one another and the fact that the word has been used in FAs and GAs for many years now without objection makes me suspicious and wary. ElKevbo (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm quite concerned at how many veteran editors are willing to argue with total confidence that we can't use a word (whether it's winningest, or cheated, or caught) based on totally unsourced, and demonstrably false opinions. I've edited for years grounded by the basic idea of verifiablity, "verifiabilty not truth" etc. Yet here none of these editors will cite a single thing, and they casually toss aside our most serious, most respected sources. Leaving us nothing to base our decisions on. That's why it matters, not this one word.

Ground your arguments in reliable sources and I will happily change my mind. I've been proven wrong many times before and I'm grateful to anyone who shows me evidence of my errors. But not to those who do nothing but cling to opinion and expect that to carry weight. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Lewis Carroll used "curiouser" (s:Alice's Adventures Under Ground/Chapter 1), but "more curious" is correct in standard English. Likewise, "most victorious" is correct in standard English.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Curiouser is a neologism -- nonstandard English, in isolated usage after being coined by one author. Winningest dates to 1804, over 200 years, according to our sources, and is in widespread use in serious writing. If you had sources saying winningest was a neologism like curiouser, you'd have a strong point. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

See "curiouser" (1865) at http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=curiouser.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Lewis Carroll playfully made it up. The word is used almost exclusively in playful references to Carroll's work and ideas. Winningest is nothing like that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• "... we do not use the word "winningest" in any articles": Contrary to Yanping Nora Soong's claim, a search on Misplaced Pages shows usage of winningest in American sports articles. WP:PROPOSAL suggests that guidelines "documents existing practices, rather than proposing a change to them". While winningest is American English, it is acceptable per MOS:ENGVAR. Moreover, the term is specific to the sports domain, which seems too much of a niche for MOS to get involved. Instead of banning words, something like "Wile E. Coyote was the winningest coach in Acme history with 550 career wins" could help bridge any gap that might exist.—Bagumba (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

  Sorry, I meant that we do not use it in the titles of any articles -- namely, any article or list "winningest" in the title always redirects to a more formal name. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• User:Reyk is on a mass campaign today, during the pendency of this discussion, to remove the word from as many American sporting articles as he/she can find. The status quo ante should be maintained until this discussion has reached a conclusion. Accordingly, I intend to revert Reyk's mass edits pending the outcome here. Cbl62 (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Skyring is doing the same thing. I wouldn't recommend to edit warring with these guys. It seems like bait for a 3RR trap. But if this has a clear resolution, we can probably return to the stable versions of these articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I've notified Reyk and Skyring about this discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It would be totally uncool for any editor who knows of this discussion to continue making edits that may or may not have consensus on such a non-time-sensitive issue. ElKevbo (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I think some may have accidentally tacked their manhood to this word. It's almost painful to hear the yelps when someone has a contrary opinion. I agree. Discussion is far better than edit-warring, and a lot more fun. Perhaps we should look at an RfC: hard to find a consensus in what this is turning into: a rough tangle of short and curly posts. --Pete (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You have made what, two hundred edits in the last week or so, on 30 or 40 different pages, all related to "winningest"? You claim it's WP:LAME, yet it's almost all you do now. But it's other editors who have a problem? Not you? Seems like quite a personal attack and violation of WP:AGF to (repeatedly) post that "some may have accidentally tacked their manhood to this word". Is that supposed to be helpful in this discussion?

Creating an RfC -- a whole NEW discussion of the same topic -- would be forum shopping. We're resolving this right here. We don't need to start over. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, but I'm enjoying the discussion. What I mean - and you should understand, after all you've been around since Misplaced Pages was in short pants - is that an RfC is a more structured mechanism than a discussion such as this. The way it's going, there are a range of intertwangled opinions, regrettably a few short fuses and bruised egos, and it's hard, very hard, to come up with a good result mutually satisfactory to all parties. An RfC has the advantage of a well-phrased question, structured responses, and a closing admin. Even if we don't all like the result, it's a bed we can all lie in. --Pete (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

At an appropriate time, someone can request closure. If the admin says there's no consensus, then perhaps an RfC is the next step. But first see if this reaches a good consensus, before shifting to a new forum. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've been following this discussion for the last couple of days, and doing my best to avoid the massive time-sink that this discussion is sure to become before it concludes with more heat than light. Having made that disclaimer, I've got to say that I believe that the word "winningest" is awkward, inelegant and imprecise, and its exact meaning is ambiguous without further elaboration. It is a colorful Americanism that no doubt originated in American sports-writing, a genre well known for its often creative use of Shakespeare's English. Personally, I try to write my way around the word whenever possible because I know in my writer's heart of hearts that the good Professor Strunk would not approve. That said, the word is sometimes almost unavoidable in describing the win-loss history of career coaches and the like, and it is often part of the most concise wording available to express the intended meaning. Yeah, I know, that sounds like gibberish, but it's the truth. I've reconciled myself to using it only when absolutely necessary, and then only in sports articles. To my mind, it's a bit like the malapropism "normalcy," the use of which once led to a U.S. President being mocked in the mainstream media of the 1920s, but is now used more frequently in every day writing than the "correct" word "normality". That's the nature of the evolving language. I'm not particularly fond of the word, but I see no reason why MOS should try to micromanage its use by banning or restricting it, nor should individual editors make it a quest to purge it from Wikipeda. Our volunteer editing time is better spent elsewhere. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• I don't follow sports, but I'm perfectly familiar with the word and its well-established use in North America. The MoS should avoid this micromanagement of the language. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Since Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Contested vocabulary says "Avoid words and phrases that give the impression of straining for formality", we could say that the MOS already has this covered, along with WP:ENGVAR. Perhaps the real problem is the essay WP:FORMAL needs to be changed to bring it in line with the real guidelines. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• At this point is it even about the validity of winningest or witch word better informs and educates the reader. Just like the fact that the word encyclopedia comes from the greeks. How do they express wining victory as in the greek goddess of victory nike. And are they not the first creators of sport as in the olympics. They also did not name a shoe after winning its nike victory . So how is winningest a better choice over victorious. 72bikers (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• I've long been of the opinion that "winningest" is bad English, an annoying affectation, and too informal for an encyclopedia, and jarring for non North American readers. It's frequently vague. I have never yet come across a use where it could not be replaced by more elegant and precise English. I see it a lot in articles on college sports coaches, some of whom have even, or even losing, records overall and only have managed a lot of wins because they were there for a long time. Describing someone who loses more often than he wins as "winningest" is downright stupid and borderline misleading. This silly gimmicky thing should be taken out of articles and replaced with better language. Reyk _YO! 07:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Gauging consensus

The above discussion has many tangles and opinion, but perhaps we might find some small parcels of common ground:

1. "Winningest" is a perfectly cromulent word with some decades of use in American sportswriting.
2. It is seen as awkward and informal by many. Some regard it as a nonsense word, slang at best.
3. "Most successful" is a vague and ambiguous alternate wording.
4. "Most victorious" is a precise and formal alternate wording, albeit five characters longer.

If I can ask editors to refrain from commenting on the motives of others, but to restrict their contributions to the word(s) and usage in Misplaced Pages articles in general, please. --Pete (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Poll: Is "winningest" an MOS issue?

I think a poll is in line to gauge if this is seen as an MOS issue or not.—Bagumba (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

What I meant to ask was whether the existing MOS needs any specific changes to handle winningest.—Bagumba (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Support - Guideline changes for "winningest" are needed in MOS

1. Support -- I think the project could definitely use some clarification on this issue. Perhaps an MoS update for a single word would be excessive, but it could be added to a subpolicy page (with other words included). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
2. Suport There are enough sources to support claims that it is an informal term, to fall foul of WP:FORMAL unless used in the context of a direct quotation. While I agree that MOS:ENGVAR doesn't have preferences regarding variations of English, MOS:COMMONALITY makes it clear that when we have a suitable term that is universally understood, it should be used instead of terms that are less than universally understood. most victorious has the correct tone for an enclyclopedia, without any hint of informality and in universally understood. It's a far better choice than a term that has claims of informality and is not universally understood. However, I'm not sure if MOS needs to put this on a bad words list - it's no big deal, I think that WP:FORMAL & MOS:COMMONALITY make it pretty clear that in most cases, we should use something else. But either way, it's a horrible thing to read unless you want to give Misplaced Pages the tone of a cheap tabloid publication. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

   I hope "most victorious" is not a serious contender for preferred alternative. Holy cripes. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

3. Comment – It's not a word that needs to be covered by MoS. I think our guidelines here aim higher than that. It is American sports jargon, about as informal a word as one can find, and phrases such as "winningest coach" are best replaced by "most victorious coach" which has the same meaning without the grating jargon and is not the contorted "straining for formality" that WP:FORMAL advises against. "The coach who wins the most" or "coach with the highest number of wins" is straining. Perhaps we can throw this to another forum, such as one dealing with sports in general? Otherwise, we can handle usage on a case by case basis. --Pete (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
4. Suppport. It is our duty to ensure, in the average, two letters "p" per support in a MOS vote. Otherwise, such a MOS-singest discussion would become laughtingest. Pldx1 (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
5. Support/moot point- of course it is a MOS issue that universally understood English is preferred to slang terms and regional colloquialisms, but the MOS already makes this clear. Perhaps Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Words to watch needs a section on avoiding words that make Misplaced Pages sound like a low-brow tabloid. Reyk _YO! 08:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - Guideline changes for "winningest" are not needed in MOS

1. Oppose: "Winningest" is an American sports phrase, probably used in Canada too,, and MOS does not have a preference on an English variety per MOS:ENGVAR. This also does not fall under Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Words to watch, as it does not violate the core content policies of Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. This word is used in the niche of (North) American sports, and is not otherwise generally used. At best, this can be dealt with outside MOS, perhaps among editors of (North) American sports articles and their respective WikiProjects to determine whether "winningest" is considered well written or not.—Bagumba (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose: perfectly common word in sports writing in North America (including Canada—the Montreal Canadiens are frequently referred to in print as the "winningest" team in the NHL, and have been as far back as my memory goes). It is not slang. The whole issue can result in no more than fatiguing editors without improving a line of prose. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose: Since there is no evidence the meaning of winningest is not obvious, it does not fall under the current MOS discouragement of jargon. We have reliable sources that it is an Americanism, and sources don't agree on whether it is standard or informal English, so it should be kept in US-related articles per WP:RETAIN. No sources support that it is a neologism or slang. The current MOS discourages "straining for formality" and "unnecessarily complex wording", thus discouraging awkward attempts to replace winningest, because "Plain English works best" according to the MOS. Essays subordinate to the MOS, specifically the "explanatory supplement" Misplaced Pages:Writing better articles#Tone, should be modified to correctly reflect that awkward writing in the service of formality is not desirable, and formal English is not mandatory. Claims that a word is or isn't "proper English" should be subject to verifiability. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose: It not a winning word in my book, but we can't put every losing concept into the MOS. Maybe it make sense in sports, if sources use it so much. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose on the narrow question, on the basis that it's too small a point to be covered in the MoS. But strong exception to the sort of legalism that says we have to source every reaction to words. In my opinion it is clear that "winningest" is far too informal to appear in encyclopedic writing, and if others agree with me, that is enough. There has to be room to edit based on consensus of editors. Also, yes, formal English is mandatory in encyclopedic writing. --Trovatore (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
6. Comment this all seems rather pointless and lame, Dennis has already argued against the use of this word on the relevant article talk page, and in ANI. It's a disputed word and there is a suitable alternative, why waste more time on this silly little word? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

   It affects a wide swathe of articles, not just a single article. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox US university ranking

There is a discussion about a possible formatting change to {{Infobox US university ranking}}, here. It was suggested that I get MOS input. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)