Misplaced Pages

They strike me as better for different uses. The template is good for long strings, but a bit superfluous when only one nbsp is needed. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 05:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Even when there is only one space, isn't {{nowrap|22 km}} very much clearer than 22 km? The template says what it is for whereas the non-breaking space can look like a string of gibberish. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 08:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that there are orders of magnitude more people who understand HTML than MediaWiki's particular brand of wikimarkup, and given that HTML character entities are also part of that wikimarkup as well as of HTML, and given that the template name is run-together and just as easily interpreted as having something to do with rap music, then, obviously, "no". And really, who cares? MOS mentions both techniques, and is the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style, not the "Misplaced Pages Manual of Arbitrary Coding Standards That Make No Functional Difference At All". Heh. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 10:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, SMcCandlish. And of course once more I must point out these plain facts:

• Hard spaces are essential to sound markup.
• The options for markup of hard spaces at Misplaced Pages are inadequate.
• There is no provision for the hard space in the arrays under the edit box, despite its being orders of magnitude more useful than dozens of the recherché characters that currently do clutter the screen. (₥, ₦, ₰, ₪, ৳, ₮ ??? Give us a break!)
• Provision for the hard space was not foreseen by developers, but it is abundantly evident now. Therefore:

A specific proposal (please respond!)

I say there should be a push for reform, so that the hard space can be used efficiently in editing at Misplaced Pages. It seems that the appropriate forum for this is Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)‎: in the first instance, in any case. Anyone interested in a joint approach there? We'd need to work for reform as a group, and demonstrate consensus for change.

My own idea is that we need custom markup for the hard space, a bit like the special markup we have for italics or bold. Use a pair of less-used standard qwerty-keyboard characters to stand for the hard space.

Until we get such a change, advocating use of the hard space is futile. You won't get compliance, because the markup is a nuisance to input, difficult to read on the screen, and meaningless to most newcomers.

Comments? Expressions of solidarity? Interest in doing something?

– Noetica Talk 20:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

One problem with entering the NBSP character directly into a form field is an annoying bug/feature in Firefox that automatically converts any such NBSP character (U+00A0) into a normal space (U+0020). This bug in a very popular browser currently prevents us entering the no-break space as we do with any other UTF-8 character (remapping keyboard such that AltGr+Space inserts NBSP, JavaScript buttons, etc.). Markus Kuhn (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting, Marcus. But it does not affect what we are currently considering at User:Noetica/ActionMOSVP, does it? (Don't forget to vote!)

We are working out a proposal for markup that will be replaced by &nbsp; in the same way as '' is currently replaced by <i> or </i>.

Please join the discussion at that other location! Your input would be useful.

– Noetica Talk 21:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I support Noetica's push. Tony (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, sounds like an excellent idea to me. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I get pretty tired of typing   myself. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 22:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Aye. We discussed this before. Though the specifics still have to be worked out, let's do something. Phaunt (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. I was asking in IRC recently about this topic and most people weren't using them at all. I support everything said here. — Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support for all the foregoing reasons. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 03:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Would &; be suitable for markup? I just did a search in the current HTML spec and that doesn't appear to be used, it's in some sense the closest thing to what people use already, and HTML-savvy people probably have not carelessly thrown around &; characters in articles already written. — Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(See suggestion below, Dank55. We'll get to the details soon enough.)– Noetica Talk 10:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

How to proceed?

added heading Phaunt (talk) 10:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Motion carried, I think.

As I write we have seven editors supporting a change in the editing system for the hard space:

Tony

Gaius Cornelius

SMcCandlish

Phaunt

Dank55

Dave

Noetica

(Any more? Never too late to sign up.)

This is very encouraging! No one has spoken against the idea. In fact, probably all that has held people back is this: we MOS editors are not used to thinking such changes possible. Arguably, though, we appreciate more than many others what the system really needs, to promote sound editing practices at the coal-face.

How to proceed? Here's my plan, subject to your suggestions and amendments:

1. We meet at some designated location to thrash out the details of a joint proposal. We don't want to clutter this talk page. Following Tony's precedent, I could make a subpage at User:Noetica, and act as secretary for the group there. Anyone could join us to work on this. Shouldn't take too long; but there are matters of tactics and strategy to sort out, along with the technical details.

2. We make a strong submission at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals) (shortcut: WP:VPR).

3. We all alert other editors we know, who may be interested and have skills relevant to this push.

4. We work together to answer queries and objections at WP:VPR, and to maintain momentum, reporting back here as necessary.

5. We succeed!

How's that? Your quick comments, please.

If there are no objections or significant alterations, I'd like to take the next steps very soon.

– Noetica Talk 10:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• What are we waiting for? Tony (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Please carry on. This sounds very good. Phaunt (talk) 10:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

New page for discussion of the hard space: User:Noetica/ActionMOSVP

As proposed above, I have established a page for the hard-space campaign.

Please conduct discussion there, now. All interested editors are welcome, of course.

The page is User:Noetica/ActionMOSVP. I look forward to seeing you there!

– Noetica Talk 07:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

– Noetica Talk 05:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hard order for bottom sections (see also, references, further reading, external links)

I've been noticing on pretty much every article that is at least GA is that the order of the bottom sections are always see also, references/notes/footnotes, further reading, and external links. However, whenever I see an article that does not follow that order, and run it through the automated peer reviewer, it always says to reorder those sections. In addition, this FAR also addresses the order of those sections. Should there be a hard order of those sections? 哦，是吗？(oxygen) 21:55, 22 December 2007 (GMT)

I would say that there is no reason to add additional mandatory instructions on this - such changes would do nothing to improve the content or readability of articles, and would seem to be instructions for instructions sake. Just because the automatic peer reviewer has been set up with this in my mind un-necessary additional instruction, is not a reason why it should be made compulsoryNigel Ish (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anything really needs to be added. The main MoS page states the External links to be "at the end". Except the Layout guide says Navboxes (succession boxes and navigational footers) "go at the very end of the article, following the last appendix section". Maybe get this clarified a bit. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Really a GTL issue, but anyway: The MoS currently specifically avoids prescribing any order here and I see no reason why it should. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• As the one who suggested this issue be taken to WP:MOS, my bad for not realizing it should go to WP:GTL. Oops! - BillCJ (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • No problem - GTL is part of the MoS, so your suggestion was just fine. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just had a look at the automated peer reviewer. Is this where the rot stems from? Let me get this straight: an automatic script generates a warning to flag a "breach" of a non-existent rule, and you're suggesting that we create a rule to match what the script says? Surely the sane solution is to fix the script... --Rlandmann (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If anything, any and all suggestions from the automated script came from past reviews of articles. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 23:37, 24 December 2007 (GMT)

Yes, WP:MOS specifies that external links should go last because we prefer Wikified content over external content, to keep readers within Wiki and to encourage wikified content. WP:GTL should be brought into line to clarify that External links should always be the last place we send readers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of my addition of "Eats, Shoots & Leaves," by Lynne Truss

Noetica, I am not enormously fussed either way, but I disagree with you that the book "gives almost no guidance for on-line work." Misplaced Pages suffers as much from misunderstandings due to absent or faulty punctuation as does any other form of writing, and Truss' book presents a lively, clear and engaging (if not always undebatable) view of this neglected topic. I think many editors would benefit from a read. Incidentally, the unusual, and I believe entirely correct, use of semi-colons in your edit summary alerts me to the fact that you value such tools yourself: why not share them? Rumiton (talk) 13:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I must say that I was disappointed in Truss's book. I didn't learn much from it, and it's not set out in a way that allows the kind of focused reference that the other external sources do. Too discursive. Tony (talk) 13:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see that, but would suggest that for the general reader the narrative style and quirkiness might be a plus. Editors who hang out here at the Manual of Style are probably already converted to linguistic pedantry, and might expect to learn little, but general editors might gain quite a lot. Rumiton (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope that Truss's book contains more than pedantry. Tony (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe it does. I was being gently ironic. Please try to catch my drift. Rumiton (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Rumiton, perhaps it is good that Truss's work attracted many readers. If a typical WP editor has heard of a book on punctuation, it is likely to be hers. While she gives some advice that might guide practice, though, the advice is not systematic; and she explicitly disavows any intention to provide it.

But the worst is that she gives no guidance about computer-based (let alone HTML-based) practice, apart from reporting the revelation she underwent as she wrote the book: a "dash" could be got by some combination of keystrokes. Which dash she doesn't say; nor which combination of keystrokes.

There's the rub. She is so very old-fashioned; and while that may in itself not be a bad thing, our editors need to know new things that she can't tell them. Good for some to feel the force of her authorial rage, and to share in it. But that indulgence distracts from what is important in any manual of style for the web, or for Misplaced Pages.

As you gather, I do value such guides myself. I have dozens in my collection; but Truss is not the best of them. I am against promoting her work simply because she is already popular and well-promoted! (Note the absence of a comma after work in that sentence, which would have changed the meaning.)

– Noetica Talk 21:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the point emerging here is that this Talkpage is rather like some grammarian's Mount Olympus where the linguistic pantheon chat amongst themselves. Noetica, I will assume in you not only good faith but a sophisticated literary sense of humour when you use the sentence "There's the rub" whilst accusing someone else of being old fashioned. :-) And I did notice your carefully crafted sentence, which, had I not noticed the missing comma, I would have entirely misunderstood. But you are making my point for me. Truss' book is not for the likes of us, but good, honest editors may find good, honest advice in it. And it is entertaining enough to stay in the memory. Rumiton (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing elitist or Olympian about it, Rumiton. No one wants more than I do to offer genuine and realistic help to editors through MOS, so that Misplaced Pages will be more consistently well-written.

Truss is fine in her way, and she speaks to the common run of humanity, which includes you and me. It's just that there are much better guides to punctuation. Truss's book is a reflective and opinionated dilatation on certain selected aspects of punctuation; and as such it is occasionally entertaining, and occasionally informative. But it is not a resource for those wanting guidance, or rulings on tricky points. She doesn't set out to do that! Let us all be "good, honest editors". But those of us who contribute to MOS have a further responsibility: to give more acute and focused direction than just "read this best-seller". That's all putting Truss in our list would amount to. I don't mean to discourage you; I know you want the best for everyone. I just happen to disagree strongly that this is the best. We're trying to trim MOS down; that's going to be hard if we have a long list of extra resources, and if Truss is there then so should a dozen genuine punctuation guides be there also.

– Noetica Talk 07:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel there should be at least one punctuation guide listed. Perhaps you would like to suggest one? Rumiton (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand that feeling, Rumiton. I could suggest several that are better than Truss's, but I am reluctant to add any of them. We don't want to open the floodgates. As I say, there is a push to make things trim, taut, readable, and useful at MOS. What we include in that section is a broad question which I (and other MOS I know) would like to discuss. Perhaps we can broach that general question, yes? It belongs with a whole suite of questions about the status of MOS and of its satellites like WP:MOSNUM, and the relations among all of these far-from-heavenly bodies.

– Noetica Talk 12:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

How would you phrase that broad question, Noetica? And who are the "we" of whom you have now twice spoken? I sniff royalty again, if perhaps not deity. Rumiton (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Go sniff elsewhere, Rumiton, if you can't be civil. "We" refers to "you, me, and other editors". Got that? In particular, it refers to those of us who have diligently make hundreds of thoughtful edits at WP:MOS and here at WT:MOS, and who are interested in the big picture, not just the odd detail. The broad question concerns these matters: the content and scope of MOS; the content, scope, and number of subsidiary MOS-type pages; the nature of the relations among all of these pages; how consensus is to reached on matters of style; and where and how discussion towards consensus should be conducted.

– Noetica Talk 12:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I was being uncivil, or certainly not deliberately so, but thank you for including "me" in the "we". I think the more help we can give to people whose school classes failed and misled them, who believe correct spelling and punctuation have no uses, who cannot understand why their daily online lives are marked by misunderstandings and howling acrimony, the better it will be, and they will need material pitched to their needs. I believe Truss is a pretty good, if old-fashioned, incomplete and flawed, start. I would also like to become involved in the broad question. Thank you for responding. Rumiton (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Reasoning for unique section titles

In the Section headings section it is said that:

There is yet another problem with duplicate headings, and I should like to know whether it is admissable. It is this:

• all links to any one of a number of sections with the same name will lead to the first section, rendering the rest of them virtually unlinkable.

Opinions? Waltham, The Duke of 14:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to include. Tony (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought it would be interesting (and accurate—I conducted a couple of relevant experiments some time ago). However, I shall wait for a couple of days before I make the edit, in case there are any objections. Waltham, The Duke of 15:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You can link to them: an underscore and number are appended to duplicate section names. E.g. for three sections named "Example", the names (for section linking) will be "Example", "Example_2" and "Example_3".--Patrick (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed a good reason not to include my idea. Although it ought to be said that, even with the impediment removed, the duplication of section titles does complicate matters. Quite unnecessarily so.

So, lesson learned: I had better take some time off and read more of the documentation. The only problem is that there is so much of it. I suppose I shall require some sort of plan... Waltham, The Duke of 00:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Question about an article title

I'm reading the manual of style for the first time, and I'm working on an article at the same time. I noticed I'm going to have to change the name of NEE (which is Dutch for no, not an acronym but written in all caps, and is the name of a political party) to the translated English name without all capitals, "No", right?

A problem that will rise then is that the name of the party will be confusing if used in a sentence (confusion with the English word no). How do I make it clear that I'm using No as a name. Italics? Key to the city (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd retain the caps when NEE refers to the political group, and use our "words as words" italics when referring to nee and no as words in, respectively, Dutch and English. Tony (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Personally, I'm fine with keeping the all caps, but I'm confused. This suggest to always avoid all caps, and this suggests the same even when the organisation, NEE in this case, has the habbit of writing its own name in all caps: Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official": avoid: REALTOR®, TIME, KISS; instead, use: Realtor, Time, Kiss. Key to the city (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: permit non-hyphen form with units in full form, to match guidance for symbolic form

Until recently, AKS Continental said: "ladder frames of 7 foot 6 inch wheelbase could be used". That is unambiguous and looks right to me, just as "40 mm gun" and "40 millimetre gun" do. I edited it using the convert template and found that hyphens had been added in order to comply with guidance here. It now says: "ladder frames of 7-foot-6-inch wheelbase could be used". I agree with the format used by the previous editor and think the hyphens make it look worse.

I do have the option of changing it to symbolic form: "ladder frames of 7 ft 6 in wheelbase could be used" because there is an inconsistency in the guidance i.e. hyphens are not mandatory for symbolic forms.

The hyphen it is not required for resolving an ambiguity. It is inconsistent to mandate a hyphen in the full form but not in the symbolic form. I would like to deregulate this guidance so that editors that write: "7 foot 6 inch wheelbase" and "40 millimetre gun" are not in conflict the the MOS.

My proposal is to change the guidance as follow:

• Current: Values and units used as compound adjectives are hyphenated only where the unit is given as a whole word.
• Proposed: A hyphen is not mandatory for values and units. If a hyphen is used, it must satisfy both of the following criteria:
  • the unit is given as a whole word.
  • the value and unit constitutes a compound adjective.

The examples would also have to be updated to match the guidance. Lightmouse (talk)

I think that the hyphenated usage is more proper. I don't think the guideline should be changed. TomTheHand (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, that damned convert template: I'd support it if it could convert every instance logically and consistently with MOS: it can't, and it's just as much work, in other ways, as doing it manually. I agree that "7 foot 6 inch ladder" looks awful with three hyphens, and is sufficiently understandable without them as a multiple attributive. MOS might have this added as an example of where to go against the rule of hyphenating attributive values and units. Does anyone agree? However, I don't agree that the norm should change—of hyphenating attributive values and fully named units, and of not doing so where the units are expressed as symbols (include abbreviations). Tony (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Very much agree. 7-foot-six-inches just looks weird. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Please support the proposal, or offer an alternative proposal that will permit "7 foot 6 inch" without hyphens. Lightmouse (talk) 09:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that for SI units, there is an explicit international standard rule (e.g., NIST SP811 section 7.2, ISO 31-0, ...) not to use a hyphen between a number and a unit symbol, and there seems to be a tradition in Misplaced Pages to apply the same SI style rules also to the non-SI unit symbols listed in the appendices of ISO 31, including in, ft, yd, etc. In that sense, it should clearly be “a 7 ft 6 in wheelbase” and “a 9 mm gun”. The SI style rules only apply to numbers followed by unit symbols, so you can still write “a nine-millimeter gun” or “a 9-millimeter gun” if you prefer. In any case, it is important to remember that the purpose of the hyphen is to simplify reading/parsing and to avoid ambiguity, and there is usually no ambiguity when a singular noun is prefixed by a number and a unit symbol. That's because unit symbols are never used as nouns (you wouldn't write “He really fought for the last mm.”). Some people argue that a phrase like “the samples were placed in 22 mL vials” might be ambiguous, because it could be referring to 22 one-milliliter vials, but I think in that case the sentence should have been written as “the samples were placed in 22 vials of 1 mL each”. Markus Kuhn (talk) 10:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree with the proposal. Here's a possible revised guideline to incorporate the concern (my addition in green):

Values and units used as compound adjectives are hyphenated only where the unit is given as a whole word, except where the effect would be ungainly ("a 7 foot 5 inch wooden plank" rather than "a 7-foot-5-inch wooden plank").

• But now I look at the example in the cold light of day, I think the hyphens do make this unfortunate construction easier to read. Much easier. So I'm now disagreeing with my own revision. Tony (talk) 10:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Markus has said it very well. SI rules only apply to symbolic forms but are interesting and relevant. The form Oerlikon 20 mm cannon and the form "refitted with a 20 millimetre Phalanx CIWS" are consistent and unambiguous. If you prefer you can be consistent or inconsistent. There are plenty of things that the MoS should address but this stylistic preference should not be mandatory. We would then not have a problem with the editors that wrote: "7 foot 6 inch wheelbase" and "20 millimetre Phalanx". Lightmouse (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• A gift from the gods The crew debated for several hours whether they should deploy their enormous resources of 4${\displaystyle \,}$0 4${\displaystyle \,}$0${\displaystyle \,}$0 mm gun's, or simply deploy 4${\displaystyle \,}$0 4${\displaystyle \,}$0${\displaystyle \,}$0 millimetre gun's, but in the end the matter was settled by a communication from HQ which stated that they must deploy all 4${\displaystyle \,}$0,4${\displaystyle \,}$0${\displaystyle \,}$0-mm guns and 4${\displaystyle \,}$0 4${\displaystyle \,}$0${\displaystyle \,}$0-millimetre guns, thus hopelessly confusing the enemy's spies who all despised pedantry (and greengrocers). - Neparis (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hyphens must still be allowed where they are needed to confirm that a word denotes a unit: 2-foot pumps (not a pair of pumps to go on my feet), 2-yard brushes (not a couple of brushes for cleaning my yard), etc. This ambiguity is less common with SI units. Certes (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The hyphen is a tool that can resolve a reasonable ambiguity. The Guardian style guide says:

Quote: use hyphens where not using one would be ambiguous, eg to distinguish "black-cab drivers come under attack" from "black cab-drivers come under attack". Lightmouse (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Your wording is no improvement, Lightmouse. All that really needs to be changed is the middle example, from

Incorrect:	9-mm gap
Correct:	9 mm gap (rendered as 9 mm gap)
Incorrect:	9 millimetre gap
Correct:	9-millimetre gap
Correct:	12-hour shift
Correct:	12 h shift

to something like this

. . .
Acceptable:	9 millimetre gap
Acceptable:	9-millimetre gap
. . .

Gene Nygaard (talk) 09:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Crossposted from Talk:Serial comma

Punctuation, particularly in the US, was standardized quite recently (i.e. the last 150 years) and mandatory use of the serial comma arose as a consquence of foolish consistency more than the accurate notation of spoken language, the Oxford style manual not withstanding.

As a reference work Misplaced Pages must evenhandedly put forth the opposing positions, but in its own recommnded usage may do as it (i.e. its Wikipedians) prefer, and the ultimate test is ambiguity and lack thereof.

Further, en.wikipedia.org is the English language Misplaced Pages, not Wiki USA, and should reflect worldwide use, which runs against the serial comma. Proposed, then, to use a serial comma when doing so eliminates ambiguity and not when it does not.

NB I am advocating not using the serial comma under most circumstances; in many cases it makes no difference whether it's there or not, and I say, "When in doubt, leave it out!" Robert Greer (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Some good points, and thank you - though perhaps you should take your suggestions to Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of style rather than here, which is meant to be a discussion about the article rather than about the serial comm as such. I hope you notice that our article on the serial comma does as you say, and uses a serial comma only where necessary to avoid ambiguity. Or at least I hope it does - I am forever deleting one from the list of languages that do not use a serial comma! Snalwibma (talk) 08:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll do so! Robert Greer (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Robertgreer, this topic will come up again and again. An MOS consensus policy on the serial comma is not, however, feasible. I, for example, support New Hart's Rules (NHR) and the current Oxford Guide to Style (OGS) on which NHR is based. Both more or less say that the serial comma often helps the reader, even when by an effort of concentration the logical divisions can be worked out. OGS is more compelling on this than NHR (bold added for emphasis):

For a century it has been part of OUP style to retain consistently, but it is commonly used by many other publishers both here and abroad, and forms a routine part of style in US and Canadian English. Given that the final comma is sometimes necessary to prevent ambiguity, it is logical to impose it uniformly, so as to obviate the need to pause and gauge each enumeration on the likelihood of its being misunderstood – especially since that likelihood is often more obvious to the reader than the writer." (OGS, 5.3, "Comma")

I put it to you that the portion I have emphasised in bold deserves a close and careful reading. It is not "foolish consistency" (as you say without support; and check your link, which doesn't take us anywhere useful). Nor does the serial comma conflict with "accurate notation of the spoken language" (again, no support). Those who say that we do not pause before the relevant conjunction need to listen, with scrupulous attention.

So you see? A case can be made the other way. And trust me: it will be made the other way, it necessary.

But experience here shows that such a clash would be a hand-wringing waste of time. I suggest we address other things instead, like markup for the hard space: an urgent matter which consistently escapes editors' attention because it is by its very nature elusive.

– Noetica Talk 23:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree entirely with Robertgreer's proposal: there are already quite enough functional commas in formal written registers, and redundant Oxford commas are easy to dispense with on a number of grounds. If I had a magic wand, I'd write it in. But I think too many people will object. The way it's written now makes it optional: "There is no Misplaced Pages consensus on whether to use the serial comma (also known as the Oxford comma or Harvard comma), except where including or omitting such comma clarifies the meaning". (BTW, I've just slightly tweaked that text in MOS to remove the fluff and an unnecessary emphasis on the rarity of the need to clarify the meaning.) I remove them where they're idle in text I edit. Tony (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Quotation mark

A source said that period and commas should be written within the quotation marks. Only the exclamation and question mark do have exemptions. BritandBeyonce (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

An exclamation mark or question mark goes inside the quotes if and only if it is part of the quotation. Robert Greer (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Question marks and exclamation points are easy to understand whether they're included in the quoted material or not. What about comma and period? A lot of FAs are having problems with that. BritandBeyonce (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Stuff inside quote marks belongs to the quote. Stuff outside does not. Thus I would write:

• User BritandBeyonce asked the question "What about comma and period?" because there appeared to be some confusion.

Similarly, the capital at the beginning and the period at the end of a sentence both belong to the quote. Thus I would write:

• He then added the sentence "A lot of FAs are having problems with that.".

I do not know if that is what the guidelines require, but that is what I do. Lightmouse (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Do not add period at the end. Also, I am very much familiar with the usage of quotation marks with regards to question marks and exclamation points. What is my very concern is the period and comma.

..."Let Me Blow Ya Mind".
but
..."Let Me Blow Ya Mind."

These are some errors in FA articles. Confusing and inconsistent right?

Take a look at this:

Double quotation marks " "

1. Enclose direct quotations but not indirect quotation.
• She said, "I am leaving."
• She said that she was leaving.

2. Enclose words or phrases borrowed from others, words used in a special way, and words of marked informality when introduced into formal writing.
• Much of the population in the hellish future he envisions is addicted to "derms," patches that deliver potent drug doses instantaneously through the skin.
• He called himself "emperor," but he was really just a dictator.
• He was arrested for smuggling "smack."

3. Enclose titles of poems, short stories, articles, lectures, chapters of books, short musical compositions, and radio and TV programs.
• Robert Frost's "After Apple-Picking"
• Cynthia Ozick's "Rosa"
• The third chapter of Treasure Island is entitled "The Black Spot."
• "All the Things You Are"
• Debussy's "Clair de lune"
• NBC’s "Today Show"

4. Are used with other punctuation marks in the following way:
4a. The period and the comma fall within the quotation marks.
• "I am leaving," she said.
• It was unclear how she maintained such an estate on "a small annuity."
4b. The colon and semicolon fall outside the quotation marks.
• There was only one thing to do when he said, "I may not run": promise him a large campaign contribution.
• He spoke of his "little cottage in the country": he might better have called it a mansion.
4c. The dash, the quotation mark, and the exclamation point fall within the quotation marks when they refer to the quoted matter only; they fall outside when they refer to the whole sentence.
• "I can't see how—" he started to say.
• He asked, "When did she leave?"
• What is the meaning of "the open door"?
• The sergeant shouted "Halt!"
• Save us from his "mercy"!

5. Are not used with yes or no except in direct discourse.
• She said yes to all our requests.

6. Are not used with lengthy quotations set off from the text.

Source: The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 1998

Note that the period and comma should be written inside the quotation marks. BritandBeyonce (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's the opinion of Merriam-Webster. I think that this has been discussed many times before. Misplaced Pages, after much discussion, prefers "logical quotation" - that is, to include punctuation within the quotation marks only when it comes from the quotation; to put it another way, Misplaced Pages believes that nothing should be put in a quote that is not part of it. So I would say: 'BritandBeyonce said, "Note that the period and comma should be written inside the quotation marks."' But: '"Note that the period and comma should be written inside the quotation marks", said BritandBeyonce.' Because the original source has a full stop at the end, if I change this to a comma that needs to go outside the quotation marks, to show that it isn't part of the quote. This is also usual (though not universal) British style; most US sources, such as the one you have quoted, say otherwise, although logical quotation has a growing following in the US, particularly in technical writing (see, for example, Hacker Writing Style in the Jargon File). TSP (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I do believe that logical quotation looks proper but don't you know that FAs are having problems with that? Its confusing and articles tends to be inconsistent and incoherent with our guides. BritandBeyonce (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Which FAs in particular? Strad (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Stefani songs that have already gained FA statuses. BritandBeyonce (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

'Logical quotation'

I've been challenged when I put periods and commas inside quotation marks, based on Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Quotation marks, that Misplaced Pages uses "logical quotation." I've never heard of this. I understand that putting periods and commas inside or outside of quotation marks is basically American vs. British usage. I would like to challenge this idea of "logical quotation": what is the source for it? It looks like it's either from technical writing or something made up. What outside source is Misplaced Pages basing its style on? InkQuill (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Basing from news articles from websites, they do not use logical quotations. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As well you should be challenged. It's not a transatlantic issue, since many US publications forbid internal punctuation, and many publications in the UK and elsewhere use the discredited internal system. WP does not have to follow external sources in determining its rules of style. See archives here for more. Tony (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not forcing anyway to change the policy. I am more concerned with FAs having inconsistency issues. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 04:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a god-damned thing that Misplaced Pages has made up. (And Tony seems to be stubborn as hell in trying to enforce it.) It's in the guidelines (which only means that it is suggested) but it is not absolute. It is wrong. You can't make up your own grammar rules. This has been discussed at length. What I and most do is follow the American English v. Brit/Euro English differences: If it is an American-specific article, follow American grammar; if Brit, follow Brit/Euro or whatever is correct for that language. Most importantly is to be consistent within articles. But I hardly ever find consistency. Tony will say it not U.S. (notice the periods) v. Brit. That's his opinion. The evidence speaks for itself. Type the way you know is grammatically correct. ---- Bobopaedia (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Bobo, you've had several sprays here about your notion of what is correct grammar (it's not a grammatical issue, anyway) and your hunches as to some transatlantic conspiracy; you've been howled down by others for your troubles. Give it away. Tony (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to refer to me, at least use my correct user name. I am not "Bobo." And you, Tony, seem to be the predominant one howling. I have no trans-Atlantic "conspiracy"; where is this so-called "conspiracy"?; who am I conspiring with? Geez. The fact is Americans and Brits punctuate differently--which I have simply stated--and that does not make a conspiracy. Yes, IT IS a grammatical issue. This "logical" puncutation does not follow American rules. And if it doesn't follow British rules, then it is not following TWO systems of punctuation. Why learn years and years of English (British or American) and then not use it correctly? Bobopaedia (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. Thanks to those below who spoke up and to the typesetting history. I didn't know any of the details as to why the American system was as such.

Why are you so inflexibly married to certain rules—the ones you first learnt, it seems. WP is an international project, so you can't expect that everything they taught you at grade school will do. It's online and not on paper, and is aimed at its own particular readership, which are further reasons for being flexible. Similarly, if you wrote for a particular US publication, you'd have to follow their house rules, which will never be entirely the same as others. Loosen up. Tony (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a college degree, have both written and edited technical and nontechnical writing, and have more than just grade-school courses in English. By the way, I just read all the mean, arrogant things you said to people at the discussion for featured article consideration for the article Analytical Review (Featured article candidates). Bobopaedia (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You have a college degree? Wow. It shouldn't be hard for you, then, to comprehend the issue. As far as the personal attack goes, I don't mind it; others react badly, but I see no point in that. Speak your mind if it makes you feel better, and move on. Tony (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC) (B's personal attack was removed soon after this entry.) Tony (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That was done after messaging with someone on Misplaced Pages and before I saw your response. Whatever timing was there was purely coincidental. I am not warring with you anymore on this issue. Bobopaedia (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Bobopaedia, you didn’t know anything about the reasons for some rule, yet defend it with claws and teeth? Wow! I’m stunned.

OTOH, it happens a lot around here at MoS, but most editors don’t confess their bias as frankly as you did. Christoph Päper (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know the part about the baseline. And what does OTOH mean? Bobopaedia (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel I must weigh in on this. I understand the reasoning behind "logical quotation," and I agree that it has merit in coding and in technical writing, both of which have historical basis for using nonproportional typefaces, in which the spacing between letters does not vary and thus does not figure into readability considerations. As a typesetter, I also know that punctuation is not a "logical" process; it has entirely to do with readability. For typesetters, the rule is to put punctuation within quotes that does not rise above the baseline, such as periods and commas; and other punctuation, such as question marks, exclamation marks, semicolons, etc., outside unless the punctuation is part of the quoted string. As a typesetter, I see violations of this rule as jarring errors, and hard to ignore. Putting baseline punctuation outside quotemarks upsets the visual rhythm of the typesetting, thus affecting readability. While some argue that so-called "logical quotation" removes ambiguity, in reality a reader gets the sense of the sentence almost entirely from context. Placement of baseline punctuation is a letter-spacing issue, having to do with how marks are made and how we use our eyes. Exceptions can (and should) be made in technical writing (which Misplaced Pages isn't), legal writing, and coding, all of which employ recursive reading practices that have little else to do with "why we read." rowley (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Rowley claims that Misplaced Pages isn't technical writing, but some articles are. Also, with the pervasive use of the Internet in all fields, with the associated requirement that URLs be written perfectly, some of the requirements of technical writing are invading all writing. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear, rowley!! You have said so well what I have understood instinctively as a journalist and printophile. Misplaced Pages is not even consistent in its style, as above comments have shown. While it's not worth getting into editing wars, I'm definitely going to stick with good old American punctuation rules in U.S.-based subjects, despite snarky retorts about how I should be challenged (as if I'm not entitled to an opinion) and how others are insulted for professing their point of view. "Several sprays"? As we punctuate in the U.S., "Give me a break." InkQuill (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Setting aside the question of whether Misplaced Pages is technical writing, there is still no conflict here. If an article is written so much in the style of technical writing that the same considerations apply, then, by all means, punctuate according to the requirements of technical writing. For the vast majority of Misplaced Pages writing, the readability will be improved by following the conventions of proportionally-based type, i.e., typesetting. When I say "rule," above, I mean something to be faithfully but not rigidly followed. Misplaced Pages should desire consistency, but consistency, itself, has to fall within considerations of applicability. rowley (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Support rowley. Misplaced Pages is inconsistent because of this "logical quotation." --BritandBeyonce (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Um ... so just because there's grammatical inconsistency on WP—and plenty of MOS breaches—we should throw MOS and English grammar to the wind? And I completely disagree that internal punctuation is somehow "nicer" to read, which is a line peddled above. Tony (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. We don't want to pursue on things that might harm Wiki. Misplaced Pages is still on the verge of establishing credibility. On the grammar, why throw to the wind? Its just a matter of adopting easy guidelines. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Research on conventional vs. logical punctuation

Throw English grammar to the wind? Where I learned English, or rather punctuation, the rule was to put periods and commas inside quotation marks. So we're not advocating against proper rules, but for them. And rather than "peddling" the idea that internal punctuation is nicer to read, I think rowley was basing what he said on readability studies and/or years of printing tradition. It's the idea that he is "peddling" something that is itself simply opinion. But this is clearly not a new question. Here's what Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage, a British source, says:

"Questions of order between inverted commas and stops are much debated and a writer's personal preference often conflicts with the style rules of editors and publishers. There are two schools of thought, which might be called the conventional and the logical. The conventional prefers to put stops within the inverted commas, if it can be done without ambiguity, on the ground that this has a more pleasing appearance. The logical punctuates according to sense, and puts them outside except when they actually form part of the quotation, thus: (examples snipped) ...

"The conventional system is more favoured by editors' and publishers' rules. But there are important exceptions, and it is to be hoped that these will make their influence felt. The conventional system flouts common sense, and it is not easy for the plain man to see what merit it is supposed to have to outweigh that defect; even the more pleasing appearance claimed for it is not likely to go unquestioned." (A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, Second Edition, H.W. Fowler, revised and edited by Sir Ernest Gowers (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965).

How prescient is that? My point is not that conventional punctuation should be adopted, but that we shouldn't insult those who disagree. The Chicago Manual of Style calls for conventional punctuation: "When the context calls for a comma at the end of material enclosed in quotation marks, parentheses, or brackets, the comma should be placed inside the quotation marks but outside the parentheses or brackets" (13th edition, page 146). The Careful Writer by Theodore M. Bernstein does not appear to deal with the question explicitly but uses conventional punctuation throughout. So those of us who advocated conventional punctuation are doing so based on solid editing and publishing ground. I'm interested in seeing sources that call explicitly for logical punctuation. I don't know of any myself, and in fact have never seen it widely used, which is why Misplaced Pages's use of it baffles me. Maybe in some countries it is the norm. It is not in the United States. — InkQuill 00:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

InkQuill, please see the archives of this talk page for copious debates, some of them quite recent. Tony (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do we have to go back their? That's why editors kept discussing on this for this guideline is not yet over. Why don't you go over on this Tony: "Smells Like Teen Spirit." --BritandBeyonce (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Action on markup for the hard space

This is an update for the discussion above concerning the hard space (or non-breaking space). We set up a page to consider some convenient markup for this essential but neglected character (currently the awkward and intrusive "&nbsp;", with a couple of work-around alternatives). I urge interested editors to take a look at the options we have assembled, and to join the discussion. We'll be voting soon on which to choose, and how to proceed. Just click here.

– Noetica Talk 22:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

PS The shortlist and place for providing your feedback on it are here. Tony (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Opportunity to vote now

We have finalised a reasonable shortlist of options for the hard space. You can register your vote now! Just click HERE.

– Noetica Talk 03:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• May I point out to contributors that MOS requires hard spaces between all instances of "p." and page number, and "pp." and page range. This is onerous using the current html code. It is in all our interests to vote for a better code, and to support the subsequent process of having it implemented technically. Tony (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct name: "no-break space"

The character of interest here has been called in all the coded character-set standards for the last quarter century the "no-break space" and is commonly abbreviated as NBSP (refs: ISO 8859, ISO 10646, Unicode, all the ECMA character-set standards, and two decades of literature on the subject). Can we please stick exactly to this well-established well-defined unambiguous technical term, and not muddy the waters by introducing lots of new fantasy terminology, such as "non-breaking space" or "hard space"? Thanks! Markus Kuhn (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"No-break" is better than "non-breaking". If you're referring to my recent edit to the section in MOS, in which I used the term "hard space" a few times, I'm quite willing to change it to "no-break", especially as it says exactly what it is, where "hard" has to be unpacked in the context. Tony (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Short answer to Marcus: no. Language changes. In fact, no precision is lost by using the very convenient term hard space, provided we define our terms early on. Nothing is gained by putting down those people who use a convenient term that is used in much style-guide literature, and well understood.

Accurate naming is important, I agree! But Marcus: why not address the far more pressing matter of substance, here? Your contribution to reforming markup for the space in question would be most welcome!

Not enough action at this page. Too much talk with too little outcome.

– Noetica Talk 16:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This does not surprise me much; it is one of the least busy periods of the year in Misplaced Pages. You should see how slowly business progresses in SBS; to be accurate, everything has stopped! Waltham, The Duke of 17:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Waltham. I mean usually, not just now. :)

– Noetica Talk 00:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Because" and "since"

What is Misplaced Pages's style on the usage of these words? I've seen "since" used interchangably with "because", but I do not think that usage is correct. Opinions, judgements, etc. are much anticipated. Thanks Fdssdf (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You might have included "as", too—apparently favoured in this role in North America. I discourage its use, since it's often ambiguous ("Can't do it as the machine stops"—as = while or because?). "Because" and "since" are interchangeable, I think, but I may be corrected by Hoary on this point. Where is he? Tony (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You rang? -- Hoary (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see. Clearly since and because aren't interchangable: *I've been waiting for you because 8:30. But can since be used for causation (Since he broke it, he'll have to pay for it)? Well, why the hell not? Ah, somebody may say, the reason not is that it's potentially ambiguous: his obligation to pay for it may be read as having a merely temporal and not causal relationship to his having broken it. To which my reply would be that that person either (a) is overly worried about imagined comprehension problems of people for whom English is a second language, or (b) has been reading the wrong kind of writings on language. Same for as. Let's take Tony's example: Can't do it as the machine stops. Even without context, I'll venture that it's something like I can't do what you suggest, since/because/as the machine stops when somebody does it. There's no risk of the sense of while, because the simple present would then be unidiomatic at best; cf the idiomatic Can't do it as/while the machine is stopping. (Come to think of it, even the machine is stopping is a unlikely. But let's avoid that digression.) So: since and as are perfectly good and indeed shorter alternatives to because; they're unpretentious, idiomatic, and almost never ambiguous (or anyway almost never problematically so) as long as you're the careful writer that your interest in these matters suggests you are. But don't let your interest turn into an obsession; and if you've already acquired any books on the avoidance of alleged "errors" in English (infer for imply, etc.), toss them into the trash. -- Hoary (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hoary, I've numbered my responses. (1) I meant interchangeable in the causal context, anyway.

(2) "Since he broke it, he'll have to pay for it" can't be anything but causal ("Since the day on which he broke it, he'll have to pay for it" just doesn't work in tense/mood terms).

(3) I don't agree that "Can't do it as the machine stops" has no potential for ambiguity. The machine starts and stops continually, and you can't press the self-oiling button as it stops, only while it's operating. Or you can't press that button because it stops. Perhaps that wasn't an ideal example; I'm motivated to press this issue because I have had to change "as" into "since" or "because" to avoid serious ambiguity‚ by which I mean that I seriously couldn't work out which meaning was intended. Wish I'd recorded some as examples. Tony (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Then all right, I'll concede that on occasion there are ambiguities. But most of the time there aren't, and as and since are then perfectly good choices. -- Hoary (talk) 10:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that it is incorrect, the "because"/"since" fiasco. AP Style is that "since" can only be used when referring to time-related events, especially events in the past. "Because", the AP manual says, is used only for causation. It goes on to explain that "since" cannot act as substitute for "because". That is, of course, AP Style, though. I just wanted to shed some light on what another MoS had to say. Thanks for the responses, though. Fdssdf (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me this about the AP manual. I'd only been vaguely aware of its existence; now I know that, in common with many other "style manuals", its right place is the garbage can. ¶ Alternatively, you are of course free to disagree not only with me (hardly a good writer, let alone any kind of arbiter of usage) but also with the author of a novel that I surely do not need to name and from which I quote the following. ¶ For her the streets that lay around her had no squalor, since she paced them always in the gold nimbus of her fascinations. Her bedroom seemed not mean nor lonely to her, since the little square of glass, nailed above the wash-stand, was ever there to reflect her face. ¶ "You want to be rid of me?" asked Zuleika, when the girl was gone. / "I have no wish to be rude; but — since you force me to say it — yes." ¶ You think you can drive me out of your life. You cannot, darling — since you won't kill me. ¶ Since there was nothing to do but sit and think, he wished he could recapture that mood in which at luncheon he had been able to see Zuleika as an object for pity. ¶ Since he was not immortal, as he had supposed, it were as well he should die now as fifty years hence. -- Hoary (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not accept that since and because are interchangeable, or that fragments such as Since he broke it, he'll have to pay for it are for all practical purposes unambiguous. The choice of future tense in he'll have to pay for it suggests causality, but the choice of past tense as in Since he broke it, he's had to pay for it could be suggesting causality, a temporal relationship, or both. The context would perhaps help a reader to decide, but why pose the question in their mind by mixing the two ideas? We should probably leave the separate discussion about infer vs imply for another day. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If an instance of since is ambiguous, change it. If an instance of since is unambiguous, don't change it. No need to lay down blanket prescriptions. Strad (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a generally good rule, but I don't think it'll ever catch on. :-)

What most people want from a manual of style is "blanket prescriptions". You don't have to look through many FACs to see what confusion the present discrepancies in the MOS are causing. And you don't have to look through many non-FACs to see how widely the MOS is ignored. Simple rules are simple to follow, and the simple rule is that since implies a temporal relationship, not a causal one. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a simplistic rule of the kind that simple-headed schoolmarms (of all sexes and ages) may wish to teach to people they consider simpletons. When en:WP's MoS strays from being en:WP's equivalent of the older Chicago Manual of Style to something even more schoolmarmish and ostrichy than Chicago (15th ed), I say that the simple rule is to scrap all these musty myths about usage and instead to encourage people to use English words as they are defined in recent dictionaries, informed by systematic and open-minded lexicography. -- Hoary (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Your way means that we only need to to know one word; D'oh. That, as Humpty Dumpty said, can mean whatever it is that you want it to mean. But it doesn't help me to understand what it was that you meant to say. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it means that when people write English they should endeavor to use words as recent, well-informed dictionaries say those words are used, and that they should endeavor to be understood. Yes, since can on occasion be ambiguous. Writers may profitably be nudged to ask themselves if a particular use of since is indeed ambiguous. If it is indeed ambiguous, and only then, they would be well advised to use an alternative. In many contexts, however, since is a perfectly good and perfectly unambiguous alternative to because; and then people should be entirely free to use it, as good writers (e.g. Max Beerbohm) have long done to excellent effect. If some ninny in the pay of AP really wrote something to the contrary, then the AP book may have a certain unintended amusement value but otherwise sounds as if it should be pulped. -- Hoary (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late on this, but the points made here are important enough that I'd like to condense them, or my sense of them:

1. "Since/because" has been one of those rules where the schoolmarms and style manuals have tended to be a little harsh, and even wrong, and
2. Chicago (15th ed), available online by subscription, can be very useful if you're trying to educate yourself or come up with support for a particular usage, but it should not be used to answer questions about whether someone else's usage that sounds a little off should be allowed in Misplaced Pages. As intimidating as style manuals are, they don't in general even attempt to answer the question "I know this isn't what I'd say, but can we allow it?". They are prescriptive, not community-building. Unfortunately, even greater experience with current usage is needed to answer these kinds of questions, but fortunately, there are plenty of people at Misplaced Pages with just such experience. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Typeface for unit symbols in this guideline

The WP:MOSNUM#Unit symbols and abbreviations states "In accordance with the rules of CGPM, NIST, National Physical Laboratory (UK), unit symbols are never italicized, but always in upright type." NIST Special Publication 811 states:

The typeface in which a symbol appears helps to define what the symbol represents. For example, irrespective of the typeface used in the surrounding text, ‘‘A’’ would be typed or typeset in

— italic type for the scalar quantity area: A;

— roman type for the unit ampere: A;

— italic boldface for the vector quantity vector potential: A .

I take "never" to mean "never" and "irrespective" to mean "irrespective", no mater what any style guide says. So I'm changing italicized units to roman type. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Gerry, everywhere at WP:MOSNUM#Unit symbols and abbreviations (which you cite), unit symbols are italicised when they are mentioned rather than used. This is standard practice, and is required by MOS: "Italics are used when mentioning a word or letter (see Use–mention distinction) or a string of words up to a full sentence...". So unit symbols are also italicised when the text in which they are embedded is italicised, for whatever reason (like quotation, emphasis, or style applied for design reasons).

We often see rulings like this: "The word biblical is never capitalised, though Bible usually is." But obviously biblical is capitalised if it starts a sentence. The ruling you invoke is clearly to be interpreted in the same practical way.

Accordingly, I am again undoing your reversion of Tony's work. I call on other editors to monitor this situation also.

– Noetica Talk 00:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSNUM#Unit symbols and abbreviations was in error in that respect, and I have corrected it. Note that NIST Special Publication 811 on page 34 contains this passage:

The above rules also imply, for example, that μ, the symbol for the SI prefix micro (10), that Ω, the symbol for the SI derived unit ohm, and that F, the symbol for the SI derived unit farad, are in roman type...

Notice that although these symbols are being mentioned, not used, they are nevertheless in roman type. I infer the reason NIST does this is because the danger of becoming confused about whether a character is a symbol or a variable is greater than the danger of becoming confused about whether a unit is being used or mentioned. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Gerry, I withdraw one part of what I wrote above, since NIST Special Publication 811's wording is this: "The typeface in which a symbol appears helps to define what the symbol represents. For example, irrespective of the typeface used in the surrounding text,..." (p. 33). This applies to distinctions in only a few cases. Does it affect anything at all, for MOS or MOSNUM? It certainly does not affect the practice we should use for clarity in the section on non-breaking spaces. I stand by the rest of what I have said.

In any case, our explicit practice is different from that used in the document you cite. We explicitly call for italics in mentioning. Perhaps there should be exceptions for cases like this; but there are not. They would need to be discussed.

– Noetica Talk 01:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm somewhat with User:Gerry Ashton in this case, although not for any of the reasons that he's given. I think that in this specific case it's misleading to see a template used, followed by what is claimed to be the output from that template, when it actually isn't, in the sense that the template would not have italicised the output as suggested. I don't think that removing the italics, or adding quotes solves the problem either, so I'd maybe suggest using some kind of code box, as one would when writing an article on programming for instance. Which is, after all, almost what's being discussed in that section. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, I agree that there are subtleties and difficulties in presenting such things at MOS. These exercise us a lot. They require discussion. Myself, I favour wholesale revision to put all examples in a distinct font; and set all longer examples off in separate lines. As with most matters here, the larger more general issue needs to be taken on, not just innumerable subordinate instances.

– Noetica Talk 01:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The underlying problem is that there are different reasons for putting something into italics. The SI brochure and its clones (ISO 31-0, NIST SP811, etc.) really mean to say that you should not put unit symbols into italics where italics is already used for quantity symbols or variables, as in “v_max = 12 m/s”, in order to avoid confusion between quantities and units. Unfortunately, discussions about style guides quickly become dogmatic rather than pragmatic, the original practical reason for a rule is forgotten, and the rule starts to become a fact on its own. There is surely nothing wrong with writing an SI unit in italics if – for example – the entire sentence is in italics, as in “He reached a top speed of 12 m/s.” Given that many readers of style manuals seem to have problems with carefully differentiating why something has been put into italics, bold, capitalization, etc., it might indeed be wise to highlight examples via quotation marks, which is far less confusing in the context of font-style related rules than using italics. So in this example of unit symbol font style, I would write “kg” rather than kg in the MOS. The same probably applies to other parts of the MOS that discuss font style. Markus Kuhn (talk) 10:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason for a typographic choice should always be kept in mind, and the style manual should be ignored in cases where following it does more harm than good. In the case of using italics for quantity symbols and variables, and roman type for unit symbols, I think the context of the entire article should be considered, not just one sentence or one paragraph.

Most writing discusses the quantities represented by variables, or the measurements that are labeled with units of measure, and in that context, variables should be in italics and unit symbols should be in roman type. To avoid confusion, the MOS should be written so that unit symbols can be presented in roman type, to reinforce the message that this is the normal way to write unit symbols, even if it is ultimately decided that unit symbols may be written in italics when discussing the symbols themselves rather than the units they represent. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it’s worth I agree with Markus. I’d just prefer semantic markup over hardcoding either quotation marks or italics. Christoph Päper (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Another reason (besides the useful distinction between quantities and units) for stressing that units should not be in italics is that some mathematical typesetting software (most notably LaTeX, which Misplaced Pages uses for formula typesetting) unfortunately very much encourages inexperienced users to typeset every letter in a formula in italics (presumably because such software was written for mathematics, where units and subscript-qualifiers are rare, and not in the physical and biological sciences, where both are very common). That requires a bit of counter-pressure from style-guide authors. Markus Kuhn (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Should unit symbols ever be italicized?

The preceeding section discusses whether unit symbols should be italicized when being discussed as a term, rather than actually used to specify a unit of measure. The quoted NIST publication seems to indicate that unit symbols are never italicized under any circumstances. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Very hasty, Gerry! We could simply work through a few issues collegially here, and see how that goes. Still, if you insist...

– Noetica Talk 01:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is rather a waste of everyone's time. I thought Noetica's point about bible above was the end of the matter. If it really makes you tremble, why not propose that the units be specified as normally appearing in roman face. Tony (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not my intent to be uncollegial; it is my intention to attract the attention of editors who have had experience discussing unit symbols as terms, rather than just using them to indicate units of measure. I have had countless occasions to use SI units of measure, and even discuss the introduction of them into a company that used to use inches for horizontal measurements, but angstroms for vertical measurements, but I have seldom had occasion to discuss unit symbols as terms. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

To me, SI unit symbols are just words (well, abbreviations of words) and I don't think they should be treated any differently from other words. Like ordinary words, they are not ordinarily italicized by themselves merely for being SI unit symbols, but if the context they are used in is italics, then they should be italicized too. This includes use/mention, book titles, etc.

• If you use the symbol m/s to mean medium or small you might confuse readers who expect it to mean meters per second.
• I did enjoy his latest book Life at 200 kg and other collected stories, but I liked the previous one more.

I think the current advice on Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (text formatting) that says "Some things remain in upright regardless of the surrounding text... Symbols for units of measure such as kg, ft/s", besides being an unnecessary exception to the normal rules of italicization, results in ugly text that unnecessarily hides or calls attention to units:

• If you use the symbol m/s to mean medium or small you might confuse readers who expect it to mean meters per second.
• I did enjoy his latest book Life at 200 kg and other collected stories, but I liked the previous one more.

Nohat (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The scientific manuals that say units are never italicized are clearly talking about the use of such units, not their mention. Never, ever italicizing units leads to stylistic absurdities, as Nohat has demonstrated. Strad (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely right. This is just a storm in a teacup about how units are represented in the style guide when giving examples, not how they ought to be represented in articles. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Nohat's first example is a good illustration of the problem of wanting to emphasize that one is discussing the symbol itself, rather than the unit of measure represented by the symbol. The second example is less useful, however. Both the Misplaced Pages MOS and the SP 811 from NIST cleary indicate that Life at 200 kg and other collected stories is the correct typography, because what is being discussed is life when one is massive, not the symbol "kg". Furthermore, it is quite unusual for a unit symbol to occur in a title; ordinarily units are spelled out in titles. More common uses of italics would be for emphasis, or for phrases from a foreign language. In both cases, it is often helpful to distinguish between quantities versus the unit symbol. For example,

Take care that the output, V, never exceeds 100 V!

If editors automatically follow the MOS, rather than deciding what to do on a case by case basis, Misplaced Pages may be less aesthetically pleasing, but I believe there will be cases where editors enhance clarity without even realizing it. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a useful guideline is that "being a unit never causes a word or abbreviation to be italicized". In other words, a unit is italicized only where ordinary text would also be italicized. As Nohat pointed out, it is correct to italicize kg in Life at 200 kg, but only because Main Street would be correspondingly italicized when referring to another book Life at 200 Main Street. Certes (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Use existing typographical standards - The convention in scientific publishing is to always use italics for variable names and Roman characters for unit names. In MediaWiki <math> mode, as in LaTeX, letters (but not numbers or symbols) are by default italicized. You use \text{ ... } to obtain Roman characters for all your unit names, thusly:

Note how x and n are in italics, while m and s are not. This form is a steadfast rule, and has been for centuries. There is no reason that it should not be part of the MoS. If the variable name is in roman characters, the units should still be as well. If the variable name and the surrounding text is in italics, then it is okay for the units to be in italics too, but that should be rare. MilesAgain (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Spelling in articles

I've proposed a method for making the spelling adopted by a particular article clear at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (spelling), please comment. Richard001 (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Some users use British instead of American style (like center --> to centre). Isn't it confusing to readers? Here, we are in English Wiki, so using British styles should not be permitted. They can probably use that in the British Wiki. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha... no wait, he's serious!

Are you serious, BB?

– Noetica Talk 02:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Some FAs do use British style though we are in WP English (not to say bad about the other style). --BritandBeyonce (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ermmm... I think BB is labouring under a basic misconception, here. Would someone like to draw him aside discreetly and explain?

– Noetica Talk 05:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My head is spinning having just read this. Tony (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What I'm trying to point out is when using English style, use it throughout the article or even throughout the English Misplaced Pages. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that each article should stick to one style (be it British, American, Canadian, etc.) or are you saying that all articles should stick to American style? Jɪmp 07:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

On a particular article. Actually, I would love to say every editor should stick to one style (as I pointed out above) to have the best consistency measures but its hard, i think, since we have English and British editors here. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

An English person is British but how does their presence make it difficult to maintain a consistant style in an article? Jɪmp 07:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what i wanted to say is American, not English. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 07:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

We've got New Zealanders and Canadians here too. Yes, with so many different nationalities it can get difficult to maintain one style throughout an article. However, good writing styles entails this kind of consistency. Therefore, our Manual of Style says that this is what we should do. There is no over-all preference though. Each article conforms to its style. Check out WP:ENGVAR (if you haven't already). Jɪmp 08:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you answered me already. I haven't read that yet, thanks for the link. After a minute of posting this, I just realized that we have diverse editors from a variety of nationalities. But what kept on nagging me is the inconsistency of quotation marks (see discussion above). --BritandBeyonce (talk) 08:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we even have editors from the Philippines ;-) Inverted commas (i.e. quotation marks) are an issue about which there has been a lot of debate. Through this debate concensus has come down in favour of logical quotation which is not inconsistant with US English (as far as I'm aware). Jɪmp 08:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

And that's me. I'm from Philippines. (Sorry for making uncleared statements lately.) You have said, "not inconsistent," or "not inconsistent", (compare the two usage of quotation marks) but why there are some FAs here (though tagged as best articles) have inconsistencies? --BritandBeyonce (talk) 09:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

All is forgiven, BB. (Adopts Yoda-style voice:) You are young; but you will learn.

:)

– Noetica Talk 09:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. Forgiven all is. Young you are but learn you will. Point is there none in the walk walking without the talk talking :) --ROGER DAVIES  17:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC) k

Why do some FA have inconsistencies? Good question, well, we're all from different countries but we are still all human. Maybe you'll get a better answer at WT:FA or WT:FAC but what you often see is a huge concentration of editing the day that the article hits the Main Page this tends to iron those inconsistencies out. Jɪmp 16:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, they elude a lot. There were even articles featured in the main page bearing this tag: . --BritandBeyonce (talk) 07:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Indians or Native Americans?

HI. Please, I am having a little "dispute" (not really a dispute, because the editor involved is very courteous) regarding the use of Native American or Indian in William Cooley. Native American has been used in the past and changed to Indian during article reviews, now the editor wants to use Native American. I do not have any preference for one or other, I just could not find what is the MOS recommendation.--Legionarius (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

In Canada, the term "First Nations people" is also used. In the US, "Indians" was unpopular for a long time, but now many Native Americans are working to reclaim the word, and refer to themselves as Indians. There is even a bit of folk etymology that says that "Indian" comes from en diós, meaning "with God", because the Spanish supposedly found the native inhabitants to be spiritual and blessed (but see this.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. So either way can be used in Misplaced Pages?--Legionarius (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess the point I was making is that there's little agreement, and it tends to be controversial.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Indian doesn't bother me, but I can't speak for the whole Cherokee Nation. —MJCdetroit (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I’m the other editor in this “dispute”. First let me say I’m not Native American. I’m of mixed Jewish and other descent. I feel sympathetic towards Native Americans because their ancestors suffered genocide as did people closely connected with me. I personally don’t oppose the use of the word “Indian” in historical articles as the term was in common usage during William Cooley’s time. I feel there should be short section explaining that “Indian” is a controversial term and a link to the Native American name controversy. The opinions of Native Americans should carry more weight than my opinion here. I feel there is slight bias in the article. A massacre of white people by Native Americans is described in detail. There is no mention of worse massacres of Native Americans by whites. I feel there should be a short section explaining the context of the massacres.Barbara Shack (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this has been discussed(look for "massacre")... it is called massacre in the article for historical purposes. Anyway, I think we are deviating from the point here. Looks like there is nothing against or pro "Indians" in the MOS. In this case, I think it can stay like it is; important as the question is, I do not think this article is the stage it should be discussed. This article is just a biography of the life of William Cooley, nothing else. --Legionarius (talk) 04:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The latest APA style guideline on Unbiased language - Racial and Ethnic Identity, says "American Indian and Native American are both accepted terms for referring to indigenous peoples of North America, although Native Americans is a broader designation because the U.S. government includes Hawaiians and Samoans in this category. There are close to 450 Native groups, and authors are encouraged to name the participants' specific groups."(p.68) Which to me would mean specifying Seminoles or whatever specific group Cooley was interacting with, although either of the preferred terms would work in the broader sense.- Optigan13 (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hawaiians and Samoans, really? News to me. I would have thought the "American" in "Native American" referred to the Americas, not to the United States of America--the "native" part refers to ancestry rather than to the individual (otherwise I'm a native American), and in the era from which the ancestry is being considered, the United States didn't exist. And for the benefit of the geographically challenged, neither the Hawaiian Islands nor Samoa is in the Americas. Though I do admit I don't have an alternative suggestion for "peoples indigenous to lands currently making up the territory and possessions of the United States", which I suppose must be what the USG is getting at here. --Trovatore (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah really. When the census bureau refers to Native American they would be referring to territorial distinctions. I believe areas designated as Hawaiian and Samoan homelands have similar legal protections/restrictions as areas designated as American Indian reservations. So the US territory and possessions is in fact the distinction there. In terms of defining race the census bureau uses "American Indian and Alaska Native alone" and "Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone". I had always understood Native American to refer to the indigenous people of North America, and Samoans and Hawaiians would be part of what is sometimes referred to as the Asian and Pacific Islander (API) group. In the article being referred to here either of the broad terms would work. -Optigan13 (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Yupik (Eskimos) and Aleuts are indigenous to the Americas, are also indigenous to areas now part of the US, and are not Indians.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sensible suggestion. In this particular article, a bit complicated, since it was a mix of different tribes (mostly Seminoles, though).--Legionarius (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Markup for hard space: voting ends soon!

There is discussion here about improved markup for the hard space (non-breaking space, non-break space, &nbsp;, etc.). Some of us are working towards an important proposal for this essential element in good editing, which escapes attention because spaces are invisible. See some of the earlier discussion above.

Editors still have the opportunity to vote for their preferred markup for the hard space. But voting ends soon: about 24 hours from the time of this posting, at 00:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC).

Let's all work on this one together.

– Noetica Talk 00:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Voting has now ended.

– Noetica Talk 02:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we use nbsp in an address?

I am having a minor edit skirmish, should an address have a non break space. For example, 23 Railway Cuttings. Should I do {{nowrap|23 Railway}} Cuttings? The MOS does not have an example of this type. MortimerCat (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In careful work it is a good idea to use a hard space there, yes. Some style guides advocate it, though many do not because it is taken to be a matter of typesetting and therefore not even addressed. Arguably, our current guideline covers the present case:

In compound items in which numerical and non-numerical elements are separated by a space, a non-breaking space (or hard space) is recommended to avoid the displacement of those elements at the end of a line. A hard space can be produced with the HTML code   instead of the space bar: 19 kg yields a non-breaking 19 kg.

Why should we not think that 23 Railway Cuttings is such a "compound item"?

Same for the non-numeric George Bush Sr, in which most guides do not want a break after Bush. Consider H. W. Smith Jr. Two hard spaces are needed:

H.&nbsp;W. Smith&nbsp;Jr

The {{nowrap|}} template is also ugly here:

{{nowrap|H. W.}} {{nowrap|Smith Jr}}

See the preceding section, which points to discussion of how to make things better.

– Noetica Talk 22:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it not more common to have no spaces between initials? So it would simply become:

{{nowrap|H.W. Smith Jr}}

You would not want the initials or the Jr to break off from the name, making it effectively one block.−Woodstone (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to support hard-spaces only where abbreviations are involved. They are what is strange when broken by line's end. "Volume" seperated from "3" I can cope with; "Vol." and "3" are nicer together. Let's not forget that hard-spaces can lead to excessive spacing between words earlier in a line, since WP text is justified. It's not a big problem, but I suggest we not prescribe the use of hard-spaces too liberally. English is full of compound units. The Smith example does seem to require multiple hard-spaces, though.Tony (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Woodstone:

The question of spaces between initials is a separate one, as is the use of stops with initials. There are four possibilities (even without considering the variant Jr., and perhaps jr, jnr., and so on):

1. HW Smith Jr

2. H.W. Smith Jr

3. H. W. Smith Jr

4. H W Smith Jr

The first three of these have support from some or other style guide. Myself, I strongly prefer the first option.

But about your coding:

{{nowrap|H.W. Smith Jr}}

This would make the space before Smith non-breaking also, which is not prescribed by any style guide. That's part of the problem with such a template solution: you have to analyse too much, and often you do in fact have to apply the cumbersome template more than once. That said, in some cases it is a fine solution, where the editor can't or won't use special mathematical templates. I might want to present the following, in an article about possible worlds:

W_{1, 2, 4, 6–11, 17}

Yes, the subscript can break! And it's a mess if it does.

So this is best:

{{nowrap|W_{<small>1, 2, 4, 6–11, 17</small>}}}

As opposed to this:

W_{<small>1, 2,&nbsp;4,&nbsp;6–11,&nbsp;</small>17}

Tony:

Fair enough about abbreviations, but in fact it is common enough practice (and commonly prescribed in more comprehensive style guides) to include full words: chapters&nbsp;3–12, for example. Again, there are several interconnected issues here. Of course hard spaces can cause problems if used to excess. As things stand at Misplaced Pages, that is the least of our worries!

Reform is needed on many fronts. But I favour not addressing all these issues fully, until we have solved the problem of suitable markup for the hard space.

– Noetica Talk 03:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Preferred way to add endash

What is the preferred way to add an endash, as you can either type out &_n_d_a_s_h_; (without the underscores), or add it directly as a single character (–). The former helps distinguish it from a hyphen in the page source (which is fixed font), while the latter takes up less space. Thoughts? --Jameboy (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, Misplaced Pages has deprecated pretty much all HTML entities. If you enter it from the toolbox it shows up as a single character. Strad (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

First, Jameboy, a good way to show the code &ndash; is to type &amp;ndash;. That's how it's done in MOS itself.

As things stand there is no guidance in MOS about how to enter the en dash or the em dash. There is advice about the hard space: "A hard space can be produced with the HTML code   instead of the space bar: 19 kg yields a non-breaking 19 kg." (See just above for current action concerning the hard space.)

Dashes are problematic, as you point out. Display depends on the user's system and preferences. It may be hard to distinguish between all three standard dash-like characters, especially when there's an isolated instance in the edit box, with a different font from the one you see right here:

- (hyphen)

– (en dash; ALT-0150)

— (em dash; ALT-0151)

Myself, I enter the dashes with the numpad codes as shown here.

Here is the input for some text using a properly spaced en dash, if you do it the other way:

"Spaced en dashes&nbsp;&ndash; like these ones&nbsp;&ndash; may replace em dashes."

So awkward! Improved markup for the hard space to replace &nbsp; would help a lot. Hence the current hard-space push.

– Noetica Talk 22:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Which just shows why everyone should get a Mac and use the superb Safari browser, which renders these characters beautifully. Windows users without an alphanumeric keyboard at the right are in trouble, since—unlike Mac—they have no in-built keystrokes for en and em dashes. They can, of course, set macros for the purpose (SO easy to do using cntrl-M, choose keyboard, accept, then record the sequence of actions—that is, insert, symbol, en dash, press blue button on screen to stop recording, then do the same for em dash. I suggest allocating your F2, F3 keys etc, top of your keyboard.) Noetica, what about the minus sign? Tony (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No doubt there are some few things to be said in favour of the Mac. But I happen to prefer computers. <*Ahem, blink, blink*>.

Seriously, we need to meet the needs of editors and readers with all manner of platforms and all levels of skill. That's the task, and it is not trivial at all.

As for the minus sign, in my opinion the en dash is acceptable, or even best, for isolated uses in non-scientific articles.

– Noetica Talk 03:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If you've always driven a crappy old car, you don't know what a Rolls Royce is like, do you. Tony (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone can afford a Rolls Royce, or else Toyota would have gone bankrupt long ago. In any case, I can lend you mine if any important occasion comes up. ;-) Mind you, it's a little old.

Now, does anyone know whether there is a bot substituting HTML dashes with their Unicode (sorry, almost wrote Unicorn there) counterparts? It would seem that there is not, but some users definitely do this very thing, and very bot-like, too. Waltham, The Duke of 10:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Combining with the proposed way of entering hard spaces, I would like to consider including some more special characters, for example we might define:

• ,, converts to hard space (prevents line break)
• ,., converts to hard line break (<br />)
• ,-, converts to soft-hyphen (only shows if line break occurs)
• ,--, converts to n-dash (&ndash;)
• ,---, converts to m-dash (&mdash;)
• ,x, what else?

−Woodstone (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hard space: results of the vote on preferred markup

The hard-space working group has voted on preferred markup. See the results and join the discussion HERE. All editors are welcome, of course. The page has been trimmed and archived. Get oriented by reading at the top. The current agenda item is highlighted in yellow.

These discussions and votes do not aim at "official" status, but they will feed into a big proposal that we will make to the whole Misplaced Pages community.

– Noetica Talk 08:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If you write ugly English you have no business writing a Manual Of Style

Had someone point me to WP:Gender-neutral language as justification for having gone though an article replacing "spokesman" with "spokesperson". Apparently the inmates have taken charge of the asylum, here. My comments, on the discussion page, there, were as follows:

First, thanks to Tobogganoggin for bringing this idiocy to my attention. I have looked into this, however, and any impression he may have had that the language police have the backing of policy is premature. It seems that WP:Gender-neutral language, is a how-to essay, not a mandate or even a guideline. The MOS, which itself is merely a guideline, now reads (and has for some months) "Please consider using gender-neutral language where this can be achieved in tidy wording and without loss of precision." This is itself such a poor example of written English ("...achieved in tidy wording"??? Wtf is that supposed to mean? Sure is ugly, though!) that anyone interested in good writing is surely free to ignore the opinions of the monkeys responsible for it. They clearly don't know how to write and have no business telling you. And the bottom line is that no policy requires you to put up with ugly neologisms like "chairperson"! If it's not a quote, blast it on sight!

Please note that MOS requires a space after your ellipsis dots. Tony (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the MOS doesn't require anything. That's the difference between a guideline and a policy. Andyvphil (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow." Clear enuff? Tony (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's clear you seem to be quoting something. Something I'm free to ignore? Andyvphil (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"...achieved in tidy wording"??? Wtf is that supposed to mean? Sure is ugly, though! Sure is! "Achieved tidily" is what the fuck I suppose it's supposed to mean. (What do you suppose?) Actually monkeys weren't responsible for it; naked apes were. I hope that everything is now clear. Happy editing! -- Hoary (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Clear as mud. "...achieved tidily" wouldn't be as ugly, but its uselessness as a guideline would be unchanged. If I change "chairman" to "chairperson" is the change "tidy" or not? The word "tidy" appears nowhere else on the page, so you're not going to get a clue from parallel usage. And I think you're wrong about the "naked apes"; the crew responsible for "...achieved in tidy wording" may have shaved, but they haven't evolved beyond gibbering. Andyvphil (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

MoS is effectively written by committee (at least with respect to the parts that are at all controversial), and writing by committee tends naturally toward the ugly. The section on gender-neutral language is merely one end of the distribution (as befits its controversial nature). A little perusing of "history" and the talk page will show that some of the suggested wordings were much "prettier", and much less agreed upon.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"...achieved in tidy wording"??? Wtf is that supposed to mean? Well, I can understand it, and I assume the dozens of editors who drafted the page can as well. Perhaps you should look into taking some classes. Strad (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What it means is that those of "the dozens of editors who drafted the page" responsible for the atrocity shouldn't have passed their English Composition classes until they learned to recognize awful writing. Andyvphil (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that a lacking educational system is not just our country's problem. Well, this is obviously not good for you fellows, but this is life... Waltham, The Duke of 15:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Stirring comments, Andy! Let's take a look at one sample:

• male and female pronouns to refer to a generic person
• man to stand for both genders, either as a separate item (man’s journey into the unknown) or a suffix (fireman)
• grammatically marked items to represent one gender (actress, conductress, career woman and male nurse), with the possible implication that the participation of the other gender is the norm

I find all of that very easy to understand. Do you?

When we get to the expression, it's odd indeed: its use of gender to refer to real-world phenomena, and its extension of the "grammatical" to encompass derivational morphology. So I'd start by changing it to:

• male and female pronouns to refer to a generic person
• man to stand for both sexes, as either a word (man’s journey into the unknown) or a suffix (fireman)
• use of sex-specific suffixes and adjectives (actress, conductress, career woman and male nurse), perhaps suggesting that the participation of the other sex is the norm

But clearly you're the expert. Do you think I should have passed my English Composition class? Should I continue to type, or would I be well advised to spend my time swinging among the limbs of trees, screeching and lobbing the occasional coconut? -- Hoary (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You're changing the subject, from the guideline (which is useless and badly written) to the essay which is wrongheaded but could be largely harmless if accurately and prominently labelled as such. Firefighters mostly fight forest fires, the folks down at the firehouse are often better referred to as firemen, and never as firepersons. Choosing which word to use is not a matter of "easy avoidance". Andyvphil (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As neither MWU or OED agree with your restricted defintion of firefighter, perhaps straw man would be a better example? --ROGER DAVIES  00:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Dictionaries are exceedingly blunt instruments when the task at hand is choosing the right word. And, again, Choosing which word to use is not a matter of "easy avoidance". Andyvphil (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, this little paragraph? Here it is:

It certainly could be improved. Here's a first effort:

Your turn. -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As writing, greatly improved. As policy, a large step in the direction of naked aggression. Andyvphil (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a world of difference in meaning between "Please consider using" and "Use". Jɪmp 01:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That strikes me as rather an exaggeration but you do have a point. Well, it's a guideline and it clearly announces itself as a guideline. I see no need for it then to keep pointing out that it's only a guideline. -- Hoary (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Please consider" leaves the reader free to reject on any grounds he wishes. "'Spokesperson'? Yechh! Consideration complete." "Use", on the other hand, means, I am informed above, "all editors should follow". So, adopting your wording would mean that, with a few exceptions (in quotes, known preferences,...?), all "spokesmen" should become "spokespersons". Unless doing so would in some undefined way be "untidy". Andyvphil (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Andy, if "Yechh!" means what I think it means, you have an alarming tendency to lose your lunch. I'm sure that nobody here wants to exacerbate this. I've just searched for "spokesman". It appears as part of a newspaper title, but it also appears as a plain word. An example is in David Oreck: He is the founder of the Oreck Corporation, makers of vacuum cleaners and air purifiers, and is known through his spokesman appearance in Oreck television commercials and infomercials. (To which my first reponse is that he's not known to me at all.) Suggestion: He is the founder of the Oreck Corporation, makers of vacuum cleaners and air purifiers, and has appeared in Oreck television commercials and infomercials. There's also Brendan McKenna, but I can't make head or tail of dreary northern Irish tribal warfare so I'll leave that alone. Wakil Ahmad Mutawakil (born circa 1971) was the last Foreign Minister in the Taliban government of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Prior to this he served as spokesman and secretary to Mullah Mohammed Omar, leader of the Taliban. Make the second sentence Before that he was secretary to Mullah Mohammed Omar and the public face of the Taliban. Et cetera. And now I must get back to my tree and eat a banana or three. -- Hoary (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Your Oreck suggestion is not equivalent. Appearing in commercials is not the same as being the spokesman for the company. Thus, you have illustrated the fact that unnecessary attempts to comply with the MOS are likely to result in unnecessary disimprovements. Andyvphil (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, there's a dwarf planet of difference between the two. The MoS as a whole may clearly announce itself as guideline but what weighting do we give this suggestion within that guideline? Note also that there are those who take this guideline quite seriously ... and if you're fond of exaggerations, compare "the MoS is only a guideline" to "evolution by natural selection is only a theory" (quite tongue-in-cheek here ... but ...). Jɪmp 01:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Demonyms / Toponyms / Misplaced Pages:Citizenship and nationality

Would like to see something on the Misplaced Pages MOS page on good Misplaced Pages practice re specific demonyms and toponyms, as these are frequently troublesome and indeed, frequently contentious. (I see various past and ongoing discussions on these issues here on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style.)
(Or please point me to this info if it's on the page and I've somehow missed it.)
For that matter, IMHO page should also have a link in the main text to Misplaced Pages:Citizenship and nationality, as these issues are also a frequent cause of edit wars.
-- Writtenonsand (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"Or" ambiguity?

This is the third paragraph of the section pertaining to "and/or":

Sometimes or is ambiguous in another way: "Wild dogs, or dingos, inhabit this stretch of land". Are wild dogs and dingos the same or different? For one case write: "wild dogs (dingos) inhabit ..." (dingos are wild dogs); for the other case write: "either wild dogs or dingos inhabit ..." (I don't know which).

Is this really necessary? Apart from the fact that it is not very relevant to and/or, I believe that the ambiguity it describes does not exist. As a matter of fact, the usage of commas makes it perfectly clear that in "Wild dogs, or dingos, inhabit this stretch of land" we are talking about the same species, while in "Wild dogs or dingos inhabit this stretch of land" it is not specified which of two different species occupy the particular piece of real estate.

The sentence of which the usage this paragraph discourages is perfectly good English, and I suggest that the paragraph in question should be removed altogether. Waltham, The Duke of 14:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence in question does conveniently fall under the heading "and/or", because it involves the same general question of marking disjunction and conjunction clearly.

Tony added the sentence, and I modified it and endorse it. Perhaps the example is more salient to us, since in Australia the terms wild dog and dingo have been used sometimes synonymously and sometimes not; and sometimes with wild dogs being a superset of dingos, and sometimes not. But you don't need that knowledge to make sense of the point being made. Consider: "Hereford bulls, or livestock escaped from some local farm, have passed this way." On your principles, the animals spoken of are both Hereford bulls and escaped from a local farm, yes? But I don't think this is implied at all.

The general question that exercises me here is, once more, how much detail of this sort do we want in MOS? Even more generally:

What content of what specificity should be at MOS, and what at which subsidiaries, with what cross-relations, what duplication, and what process for maintaining the whole juggernaut?

(Of course, Waltham, you remain a hero of the revolution for coming up with ,, at our page for reforming markup of the hard space.)

– Noetica Talk 00:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know where it is. ;-)

In any case, I suppose you are right. The problem with me is that I am not a native speaker of English, something that, perhaps counter-intuitively, means that I speak the language much better (or at least more "properly"). Indeed, I cannot be expected to make accurate judgements on whether a sentence is confusing or not; especially since there are so many different dialects. But I do think that there is a distinction in this case, and perhaps it merits a simple mention.

Anyway, something has come out of this matter: I now know that you are from "down under". Seriously, I find established editors with no user pages somewhat... I don't know, it just looks strange to me. No offense. Waltham, The Duke of 12:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ellipses – Proposal to expand the treatment thereof

I feel like I'm missing something (have I?), but I see two arguable omissions in the current treatment of ellipses:

• First, the MoS doesn't clearly state a preference regarding placing a space before the ellipses, i.e., "this... way" or "this ... way". I see each method used frequently on WP, but only the first appears regularly in the real world; I think we should clarify. (Note: if we're going with the second, spaced method, a non-breaking space is required, I think.)
• Second, I was taught that in formal writing a four-dot ellipsis was used when multiple sentences were omitted – essentially, it's a period either preceding or following an ellipsis. This looks ugly, but I believe is widely followed. Some Misplaced Pages editors do it, some don't (and some used the spaced ellipsis for multiple-sentence omissions and the unspaced for single-sentence, which just looks weird to me); I think the MoS should address it explicitly. atakdoug (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're missing the fact that the MOS does in fact state a preference, and it is for the latter. (Put a space on each side of an ellipsis, except at the very start or end of a quotation--the latter clause merely meaning you don't need a space between the quotation mark and the initial period, I suppose.) I myself prefer no initial space, and no trailing space when a quote begins with ellipses ("...this"), and despite having been chided for this above I fully intend to ignore this element of the MOS until such time as I am presented with a convincing argument for the unnecessary spaces. Andyvphil (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy. I felt like I'd seen it somewhere. I wonder who in the world thought of this one -- I have never seen it done that way in the real world. If I thought there were any chance at all of altering the status quo, I'd propose changing it. atakdoug (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks perfectly normal usage to me. The ellipsis is spaced at both sides because it assumes the same role as (which I prefer); we do not use ellipses in prose, so its usual "real-world" usage is very rare, only present in quotations. Waltham, The Duke of 16:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

quick query

"*If a complete sentence occurs in a caption, it and also any sentence fragments should end with a period."

Forgive me if I missed the discussion, but I can't imagine a full sentence followed by just a sentence fragement. Does someone have an example? Tony (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Would a sentence followed by a date count? E.g. "This dog bit that man. January 12, 2008." Fg2 (talk) 12:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That date looks like a complete sentence to me. "When did that man bite the dog? January 12, 2008." But also "When did that man bite the dog? ...2008." Directly applicable only if the caption is a quotation, of course. But I too am having a hard time understanding why a caption should include a sentence fragment if it's not actually a fragment of something.Andyvphil (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Fg2, yes, thanks, you're right, so it is worth retaining that point in MOS. Andy, I think the date is not a "complete sentence", which would normally have at least a clause (i.e., containing a verb on the highest rank). A date by itself is just a nominal group. Indeed, "before my deadline of 12 January 2008" is still just a nominal group (no verb on the top rank). "12 January 2008, the first day on which I'll rest" still lacks a verb on the top rank—it's all just a single, modified thing, and " 'll rest", although a verb group, is downranked. "I look forward to 12 January 2008, the first day on which I'll rest"—there you have it, a complete sentence with a verb on the top rank ("look forward"). Tony (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Tony, it was I who added the provision that you queried and now accept. But I want to take things further, as I now do in a new section, below.

– Noetica Talk 22:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Full stop at the end of all captions?

Here is a guideline in New Hart's Rules (at 16.5.1):

Captions traditionally end with a full point, whether they are full sentences or not.

In 16.5.1 Hart's gives a couple of examples that conform to this ruling, and none that do not. (Nevertheless, Hart's does not itself follow the practice elsewhere.) Here is the relevant guideline from CMOS (Chicago Manual of Style), with my emphasis:

12.32 Syntax, punctuation, and capitalization

A caption may consist of a word or two, an incomplete or a complete sentence, several sentences, or a combination (see 12.8). No punctuation is needed after a caption consisting solely of an incomplete sentence. If one or more full sentences follow it, each (including the opening phrase) has closing punctuation. In a work in which most captions consist of full sentences, even incomplete ones may be followed by a period for consistency. Sentence capitalization (see 8.166) is recommended in all cases except for the formal titles of works of art (see 12.33).

I see nothing wrong with captions ending with a full stop by default. They are not the same as titles and headings, which are rarely sentences, and in which text longer than one sentence is almost unheard of.

A guideline calling for every caption to end with a full stop would have strong precedent in traditional usage; it would be rational, simple, and comprehensible; it would therefore be easy to comply with, and result in greater consistency throughout Misplaced Pages. What you others think?

– Noetica Talk 22:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this as it makes the caption section consistent with the Bulleted and numbered lists section of MoS, which it precedes, and is easier for editors to understand. The more we can do to reduce MoS guidelines to simple mechanical functions the better. --ROGER DAVIES  23:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I very much agree with this proposal. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

These kinds of reversals are what frustrate people about trying to keep up with MOS. If this change is effected, please let WT:FAC know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, Sandy. But I think there should rather be a central log of MOS changes, for all editors to monitor as a matter of course. There's so else that cries out for clarity and reform for MOS pages along the way: in content, structure, process, and status. Incidentally, since I got involved at WP:FAC I have become even more acutely aware of how chaotic the present arrangements are.

– Noetica Talk 00:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Is it so hard to follow this simple rule? Next thing we'll have to put up with dots at the end of figure captions, even subtitles. Final periods have one use: to signal the end of a sentence. Tony (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Another inconsistency. Captions usually end period when they are full sentences (as far as I know). --BritandBeyonce (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. (Unsure what inconsistency you're referring to, though.) Tony (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. What I mean is inconsistency on what to adhere about punctuating captions. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 08:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tony: full stops are for ending sentences. Fragments and phrases need no full stop. Nor is the rule hard to follow. Jɪmp 19:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Full stops are for ending sentences. ? A mere slogan, and only a partial truth, like all slogans. In running text, a full stop ends a sentence fragment as consistently as it ends a sentence. In a caption, a full stop ends a sentence fragment if there is a sentence in the vicinity. There is no "natural" or uniquely rational solution here. If you value consistency highly, you tend to favour the proposal I put forward above. If you value certain other principles more highly, then you tend another way. Myself, I favour consistency, simplicity, and stability in our articles. Hence my suggestion, which is best evaluated with fresh eyes and an open mind. And so for all innovations mooted here.

– Noetica Talk 23:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So we need to put a final period after every article and section title (to be consistent)? And after caption stubs such as:

The Eiffel Tower.

Surely not. What makes these texts different from running prose is their visual distinction—ending with a carriage return, of different font/size/typeface, and located distinctively in relation to the surround white space. I'm of the school that says to use minimal formatting: one device is enough, so not title case and boldface, for example. A final period can look odd, and frankly, the textual world is full of redundant dots already. Included in this world is the urge that some foreign-language cinema subtitlers have to stick a dot at the end of every subtitle, as though we spoke in sentences (as odd as it may seem, we typically don't speak in sentences, which are largely artefacts of written mode. Sentences are not even an important grammatical phenomenon; some authorities refer to them as clause complexes. Tony (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So we need to put a final period after every article and section title (to be consistent)?

No. Who's suggesting that?

What is a "caption stub"? I think that is a term invented on the fly for rhetorical purposes. The Eiffel tower would be a typical caption; the suggestion in New Hart's is that all captions, including short ones, traditionally take a full stop. And CMOS allows this for consistency. Don't you want consistency, and a rule that is easy to follow? I am proposing a practice that will be consistent, and robust in the face of removal and revision of some captions: so that when in an article some are edited and become full sentences, or revert to mere fragments, the whole suite of captions in the article need not be revised (as CMOS might require).

Once more, let's remember a salient fact: Misplaced Pages is dynamic, not a final product in print, whose style can be settled once and for all once its fixed contents are known. And another salient fact: Misplaced Pages is written by a loose aggregation of amateurs (yes, we are all amateurs, in the relevant senses, when we edit at Misplaced Pages), acting without final editorial oversight. The task is different and new; let the rules be different and new: and simple and appropriate to the task and the writers.

– Noetica Talk 11:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There are many examples of texts that do not break down into sentences - and therefore do not require full stops. David Crystal goes into this in quite a lot of detail in the rather splendid Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaius Cornelius (talk • contribs) 11:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Noetica, article and section titles are not dotted because they're almost never formal, complete sentences, and the dot is not aesthetically pleasing after a short text. Let's be consistent and continue not to dot captions that aren't complete sentences—that's all I'm saying. WRT amateur/professional, I don't think the distinction appears to be very meaningful in the WP environment, with good reason; "without final editorial oversight", yes, but that is replaced with what might be characterised as a seething cauldron of continuous, mutual editorial oversight, and why not? Tony (talk) 12:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned in a section below, there are moves to make printable content from Misplaced Pages. The flagship example can be seen . Some captions from that exemplary piece of work:

Major features of the Solar System; sizes and distances not to scale. From left to right): Pluto, Neptune, Uranus, Saturn, Jupiter, the asteroid belt, the Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth and its Moon, and Mars. A comet is also seen on the left.

The ecliptic viewed in sunlight from behind the Moon in this Clementine image. From left to right: Mercury, Mars, Saturn.

The orbits of the bodies in the Solar System to scale (clockwise from top left)

Hubble image of protoplanetary disks in the Orion Nebula, a light-years-wide "stellar nursery" likely very similar to the primordial nebula from which our Sun formed.

The Hertzsprung-Russell diagram; the main sequence is from bottom right to top left.

Aurora australis seen from orbit.

The inner planets. From left to right: Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars (sizes to scale)

Well! Go figure. Even those elite editors who have worked up this dazzling example can't get consistency. What hope have the rest got?

We have to live with the living, and we have to make liveable, workable guidelines. In short: get real. (And I mean that in the nicest possible way, as you know.)

– Noetica Talk 12:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've BOLDly changed the image caption above and to me it looks just fine with the full stop. Isn't it a simpler rule to just say "always use a full stop"? Outside style guides may differ but isn't it always best to use the simplest solution, when that solution will do no harm? Franamax (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

So, what's up with capital letters?

I remember editing the .hack pages here because of capital letter problems; for instance, here the title of ".hack//SIGN" is ".hack//Sign", with no capitals, even though in all official .hack-related print and such, it's SIGN. Why are we forced to use regular capitalization when a title is different, due to its creator? Yuki Shiido (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Pediapress and typography

Currently the MoS sometimes prefers ease of input over standard typography (e.g. with the style of quotation marks and apostrophe, but not for hyphens and dashes where different characters may help semantic clarification). One argument in the discussion was that Misplaced Pages is mostly used in browsers with computer screens, where typography commonly doesn’t reach as high a standard as in print. Does Wikis Go Printable change this significantly?

That’s all I want to know, I don’t want to rehash the whole discussion. Christoph Päper (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

See my excerpts from their example above, Crissov. I note also inconsistency of punctuation, stray spaces before and after points of punctuation, both sorts of double quotes, etc. They can't get it right. We have to make the task easier, with realistic rules. They are not professional print publishers, any more than WP editors generally are professional HTML writers. We need to be realistic. Painful, but true.

– Noetica Talk 12:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am too bothered by the typeface they used to actually read the PDF. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of units in tables

While there seems to be agreement of parallel usage of metric and US units in general in the Manual of Style, I am not certain whether this was ment to apply to statistical tables also. Use of metric AND US units in one table can enlarge the table beyond practical proportions. An shortened example from the Gilbert Islands:

• normal version with metric units only:

• expaned version with metric and US units, from User:MJCdetroit, who used a presumably self-developed template for unit conversions:

Besides making it too wide for many displays, some numbers are not aligned anymore, and the units (km² or sq mi) are repeated with each number. I envision another solution, and I ask the programmers if it can be done, better yet, if someone would volunteer to proceed: a clickable toggle that switches a column (or the whole table) between a metric and a predefined US measure (eg. meters/feet, hectares/acres, km²/sq mi, kg/pound, or °C/°F). This could look similar to sortable tables where a click on a small field in the column header sorts the table according to this colum. If it can be done, I ask if there is agreement for that type of solution, instead of using tables getting out of proportion by parallel use of metric and US measures in one view.--Ratzer (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I didn't develop {{convert}} and that example was from a few months ago. If I was doing that table today I'd leave out the unit symbols. Here's a quick example for what I am talking about:

Regards,—MJCdetroit 22:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

For further discussion, it might be helpful to show how this improved method would render the Gilbert Islands table. The Queen Maud Land table, after all, originally had only one column to be converted, so the second column with the US conversions didn't enlarge the table beyond reasonable dimensions. If more than one column must be converted, tables tend to get messy if metric and US units are shown at the same time. Which is why I renew my plea for a toggle that lets columns or whole tables to be switched between metric and US units, if US units must be shown at all (or metric units in some tables concerning the United States).--Ratzer (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

To see how the new method renders the table, go have a look. I took the liberty of adding {{convert}} back in but in table mode this time. To my eye it hasn't cluttered the table: I took some of the blank space which had been sitting idle in the number of islets and villages columns. Of course, there is a limit to how much you can squeeze into a table but I don't think we've gone past that in this case. Jɪmp 07:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a significant improvement, we should use it until we have something better. Now before I further pursue my thought of a toggle to switch colums or whole tables between metric and US measures, I would like to know beforehand if such a solution will get the consent of the English Misplaced Pages. Is it important for the users of US measures to see the metric equivalents in the same view of the table, or would a toggle be sufficient? It's just much more elegant IMHO to have a optimally compact table with two columns less, two colums that provide no additional information but only redundancy. It would be nice to get a few opinions on that.--Ratzer (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is this example Jimp and Ratzer are talking about. Do not expect people who have been lurking until a concrete idea comes forth to read every word of your posts to figure out where the example is. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

True.

• old version without sq mi
• MJCdetroit's version with conversions to sq mi using the old version of {{convert}}
• my version with conversions to sq mi using the new version of {{convert}}
• current version

Jɪmp 03:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Jimp, thanks for collecting those examples. It certainly seems like a neat system for those cases where both units should be shown. As for some toggle that changes a column based on user preferences, I would want any such mechanism to be under the control of the person who creates the table. There are instances where conversion would be inappropriate, for example, a topic that is usually written about in SI units even by American authors and publishers. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to toggle a page between different units, though I've no idea how it's done. See http://www.peakbagger.com/list.aspx?lid=21425 for an example. The link in the upper right, "Show List using ...", adds "&u=m" or "&u=ft" to the URL.

—WWoods (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Try and vs. Try to

Are both these usages acceptable or do a lot of people make the mistake?

I want to try to discover the correct usage. Can I also try and discover it?

IMO if you are going to try and do something, make up your mind, either try, or do it, but not both.

Hope that sense makes :) Franamax (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Try and sounds too informal to me. Strad (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I know J.R.R. Tolkien preferred to use "try and" in his works, and was often "corrected" by well-meaning editors when publishing his works. I found that in the Note on the Text in my 1995 single-volume HarperCollins paperback edition of The Lord of the Rings, page xi. I'm not sure what to conclude from that, but I wanted to mention it here. Phaunt (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Tolkien was idiosyncratic in other respects too. I agree with Strad -- "try and" is perfectly fine informal English, probably with a very long pedigree, but it's not appropriate to the register of English used in an encyclopedia. --Trovatore (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Other users of "try and": Charlotte Bronte, Lord Byron, Lewis Carroll, Wilkie Collins, Joseph Conrad, James Fenimore Cooper, Charles Dickens, Arthur Conan Doyle, Theodore Dreiser, George Eliot, Kenneth Grahame, H Rider Haggard, Thomas Hardy, Henry James, DH Lawrence, Herman Melville – without even venturing into the second half of the alphabet. All abysmal stylists, of course. Our editors must be warned away from such catachrestic usage as theirs.

– Noetica Talk 01:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

These are fiction writers, at least the names I recognize. When you're writing fiction you do what you like; you finely calibrate the particular effect you're trying to evoke in the reader. Writing for a formal reference work is quite another matter. --Trovatore (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Trovatore. And what would they know about proper language? Let us by all means guard against following their example, as reference works with titles like these appear to have done:International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, International Encyclopedia Of Economic Sociology, Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning, The Concise Blackwell Encyclopedia of Management, Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Studies of Selected Pivotal Ideas, Medieval Germany: An Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, Academic American Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia of the American Judicial System, Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War, and a zillion wannabes from that same "college of dullards" (in Mencken's memorable phrase). Standards, I cry!

(Meanwhile, we can't even get the hard space sorted out. Or the ellipsis.)

– Noetica Talk 02:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't "try and" imply success at what was tried, while "try to" carries no implication of success? Whether "try and" is correct might depend upon whether the author wanted to imply success. Is the debate about a specific rule of grammar without any artistic license? -- SEWilco (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "try and" implies success. It's just a more informal way of saying "try to". --Trovatore (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Working through the words, "try and" would imply success, but that's not how I see it used, I tend to agree with Tr that it is informal usage, of course that's why I'm asking. Anothger point is that I am currently "trying to" find the answer whereas almost no-one is ever "trying and" find such a thing.

I have two specific questions: is there such a rule of grammar? what is the appropriate usage in Misplaced Pages mainspace articles? Franamax (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And thank you Noetica for the new word! I don't think I'll be accusing my friends of catachresis anytime soon though, could get me in trouble. :) Franamax (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(Happy to help with the lexical supplementation, Franamax.)

This thing with try and has been turned inside and out for eighty years at least. Fowler's first edition approves of it, and does indeed find in it a suggestion of encouragement towards success that is absent from try to. The latest Fowler's gives the issue almost a page, approvingly. M-W's Concise Dictionary of English Usage (fabulous work, along with its earlier unabridged sibling) devotes almost two full pages to the issue, and finds the form quite acceptable (citing, among many other sources, a letter by Jane Austen). Both of these current authorities observe that inversions and similar contortions are impossible with it: you can't have this: "Arrive on time? I'll try and, at least!" But you can have this: "Arrive on time? I'll try to, at least!" Duh.

(Meanwhile, we can't agree on a rational policy for punctuating captions!)

– Noetica Talk 05:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No one's saying there's anything inherently wrong with it. It's in the wrong register. I stand by that. --Trovatore (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I had a feeling try and would turn up a million times in a corpus search. That's good enough for me. Strad (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• The problem with "Try and", as in "Try and do it" is its implication of "try " AND "do it ". It's a round-about expression that should be conflated into a single meaning ("Try to do it"). "Try and" is more common in speech than writing, I suspect, because it avoids the t ... t and can be slurred lazily as "Try 'n". It may have its place in fictional dialogue, but not in serious writing such as WP articles aspire to. I always correct it where I come across it. Tony (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You "correct" it? You alter it. It is presumptuous to call it correction when the usage is enshrined in great works of English literature (by no means only, or even predominantly, in dialogue), and common in good serviceable prose outside of fiction as early as the 17th century. As my small sample shows (see above) it is also in common use in reference works, and approved by major authorities on theoretical and empirical grounds.

I might alter it, too, for style: but I would not think or say that I was correcting. Ameliorating, rather: after a nuanced weighing of context and intent.

Why seek to legislate on such subtle matters here, when so much else is more pressing? And why pretend that such questions are not subtle, when the literature shows very plainly that they are?

My intention here? As Milton has it: "At least to try and teach the erring soul" (Paradise Regained).

– Noetica Talk 11:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see that's been misquoted (missing comma). The text (my emphasis) actually says:

"At least to try, and teach the erring soul,/Not wilfully misdoing, but unware/ Misled; the stubborn only to subdue."

--ROGER DAVIES  13:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not seeking to legislate on it; I'm not pretending that it's not subtle. You could have chosen not to accuse me of being presumptuous. Tony (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(Serves tea all round) Silly me for coming here looking for an answer, I forgot the WP in WP:MOS :) I tend to agree with Tony that the "try and" usage is a little easier to say, thus tends to get written the same way. Would it be fair to say that "try to" is a preferred usage?

And who's that Milton guy? I haven't seen him editing around lately :) Franamax (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Milton hasn't published anything recently, so he's not qualified to be considered a writer. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think "try to" is preferred for Misplaced Pages articles, but I can see situations where "try and" will reasonably appear. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

One convenient place for an outside opinion on usage is the American Heritage dictionary online. They have a usage note for try and at the bottom of the entry. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think try to makes more sense. Per CBM's comment above, the usage of "try and" seems to be informal, and while its actual grammatical correctness is perhaps in question, its formality doesn't seem to be, and formal writing should be preferred in an encyclopedia. Also, while it may not be viewed this way, at least technically "try and" implies that one will succeed. For example, "I will try and find a solution to this dilemma" can be viewed as you are going to make an attempt at solving the problem, "and find a solution..." While many people may not view it this way in the interest of ambiguity I would say go with "try to". Of course other options like "attempt to" are even better. Just don't "take a crack at it"--Oni Ookami Alfador 17:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

To make my view of the matter even clearer than I have already, and to answer a couple of recent comments, I present these points:

• I do not accuse any person of being presumptuous, but I say that certain behaviour is presumptuous. It is presumptuous to "correct" usage that has been established for centuries in the language, from the pens of great writers. It is presumptuous to think that commentators in all editions of Fowler's, and other major authorities, are wrong and that one's opinion is by natural right more weighty then theirs. It is presumptuous to think that the competence of a huge number of reference works in print is less than ours here. As I have pointed out, we can't even get good policy on the hard space, ellipses, or punctuation for captions. And we can't sort out the formatting of dates and numbers. Why should we think editors here have any better judgement on this matter? If we agree that the matter is subtle, and if we don't seek to legislate, we should let editors have their way and not "correct" them as a reflex reaction. (Tony says: "I always correct it where I come across it.")
• Milton may or may not have been misquoted. I was perfectly aware of different punctuations of the line I cited. I chose to follow the OED's version (in the entry for "and"). Until any of us has cited and named a proper textual version, there is little more to say. Even if we have it recorded, and not some editor's attempt at emendation, the punctuation of Milton's time was vastly different from any modern practice; and it would take further argument to demonstrate any relevance to the present question, anyway.
• I say we should work on what's more important, and not dwell on minor, disputed, and subtle questions of style. It this were the most urgent of our concerns we would be in a happy situation indeed. That is the point of what I have contributed above. Of course style is important, and I myself am constantly making alterations to improve it. But this will always be a matter of individual judgement or negotiated consensus: except in those cases where there is already an established majority opinion among those who have actually looked, analysed, and thought on the matter.

– Noetica Talk 21:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me make my view clearer. There is nothing wrong, in English grammar, with the phrase a lot in the sense of "many" or "much", and I would hazard a guess that you can find the usage in the works of many great writers, and that Fowler probably had no problem with it (though this is a guess). But the tone is wrong in an encyclopedia article. If I happen across a lot while reading an article, I will most likely change it to something that sounds more formal. (It does depend a bit on the subject matter of the article -- if the article itself is some piece of pop-culture fluff, I'm more likely to leave it alone.)

I would do the same thing with try and, for the same reason. We needn't call it a "correction", if that word strikes you as a presumption. --Trovatore (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Trovatore. I might change try and, myself. Same for a lot and a bit. That is not presumptuous: it is a large part of what editors are there for! But I would weigh each case, and not rush to coin inept rules that intimidate more often than they encourage.

– Noetica Talk 23:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, we're on the same page there. I might go a bit further -- I tend to think the MOS is generally too detailed and too pushy now. --Trovatore (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In the case of try and, could you suggest an example of where this phrasing would be appropriate? I'm not trying to stir things up here, I really would like to know when it would or would not be appropriate to change the text. Noetica, you are right that there are more important things to work out, but it would be nice to get agreement on this small issue, at least I'd feel better :) Franamax (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You want me to try and treat the two differently? OK. I agree with Tony that the sound may be a factor; but I think that's perfectly legitimate. I recently advised an editor at WP:FAC to change this text: "At around the same time, Cage started studying...". I suggested "...Cage began studying...", which is much easier to say. (No -ge st-, etc.) Good prose stands up well when spoken, I say: and nothing is lost by changing started to began. Now, try to say my own first sentence here, but with to instead of and: "You want me to try to treat the two differently?" A bit harder, yes? Why should we not think that Milton chose and for the same reason? Try to say this: "At least to try to teach the erring soul." All those sibilants and dentals!

So sound gives one sort of reason. And then, sometimes a colloquial feel is no bad thing. It depends on the kind of article. But try and convince the pedants of that ! :)

(Another? Yes, why not! One lump, please.)

– Noetica Talk 01:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, best to reword in this case: "You want me to treat the two differently"; I suspect that the "try" thing is unnecessary here. Thanks for the compliments. Tony (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you've raised an important point that's often forgotten. It's the inner sound of the language that determines good prose, not any number of arbitrary and ever-changing rules. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

But Noetica has changed my question! I didn't ask for two things, I asked for one: treat the two forms differently, I don't insist on success, I just ask for the attempt, failure is an option, so I haven't set a "try and" task, I've set a "try to" task.

I do take the speakability point, too many t's in a row leads to spittle, however generally encyclopedias are read, possibly with lips moving, but generally in a deliberate manner, so the inner sound is no more important than the inner meaning. That's why I brought this up, what gives the best meaning?

And looking at the Milton quote again, using the alternate punctuation: "At least to try, to teach the errant soul / Not wilfully misdoing..." - add that 1/4 second pause and maybe I've just out-Milton'ed Milton?

What is the appropriate tone for an encyclopedia? I suppose the lesson I will draw here is that "it depends" Franamax (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Franamax! I only did it that way to set up an example! To answer more directly: you could use try and in all sorts of contexts, and there is usually very little difference between it and try to, as far as meaning is concerned. Since that is so, we can let sound determine the choice in many cases. Especially in articles where a less formal tone is acceptable. You can try to make your own example. Think of an article about a TV show, perhaps. Make a sentence with spittle and twisted lips and try to, and change it to try and. Try and find a way to do that!

As for your having out-Miltoned (no apostrophe) Milton, perhaps the change to to with the comma alters the sense, to something like "to try, to teach". We'd have to do a deep analysis, using a proper text, to try (in the sense of test) whether Milton actually meant that or simply to try to teach.

– Noetica Talk 02:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did see the deliberate example(s) and chose to respond by pointing out the dichotomy I see in your chosen phrasing. Perhaps I met your rhetoric with my sophistry? Dunno - I get lost around apostrophes, and, often, use of commas. :) I've always thought of the usage in question as a corruption: "trying to" - "tryna" - "try'n" - "try and"; and of course if that's how it happened, well that is the living language, it is correct by right of its own evolution. I suppose I will continue to change the phrasing but try to be careful in choosing my spots.

Having now looked up the context of the Milton quote, I agree a deeper analysis would be needed, it seems as though the aim is the trying itself since in the event of failure the option is to simply subdue the stubborn. Set up the discussion sub-page as you wish :) I do like that Wikpedia-ready line though: "by winning words to conquer willing hearts".

I'll bow out now with thanks to all thoughts above. I've posed the same question to The Economist, my exemplar of English usage, if I get a response I'll be sure to reappear (who knows, the same argument may be raging through their offices right now). FTR I like full stops after captions and ,,'s for nbsp's is a fantastic idea, put me on the list for notice when you decide to unveil. Thanx all! Franamax (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Very well, Franamax. Thanks for tea. And thanks also for noticing our push to reform markup for the hard space, which needs promoting at every opportunity. (I must go and update that page right now.) I look forward to your report from The Economist.

– Noetica Talk 04:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Trovatore and Oni_Ookami_Alfador make good points. In new text, I would use "try to" because I feel it is more encyclopedic. I'm less sure about replacing existing occurrences of "try and". I'd make the change if rewriting the sentence completely for other reasons, or for consistency with use of "try to" elsewhere in the page. As usual, there are exceptions: "I try and succeed" deliberately differs in meaning from "I try to succeed". Certes (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That

I would like to suggest a section be entered into the MoS to encourage the removal of extraneous "that"s. 9 times out of 10, the word "that" simply does not belong. I do not tell you THAT my plans for global domination will occur, I simply tell you they will occur. You do not tell me that I am stupid, you simply tell me I am stupid. That guy over there, however, works. I find sentances flow better without random thats. It's in the vernacular, true, but so is "like" prefacing every announcement of past action or emotion. I was like, totally pissed off! And if "like," is not really appropriate, why should extraneous "that"s? Howa0082 (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

An interesting opinion, H. It's in the vernacular, you say? In fact, such a that is commonly omitted these days, and the effect is often poor prose. Let's take your first sentence:

I would like to suggest a section be entered into the MoS...

(I'll confine myself to commenting on presence or absence of that. More could be said.)

The reader is left momentarily unsure whether a section is the object of suggest. Of course, it turns out that the object is a section be entered into the MoS... . So what, you say? The reader soon understands. Yes. But the more you burden the reader with such fleeting uncertainties, the harder it is for your message to get across clearly and efficiently.

There are many worse cases than that one! I was just lucky to find it right in front of me. Consider this more serious example:

We expect a Democratic victory, after years of domination by successive Republican presidents and adverse rulings from a partisan Supreme Court, will be impossible unless more citizens take the trouble to vote. And they will not.

You see? Because that is missing, the reader is misled by the beginning of the sentence. Skimming the text would give the wrong impression altogether; and a page break might intervene, making things even worse. Several commentators make this point, and it is an important one. What may seem redundant is often vital, and readers often feel this even if the writer does not.

Because that is a common word with several uses, sometimes it clutters a sentence:

He said that that was the last thing that he wanted.

Of course this can be improved, and it is pedantic to insist on the first and the last that. Far more natural, and at least as easy to grasp:

He said that was the last thing he wanted.

But you can't always trim in that way! Clarity comes first. We should also guard against what I call straining for formality. People do that a lot at Misplaced Pages. By default, they choose what seems like a more "formal" word: thus (not so), thusly (not thus or so), whilst (not while), on a daily basis (not daily or everyday), and so on. Here's one I can't stand:

He loved the way in which she painted.

This in which is becoming common, but it serves no purpose except to "formalise" and to obstruct the easy flow of the sentence. It's similar to what you object to, Howa; but I would argue that it has no redeeming value.

– Noetica Talk 23:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of the fleeting uncertainties which arise from omitting that fall into a group of sentences called garden path sentences. They are examples of syntactic ambiguity, illustrated by "The horse raced past the barn fell" and "The old man the boat". Not all garden path sentences can be disambiguated by including an omitted that (with suitable other small alteration.) The problem is that one may be too bound up with what one has just written to realise an ambiguity exists and so think a that can be safely omitted.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ban every instance of that where it's not absolutely needed? Some people have strange ideas about what constitutes good writing... Strad (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we also ban every instance of a vowel where it's not absolutely needed, as in text-speak? There's a worrying ascetism creeping into the MoS; words that aren't absolutely necessary aren't always bad for you, or more importantly, the reader. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thts a gd pnt. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Not all redundancy is bad. It can often help things flow more smoothly and produce better writing. I don't think we should give the Language Police any more powers by banning thats thought of as being unnecessary.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you guys are anal as hell, aren't you? Please re-read my comment, wherein I never said "ban the use of the word that!" If we've got a section which says not to use contractions, because of Bullshit Aesthetic Reason X, why not one for this, too? Oh, and the example about the Democrats not being able to win because of Bullshit Reason Y? I managed to figure it out in one pass, dude. It's not my fault if you can't. So please turn down your snob dial, folks; 11 is a bit too high for my tastes. Anyway, I'll let you guys sit on your shitpile and not bother to contribute on this page again. Have fun. Howa0082 (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no experience of hell. How anal is it? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for taking you seriously, Howa0082. Have a nice wikilife! :)

– Noetica Talk 23:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding any further exchange of insults, suffice it to say that people disagree about under what circumstances one ought or include "that". Lacking consensus, it's best if we don't regulate it here; it's okay if our articles lack consistency in use of "that" as this is a subtle differentiator, unlike the spelling issue. Dcoetzee 00:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Spaces after Punctuation

I just would like to document here that there should probably be two spaces after a period as it is possible for someone to write a converter for the MediaWiki engine that converts string "(punctuation)(space)(space)" to (punctuation) . —Dispenser (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

So then document it, please. Most typography books that I have read state that the 2-space rule is a typewriter convention which is not used in typesetting.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't attempt to make any such change in MOS, though. Putting long spaces after punctuation is a pain in the proverbial. It is a mercy that HTML ignores repetitions of normal spaces (as opposed to hard spaces, em spaces, and so on). Practice is so variable and inconsistent that we'd be asking for trouble and unmanageable complexity, even if longer spaces were found to be desirable. (Which they won't be, except by a minority of diehard typewriter types.)

– Noetica Talk 05:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

According to Full stop#Spacing after full stop its 1.5 spaces in with proportional type face at least it was. —Dispenser (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Orthography differs by country. I was taught (in England) to leave two spaces after a full stop, and that Americans leave one space after a period, but I've seen plenty of variations from respectable authorities in both regions. I don't know the situation in the rest of the English-speaking world, so I'll just add a gentle reminder that it may need to be considered. At WP, I habitually type two ordinary spaces after a . and am vaguely aware that "the computer" (form posting, HTML renderer or whatever) converts it to a single space. Certes (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Markup for the hard space: update

I am pleased to announce that we have a complete draft proposal for you to inspect, comment on, and modify.

Just go to the working group's development page, read the instructions at the top, and take it from there.

Or click "show" to see a draft, right here:

– Noetica Talk 07:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Geographic features: not capitalised?

Currently there is a lot of inconsistentcy in the capitalisation of many generic geographic features, like northern (southern, western, eastern) hemisphere, arctic circle, equator, north (south) pole. These are not proper names and so I would conclude from the manual of style that they should not be capitalised. Is that a correct conclusion? Is it ok to decapitalise them? If not, can the rules be amended to create more clarity? −Woodstone (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

They may not be proper names but they are proper nouns, because they represent unique entities. This is a reason to capitalise them. To my mind, lower case does have a welcome modern feel but mixed case seems more encyclopedic. Any clarified rule must make an exception for "real" proper names including those words, such as North Korea. A pedant might also mention the usual grammatical reasons for deploying a capital, such as starting a sentence. Certes (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to section

WP:section link#Redirects with section links says:

A redirect to a page section does not go to the section. However, one can add the section anyway as a clarification, and it will work if the redirect is manually clicked from the redirect page. However, links with a section to a redirect will lead to the section on the redirect's page.

This is no longer correct in Misplaced Pages and so the text should be changed. See meta:Help:Section#Section linking and redirects.

This is relevant for WP:MOS#Section management which currently says

• Change a heading only after careful consideration, because this will break section links to it from the same and other articles. If changing a heading, try to locate and fix broken links; for example, searching for wikipedia "section management" will probably yield links to the current section.
• When linking to a section, leave an editor's note to remind others that the title is linked. List the names of the linking articles, so that if the title is altered, others can fix the links more easily. For example: ==Evolutionary implications==<!-- This section is linked from ] and ] --> .

That's tedious. There's even a bot User:Anchor Link Bot doing it. It would be easier to create a redirect to the section and replace all sectionlinks from other articles with links to the redirectpage. Then, if you want to change the sectiontitle, you only need to change one inlink, i.e. the redirectpage. Also, if you refactor the section into anew page, you can just use the redirectpage (moving it to a new name if necessary). For example: ==Evolutionary implications==<!-- This section is linked from redirect ] --> . I think the current advice is no longer best practice and should be replaced. And Anchor Link Bot reprogrammed accordingly. jnestorius 16:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There have been no comments, so I'm going to be bold and change the page...maybe...soon...jnestorius 11:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Research guide

I point out {{Research guide}}, as used in David Baltimore#Research guide, in case there are suggestions about the article or section style. There are article and user interface issues involved in the guide concept. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please consider replacing the existing External Links section on some pages with the Research Guide. The substitution may actually REDUCE the number of links appearing in many articles. The results are more substantial and they are dynamically updated. The basic research guide template could be copied so the secondary template is modified to fit individual cases when necessary. The following is an example: Template: Research guide Baltimore. I am working on improvements.

Note that the user who deleted my template from the Baltimore article User:SEWilco has this message on their user page: "This user's activities on Misplaced Pages have been restricted by illegal, unreasonable, and arbitrary ArbCom restrictions and enforcement." Shannon bohle (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hard-space proposal: invitation to comment

A completed draft

The working group on hard-space markup has completed a detailed proposal. Click "show" to see it:

We took the discussion elsewhere so we could work on the proposal without cluttering this page, and to keep things self-contained. But we now present our work for your comments and assistance, right here at WT:MOS. This is not a call for a vote, or for formal expressions of support or opposition.

Any thoughts on the proposal as it now stands?

– Noetica Talk 03:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The use of ,, as a substitute for &nbsp; seems odd, and exactly counter to your examples of ''...'' for <i>...</i> and '''...''' for <b>...</b>. The more wiki-like technique would be something like ,,...,, (e.g., ,,17 sq ft,,) to turn all spaces within the markup into hard spaces. RossPatterson (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ross. Yes, it isn't wiki-like if we assume that wiki markup must affect a whole block of text, rather than standing for a single entity. But single insertions of the entity   are what we need most pressingly.

– Noetica Talk 05:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be better to devote improvement efforts to making the Misplaced Pages editor show Unicode hard spaces distinctively, and making them easy to insert. This would not only solve the problem of new text, but also allow editors to work effectively with articles that already contain Unicode hard spaces, or to work effectively with passages that are copied from other sources which already contain hard spaces. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 06:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The current proposal tends toward that sort of clear visibility, doesn't it? What will ,, mean, if not a hard space? It doesn't mean anything else at present. We never see it! If we didn't already have '', that markup would look just as suspect and counterintuitive. But we recognise it, insert it, and edit it very naturally. I'm interested in your mention of "articles that already contain Unicode hard spaces". Are there many of those, in fact? It's hard to research such a thing. In any case, if ,, were adopted surely bots could be deployed to convert both existing Unicode hard spaces and occurrences of &nbsp;. Soon all hard spaces would be very visible, and all would have the same appearance to editors. Thanks for your comment.

– Noetica Talk 07:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically, Mr Patterson's proposal is reminiscent of the nowrap template, the deficiencies of which have already been indicated; the double double-commas idea, though less intrusive, would still present problems, including greater confusion in reading it and more mistakes in applying it correctly. Waltham, The Duke of 10:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That equivalence is hard to understand. After all, there don't appear to be any acknowledged deficiencies of the bold and italic wiki markups after which my suggestion is modeled. If the working group's proposal is to stand on its own, perhaps it should explain why Misplaced Pages should introduce this new concept of "wiki character entities" before making arguments about which notation to use for it. RossPatterson (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If this is intended for more Mediawiki projects than just English Misplaced Pages, here is probably not the best place to discuss it, because there may be issues with the proposed markup in other languages, e.g. ,, may look very similar to „, which is used as an opening quotation mark in some languages.

I think the underscore _, maybe doubled __, would be more intuitive, because it already represents (soft) spaces in links. _foo_ or __foo__ is used in some adhoc inline markups for underlining, though, and sometimes for Tex-like subscripts too (CO_2).

If we did character replacement markup, there would be some others I’d like to see: typographic quotation marks ("foo" → “foo”, for English) and apostrophes (foo's → foo’s), dashes (foo -- bar → foo – bar, foo---bar → foo—bar), ellipses (... → …), arrows (-> =>), Tex-inspired diacritics (f"oo or f\"oo → föo), superscripts (m^^2 → m²), fractions (3/4 → ¾, although also an OpenType feature), mathematical symbols (1deg * 2 N*m >= x → 1° × 2 N·m ≥ x) etc.pp. — Christoph Päper (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Crissov's underscore for hard spaces may be a worthwhile idea; but to push for a large number of shortcuts at once is likely to capsize the whole thing. Hard spaces are our major concern, and I hope that we can keep to the original, specific issue here. Of course it needs to be taken elsewhere, but I think the matter has been raised here to generate constructive comments and much-needed support if this important initiative is to succeed. Let's see if we can succeed in this first addition to MediaWiki's code for a long time; with that experience behind us, more may be possible. Tony (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• I also think underscore would be far more intuitive; though it would clash inside math tags, I'm not sure if that would pose real problems. I'm not convinced ,, is as intuitive as ''; and as for ,,,--, : yuck! Also, the date example in the exposition is infelicitous given MOS:DATE#Autoformatting and linking. jnestorius 14:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Several of the above comments start discussing the exact form the new markup should have. May I take that as an approval of the principle of adding some markup symbol(s) for hard to enter special symbols? −Woodstone (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's an appropriate argument by extension. There seems to be a significant difference between spaces (hard or otherwise) and everything else. In other words, the English Misplaced Pages would die if you were forced to type spaces as   (and to read them that way in the editor), but it will probably survive every other character-handling difficulty. RossPatterson (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think each additional symbol needs to be more intuitive to justify the mental cost of learning it. Far more people are familiar with HTML tags than Wiki markup. Replacing <BR> with markup seems pointless at best; it's mostly easier to read concatenated XML tags than long strings of punctuation symbols, and often easier to read character-entities too. In summary, I would quite like to see -- for en, --- for em, and _ for nbsp, but any more complicated markup, or any extra other replacements, seem unnecessary for the default edit mechanism; though clever mappings and substitutions in whatever layer may be useful options for particular users. jnestorius 17:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Many valuable observations! Already our request for comment has paid off.

Waltham is right that Ross's ,,...,, is relevantly like (not equivalent to) {{nowrap}}. I don't know if Ross's suggestion is serious or just illustrative; but let's note in passing that it wouldn't work well. Apart from problems of parsing (surmountable), consider an en dash, with hard space before and normal space after:

,, –,, ; or

,, ,,– .

And if the en dash were done another way (see below for --):

,, --,, .

All silly-looking! But then, consider the current options (setting aside direct use of a Unicode hard space):

 — ;

{{nowrap| –}} .

Does any of us like any of those? Under the current proposal:

,,— .

Stands up rather well, does it not? Then there is one possible extension touched on in the proposal, and mentioned above by jnestorius:

,,,--, .

The status of future extensions has been problematic in the proposal. It is important to address wider implications of ,,; but all we need is to show that more could be done, without attempting immediately to do it. Anyway, surely we can see the virtues of ,,— . If there is any option, current or mooted, to which jnestorius does not say yuck, perhaps it should be this last.

The underscore _ might be more intuitive than ,,, but unlike ,, it has too many existing applications, whether these are deprecated or not. Christoph raises other matters: the curly question of ‘’ and “”, for example. Again, we do need to have an eye to the big picture. Despite earlier exchanges in this forum, I am sympathetic to calls for better typographic substitutions. (Not all available ones: preformed … is inferior to ..., I think.) Regrettably, none of that seems achievable. Faced with this reality, we have attempted to solve a single pressing problem.

Ross makes a useful point by considering an extreme case: "if you were forced to type spaces as &#x20;...". Yes, WP can survive anything short of such absurd inconvenience. But that is no reason to refuse reforms.

Finally, jnestorius comments on intuitiveness. So have we all! But in the end, intuitiveness is not an intuitive matter. There is very little intuitive about ''...'' or '''...''', but they work. So might other markup, given a gentle push forward.

– Noetica Talk 22:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with Noetica, and should like to add the following:

• Although the underscore is indeed more intuitive than the double-comma, the latter is, nevertheless, much more intuitive than most other symbols, as it is restricted to the base of the line, much like an underscore; there are no dots or lines hovering above the commas.
• True, more people with Internet experience are more familiar with HTML than with Wiki-markup; however, there are infinitely more people without any experience with markup. This ought to be taken seriously into consideration when judging what would be easier for editors to use.
• The resemblance of the double-comma with a „ might indeed pose a minor problem, yet not nearly as great as one may imagine; the distinction in the edit box is quite clear, and if editors use the preview button (which is, of course, always recommended in every editing manual) they will immediately notice the effects of what they have typed; the position of hard spaces is also rather characteristic and quite different from wherever one might expect to find quotation marks. In my opinion, there is no obstacle here.
• Finally, in respect with the date example, I agree that there is an error there (one which had slipped under my radar until now); there is no practice of hard-spacing a day with a month in a date. However, it is still perfectly valid to use a hard space between the first date and the connecting en-dash.

Waltham, The Duke of 21:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Waltham is right, I think, that the similarity of „ and ,, is a minor concern – compared to the potential for confusion of '' and ", in some contexts of WP work. We have to remind ourselves of the relative frequency of these things. A hard space will be required orders of magnitude more often than „ . In the few articles that use „ an inline note could be supplied at the head, to alert editors if confusion is at all likely.

Minor it may be: but we hadn't noticed it, and it's great to have such a thing pointed out.

– Noetica Talk 01:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Confusion between ,, and „ may be little (here and now), but choosing double comma for the no-break space makes it unavailable for other uses. (Obvious fact, but sometimes worth pointing out.) Such a future use might be entering „, if language-dependent replacement of " would not be implemented, but more ASCII character aliases as envisioned earlier were. — Christoph Päper 09:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Christoph. I agree: obvious facts should be on the table for discussion, so they are not neglected in the rush to address every last subtlety. I too had thought about unavailability, though not for „. Any system of coding, from the profligacy of hieroglyphics to the parsimony of binary, involves decisions so that what is important or common is given an easier representation than what is trivial or uncommon. I can't think of a character that needs reformed representation more urgently than the hard space. I know you are a crusader for other characters! I would be too, as I have said above, if Misplaced Pages were ready for huge changes. I'll just add this: the hard space supports many of those characters that interest you (and me), so that they sit properly with their adjacent text. Hence the privileged treatment some of us have given to the problem of the hard space. The difficulties with {{nowrap}} (see below) are yet more evidence that the whole thing has been neglected and misunderstood for too long – by developers of wiki markup, browsers, and HTML itself.

– Noetica Talk 12:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Amendments to the draft, and problems with {{nowrap}}

I have made amendments to the draft, prompted by two considerations:

• Amendment 1. The date example has been disputed. MOS currently says this: "In compound items in which numerical and non-numerical elements are separated by a space, a non-breaking space (or hard space) is recommended to avoid the displacement of those elements at the end of a line." This is, quite properly, very general. On a reasonable reading it applies to dates (which have numerical and non-numerical elements). But since there are further contested guidelines for dates at WP:MOSNUM it seems better to remove that example from the draft. I have substituted "89 sq in – 3 sq ft". Which may look contrived (it is!) and unlikely (not necesarily); but it illustrates the sort of thing that can arise in real editing.
• Amendment 2. I discovered that the behaviour of {{nowrap}} is not as documented at Template:Nowrap; I have therefore added this text to the draft, at Objection 4: "Currently, {{nowrap}} does not behave as specified in its documentation, since a space at the start or end of the enclosed text is rendered in HTML outside of that text, leading to unexpected breaks." This fact is of some interest for the proposal and the discussion here. See my detailed report and request for amendment at discussion for {{nowrap}}.

– Noetica Talk 00:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Technical report: the nowrap template

As I mentioned above, there has been some action at discussion for {{nowrap}}. Woodstone, a key participant in the hard-space working group, has since joined me in exploring the behaviour of the template, and of the HTML code it generates. Here are our findings, and latest developments in documentation of {{nowrap}}:

• x{{nowrap| TEXT }}y generates this HTML code:

x <span style="white-space:nowrap">TEXT</span> y

This is against expectations, since the spaces are forced outside. This anomaly has now been added to the documentation. We are informed by editor Random832 that it cannot be corrected without radical changes to the parser.

• x<span style="white-space:nowrap"> TEXT </span>y is the expected code for the template to generate. But it too would be inadequate, because both Microsoft IE and Mozilla Firefox still allow a break before and after TEXT with this code.
• x<span style="white-space:nowrap">&nbsp;TEXT&nbsp;</span>y also breaks in IE before TEXT, but not after it. This does not occur in Firefox.
• x&nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap"><code>TEXT</span>&nbsp;y, quite remarkably, also breaks before TEXT in IE (but not in Firefox).

Conclusion 1

The template {{nowrap}} is irredeemably quirky, and deficient for some purposes.

We might think it doesn't matter if spaces at the start or end of the included text are allowed to break. What are they doing inside in the first place? But there are situations in which we do want them inside. In fact, such a situation arose in the last few days, here at WT:MOS. That's how I made the lucky discovery that prompted my enquiries.

Conclusion 2

The code  , along with markup that inserts it, is superior to {{nowrap}}.

Conclusion 3

The hard-space markup proposal should be supplemented and strengthened with these further facts.

We can do that some time later, perhaps.

Conclusion 4

Deficiencies in this template, and allegedly in the parser, suggest that template solutions to the hard-space problem generally will not work.

This is interesting, because we examined one such solution. It came second in our poll, in fact. Further research would be useful.

Conclusion 5

WP:MOS should alert editors to these deficiencies in {{nowrap}}.

Anticipating agreement on this obvious point, I'll make an addition right now.

Comments?

– Noetica Talk 09:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Pure shock, sir...

...and, thinking of the increased acceptance of the double-comma solution this would bring about... Glee... (Evil grin) Waltham, The Duke of 15:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree that case #1 is "against expectations"; Misplaced Pages's general template markup documentation makes it very clear that whitespace between and around parameters and their values is ignored. I.e. x<span style="white-space:nowrap"> TEXT </span>y is not the expected output, if you absorb the templating system more fully. This has its minor downside, but it is generally pretty helpful for most cases. For example it, it's what lets us do:

{{WPBiography|
|class=Start
|priority=Low
}}

instead of:

{{WPBiography|class=Start|priority=Low}}.

(The readability/usability importance of this may not be clear until one uses a template with 27 parameters...) The principal downside is that occasionally one wishes that the spaces were interpreted as literals, and the workaround for that is to use  .

Your second, "also breaks in IE before TEXT, but not after it", example: Well, what else is new? IE is just known to be severely broken. More than 300 (X)HTML and CSS bugs have been documented in it, and the ver. 7 "upgrade", while yes there were some security improvements, was mostly cosmetic plus addition of widgets (RSS parser, etc.); if you read the MS developer blogs and various other forums, it is clear that MS made a conscious decision to not f'ing bother fixing the CSS and other parsing bugs in the last long-overdue IE development round, despite it being clear that the most-needed IE fixes were precisely the ones they punted on. We (by which I mean web developers generally, not WPians in particular) cannot keep bending over backwards to account for IE's failures to follow the standards forever (and yes the abiguity of that phrase is intentional). If the result for MOS purposes is that some things will wrap in broken browsers, but will behave properly in standards-compliant browsers, then that's just fine. Inveterate, insistent users of IE are already used to having to mentally compensate for their preferred but weird browser's shortcomings, so this will be nothing new for them.

The third case – "quite remarkably, also breaks before TEXT in IE (but not in Firefox)" – is invalid markup, so who knows what would actually happen were it cleaned up. The tag order in that passage is: begin-template code nowiki span code /span /nowiki /code end-template; there is not only a missing /code, there is a span code /span /code overlap. With XHTML that broken, the results cannot possibly be predictable; different browsers have different failure compensation modes.

Hope that helps. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 03:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If I may "reconclude": Your conclusion 1 and 4 are incorrect with regard to there being something broken with the nowrap template or the template parser, and I remain neutral on conclusion 1's second point that the template may simply be deficient for some purposes (since I can't imagine all possible purposes :-) Conclusion 2: I've been saying that all along. Conclusions 3 and 5: Probably so, though I think these findings and the alleged deficiencies need to be seriously re-examined given what I've said so far. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 04:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, SMcCandlish. We have needed someone with sufficient knowledge to address template matters. A request at talk for {{nowrap}} was ignored. Some comments and queries for you, though. Your text in italics:

I can't agree that case #1 is "against expectations"; Misplaced Pages's general template markup documentation makes it very clear that whitespace between and around parameters and their values is ignored. I.e. x<span style="white-space:nowrap"> TEXT </span>y is not the expected output, if you absorb the templating system more fully.

The normal experienced editor's reasonable expectation is that a template will do what its documentation says it will do. This one did not, and that has now been acknowledged and rectified. The documentation for templates and the templating system as a whole is generally poor, and impenetrable to non-geeks. Is this satisfactory, when templates are supposed to be a service to all editors?

The principal downside is that occasionally one wishes that the spaces were interpreted as literals, and the workaround for that is to use  .

Well, yes. And in the present case, which is all about spaces, that should have been accounted for and pointed out. We could ask for greater clarity in the documentation. Question: would it have been possible for {{nowrap}} to use multiple instances of   instead of span tags? If so, could the system be made to pick up a first or a last space and do that with them? After all, it seems to be able to identify them in order to drop them outside the span tags, yes?

Your second, "also breaks in IE before TEXT, but not after it", example: Well, what else is new? IE is just known to be severely broken.

That's certainly true. I wouldn't use IE except to test things. Relevantly for this whole discussion, in IE x – y and x — y will not break after the first  , but will before the second  . And x … y (preformed ellipsis) will not break at all. None of these will break at all in Firefox.

If the result for MOS purposes is that some things will wrap in broken browsers, but will behave properly in standards-compliant browsers, then that's just fine. Inveterate, insistent users of IE are already used to having to mentally compensate for their preferred but weird browser's shortcomings, so this will be nothing new for them.

Perhaps. But we should remember that we write for all browsers, no matter which we use ourselves. Despite IE's serious shortcomings, it does seem to behave better with   (at least breaking after a dash rather than before, as explained) than with {{nowrap}}. We should document this for editors, and take it into account, shouldn't we? To excuse ourselves on the ground that a major browser is a non-compliant "outlaw" seems a bit rash and unrealistic.

The third case "quite remarkably, also breaks before TEXT in IE (but not in Firefox)" – is invalid markup, so who knows what would actually happen were it cleaned up. 

So sorry. I input the code wrongly here and at talk for {{nowrap}} (fixed now), with a stray and unmatched CODE tag. The corrected code:

x&nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap">TEXT</span>&nbsp;y

Do you acknowledge that this is valid code that might turn up in attempts to circumvent IE's and WP's deficiencies? This code is what I tested, with the result that I report. And it is generated by:

x {{nowrap|TEXT}} y

So I still think there are more deficiencies in WP's existing options for the hard space than are acknowledged or documented. For the non-expert, it takes an extraordinary amount of time, cunning, and effort to hunt these things down. This just reinforces the need for better analysis in the first place: and better documentation, coding, and understanding of what a sound editing system demands. That is not being delivered – certainly not for the hard space, certainly not for most editors. Hence our attempt at reform. So far we have seen many invaluable comments here; but I have to say: I see nothing compelling against the proposed markup with ,,. They would have to be an improvement over the present arrangements, surely?

– Noetica Talk 06:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we can't sort this out here or at Template_talk:Nowrap I might make some enquiries at WP:VPT. It's important for us to sort out just what these templates can and can't do. How is it, I ask, that a template can shift spaces but not convert them (to  , say)? Can anyone help with an answer?

– Noetica Talk 05:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This process of development

The process of working on the hard-space proposal has been unusual. We set up a page in userspace (a subpage of my own userpage: User:Noetica/ActionMOSVP). Our experience, I think, has been positive: we were able to educate ourselves and each other, and keep to a system that appears to have been fruitful. We are not closing that page, but transferring discussion to here for now, before making the proposal even more public in the wider WP community.

Any thoughts, positive or negative, on that process? I think it's independently interesting.

– Noetica Talk 03:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it is. Ignoring for the moment the possibility of a multitude of unchartered "working groups" and Misplaced Pages's mixed opinions on experts or expert groups, I like it. But if you expect the proposal to derive some credibility from the group's status, membership, deliberations, etc., it might have been helpful to start with a set of stated goals. The User:Noetica/ActionMOSVP archives imply that the proposal itself is the goal, but given the numerous alternatives considered, I doubt that was the case at the beginning. As things stand right now, I expect you're going to have to recapitulate the private discussions "in public", so it will be interesting to see how the working group members handle the concomittant frustration. But thanks for giving it a try! RossPatterson (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see my message in the next section (item #1: idea about project page). Waltham, The Duke of 21:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would have been preferable to conduct the whole process here, with more users, a simpler structure, a lot less text, and a greater level of pro-active presumption with invitations to criticise. In my experience, relatively fast-moving, stratified democracy is the best way to garner expertise and opinion from a wide range of people without losing momentum. It did lose momentum, I'm afraid, and I found the page unnecessarily difficult and time-consuming to negotiate, when all I wanted was to be clearly directed—like a sheep—to the decisions already made, the issues that needed input, and the plans for action. Only early on when we were asked to vote on candidate codes was it easy to see what was going on and to contribute. Even then, it would have been simpler to ask people to list their first, second and third choices in one simple row separated by commas (4, 1, 5) and to sign once than to negotiate the table in the edit-box. Keep it simple and quick is my advice. We still don't know how/where/who further down the line, and it's this lack of a big-picture strategy that put me off. IMV, one-to-one legwork to produce options for where to take the proposal would have made a difference, not open-ended discussion lacking fine-grained goals and interim deadlines.

However, I support the proposal, thank Noetica for taking the initiative, and look forward to progress. Tony (talk) 09:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Tony. Interesting and useful to have your views concerning our experiment recorded here. I will not give my detailed response, though there is much to challenge in what I have just read. I'll wait for others to give opinions.

– Noetica Talk 11:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"Recording" my views wasn't uppermost in my mind; just responding to your call for feedback. I didn't see it as combative. Tony (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Combative? I didn't see it that way either. You have indeed responded to my call for feedback, and I have thanked you. But in my assessment you raise some questions on which we disagree, and which it is not profitable to pursue right here, right now. Good to have a range of opinions recorded.

– Noetica Talk 23:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Enough with the "recording" idiocy, both of you; we are not at Abbey Road here. Focus on the subject, please. Waltham, The Duke of 15:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

How to promote the proposal

The working group would appreciate your thoughts on how to move forward with the completed proposal. Certainly your interest and help are important, for a start. We had thought Village Pump (proposals) would be a proper place to present it. But that may not be best. It needs a big vote of support, from editors who have studied it and have come to see the need for this simple change.

Suggestions?

– Noetica Talk 03:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, this proposal is even more embracing than the rollback tool, for it concerns a markup: it is meant to be used by literally everyone, regardless of status, and as a part of the regular editing process. Therefore, I believe that it ought to receive maximum publicity. These are the steps I think we should take:

1. Create a page in the project namespace, thoroughly explaining the proposal and the procedure by means of which it has emerged. The discussion on the proposal and any potential straw polls will take place there. The page shall, of course, be appropriately tagged; it might also have a shortcut.
2. Leave messages in the Village Pump's Technical, Proposals, and Policies sections, referring to said page.
3. Leave messages in the relevant Manual of Style talk pages: here, in dates and numbers, and in mathematics.
4. Leave a note in the Community Portal's bulletin board calling editors to comment on the proposal.
5. Leave a message in the Administrators' Noticeboard similarly calling sysops to comment.
6. Create an entry in Centralized discussion regarding the proposal.
7. Leave messages in the talk pages of all the relevant WikiProjects (ideas including the League of Copyeditors and the Punctuation and Typo projects).
8. Leave messages in whatever other relevant pages' talk pages we can locate.

I do not find it necessary to ask an administrator to create a watchlist note; we could mention it somewhere, but if the proposal does gather momentum, someone will probably do it on their own accord anyway.

Anything I have left out? All this might sound slightly excessive, but, seriously, we are talking about a major change here; we need all the input we can get. Waltham, The Duke of 21:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps seeking an article in the Signpost would effectively bring it to the attention of a large number of committed editors. Franamax (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. However, it will probably be hard to gain more than a mention in the Signpost; a full article will be written if this becomes a story worth including, which will only happen if and when a lot of activity takes place. See what happened with the rollback debate: after the discussion, the poll, and the reactions, and only then, was the story published. Waltham, The Duke of 15:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, maybe this kind of treatment would be excessive; after all, this is just one of tens of such proposals being made every year (not to say hundreds). However, if we are to discuss it in the Village Pump (instead of creating a separate page in the project namespace), we probably ought to prefer the Technical section, as more relevant. Waltham, The Duke of 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My experience of that is that the entry will soon be covered in a swamp of others, possibly without comment. Tony (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Tony. Being swamped is the problem: just as the developing proposal would have been lost in noise if it had been pursued here, as experience shows for other such efforts.

Waltham, looking at the various pages of Village Pump, I don't think this belongs primarily in the technical area. There are certainly technical implications, but the immediate question is to do with policy: in general, the kinds of markup that WP should embrace, and then the specific suggestion for one change, regardless of the deep technical mechanisms involved.

– Noetica Talk 23:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, Noetica, it could have been managed here, and experience has shown that reforms have been worked through successfully here. I'm not interested in the bickering though, so let's concentrate on moving forward the hard-space reform. Tony (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting to see your further opinion recorded, concerning what can and cannot be achieved here (and at WT:MOSNUM, perhaps?). I see no bickering, but sure: let's work on the job in hand.

– Noetica Talk 00:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, do I detect an inability to play nice together? Tony, the best way to show you're not interested in bickering is to not bicker, especially in the immediately preceding sentence. Noetica, if you see no bickering present, best not to introduce your own example. Did either of your most recent posts here get us farther toward implementing double-comma? Just asking. :) Franamax (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No, they didn't; Interesting to see your rejoinder recorded here, Noetica. What else are we going to record? Tony (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Tony, you are aware that every time you click "Save page" the text you entered is recorded in perpetuity? That's how wikis work and it's a correct statement, I hope you're not accusing Noetica of making a correct statement. Are you trying to pick a fight? Maybe this isn't the best place to do so. :) Did that last post help with the double-comma proposal? Let's cool down a bit. :) Franamax (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Or are you being combative now, Franamax? I just object to the continual explicit framing of my contributions as recordings, rather than current engagement in discourse. The mild put-down is not helpful, and nor is your "recording". For example, I could frame your entries as "html code", although even that would not carry same negative connotation as "recording". Understand? Tony (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(e/c I think this is the right spot)Umm, I guess the short answer is: no I don't understand :) I'm certainly not trying to be combative, I was actually trying to defuse a potential off-topic fight I saw developing. Obviously I've failed in that effort, but I don't mind failure, in fact I've honed that skill throughout my life. :) I'll include my recent posts in the question "are we advancing the subject of the thread?", the question applies to all of us, and I'll offer apologies if I've offended you. Franamax (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I say (and said) that it is a Good Thing to put useful and relevant opinions on record. We are all doing that. I asked for that, more or less. Tony, you think it is a put-down to label a contribution as an act of recording? I didn't see it that way. Sorry if you were offended. I simply wanted to record that I disgree with you on some matters, and also that I don't want to engage with you about those, at this stage.

– Noetica Talk 01:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I should like to add that you are all being ridiculous, and amusingly so, too. (chuckles) Seriously, can we go back on-topic, please? I fail to locate the reason for this distasteful digression.

Now, do we, or do we not, agree that this page is suitable enough to serve as the main forum of discussion for the hard space proposal? Please answer this question, and no other. Believe me, it is for the best. Waltham, The Duke of 15:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't find it amusing. I hope that, having insulted each other, Noetica and I can very soon move on and resume our very productive friendship. Tony (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

When is text a quotation and when is it just text?

An RFC at Misplaced Pages talk:Citing sources#Style guideline for PD sourced content involves interpretation of whether all pieces of text are a quotation. Some editors claim any public domain text in an article must be in quotation marks, while others distinguish between public domain text being used as text versus what is intended as "a brief excerpt" as a "direct source of … insight" (as Misplaced Pages:Quotations mentions). This carries implications for existing EB 1911 text and reuse of free material from other projects (Misplaced Pages and other). Some examination of the situation and the MOS description of a quotation may be helpful. -- SEWilco (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's public domain text being repurposed, e.g. Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 text serving as the basis for a WP article, it would not be quoted. If it is a quotation for purposes of the prose at a hand (e.g. "According to the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, 'foo bar baz' "), then it should be quoted, and whether it is public domain or not is of no relevance. Agree that MOS could be clearer on this. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 03:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's that simple, besides your agreement that some more clarity in MOS would be helpful. For instance, I've taken issue with SEWilco before, involving the copying of long passages of PD text from a particularly eloquent National Park Service writer. Especially if a text is really well written, shouldn't it be "better" to credit the actual writer for the writing, by using quotation marks to indicate that exact wording is copied (and separating that material from other non-copied, wikipedia-editorship-written material). I don't think it is good policy to leave it to any copier (plagiarist?) to state whether it is his/her intend to repurpose or to quote. Perhaps some limitations should be applied, that for instance the encyclopedic quality, or not, of the source should be considered. DANFS or the 1911 EB may be very well regarded, and very factual, while other PD sources are valuable and factual and unbiased in the view of only a small minority. It is a simple policy, on the other hand to say that it may be "better" to use quotation marks when copying text from a source, PD or otherwise. Anyhow, I agree with SEWilco that your participation over in the other discussion might be helpful. Sincerely, doncram (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting support

User Drphilharmonic does a fair bit of text editing on Misplaced Pages for "logic, grammar, syntax". He recently cleaned up some articles which are on my regular watchlist. In my opinion, some of his work was useful (e.g., removing informal contractions), some of it was unnecessary imposition of his personal preferences (e.g., substituting "in general" for "generally"), and some of it actually introduced punctuation errors into the text (e.g., hyphenating "relatively-few patients") or made inappropriate changes to the meaning (e.g., he changed "treatments are medically necessary" to "medical treatments are necessary," presumably because he doesn't know that medical necessity is a technical issue).

I tried to engage him in a conversation about my concerns on his talk page, but his responses have been insulting and irrelevant. I have asked him to rephrase his rude remarks to address my specific concerns, but I don't really expect to make much progress. Is there are copyediting group that could review his recent changes for me? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There is the WikiProject:League of Copyeditors, who may feel able to help. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew there'd be a group somewhere; I just couldn't find it earlier. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

But next time, please consider not raising such personal criticisms in a public place; at least not in this amount of critical detail. Tony (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is this supposed to be used?

I couldn't find on here anywhere where this is supposed to be used. I would guess that it doesn't apply to talk pages, but it does apply to articles, and it probably applies to project pages (policies and guidelines). Will someone please update the manual of style with where it's supposed to be used? Fredsmith2 (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, hold on a moment, dear fellow, catch your breath first! What exactly are you referring to? Waltham, The Duke of 22:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fredsmith posted to Policy and Guidelines, that some editor(s) told him that this Manual of Style applied to article-space, but not to wiki-space. That is, that it did not apply to the WP: space. When you read the main page here, he is saying it doesn't specifically state to which space it applies. Wjhonson (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I was at a loss for a while too, Waltham. Fred wants to know about the scope of MOS's application. The answer? All articles, certainly. Beyond that, who really knows? Good question.

There are also uncertainties about the status of some pages as components of the MOS. Is Misplaced Pages:Citing_sources/example_style in the fold as an offshoot of Misplaced Pages:Citing_sources, which itself is a component of MOS? (That is the wording at the top of such "official" pages: "This guideline is a part of Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style.") The question has been asked, and it is now buried somewhere in achives – unanswered.

I have said before that the suite of MOS articles needs rationalising from the top down. I still think so. Another special project for a working group, perhaps.

Wjhonson, please give a link to that other posting.

– Noetica Talk 23:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't apply to user comments or user pages. It certainly applies to templates that are used in articles. Most parts of it seem to apply to portals. Beyond that, I really don't know. Dcoetzee 00:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Noetica trying to make me remember what I did five minutes ago is pure evil. Here's your link. I do agree that this page should state that MOS applies to WP: space as well as article space, template, categories, but not to user pages nor to any talk pages anywhere. Wjhonson (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made the assumption that the MOS applies to WP: space. When I have changed misused hyphens into endashes in essays and in policy pages no one has reverted me. An explicit declaration would please me. --Paul Erik 00:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

We hope that MOS is worth following in all WP spaces; I think that its function as a guideline officially applies to WP space. I agree with Noetica: an overhaul of the structure is long overdue. But please consider making this page the base for discussion, with links to proposed texts/sandboxes to avoid clutter. Simplicity and time-lines are essential. Tony (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) If a declaration is ever made that the MOS should be followed in places other than the article space, it might be worth pointing out that while other style guides usually include prescriptions on how to format citations, this MOS does not; that is all in a separate Citing sources guideline. The use of anything but in-text citations may be impractical on many non-article pages. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm keener to rationalise the structure of the myriad MOSs and styleguides before making such a declaration. Tony (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, Tony. There is a desperate need for that.

– Noetica Talk 01:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain more fully what you mean by "rationalise the structure of the myriad MOSs and styleguides"Wjhonson (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The relationship between MOS central, its subpages, the style guidelines that aren't officially part of MOS, the policy pages for—say—naming conventions: there are probably too many of them and they need to be coordinated more efficiently. Internal changes on these pages are probably necessary, too. Tony (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the MoS should formally apply to policy or other "Misplaced Pages:" pages. Informally, yes: it's worthwhile for our internal-use pages to use good writing style. But the purpose of policy pages is vastly different from that of articles, and aside from basics like grammar, spelling, and usage consistency, I'd say little of the MoS has relevance to them.

Yes, there are some policy or other Misplaced Pages pages that are terribly written. Some are scarred due to edit-warring (the MoS will not fix those); others suffer from neglect. In the latter case, I doubt we need to invoke the MoS: just {{sofixit}}.--Father Goose (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My opinion on the applicability of the Manual of Style is this: all pages likely to be viewed by plain readers should follow the MoS because they need to be well-written, clear, and adequately formal. Of course, all non-deleted pages of the English Misplaced Pages are ultimately viewable (except some Special pages), but I am specifically referring to pages containing information of interest to non-editors. This definition includes the entire main and Portal namespaces, most of the Category namespace (which has little text anyway), and from the project namespace (yes, it has a name) all policies, guidelines, and disclaimers. Oh, and all the templates transcluded into any of the aforementioned types of pages (mostly article message boxes). This is our face to the world, and, as has been said time and again, we put the reader first, and the editor next. It is for the readers' benefit that we have a Manual of Style—in other words, it could be argued that it is part of the encyclopaedia side of Misplaced Pages, and not so much a part of its community side. Waltham, The Duke of 14:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Style Rationalisation Project

Tony is there a centralized list of all these subpages, style guidelines and policy pages? Perhaps that would be one important place to start, just with that linkfarm and then we can all see the scope of the problem.Wjhonson (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been discussed on this page over the past six months, but the archives now make it so hard to locate material. The nearest you get to lists is on the templates such as the one top-right of MOS. But there are other lists, too. Tony (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hyphen in political family names

I noticed that some political families use a hyphen, although others use an endash. (Ex: Smoot–Rowlett family compared to South-Cockrell-Hargis family. As I understand the manual, they should all be endashes. They should all be moved, correct? Cool Hand Luke 19:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Luke. On the model of Michelson–Morley experiment, these contructions should have en dashes. If they represented real family names (like Bowes-Lyon), they would have hyphens.

– Noetica Talk 20:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds correct to me. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 03:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, there ought to be redirects from the versions using hyphens, so this ought to be taken care of every time an article is moved to a version using an en-dash. Normally, I should ask you to flag these redirects with the appropriate template, only that I am not quite sure myself which one that would be (either {{R from alternative spelling}} or {{R from ASCII}}). Redirect categorisation is, sadly, still in a foetal state, and the overseeing WikiProject is on the verge of complete abandonment. I actually plan to join it when my exams are over, try and help a little. Waltham, The Duke of 12:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, when an en dash is used in the article name, all of them should contain a sort key with a hyphen (or maybe a space), not an en dash, through the magic word defaultsort or individual sort keys. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Why so? Is there a categorisation problem with en-dashes? Waltham, The Duke of 13:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not understanding this. At any rate, I'll move joint family names (as opposed to single hyphenated names) to have en dashes. Cool Hand Luke 04:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Supplementary guides

Is there any validity to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (exit lists) being titled and tagged as a part of the Manual of Style? The page appears to be provide project-specific guidance and does not appear to be linked from by the main MOS page or any of its supplements and is not in any MOS categories. Can any project create a page and call it a part of the Manual of Style? Is there some other tag that is more appropriate for such pages? older ≠ wiser 15:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent questions, O≠W. It is indicative of the poor state of the MOS pages that no one has responded to your questions in over two days. One reason: a lot of this is not settled and hardly examined. We don't know. People prefer to look at the trees rather than the forest. What we need is a complete and general reform of Misplaced Pages's MOS, starting with an examination of structure and process.

– Noetica Talk 01:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I put this question late last year, and no one seemed to have an answer. I think we need to form a priority list for overhauling the structural relationships between and within the MOSes and the styleguides. Towards the top of that list should be the creation of a written-down process for becoming part of MOS. Tony (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Dashes: Parent-instructor example

Under the section on dashes, specifically the part on slashes, there is an example given which states that "parent/instructor" should be rewritten as "parent-instructor", under certain conditions. However, it states that a hyphen should be used, whereas the example text appears actually to have an en dash (not a hyphen). I would correct this myself but am not quite sure which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpavey (talk • contribs) 14:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted, Mpavey. I have changed it to a hyphen, in conformity with MOS. We say: "...a hyphen is used instead in Mon-Khmer languages which lacks a relationship...". The coverage of such cases – joined nouns, whether used adjectivally or as composite nouns – is uneven and indeterminate in major style guides. We do the best we can. By the way, sign at the end of your contribution by typing ~~~~.

– Noetica Talk 23:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Even the MoS itself doesn't comply with the MoS. So what chance does a poor little FAC have? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That's right, Malleus. As I have pointed out before, the world is imperfect and variegated. So is Misplaced Pages, so is MOS. So are all style guides that I am familiar with – and that's all the major ones, and more. But we shouldn't be complacent. I'd like to see a major effort to improve all MOS pages systematically, rather than in the present haphazard way.

– Noetica Talk 01:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You may perhaps have misunderstood me. I am not complacent, and I fully support your efforts to improve the MoS. I was simply echoing the conclusion that any reasonable editor would probably already have come to. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, dear Malleus! I think I did not misunderstand you! And I do not say that you are complacent, but that we shouldn't be. We tend to coast along, dealing with small concerns as they appear in our visual field, and we do not work hard at the big picture. Many are beginning to realise this, now. Something will start happening about it – if we make it happen. It would take a much larger effort than specialised projects like the hard space push, for example. And believe me: it's been extraordinarily difficult to get where we are with that, even.

– Noetica Talk 02:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Project guidelines

Back in September when we had the discussion that WikiProject guidelines shouldn't be part of WP:WIAFA unless they were part of WP:MOS, as I recall, the only WikiProjects that had garnered community-wide MOS approval for their Project guidelines were WP:MEDMOS and WP:MILHIST. Both had (or MilHist was going to) subjected their guidelines to community wide approval via posts to multiple projects, Village Pump, etc. In three recent FAC/FARs, I've come up against Project members who believe that Project guidelines trump WP:MOS (see the F-4 FAR, Boeing 747 FAC, although a lot of that dialogue was on my talk page, and now the Transformers (film) FAC, where WP:MOSBOLD isn't being followed.) I see that the film guidelines were added to MOS in September. Where is a the global discussion for the addition of these guidelines to MOS? Was it discussed here? There needs to be some overall guidance on these Project standards before they become part of MOS. Did that happen, for example, for Music and Film? By what process are these Project guidelines getting tagged as part of MOS? WP:MEDMOS was only added after it was posted at Village Pump and over 20 other Projects to gain community wide consensus, for example. Can someone point me to that process for Film? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

More generally, by what process are we determining that any of the recent additions conform to WP:MOS and have achieved broad consensus for addition to the MOS template? I know MilHist and MEDMOS went through the "process" of garnering broad consensus, but what about others and who is watching this template? Examples in addition to Music and Film: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, can we address the general problem of Project guidelines that may be out of step with WP:MOS by adding to MOS a statement outlining the overall hierarchy, and making it clear that MOS trumps when Projects are out of step? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Very pertinent questions, Sandy. They are all part of an even broader question. Using the term WP:MOS most inclusively, how should WP:MOS be structured, with what range of content, with what process in place for maintenance and coordination, endowed with what level of authority over what pages?

Such a broad question should trump all others at this talkpage because it affects how all subordinate questions are dealt with, and what effect the answers to those questions can ultimately have. If no else formally initiates this dauntingly important discussion, I will. When I have time.

– Noetica Talk 02:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but that's a long-term project which ignores the fact that there's an immediate problem. A proper project to address this problem ought to have both long and short term goals I would suggest. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, I couldn't have said it better. I have two, soon to be three, FAC/FARs that hinge on this issue, and editors insisting that their Project guidelines "count", even when they are out of step with WP:MOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. But I for one can't answer your excellent questions, Sandy, and I wanted to explain why I can't. I doubt whether anyone can provide a definitive answer, given the present chaos. Most pointedly: "Where is global discussion for the addition of these guidelines to MOS? Was it discussed here?" That puts the difficulty in a nutshell. As far as I can see, such things are not addressed in any forum that is at all obvious to the searcher. No ready solution presents itself. There is no genuine alternative to tackling the overarching problem.

– Noetica Talk 03:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. I think that a definitive statement that the MoS trumps any local MoS would be both common sense and hopefully lead to a productive debate on why any project would feel it necessary to come up with a different style guide. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

But Malleus, who is to make that statement? How is it to be arrived at? The question spills beyond the boundaries of any particular MOS-talkpage. Are you sure you disagree with me? I would like definitive statements about all sorts of things, too.

– Noetica Talk 03:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who is sufficiently WP:BOLD can make that statement.There are no rules. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Goodness, if it's not abundantly clear that WP:MOS, which enjoys wide community input, trumps over every little group of editors who put together some Project guidelines and may or may not run them by the broader community, the problem is bigger than I thought. I thought this was given, straightforward, but somehow never got stated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't envy you in your role as FA director(?), but I do have faith in your common sense. I know that's not much help though. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not director: delegate, proxy, just a helper :-) The problem is that my prose is crappy; can't someone draft an overall statement for discussion? It should be clear to everyone that MOS trumps, but shouldn't we discuss a way to state that here? Noetica or Malleus, both of you would be better at drafting something than I am. No, it won't solve the immediate problem with specific articles, since we need to discuss this addition, but it will get us started. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

But it should not "trump". No guideline trumps any other; the strength of amy guideline is the arguments and practices it contains; it has no real power that the arguments and evidence would not separately. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And this is a recipe for chaos. Whatever "real power", "arguments" and "evidence" you're referring to, Anderson, better that they be expressed in a single place, so we all know where we and WP stands. Would you have the fair-use policy and copyright issues expressed in a multitude of different, competing pages? Would you dismantle the five pillars of WP and let them push and pull each other to bits on competing pages? No, of course you wouldn't, so why object to a rational step to centralise discussion/consensus/objection WRT style and formatting where there is disagreement among MOS pages? Tony (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

• I formally propose, as a first and relatively straightforward step, that where there is inconsistency between MOS and its subpages, MOS prevails. This is the only sane way of organising the Manual. If editors at a subpage disagree with a particular MOS guideline, let them come here and argue it out. This proposal concerns attracting discussion onto this very talk page, where things can be debated and both MOS and its subpages managed centrally where the left and right hands say different things. It is a means of encouraging rational interplay between the groups of editors who inhabit MOS and the subpages. And it is a means of clarifying what is what for the hapless nominators and reviewers of FACs, who might well complain at the moment that they find it confusing. We owe it to WPians, especially newbies, to provide proper, coordinated guidance. I suggest that this arrangement be expressed in the lead of MOS. Tony (talk) 10:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be prudent to announce this discussion on the talk pages of the other MOS pages so that their readers are aware of this discussion. Fg2 (talk) 11:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done the active ones for the time being. Tony (talk) 12:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You missed MOSFILM. Do you want me to copy your message over, or will you do it? Steve 16:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit but the specialism sometimes need to override the generalisms. Rich Farmbrough, 21:41 5 February 2008 (GMT).

And so it should; who suggested that MOS-central wouldn't change where joint consensus among the custodians of both pages was for the wording on the sub-page? See my example below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please support (or oppose), provide brief feedback if you wish, and sign.

• Support—It's a good first step towards rationalising the chaos. Tony (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support - agree, there is such a rabbit warren of information there has to be a default option at a particular point in time until changes are nutted out properly (in cases of discrepancy). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support which will become a support should clarification be received. This is a good idea, for the reasons stated by Tony. However, I would like to know if there will be scope in the wording to allow the listing of certain exceptions which individual projects might bring up. A one-size-fits-all approach for different article types is not necessarily the best aid to reader comprehension in some circumstances, and it is that which we should be primarily concerned with. Any such exceptions would of course have to be discussed and approved on this talk page before being implemented on the MOS subpage in question, so overall control would still retained here. Steve 10:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC) I'd envisaged the new arrangement as two-way—that MOS central might very well change to the wording of a sub-page if it suits everyone. Tony (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support – This is an essential preliminary if we want a properly organised MOS, worthy of respect throughout the WP community. Long overdue. The details will need sorting out, as Steve points out above: longer discussion should often be at a subpage first (like the protracted conversations at WT:MOSNUM about the hard space, and about spacing in long decimal numbers). But all matters affecting the substantial content of MOS should come here in the end for final community discussion and endorsement.– Noetica Talk 10:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Question How does anyone propose to enforce this? Sorry, but if project editors are willing to not adopt the "prescriptions" of a guideline which enjoys "community wide approval" without discussing it here, then adopting a proposal which says "WP:MOS pwns you all!" seems in danger of resembling the act of someone putting on a tinfoil crown and declaring themselves king. Moreover, the wording of the proposal "where there is inconsistency between MOS and its subpages, MOS prevails" appears to go against the very nature of guidelines themselves -- to quote a policy page, "Guidelines are more advisory in nature than policies." Is the advice that WP:MOS offers "Do as we say"? --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Sturm (talk • contribs) 11:17, 5 February 2008
  • "Enforce"? I didn't see it as black and white as that, like houses of parliament rejecting each others' bills. More like a centralised place for consensus-generation, which is what HAS to happen anyway to coordinate policy. And FAC people need to know which one prevails, frankly. It's a serious process that is bound to follow these pages, so ... which one? It's only fair to make it transparent and straighforward, isn't it? And BTW, MOS-central editors don't own MOS or any other pages; all editors are welcome to contribute to debate here, yes? Tony (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• To be perfectly honest I assumed this was the accepted practise. Hiding T 13:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Need more examples. Tinfoil hats? MOS discussions are such a guilty pleasure for me, even when I suspect a certain amount of, um, inefficiency. Count me in - Dan Dank55 (talk) 13:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Question: what are we defining "inconsistency" to cover here? Is it only active contradiction (i.e. the MoS says to to X while another page says to not to do X), or passive contradiction (i.e. the MoS says nothing while another page says to do Y, or the MoS says to do X while another page says to do X+Y) as well? In other words, does the omission of some point from the MoS allow other groups to specify such a point, or prohibit it? And, more generally, are more specific guidelines—as appropriate for particular subject areas—to be permitted, or will "the main MoS doesn't require this" be a valid objection to all of them. Kirill 14:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A great question, and personally I plan to go by the sniff test. If moving a discussion to a sub-page feels like "forum-shopping" to me, then I would tend to support the sense of the main page, whether the sense is conveyed by expression or omission. If the information on the sub-page feels like it really needed to be on the sub-page to be argued properly, then I would tend to respect the more nuanced or more detailed answer on the sub-page, although anything that the main page stated explicitly would still govern, at least if the current consensus holds. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Only active; see my reply below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, good; I'm fine with the proposal based on that understanding. Kirill 02:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• The proposal may give the impression that you're trying to overrule sub-MoSs by stealth. I can understand the argument that a consensus here should trump a consensus at a sub-MoS, but first of all a discussion between the people here and the people at the sub-MoS should take place. I think it's improper to say that this MoS prevails over a sub-MoS before such a discussion has taken place. For instance, I just saw that WP:MOS and WP:MOSMATH disagree over one point: WP:MOS says you can use we in mathematical articles and WP:MOSMATH says you cannot. Looking at the relevant discussions at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive 93#Recent edit to "avoid first-person pronouns" and Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (mathematics)#Encyclopedic vs conversational tone, it seems to me that the text in WP:MOSMATH has seen wider discussion and should thus prevail over the text here (on this one point) if it's necessary to pick one rule. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support, absolutely essential to tame the chaos and create a central MoS. We have FACs and FARs appearing that contradict MoS because they are following other Project guidelines. Sub-pages must come into compliance with MoS or propose/discuss changes here. Per Kirill's question, only active contradiction (i.e. the MoS says to to X while another page says to not to do X); passive contradiction (i.e. the MoS says nothing while another page says to do Y, or the MoS says to do X while another page says to do X+Y) is no problem, if those additional guidelines have gained broad consensus from outside that individual Project. By the way, wording was added last week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In the case of a discrepancy between a guideline as stated here and how it's described in one of those sub-pages, then the guideline as stated here takes precedence.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose – a blanket rule as is suggested is not a good idea. As far as possible, sub-pages should follow the conventions set out in MoS. However, I believe the purpose of sub-pages is to deal with specific situations not covered by MoS. In such cases, generalia specialibus non derogant (a general provision does not derogate from a special one). — Cheers, JackLee 16:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Your response contradicts itself; have you read Kirill's query above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing out Kirill's posting. However, I'm still slightly uncomfortable with the wording "In the case of a discrepancy between a guideline as stated here and how it's described in one of those sub-pages, then the guideline as stated here takes precedence." Let me try and clarify my first comment. What I meant is that editors should, as far as possible, ensure that what is stated on sub-pages is in line with the guidelines set out in MoS. However, isn't it possible that there may be situations where compliance is simply inappropriate (e.g., because of certain regional conventions)? I realize it's a difficult to talk in the abstract, but shouldn't any proposed guideline on the matter take that possibility into account? That having been said, the MoS deals with pretty basic matters and not with issues such as how people's names should be indicated, so perhaps the scenario I've posited may not happen too often. — Cheers, JackLee 17:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that providing a means to encourage MOS to speak with one voice is going to alter the status of MOS in relation to the project as a whole—not one jot. It will still be a guideline, with the same caveat in the template at the top. The proposal concerns only the internal relationship between MOS and its sub-pages. It seeks to provide a default mechanism for resolving inconsistencies, rather than allowing them to survive unchecked in a way that is unprofessional and smacks of the sloppiness that gives WP's detractors ammunition. Tony (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. I agree with the overall goal, but I'm not sure that this is the best way to get there. I'd support a policy that says "Sub-MoS guidelines should not conflict with MoS; exceptions can be granted through the following process: (add a couple of reasonable steps, like announcing the conflict on the MoS talk page)." I'd also support a policy that says that compliance with a project MoS is strictly optional until it has been accepted by (fill in this blank with a couple of reasonable steps). What I don't like about the current proposal is that it basically says, "When there is a conflict between MoS and a project MoS, even if it involves a technical issue that has never been considered in MoS, please use MoS rules instead of the good sense that the MoS is supposed to promote." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• So, it sounds like you support the proposal, but want clarification on the wording. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd characterize my concerns as having more to do with the content and application of the proposal than with word choice. I do not support a mindless and absolute preference for one set of rules, especially when we can't predict what conflicts may appear. For example, you will readily agree with me when I say that env is a gene, and Env is the protein it produces. On its face, MoS doesn't approve of following this convention: the name of a gene is not an authorized opportunity for using italics, and it's not clear that Env should be considered a proper noun. I'd be sad to see someone remove the italics from the gene and the capital letter from the protein simply because MoS doesn't accommodate this convention.

Ultimately, where there are conflicts, I think that the specific conflicts should be addressed and resolved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're saying that genes should always be italicized, that is reflected neither at WP:MOS nor at WP:MEDMOS, and you should put up a proposal to get it added to both. Again, no reason for the two to be out of sync. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I give this as an example of something which could be reasonably specified at MEDMOS, and which might reasonably excluded from the main MoS page, and which a non-expert might object to as an "inconsistency." If a non-expert actually tried to turn a statement like "env is translated into Env" into the de-formatted "env is translated into env," under the mistaken impression that the Manual of Style approved of producing unintelligible nonsense, then I will certainly propose a formal approval of this convention at that time.

The possibility that more obscure technical conventions will affected by this rule is the basis of my opposition. I would support the proposal if it said, "where there is inconsistency between MOS and its subpages, MOS can be assumed to prevail until the conflicts have been properly addressed on the MoS talk page." WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So if you discover that inconsistency, you'd probably raise it at both MEDMOS and MOS, suggesting which you think should be changed. Until that time, the MOS wording would prevail. Rather than the ridiculous situation in which the hapless editor doesn't know which to believe, here's inbuilt motivation for all MOS-interested WP's to sort it out promptly. That is the intent. At the moment, there's no such motivation to house-clean regularly, to reconcile, to cross-talk at both pages. The proposal has in mind the fostering of a collaborative culture—a sharing of expertise—among MOS and sub-page editors. It's not an attempted power-grab or coup d'etat. The striking thing about MOS and its plethora of sub-pages at the moment is how litttle the experts talk to each other; this should be of concern to all WPians who yearn for a cohesive project. Tony (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose the proposal if it said "where there is inconsistency between MOS and its subpages, MOS can be assumed to prevail until the conflicts have been properly addressed on the MoS talk page." The MOS and subpages should agree on their face; readers shouldn't have to search through years of talk page archives to see if they actually agree, even though the plain text disagrees. If the details of a certain style issue are too complex to repeat in the MOS, it could contain a statement along the lines of "see Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) for rules concerning italics in medicine-related articles." --Gerry Ashton (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Gerry. WhatamIdoing, First, we're extending into unreasonable hypotheticals; as one of the main writers of MEDMOS (along with Colin and a few others), I can assure you that it conforms with MoS and was subjected to broad community consensus before it was added to MoS, and will conform with MoS as long as we're watching it. In fact, it may be the only subpage that was subjected to that consensus, and that is the concern (that other Projects have not). If you want genes italicized, I encourage you to bring it to MoS for broad consensus. There should be no problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any indication of genes being italicized in any FA, so this is a good example of why centralization is needed. Do you have a sample? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Strike. This is already part of WP:ITALICS, so I don't know what the discussion was about. MEDMOS doesn't contradict MoS, and MoS covers it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support per Sandy and Krill's discussion. Also, people who declare themselves kings stopped wearing tinfoil crowns years ago. The latest fashion trends dictate that they wear aluminium foil crowns! Unless they're poor, then they just steal the paper ones from Burger King. —MJCdetroit 20:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support, but ... As a matter of logic, the main MoS should state the general guidelines for style to be used throughout Misplaced Pages; sub-pages should elaborate on specific guidelines. Therefore, if this proposal passes, any editor would be justified in deleting or changing any material on a sub-page that contradicts anything in the main MoS. Indeed, in my opinion, logic dictates that this would be so if this proposal had never been made. Still, logic notwithstanding, I have a few practical reservations.
  • The Wikipedians who regularly edit particular a sub-page tend to be individuals with special expertise in the the sub-page's topic. The attention given to a sub-page's topic on that sub-page is generally more focused and thorough than the attention given the same topic on the main MoS page. Therefore, one could argue that, for topics that are treated on a sub-page, the main MoS should summarize the main points of, and should conform to, the sub-page. This would be analogous to an article that has a section about a topic that is treated in its own article, often introduced with {Main} template.
  • Unlike a real (pardon me: I write from the perspective of a former editor of an academic journal) style manual—that is, one that is prescriptive, is systematically revised every several years rather than haphazardly modified every few minutes, and is actually followed by those publications that profess to adopt it—inconsistency among the pages that comprise the Misplaced Pages MoS is inevitable. Here, a relatively small number number of Wikipedians are extraordinarily active on the MoS pages. Some edits, including significant ones, are made without discussion. Where there is discussion, a so-called consensus on some point may be based on fewer than five non-unanimous expressed opinions. While it would be nice if those who revise some part of the MoS revise other parts that treat the same point, not all Wikipedians are this conscientious. So our MoS understandably, and for the same reasons, mirrors the inconsistency throughout Misplaced Pages articles, where subsections of several articles will treat a topic that is the subject of its own article, often inconsistently with one another and with the main article.
  • If this proposal were adopted, who would police it? It is unrealistic to believe that adopting a new guideline will affect the behavior of Wikipedians. Could the time that would have to be devoted to maintaining consistency of sub-pages with the main MoS page be invested more productively in improving Misplaced Pages articles themselves? Indeed, how much time should be devoted to refining the MoS, given that most Wikipedians ignore it when editing articles? Finell (Talk) 20:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • MoS is not ignored at WP:FAC and WP:FAR, and it is enforced on featured articles; clarity is needed in those cases where individual Projects have put guidelines in place, supported by a few editors, which disagree with the main MoS page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Further, for examples of Project guidelines which did gain widespread support from outside their Projects and do conform with the main MoS and do contain specific guidelines which go beyond MoS, see WP:MEDMOS and WP:MILHIST. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I know that MoS compliance is considered for WP:FAs; that represents a tiny percentage of Misplaced Pages and Wikipedians. Consideration of WP:GAs pays some attention to the MoS, but less rigorously. Personally I devote a large proportion of my edits to Wikifying and to copy editing. Still, my statement that "most Wikipedians ignore" the MoS is accurate, unfortunately. As for the projects, their enthusiasm for following the MoS, or even knowledge of it, is mixed. Articles within Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Architecture largely ignore the MoS. Math articles largely ignore Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (mathematics), especially the section on Writing style in mathematics. Finell (Talk) 00:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I'm slightly concerned that someone may use a strained application of a rule in the main MOS as justfication for making an inappropriate edit to a subpage, when a reasonable reading of the main MOS is that it really does not apply to the situation. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure, but this can happen at the moment. Tony (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as above; the force of a guideline consists solely of the cogency and general acceptance of the arguments in it. If MOS is weaker in either aspect (and it is not impossible for it to be weaker in both) it should not prevail; and it cannot make itself prevail merely by saying so. If it can, then any obscure guideline can prevail against it by the same method. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If I can make out the twists and turns in your comment, Anderson, if any part of MOS lacks cogency or general acceptance, it's up to the editors to argue it out, as has always been the case. As I've stated above, the proposal has no effect on the status of MOS a propos the rest of the project, and will make no difference to the push-and-pull gradualist mechanism that characterises all of WP. It is, if you like, a matter of disciplining ourselves, within MOS and its sub-pages, to interact more often and more productively. The default prevalence of the main MOS page is simply more practical than a default that a sub-page should prevail. The expectation is that inconsistency will be short-lived—and certainly not be allowed by the custodians to persist for long periods as now, simply through neglect. We do need to work more as a team on MOS and its sub-pages: it's as simple as that. Tony (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• • This entire violation of our guideline policy is provoked by the silly claim that every jot and tittle of a MOS page should be binding at FA, whether it was intended to be or not, whether it represents more than a couple of cranks or not. The easy way out is to stop saying that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Question: I don't come here often so I am not familiar with MOS main contents, or with its discussion page. It would help me form an opinion if some examples were provided of inconsistencies that are causing concern. It would be particularly helpful if the examples could be discrepancies with WP:MOSNUM, with which I am more familiar. Thunderbird2 (talk) 07:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can make out, the precipitating concern is that MOSFILM has declared that the names of actors and the characters they play should be in bold text in all film-related encyclopedia articles, and everyone who is not part of the film-industry project is horrified to see text formatting rules derived from celebrity column stylebooks, as if Misplaced Pages were just another promotional opportunity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you WhatamIdoing. I think the main page should contain general principles, with details thrashed out in the sub-pages. Mostly I would expect the details to clarify the principles, in a manner that is consistent with the main page. But I would also expect to find the odd exception, and I think the best place to spell out exceptions should be the sub-page not the main page. Like Rich Farmbrough I find myself agreeing with the principle but questioning the details. It's tempting to sit comfortably on the fence, but on balance I oppose the proposal. Thunderbird2 (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's not the precipitating concern at all. The current situation is that any Project (say six or eight editors) can put together some Project guidelines that contradict the overall WP:MOS guidelines and consider them part of MOS, without gaining broad community consensus. The proposal is designed to make sure that Projects attempt to conform with MOS, or bring exceptions to the broader community for input. Otherwise we have chaos, as Projects consisting of a small number of editors can contradict the community consensus that MoS enjoys. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Just on a point of fact, WhatamIdoing, while some interpretations of the guideline have resulted in difficulties recently, MOSFILM does not actually conflict with the main MOS on bolding. Steve 00:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have doubtless been incomplete, but your note at the top of this discussion (immediately above the proposal) specifically names the discrepancy between the rules on using bold-faced text as stated in MoS and in MOSFILM (which, IMO, does not officially exist, precisely because it is low-consensus subversion standard MoS rules) as an example of the kind of problem that needs to be addressed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And, as Steve correctly points out, MOSFILM doesn't contradict MoS. The question is a general one, since everybody and his/her brother can add random guidelines to MoS unless we put something in place to govern the chaos. MEDMOS submitted to at least 20 projects and Village Pump; since then, other Projects have randomly added guidelines, and we have no means of making sure they have attained community consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - whatever practices are widely accepted should be followed, and the guideline which does not reflect the commonly accepted practice should be modified to conform. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If the content of Misplaced Pages articles as a whole (not just the better ones), rather than the content of the MoS, determines "whatever practices are widely accepted", then the answer is that no practices on which reasonable minds can differ are widely accepted, and there are no guidelines to which the MoS can "conform". If there is any place for prescriptivism on Misplaced Pages, it is in a style manual. If that degree of prescriptivism is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages's culture, then at least the MoS should reflect some consensus on best practices to which Misplaced Pages should aspire. Finell (Talk) 02:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose in the strongest possible terms. This frankly looks like a power grab by the sort of folks who hang around the MOS. Tony, this is frankly reprehensible. Even if the proposal passes I intend to ignore it entirely, because the people likely to oppose it are, naturally, not likely to be here. --Trovatore (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please work on WP:AGF; this proposal was likely precipitated by me, not Tony, since contradictions in MoS pages have arisen at FAC and FAR. Since consensus isn't determined by "votes", do you have a logical reason to oppose some sort of coordination of sub-pages and the main page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Whoever "precipitated" it, Tony "formally proposed" it. Personally I don't care much about FAC and FAR or the other dens of wikiwonkery, as long as they stay out of the hair of the mathematics articles. But I do say that if mathematicians and non-mathematicians disagree on a style point for the math articles, the mathematicians should be listened to. --Trovatore (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think the proposal should be read as, if the MOS and a subpage disagree, the MOS prevails, but if those knowledgable about the subject matter of the subpage don't like the MOS, they can gather a consensus and either change it, or put in an exception for certain subject matter. If we consider the case of mathematics articles, what about the case of an editor who knows math, but seldom if ever publishes in math journals, so is not familiar with the finer points of math style. This editor takes the trouble to read the MOS, but doesn't notice that a MOS for mathematics exists. As things stand, he might follow the general MOS. If there was coordination, he would find a warning that he ought to go look at the mathematics MOS for certain style rules. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Which they can do by coming to MoS, to make sure both/all are on the same page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Trovatore 100% and strongly oppose this "formal proposal." Policies and ArbCom decisions span all of Misplaced Pages -if a policy says "do this" we do it, no matter where we're working. Style guidelines are the exact opposite. The MOS tells us wonderful things about how to style articles, but there is no uniform format for Misplaced Pages - things like section headers are written "Like this" not "Like This." But the MOS is a general guideline - it gets refined and adapted to whatever region of Misplaced Pages we're talking about. Am I qualified to speak on the MOS? No, not really, I don't contribute to it, I'm not 100% familiar with every aspect of it, but it is not something to be enforced throughout the land of Misplaced Pages by decree of the MOS-regulars. I assume that is not the intent, but that's what this "formal proposal" amounts to, as far as I'm concerned. I'm extraordinarily surprised that people even use the term "enforce." If the MoS disagrees with another guidline (let's not forget, these are guidelines), it's not a moment for MoS people to flex their muscle and "enforce" anything. In fact, if the project, subject-specific manual, or local consensus disagrees with the MoS about how to deal with issues related to that project/manual/locality, then there's something wrong with the MoS, not the other way around. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm curious at how far off-topic these comments are going, and the reluctance to address the core issue. If three different subpages of MoS or the main page of MoS say three different things, which do our editors follow? And by what process that a small group of editors, say a dozen, turn a page into a Guideline if there is no consensus gleaned via, for example, Village Pump? There are currently subpages of MoS that have never gained community consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• They use their judgment. The MoS has a role to play, but there are those here who want to go too far in supplanting the role of the judgment of individual editors. --Trovatore (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• That doesn't answer the question or address the issue. What stops ten different groups of editors from having ten contradictory guidelines, right hand not aware of the left? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Is that rhetorical? I'll assume it's not and say that they would follow whichever is most specifically applicable to the article in question (with flexibility - something else that this "proposal" seeks to abolish). If that cannot be immediately determined, the issue should be discussed at the artlce's talkpage. I don't understand why this convoluted "formal proposal" was made, but it looks alot to me like declaring absolute power to a guideline. It doesn't make any sense, and it continues to inform alot of people who work in specific fields/projects/whatever on how the MoS is used or will be used by people foreign to those areas. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Manuals of Style are supposed to reduce flexibility, but not to the point that it becomes impossible to express a thought, or to the extent that expressing the thought is much more difficult than if the MOS were ignored. The goal is to make different articles look like each other, so long as doing so does not prevent or impede the expression of thought. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, up to a point. There is a role for the MoS, as I said. But the MoS is already pretty near that point, and may be past it. Further attempts to extend the reach of the central MoS strike me as a shift of power from the experts on content to the process wonks. When this shift is proposed by those very wonks themselves, it is not out of line to point out that they are not disinterested parties. --Trovatore (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Every professional writer will be aware that their work has to conform to the style guide of the publication that their work is to appear in. The purpose is not to "reduce flexibility", but to increase consistency, for the benefit of the readers. Remember them? BTW, you ought not to be "expressing your thoughts" as you put it, you ought to be writing encyclopedia articles, which by definition express the thoughts of others. Think about it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think Malleus Fatuarum is the first one in this thread to use the phrase "expressing your thoughts" . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerry Ashton (talk • contribs) 04:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Clearly I wasn't the first, as I was quoting. If you have a point to make about anything that I have said, then I must admit that I am yet to understand it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• My point is that Malleus Fatuarum misquoted me. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose as worded. I offer a counter proposal: If editors find a discrepancy between the MOS and one of its subpages they should bring the issue to the talk pages of each to hammer out the differences and build a consensus. I think this addresses the issue at hand without the appearance of "power-grabbing". -- Fropuff (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think Fropuff's idea is pretty good. --Trovatore (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm more interested in examples than in yes/no. Trovatore, can you think of something done in math articles that you wouldn't want to bring up to the entire community of MoS editors, for fear that they will try to overrule and override you? (Hm, I guess if the answer is "yes", you wouldn't want to say. Okay, warn me, at least :) - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per PMAnderson above. In matters like this, you can lead people, but you cannot drive them before you. Wishing that it were otherwise will not make it so. -- Dominus (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. A manual of style offers guidelines, which must be interpreted applied with common sense. The aim in having a manual of style is to make the encyclopedia easier to read for our users. In specific cases common sense may dictate that not literally following the guidelines serves that aim better. Often, when the more specific guidelines of subpages appear to contradict the guidelines of the main page, the reason will be that in the specific circumstances covered by the the more specific guidelines, the latter do a better job of serving the purpose of readable presentation of the information. Making it mandatory that all such cases be added as a rider to the main page will only result in making that page unreadable, like a legal contract with lots of clauses and small print.  --Lambiam 06:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, the page doesn't change; the subpages are linked in a template, just as they currently are. Do you have other objections? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  If the page does not change, it would (under this proposal) continue to trump the subpage and nothing would change.  --Lambiam 18:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose as unnecessary instruction creep. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Unfortunately, the time, energy, and vehemence devoted thus far to this argument exemplifies the third reservation I expressed above in casting my Support, but ... vote. First, it is logically indefensible that the main MoS and a sub-page should contradict. Logic aside, what's a poor, conscientious newbie supposed to do when the MoS taken as a whole contradicts itself? Second, there are sub-pages and there are sub-pages. That is, some sub-pages elaborate guidelines in the main MoS (e.g., date and numbers, links, text fromatting, citing sources); there is no conceivable argument for inconsistency for this type of sub-page, although inconsistencies do arise through inadvertence. Other sub-pages deal with particular types of articles (e.g., biography, math). At the Misplaced Pages-wide level of generality that the main MoS addresses, logically there should be no contradiction between the main MoS and a topical sub-page. The math sub-page should not promote guidelines for heading capitalization (one of clearest, most widely accepted, and also most violated guidelines) or use of italic that contradicts the main MoS. On the other hand, for stylistic matters that are unique to a specialized topic (e.g., punctuation within mathematical expressions), there is no occasion for inconsistency and the wonks on the main MoS page need not be consulted. Third, it is pointless to try to make order out of the chaos of Misplaced Pages, because the proponents of chaos are numerous and vocal. Finell (Talk) 07:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Did you read Kirill's post above? I'm sorry this was set up as a "vote" and not a discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Re what is a newbie (or an oldbie for that matter) supposed to do upon seeing an apparent contradiction: what's wrong with talking to someone, rather than trying to find another rule to follow in cases of contradictions? It may not be a contradiction after all, or it may indicate a problem with one of the guidelines that needs fixing, neither of which will be uncovered by blindly following rules. And if it really is a newbie, how do we expect him or her to know about the rule describing which guideline to choose from? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

    • Why not clean it up in the first place? None of us would put up with inconsistencies within an article. We'd all, to a person, scoff at inconsistencies between an in-text statement and a reference cited in support of it. Why do we object to a simple measure for default resolution in our style guide, which will only ever be temporary until the inconsistency is resolved by getting together and talking it through. That is what any self-respecting publication or organisation strives for: mechanisms that encourage self-correction through collaboration, not chaos by neglect. Tony (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

      • If it's a temporary measure I switch my 'oppose' to weak support, but I would like to see a clearly identifiable end-point, so I know when it's safe to dip my toe back in the water. Thunderbird2 (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, but some clarification along those lines is clearly needed.
  1. There should be a distinction between subpages of general applicability (abbreviations, dates and numbers, capitalization, and the like) and subpages of more limited scope (Anime & manga articles, Japan-related articles, Latter Day Saints), with the former as a group generally being controlling over the latter.
  2. More specifically, for those parts of the main MoS page which include a Main article cross-reference, that subpage should be controlling in some sense, but not necessarily as proposed here, over both the MoS main page and the specific-topic subpages, for the scope of that section of the MoS. It would be pretty good to go why what has the "Main article" pages now, but it would be reasonable to review that if a breakdown of these lines is given a more formal recognition as being part of the main MoS, and it would be helpful to include more cross-references on the main MoS page to the other subpages which are not "main articles" on the topic.
  3. I think it would be helpful to have a discussion page devoted specifically to perceived conflicts between the MoS and its subpages. Or maybe conflicts between a "core MoS" group of pages of general applicability vs. the special-topic pages also connected to the MoS.
  4. There are some rules that could maybe be specifically identified in some way as controlling over special-topic guidelines, but not all the details associated with the rules on the MoS page and the examples shown deserve the same treatment.
  5. The ever-changing nature of all these pages are a factor that needs to be taken into consideratino. Not all of the rules presented on the MoS at any one time have been put there due to general support. Gene Nygaard (talk) 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. While I sympathise with SandyGeorgia and others that inconsistencies between MoS, its subpages, and WikiProject guidelines cause problems at FAC, this is not the answer. This "first and relatively straightforward step" is nothing of the sort. By declaring that one guideline trumps another, it goes completely against community principles such as Pillar Five and WP:What Misplaced Pages is not (policy). The solution is to stop taking MoS so seriously: it is just a style guideline, for goodness sake, to be treated with common sense. I'm quite shocked to hear editors speak of "enforcing" it: guidelines are advisory. I'm also surprised by the changes to Template:Style-guideline: we should not be using the word "breach" to describe not following a guideline! Guidelines reflect consensus, they do not determine it: their applicability comes entirely from the consensus they reflect. MoS carries greater weight only to the extent that it reflects greater consensus.

Discussions at FAC should be based on what improves the article and hence the encyclopedia, not on Wikilawyering between different guidelines. If there is a conflict between one MoS guideline and another, the solution is to go back to Misplaced Pages's policy on improving the encyclopedia: either apply a little common sense, or quite possibly, if two style guidelines conflict, then perhaps it means that the difference doesn't actually matter. Geometry guy 10:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment on "subpages". To refer to the guidelines on Misplaced Pages with "Manual of Style" in the title as subpages of this page already begs the question. The actual subpages of this page are are all proposals, surveys or redirects. An alternative viewpoint is that the various manual of style guidelines on different issues are the manual of style, and this page is just a summary of some general points. For instance, pages such as WP:MEDMOS and WP:MSM are quite independent guidelines on stylistic issues that arise in medical or mathematics articles. They are not subpages of this page and I see no consensus for the recent edit to {{Style}} to suggest that they are. Geometry guy 12:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine, GG. It's good that you have pointed it out: the term subpage has been used in two different senses. That's just a small part of the confusion that arises when things are never given a clear explicit structure, and never clearly and publicly named. That's the very sort of confusion the present proposal begins to address, though a huge amount more would then need to be done. A related ambiguity: as the template at the top of the page has it, the various "subsidiaries" (or what you will) are included as a part of MOS:

This guideline is a part of the English Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style.

Not a subsidiary at all, but a part. Yet when we refer to MOS we often mean just WP:MOS, and paradoxically the wording in the template does that as well, in a way.

All very mixed up. Reading through the analyses above, I am not convinced that people understand just what a mess we have on our hands. Even if you are entirely laissez-faire about adherence to Misplaced Pages's Manaual of Style, surely you'd want it to be a coherent, readily identifiable, and hierarchically organised body of text, wouldn't you? It's useless otherwise.

– Noetica Talk 13:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The mess should be cleaned up. But this cannot be done by fiat. Simply declaring the mess gone will accomplish nothing of value. -- Dominus (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Lightmouse (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm particularly impressed by Geometry Guy's negative, Gerry's affirmative (although perhaps more relevant generally than to math in particular), Trovatore's negative, and David Eppstein's invocation of WP:instruction creep. I have great sympathy (and a little fearfulness) concerning Trovatore's point that he expects bad things to happen when someone comes to the MoS community and says, "Our little community at Misplaced Pages has always followed the following policy and needs this exception to MoS rules in order to engage and appeal to our readers". So, what's the track record on questions like this? Is he right? I don't think his concern should be dismissed or outvoted; I would appreciate examples, and lots of them.

But on the other hand, what makes Gerry's argument so compelling is that policy questions at Misplaced Pages work by consensus or don't work at all...we can't solve any problem with Balkanization. We all know that manuals such as the Chicago Manual of Style are already regarded by even professional journalists as being so large that it's not reasonable to expect journalists to know all the material...that's what copyeditors are for, is the consensus. We also all know that (our) MoS and related pages don't have the luxury of being as compact as even the Chicago Manual of Style, because we can't simply say that "this is how it should be done" in a self-satisfied way; we must admit that we live in a world of people with various abilities who follow various usage rules, and we must be as inclusive as possible because we need as many people as possible to help us work on our encyclopedia. Therefore we don't have the luxury of restricting the question to what's best, we must constantly ask what is acceptable, how far tolerance can stretch, what is practical. But, as the kids say, ZOMG: that means that even in the best possible world, MoS and related guidelines would be an order of magnitude larger than a body of knowledge that professional journalists already consider to be an order of magnitude larger than what they can be expected to know. Gerry is pointing out the obvious: if we compound this problem by having subcommunities go their own way without debate or acknowledgement, on the grounds of being pessimistic about ever getting consensus, then we've just added a third order of magnitude to the number of rules that conscientious people would need to read to know what to do read, or worse, to intuit on their own, in order get a good feel for what everyone is doing and why. Dan Dank55 (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I'm also impressed by Noetica's comment just above mine - Dan Dank55 (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. I also want to point to Tony's comments in font=brown above. I really like how Sandy and Tony have defined the goals. What I'm taking from the negative arguments is that they know from experience, or predict, that certain things will go wrong. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, most of the opposition to a coordinated MOS (at least seven that I count so far, maybe more) is coming from the Math Project, who has also in the past sworn off of GA because of differences they had over guidelines and policy. It's unfortunate that one Project (for reasons I'm not aware of) would stall coordination on MOS, where we currently have a situation allowing for multiple, contradictory guidelines. I didn't know Tony1 had planned to put this up for a "vote", and would have preferred we hammer out some wording first, since many people reading this proposal don't appear to understand the proposal and don't appear to have read the discussion. Specifically, pls see Kirill's query early on in this section. I'm not sure how we should handle one Project stalling aims to better coordinate MOS; perhaps the proposal should be withdrawn, wording should be hammered out, and we should approach a broader audience via Village Pump. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any of us are opposed to coordinating the MOS with its subpages. I think we can all agree that this is a good and noble goal. We are opposed to the notion that the MOS should automatically trump the subpages. This is just the wrong way to go about things. When discrepancies are found they need to be addressed and resolved. Maybe the subpage is right or maybe the main page is, but this can only be determined by a discussion and a consensus. I think the proposal under discussion has enough opposition to withdraw it for now. -- Fropuff (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree that opposition from one Project constitutes broad opposition, I still feel the proposal was premature in that wording hadn't been hammered out and discussed, and one Project appears to have overreacted and misunderstood the issues. For those reasons, I suggest withdrawing and re-approaching a broader audience when wording is ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I confess to being a bit taken aback by some of these comments from you, Sandy. First, this is not a vote, it is a discussion to determine consensus on a specific proposal (there are no support/oppose sections and arguments are preceded by bullets, not numbers). What counts in such a discussion is weight of argument, not numbers of editors, or where they "come from". This last is rather difficult to define anyway, as most editors work on a variety of different things on Misplaced Pages. Were you counting me as "coming from the math project" for example? Whether you were or not, your comment that the math project "has... sworn off GA" is incorrect and irrelevant to the present discussion, and borders on being the project equivalent of an ad hominem argument. :-)

Anyway, I guess we can pass over this: I agree with your main substantive assertion that this proposal is poorly worded, and your suggestion to withdraw the current proposal and rework it. If a proposal can be put forward which addresses the perceived problems of inconsistencies without violating basic principles of Misplaced Pages policy and without referring to one guideline "prevailing" over another, then my arguments against this proposal would immediately become invalid. Geometry guy 19:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY WP:CREEP. Individual manuals of style are tailored for a reason. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• More than anything, this is a question. I can see where the Math project is coming from, but could we have some examples? I'm on the fence on this one, and I could be persuaded either way. Titoxd 19:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Tito, look at this section and the one right below it. A simple guideline that could be covered at least on four different pages, creating potential for contradiction/confusion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• I see you fixed the ArticleHistory template, but I'm not sure which section I'm supposed to be looking at... Titoxd 19:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• grrrr ... darn new laptop/touchpad. Link fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, that example gives me even more pause. You can have four pages that prescribe different treatments to the same text, correct; but that doesn't necessarily mean that the proper way to treat this conundrum is by making the MOS the prevalent page, elevating it to the level of policy. An alternative way is to treat the MOS subpagesmanual pages as the normative recommendations, with WP:MOS being the summary of those recommendations. In a way, that would transform this page into more of a portal or introduction page to the Manual of Style. But even then, the way this proposal is worded is just too ambiguously to accept. So, oppose for now. Titoxd 20:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't disagree with your reasoning. Wording might have been hammered out via discussion before this turned into a "support/oppose vote". The idea is that we need a method for coordinating all these pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I find the proposal a bit CREEPY, and in general I prefer bottom-up over top-down. I think Fropuff's proposal is better. Paul August ☎ 19:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Paul, do you consider it CREEPY that we currently have a system where we could have as many as four pages (in one example given below) covering the same guideline, and perhaps contradicting each other? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes having pages contradict each other is a problem. But it is a problem better solved through discussion and consensus than rules. Paul August ☎ 21:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• So the next question is how we even bring those situations to light if we don't have some sort of central coordination, whatever we label it, however it's handled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• The entire Wiki experiment is based on the virtues of decentralization of power over centralization of power. Paul August ☎ 21:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• OK. Why do you consider consistency in style guidelines a "power" issue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have an idea to address the issue. See below. Geometry guy 21:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Consider a "sub-page" of MOS as inheriting (in the sense of OO) from the general to the specific. A general guideline, meant to be broadly applicable, can and should be over-ruled by a specific guideline formulated for a particular area; just like slowing for school zones on a road that generally supports a higher speed limit. Mathematics, for example, has very hoary ancient traditions about typography (such as the restriction to single-letter names for everything, obliging the use of multiple alphabets and typefaces) which can't, and should not, be consistent with more general style guidelines. Of course I don't mean to imply that the current (spaghetti bowl?) system of MOS articles is hierarchically organized, but we want to allow for development in that way. Pete St.John (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Did you read Kirill's post at the top of this proposal? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. What PeterStJohn said. There is no way to write down universal rules that will cover everything that can arise in a work as large as Misplaced Pages. The only way to structure things reasonably is to have some general guidelines that give good results in most cases, and supplement them with more specific guidelines about cases where unthinking application of the general guidelines lead to bad result. This proposal seeks to forbid such and organization; it says that no matter how necessary and well thought out an exception from a general rule in a particular context may be, the general rule must still take precedence. Under such a system, all special-case exceptions need to be stated at the same time as the general rule; this will make the guidelines impossible to read, impossible to edit, impossible to maintain, and impossible to disucuss. It will be a disaster. –Henning Makholm 22:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Another failure to understand the proposal: in fact, the proposal seeks to coordinate the very structure you describe. Obviously, there is a problem with how the wording has been put forward here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Did some vandal remove a negation in the proposal, or flip words to make it say something else? Right at the moment it reads: "where there is inconsistency between MOS and its subpages, MOS prevails." This says in clear and plain English that subpages cannot define exceptions to general rules in the superpage, because in that case the superpage will still prevail. –Henning Makholm 22:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Which I think is perfectly correct. Someone introduced the OO analogy earlier, not entirely correctly, but to take that one step further it is for the superclass to say what may be overridden by its subclasses, not the other way around. The superclass must always prevail. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is what prevails, not subclasses, superclasses, subpages or whatever. As I pointed out above, MoS does not have subpages. It doesn't have subclasses or superclasses either. Geometry guy 23:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

CONCLUSION: The proposal fails for lack of consensus. Finell (Talk) 23:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to close discussion

The use of term sub-pages, in retrospect, may have unfortunate. However, everyone understands that the MoS includes all the pages that have been referred to here as sub-pages, so the problem being discussed arises where any page of the MoS contradicts another MoS page (including but not limited to the page named Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style). And it is a problem, regardless of how one feels about bureaucracy. Further, it is factually incorrect to say that the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style page itself is just a summary of the other MoS pages: some matters treated in the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style page are not treated elsewhere in the MoS. However, even without adopting a new policy, editors can and should edit MoS pages so that they are consistent with one another, just as inconsistencies elsewhere in Misplaced Pages can and should be fixed. For example, if something said in Nicolaus Copernicus were to contradict something in Heliocentrism, editors should fix the contradiction when they discover it. Those Wikipedians who find inconsistencies within the MoS pages can and should harmonize them, always with discussion at all the involved pages to achieve consensus on the best solution to the contradiction. Time would be better spent doing that than in continuing the necessarily abstract argument here. Let's please close this discussion or proposal and get back to improving Misplaced Pages, including its articles and its MoS. Finell (Talk) 18:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal to close the discussion, and also agree that "summary" is not an accurate description of this page (I described it as an alternative viewpoint, not an accurate one). I would urge you, however, not to make analogies between guidelines and articles. There's been a whole load of trouble over at WP:LEAD recently, caused partly by one editor insisting that WP:LEAD should be written in accordance with WP:LEAD, despite the fact that WP:LEAD is a guideline for writing articles, and WP:LEAD itself is not an article. In this case, if something said in Nicolaus Copernicus contradicts something in Heliocentrism, then editors can consult reliable sources to resolve the contradiction, and if reliable sources are contradictory, then both articles should discuss the disagreement in accordance with WP:NOR. However, neither WP:RS or WP:NOR apply to guidelines, so the process for resolving disagreement is entirely different. As you say, it is called consensus. Geometry guy 20:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject MoS?

I have been struck (in a good way, I hope) by the following exchange, which I quote from the proposal discussion above.

• Yes having pages contradict each other is a problem. But it is a problem better solved through discussion and consensus than rules. Paul August ☎ 21:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• So the next question is how we even bring those situations to light if we don't have some sort of central coordination, whatever we label it, however it's handled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, what do we normally do when we need to provide a mechanism to coordinate editors of multiple different but related pages? How do we provide central coordination, communication and discussion without centralizing authority?

Answer: we form a WikiProject. So how about WP:WikiProject Manual of Style? Not associated with any individual guideline, and with no more authority than the consensus it reflects, is something like this not the right Wikipedian way to find and discuss inconsistencies between individual MoS guidelines? Geometry guy 21:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Projects are good, in principle. Centralization of discussion is good. Consensus is ideal. However, the MoS is already treated as a project. Each MoS page is a project page, with an associated Talk page. If a new project would help coordinate the MoS pages and would be a means to consensus, fine. If, as I suspect, it would become another sandbox for the denizens of the MoS pages to have another place to argue at each other, then a new project is a bad idea. As I proposed above, further argument (that is all it is) is getting nowhere. We don't need another guideline and we don't need another project. What we need to do is go out and fix whatever inconsistencies exist among the MoS pages, resolve specific differences of opinion by consensus, and PLEASE STOP THIS USELESS ARGUMENT ABOUT ABSTRACT PHILOSOPHY NOW! I intend to refrain from further discussion of this topic. The proposal for a new guideline obviously fails for lack of consensus and should be closed. End of discussion, PLEASE! Finell (Talk) 23:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Manual of Style title

I was just wondering what the rationale behind the capitalisation of the word Style. I'm writing a manual of style for my wiki and was thinking it contradicted the guidelines to use a capital S, where a capital should only be used on the first letter of the first word unless a word is a proper noun. Could some one explain please? --Leirith (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's intended to be a proper noun, I think; the idea is that it's a work entitled the "Manual of Style", rather than just a manual of style. Kirill 02:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly so, Kirill.

– Noetica Talk 02:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Energy Solutions arena...

I have a question: On the EnergySolutions Arena page, we have a bit of a disagreement, and so I thought I'd ask for a consensus. Until a few days ago, the first three words read "The EnergySolutions Arena ..." but now it has been changed to read "The EnergySolutions Arena ..." and I'm not sure that's correct. If you go to energysolutions.com, it is written as EnergySolutions only, so I reverted it to EnergySolutions Arena, but it was quickly changed back and given the justification of

"Thanks, but no thanks. Energysolutions.com is entitled to have its a style. Misplaced Pages has its own, at WP:MOS, and this is no exception."

So, I took a look at WP:MOS and couldn't find anything relevant, so I'd love some opinions. Thanks, Darkage7 (talk) 06:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything either, but we should go with what reliable sources use—not necessarily what the source itself uses. No newspaper report I can find retains the italics. Therefore, we shouldn't either. If sources did adopt their typography, I would feel differently, but they don't. Cool Hand Luke 06:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Most relevant guidelines:

• WP:MOS (trademarks): "When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones) and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner. This practice helps ensure consistency in language and avoids drawing undue attention to some subjects rather than others."
• WP:MOS (text formatting): explains when boldface and italics are to be used on Misplaced Pages.
• Style used by most other publications that follow guidelines like the AP Stylebook don't do this either. It's almost unheard of. It's quite understandable how EnergySolutions, or any other company, might do this on their own web sits. It's also true that publications commonly include decorative diacritics (such as Häagen-Dazs or Stüssy), but if Misplaced Pages is to consider formatting such as italics as part of a proper name, where do we draw the line? Should we duplicate the coloring, fonts, and character spacing as well? That's probably another good reason nobody else does it either. Reswobslc (talk) 08:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, then we might wind up with articles named I ♥ Huckabees. Oh wait...

Our policy favoring English is very weak for a variety of reasons. We have a lot of users committed to diacriticals. We include diacriticals when virtually no English source does (say, Slobodan Milošević). Nonetheless, I view these as failures of our process—the same committed users repeatedly vote in favor of diacriticals and other dubious "official names." In all of these cases, I think it would be much better if we deferred to reliable sources.

Reliable sources don't italicize, so neither should we. Cool Hand Luke 11:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces in citations

Discussion at MOSDATE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Columns: New template?

I've created the template {{columns-list}}, which is based off of {{reflist}}. I think that it's simpler to use than {{col-begin}}, {{col-2}}, {{col-end}}. Additionally, if new items are added to the list on either side, {{columns-list}} will automatically adjust, while the {{col-begin}} series will have an imbalance unless it is manually fixed. Any comments or objections before I start migrating {{col-begin}} to {{columns-list}} with AWB? (Please suggest any improvements you may think of.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The auto-adjustment isn't necessarily a good idea; sometimes (for example, when the columns include blocks that shouldn't be split) the uneven columns are actually the desired layout. The new template is a neat idea, as an additional layout option; but I strongly object to forcing its use in place of the existing ones. Kirill 02:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a somewhat more obvious practical issue: it simply doesn't work on IE, since the multicolumn div CSS isn't supported there. {{col-begin}} et al. work fine there, since they're actually implemented as a table rather than a true multi-column div. Kirill 02:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there an IE-compatible way to way to automatically align columns? (I'm not trying to replace all uses, but in most cases you would want the columns to match up.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of boldface in film articles (copied from MOSBOLD)

There has been long-standing agreement over at the manual of style for film articles for the inclusion of boldface in cast lists which are written as prose. When written as prose, these lists are far easier to supplement with real world cast and character information, and it is the recommended method when such information is available. Using boldface on the actor and character names can be a genuine aid to reader comprehension when entries span more than a couple of lines at normal resolution; where boldface is not used, the names of the actors and their characters are not immediately apparent when quickly scanning the section for such information.

Examples of articles which use boldface like this include Sunshine (2007 film)#Characters and State of Play (film)#Casting, amongst many others.

However, some editors have recently pointed out (quite rightly) a potential conflict between the guidance given at the manual of style for films and Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Boldface. As SandyGeorgia points out above, there are issues at stake as to which MOS guideline trumps which, and so I'm bringing this out of the local MOSFILM guideline (which I see may not have been subject to the wider community consensus) in order to find out what you all think. At the latter MOS I reference, three examples are given on the permitted use of boldface. I would like to propose the addition of a further entry which permits the use of boldface in some lists (such as film article cast lists) in certain circumstances only, worded something along the lines of:

• Film article cast lists which are written as prose, only where the use of boldface would be an aid to reader comprehension. e.g. Sunshine (2007 film)

Or, y'know, something a little less clumsy. Your thoughts and guidance on this are very much appreciated. All the best, Steve 09:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Have you seen how ugly it is? Look HERE. Tony (talk) 10:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I oppose that addition, as it disagrees with current WP:MOSBOLD guidelines, is ugly, and impedes readability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• The Transformers one is formatted quite differently to what the current MOSFILM guideline recommends, in fact. It was a stylistic choice on the part of the primary contributor to the article in order to surmount the unusual problem of a film which features human characters, speaking non-human characters, and non-speaking non-human characters. I thought it was a novel solution, and a decent idea, but I realise that not everyone agrees with that, and I have recommended to the editor in question that if resistance persists on the issue, he should amend the article accordingly in order to bring it back to what the current MOSFILM guideline recommends. In short, the Transformers matter at present has little relevance to the issue I'm bringing up here. All the best, Steve 10:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You've posted this in two places, splitting up the discussion. Since this page has more responses, I'll reply here.

There has been long-standing agreement over at the manual of style for film articles for the inclusion of boldface in cast lists which are written as prose. That doesn't seem to be in line with the way I read the FILM guidelines. Both the film guidelines and WP:MOSBOLD make it clear that bolding is use in definitional lists, as in David E. Kelley. Bolding is used in lists, not in prose, and when it is used in prose—such as currently at Transformers (film)—it's unsightly use of fonts that impedes readability. FA must comply with WP:MOS; MoS calls for boldface in lists, not prose.

The Film guidelines have a bigger problem; someone added them to the MOS back in September, but they don't appear to have ever been subjected to community wide consensus (via posts here, at Village pump, at FAC, at other Projects, for example) as WP:MEDMOS and WP:MILHIST guidelines were. By what process were those guidelines made part of MOS? Do you have the history on that, because they don't appear to have been subject to broad (outside the Project) scrutiny. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have no history on that as, IIRC, I was not fully active in that area in September. As for the issue at hand, the Transformers example, as I have said, is not a typical one and should probably not be cited here. The issue of MOSFILM's compliance/acceptance, etc. is also one I'd like to leave to one side for the time being, which is why I've brought the bolding issue here to gauge the wider community thinking. The the manual of style for films does indeed give an explicit example of the type of thing I'm looking to add:

"Robert Russell as John Stearne: Playing Hopkins’s thuggish assistant, Russell certainly looked the part. However, as filming progressed, Reeves found the actor’s high pitched voice unsuitable for such a rough character, and after production was completed he had all of his dialogue dubbed by another actor, Jack Lynn (who also appeared in a small role as an innkeeper)."

Which could be classed as a list of prose entries once the other cast members are added. I'm not disputing that this might conflict with MOSBOLD; what I'm looking for is to gauge opinion on a potential amendment to MOSBOLD to permit such use. Your objection seems to be directed at the non-standard use of bolding in the Transformers article; can you clarify and tell me whether a similar objection would apply to the use of boldface as I have presented above? Steve 12:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Addition: in fact, upon closer inspection I note the definitional list example at David E. Kelley isn't actually that different from this usage. A properly-bulleted and bolded cast list which contains prose does not in fact contravene the example. I appear to have wasted everyone's time here, for which I apologise. Steve 12:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Steve, I was in a hurry this morning to get to an app't. Yes, the example you've given above (Robert Russell) looks fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I was worried about the potential conflict for a minute there, and having to go through dozens of film articles to remove such usage. All the best, Steve 16:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Alphabetization

Misplaced Pages really ought to have some sort of guidelines for alphabetization/collation. Which comes first, "Silver Spring" or "Silverdale"? (I'd say "Silver Spring"). How about "Sap" vs. "St. Joseph" (I'd go with St. Joseph). "Mainland" vs. "McAllen" (I'd go with McAllen). Even if my preferences aren't followed, this is exactly the kind of thing the Manuel of Style needs to set an arbitrary rule for. john k (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that with "St.", there's really only one decent way to do it, since it's pretty much never the case that something is always written "St." and never "Saint". Alphabetization shouldn't depend on whether one has decided to use an abbreviation or not. john k (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Does nobody care? This is exactly the kind of thing a manual of style needs to deal with. john k (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I care, John. I think it's a good idea (and I agree with your ordering on all three examples). The solution needs to handle all characters likely to be used in English WP lists, including those in foreign place names. It's not obvious whether Viðey comes before or after Vígľaš. ASCII and Unicode numbers may help, but they aren't a complete solution because both place ñ after o, and a after Z. I think we can restrict ourselves to A-Z (with accents) and "foreign" letters commonly mixed with them like å and þ, ignoring alphabets like Greek that most editors would transliterate. Certes (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A big issue is German umlauts. ä,ö, and ü can be written in English as "ae," "oe," and "ue," and I've sometimes seen them alphabetized that way, but that's pretty counterintuitive, and doesn't seem to be universally done. "å," as I understand it, can be written as "aa" - again, the alphabetization is confusing. For accents used in Spanish, Portuguese, and French, so far as I know, alphabetization is not effected by accents marks. This is all complicated stuff. I do think, though, that we should try to immediately resolve the other issues mentioned - "St.", "Mc," and the one word/two word issue, since all of those are independent of the foreign characters issue. And we should certainly ignore Greek and Cyrillic. john k (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty of reading material for us both (and anyone else we can interest) in Collation and the documents reached from there such as . Certes (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm heavily involved in maintaining a number of long aviation-related lists here, and think that some kind of Misplaced Pages-wide standard for this is long overdue. I've long believed that there must be an ISO or some other standard out there that we could adopt, but I've been unable to locate one. So summarising the above; the issues we could consider include (in no particular order):

1. Spaces (ignore or not?)
2. Accents on basic latin characters - á, è, î, ö, ç, š, ñ, ł, å, ø (ignore or alphabetise separately?)
3. Ligatures - œ, æ (treat as spelled-out elements, or alphabetise separately?)
4. Abbreviations like "St" and "Mc"
5. Extended latin characters - ß, ð, þ (alphabetise as transliterations, or alphabetise separately?)
6. Non-latin characters (Beyond the purview of this discussion?)

Any others? --Rlandmann (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Mac as a separated prefix (Mac Donald vs MacDonald see Heather Mac Donald); O'Surname. Hyphenated words (is hyphen treated as space, or a special character filing separately from space, or as a null so the hyphenated words file as one). Does Macdonald file differently from MacDonald (ie does capitalisation affect sorting)? Presumably all these will need a "Defsort".There must be more. Then there are things like "ll" in spanish which alphabetises differently in Spanish... but this is English Misplaced Pages, so perhaps we stick to English sorting order. PamD (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who shelved library books in college, I found that most patrons got that St. would be found in the S-a-i's because St. stood for Saint, but they were surprised that Mc's were found in the M-a-c's...even though that was the correct bibliographic order, most people didn't think that Mc "stood" for Mac. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

For US editors there's the Chicago Manual of Style but that's free from neither payment nor copyright. The nearest thing I can find to an ISO standard is the Unicode collation algorithm I mentioned above, but of course that doesn't cover St or Mc. For what it's worth, my personal opinions are:

1. Exclude spaces, in other words alphabetize letter-by-letter rather than word-by-word: Newton before New York.
2. Treat accents on basic latin characters as "tie breakers": place schön immediately after schon.
3. Treat ligatures as spelled-out elements: sort œ as if it were oe.
4. Treat St as if it were Saint and Mc as if it were Mac: I'd look for it there, but then I live in Scotland.
5. Put extended latin characters where they would go in their national alphabets: sort ß as if it were ss; ð between d and e; þ between z and æ. This may cause rare inconsistencies where languages disagree on the ordering of homoglyphs like ö.
6. Treat non-latin characters like extended latin characters: what's the difference?

I think Spanish changed in 1984 to alphabetize LL between LK and LM (and CH between CG and CI), matching its treatment of RR. LL and CH in Welsh may still be an issue but I think we can get away with the same rule.

My suggestions for 1-4 are arbitrary but they make it easier for a reader to find an item in a list if the relevant space, accent, ligature or abbreviation is optional, or the reader is unsure of the exact spelling. (I was originally in favour of including spaces but changed my mind for this reason.)

In case anyone else was confused, I think Defsort is described in Template:DEFAULTSORT. Certes (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be cryptic - DEFAULTSORT is central to this discussion, as it determines how things file in Category listings (and perhaps elsewhere?) (and "defsort" is my own edit-summary abbreviation for it!). See Category:Water industry, unless anyone has since added a DEFAULTSORT for Águas de Portugal, which currently files after "Z"! If we wanted it to sort ignoring the accent, we could add {{DEFAULTSORT:Aguas de Portugal}}. PamD (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Certes on several points; since Certes and PamD agree in numbering, mine here should match those.

1. This is a key issue. Spaces cannot be "ignored" when it comes to category sorting; all characters are sorted, whether it is based on the article name, DEFAULTSORT magic word (including in some cases its hidden inclusion as part of a template, other sort keys added by a template to categories which might not appear in category listings, or by piping on an individual category listing. This fact is even used to some advantage to get some articles at the top of a category listing by using a space as the first sort character, and if we are to ignore spaces that usage needs to be considered and addressed.
   • This has to do with word breaks, sorting by whole words first or all the letters run together. Should "port wine" come between "port" and "Portland", or should it be after Portland? It would be possible to treat independent words differently situations where it is closely associated, almost like a prefix or suffix to, another word. But then consider the following, assuming that as North Americans who would normally appear under L in a telephone directory or other listing, they should so appear in Misplaced Pages. How would you sort the following: David LaFleur, Guy Lafleur, Bronson La Follette, Greg LaFleur, Richard A. la Vay, Eriq La Salle.
   • A convention has developed in people's names that they are separated into pseudo-fields by a comma+space combination. Both need to appear, even if the order isn't changed from the order in the article's name. For example, Park Chu-Young should be sorted as either "Park, Chu-Young" or "Park, Chu Young" (depending on the separate issue of how hyphens are treated). That "pseudo-field" divider should not be ignored. Maybe it would be best, however, to ignore any spaces before that divider, and to ignore any spaces or hyphens after that divider. I'd like something along those lines
2. Ignore the accents (strip them from sort keys in category sorting) and treat them indiscriminately with the English letters. Disagree with Certes on this one; some languages might sort ö between o and p, but English does not (German usually doesn't either, in the case of the schön example; German sorts ö with o. But other languages, IIRC, do sort ö between o and p, and others such as Swedish sort ö after z. That's one good reason why English Misplaced Pages should never follow any other languages sorting rules for anything. Readers of our English Wikpedia should not have to learn the sorting rules of 500 other languages to be able to find something in our lists and categories, and then on top of know what languages sorting rules might be followed for whatever they are looking for.)
3. Treat œ as oe, æ as ae, anything else as a single letter. If I were dealing only with Norwegian and English, I'd sort å as "aa", and if I were dealing only with German and English, I might sort ö as "oe", but when we are dealing with hundreds of languages the only reasonable choice is to sort as the base letter, what readers can see when looking at it, alone. We shouldn't have to know if a word or a name is German or Swedish or whatever to know where to find it sorted in a list.
4. I like treating "St." (or British "St") as spelled-out "Saint". But what if it is the abbreviation for a non-English spelling? What about "Ste." and "SS." for Sainte and Saints? What about hyphens following the "St." ? What should come first, St.-Charles, Ontario or St. Charles, Kentucky? It is also possible to treat "Mac" and "Mc" as either the same or different, but what about the capitalization or noncapitalization of the next letter. Should Macdonald be sorted differently from MacDonald?
5. Disagree strongly with Certes on this one. First of all, it is unclear what exactly is presumed to fit in this class rather than number 2 above, but let's just consider the ones pointed to by Certes as being inclusive (though I'd say ð in particular should be in 2 above). Furthermore, note that many characters are used in several different languages, and the sorting order is not the same in all of them. But that's irrelevant; we aren't using some other language, we are using English. Either ß as "ss", ð as d, þ as "th", else those characters need to be banned from article names and from lists. If they aren't sortable in the English alphabet, they should not be used in English Misplaced Pages; its as simple as that. We only have 26 letters to sort on in English. That's what normally appears now in Category TOC navigation bars, and that is the way it should always remain.
6. Agree with PamD, beyond the scope. We shouldn't have lists with only non-latin characters in any case, and as far as article names go they should never appear on English Misplaced Pages except as redirects or possible articles about individual characters.

Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, DEFAULTSORT isn't a template, except that the template was created to provide an explanation for those who think it is. It is actually something called a "magic word" in Wikijargon, described under Help:magic words.

Some of this is, and should be, dealt with under Misplaced Pages:Categorization and subpages such as Misplaced Pages:Categorization of people. Look in particular at the quarter of a million entries in Category:Living people and see how the general sorting is done there. Not always consistent, but much more so than in a lot of other categories.

Lists and infoboxes are often sorted manually by editors. But in many ways the situation is different for category sorting. There, every character gets sorted. The first default is the article's name. The rules being discussed here might have to be explained differently in the two cases.

There is more, of course.

1. Uppercase vs. lowercase. I'd say that in most cases, our sorting should be case-independent. But that is hard to achieve, especially in the case of the category sorting and the existing sort keys for that purpose. Note that due in large part to initial capitalization being turned on in Misplaced Pages, and thus all article names starting with an uppercase letter, we almost always sort the first letter as uppercase.
2. Hyphens. Consider in particular the French penchant for inserting a hyphen between two given names. Should an American "Jean Claude Whatever" be sorted differently from a French "Jean-Claude Whatever"?
3. Other punctuation. Sure, most people wouldn't even think of including it when Strip out most every other punctuation mark. This is especially important in the case of category sorting with quotation marks or question marks and the like in the title, including of course the inverted question marks and inverted explanation points in some titles of Spanish-language works.
   • En dashes and em dashes are another special problem, especially with some people pushing to change many hyphens to dashes. These should normally be treated the same as a space, or at a hyphen depending on how hyphens should be treated. Note that in the rudimentary Unicode-number sorting we have for categories, those dashes come in a much diffreent place than the hyphens which are, like spaces, before any numbers and letters.
   • Special consideration needs to be given to the use of an initial space or initial asterisk in category sorting, as a method to get the article listed at the top of a category listing, above the alphabetical (or alphanumeric) indexing. This can also be, but often is not, followed by additional characters to sort the ones listed at the top. It isn't any special software trick; it is just that every character in the sort key gets sorted, including spaces. This is often done for the main article or a couple of related ones about the subject of the classification to separate it from the individuals listed therein. For example, you might have the article List of French architects at the top of Category:French architects, separating it from the listings of individual people who fit the category.
     

There are still more things to be added to this list. Gene Nygaard (talk) 09:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC) More:

• Case-sensitivity and acronyms. Note that an all-uppercase acronym as a sort key will put it before anything else where the second letter is a lowercase letter. SQL is listed before Sather in Category:Programming languages, whether it should be or not. Note that this sorting is also done, at least sometimes intentionally, in other places. Most American telephone books list businesses whose names are acronyms at the top of each letters listing, above those names of businesses or people whose second letter is lowercase. Gene Nygaard (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Caveat

Maybe I mis-remember but rather than "Editors should follow it" didn't the gist once used to be was "This is what we are aiming at and if you can follow it please do, but at all events, make your contribution, someone else will fix up the spelling and style if needed" Rich Farmbrough, 14:17 1 February 2008 (GMT).

Can of worms, that. Although not ideal, IMV, the current version is better. Tony (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hyphens

Should a hyphen be used in phrases such as "a previously-identified protein" or "naturally-occurring cadmium" or "a spontaneously-active state"? My understanding is that this is incorrect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No W. As MOS says:

Hyphens are not used after -ly adverbs (wholly owned subsidiary) unless part of larger compounds (a slowly-but-surely strategy).

This is a widely accepted principle.

– Noetica Talk 21:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree: no. The main purpose of a hyphen in that position would be to resolve ambiguity. There can be no ambiguity with adverbs: there is no such thing as "a previously identified-protein" or "naturally occurring-cadmium". However, typing "wholly owned" into my search engine suggests that 41% of writers think it is hyphenated. Certes (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The usual exception applies for contrived examples with multiple adjectives, such as "naturally-dark blonde hair" (she bleached it) versus "naturally dark-blonde hair" (it's always been light brown). Certes (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's a good example. I wonder whether it should be included in MOS. Tony (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses; it is always helpful to have a way to double-check my understanding.

Perhaps someone else would be willing to re-correct the affected pages: previously-identified protein, naturally-occurring cadmium, and spontaneously-active state. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you haven't figured out yet the split between the editors who do things, and those who quibble about how they should be done on the guideline pages. Gene Nygaard (talk) 08:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed naturally-occurring cadmium. There is always the potential that a general rule in the MOS might not apply in a particular situation. However, if one goes to the web site for Science magazine, and searchs for "naturally-occurring" with or without a hyphen, one finds that Science does not use the hyphen. The fact that one of the best science journals in the world does not use a hyphen suggest that this case is not an exception to the MOS rule. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

We must acknowledge that the reason for the high percentage of individuals that write wholly-owned subsidiary with a hyphen, as found by an internet search, is due to the fact that conventional practice is not always correct, and that great numbers of users of English are following the natural progression of language along the lines of logic. However, regardless of abiding convention versus adhering to logic, maybe we can all accept that there are different modes of expression of an idea; and, acknowledging the great flexibility of the English language, we can loosen the restrictions and make allowances for these differences. The question is amplified with:

a. previously-identified gene

b. tightly-regulated process

c. spontaneously-active site

d. naturally-occurring cadmium.

The two groups with contrasting viewpoints are:

1. Those that abide convention, insisting that, because there is "no ambiguity" in previously identified gene, the hyphen is superfluous and, therefore, unnecessary. And, so, the declaration was established: For "all adjectival phrases with -ly adverbs, we do not use the hyphen, period."

2. Those that adhere to logic, contending that previously is used in the way that already in already-identified gene is used; therefore, the phrase demands a hyphen in order to show a one-ness of idea.

May I suggest that we recognize the merit of both, and - in acknowledging that both viewpoints are meritorious, and one is not correct and the other wrong - not demand that one vanquish over the other? I would like to propose that the protocol within Misplaced Pages be to leave the phrases as the contributor of the article had originally written them, whether one way or the other, as we do not change whilst for while, knowing full well that the instrumental-ablative case had dropped out of common usage in English centuries ago and has no contemporary value, yet still recognizing the merit of the archaic form through having acquired the indispensable against from again. And, how many of us would hasten to correct the spelling of thru in the content of the semi-formal writing of a Misplaced Pages article, but remain with shackles on the hands confronted with drive-thru? The point is that change, sometimes even at the risk of forsaking convention, is for the betterment of our powerful communication tool called English.

convention continues to provide examples of wrong literations of ideas:

1. The use of shall and its variants exclusively in the first-person form and will and its variants exclusively in the second- and third-person forms, completely ignoring not only language history but also logic:

- When a woman utters I should like to meet him, does she mean I am obligated to meet him or I desire to meet him? Due to adherence to an illogical imposition of style mandated by scribes of the king's court centuries ago, we are not sure out of context, and even many times in context. Saying what she means would solve the problem: I would like to meet him (from the Anglo-Saxon willan, meaning to desire) or I should like to meet him (from the Anglo-Saxon sculan, meaning to be obligated).

2. The exclusive use of the relative pronoun who and whom for humans and which for nonhumans, disregarding the historical and linguistic value of that:

- John is the man who spoke makes no reference to any other person, whereas John is the man that spoke singles out John among the other people in a group as the speaker. So, in order to impose an unfounded rule based on pretentious formality, that is many times replaced by who, thereby dissolving the meaning of the idea of the latter statement.

- The phrase the liver secretes an enzyme which converts phenylalanine can be erroneously understood as the liver secretes an enzyme, all of which convert phenylalanine, whereas the liver secretes an enzyme that converts phenylalanine pinpoints the idea that the liver secretes a particular enzyme that converts phenylalanine, as distinguished from enzymes that do not.

3. "All right", as in they are all right, which leaves one wondering whether the meaning is all of them are correct or they are not hurt, which begs the spelling shunned by grammarians yet correct with regard to logic and language history alright:

- already underwent the same metamorphosis, starting with all ready, then all-ready, to the now-accepted already, allowing us now to distinguish between the two different scenarios in already they are here and all ready they are here

4. All natural ingredients, which really means all the ingredients are natural and not the intended meaning: ingredients are completely natural, which is accomplished with the correct written phrase: all-natural ingredients, or, in the manner of already et al., alnatural ingredients

5. All new programs, which means all the programs are new and not the intended meaning: programs are completely new, which is accomplished with the correct written phrase: all-new programs, or, in the manner of already et al., alnew programs

6. Commercial free program, which means a commercial program that is without cost, and not the intended meaning: program without commercial(s), which is accomplished with the correct written phrase: commercial-free program, wherein free is a suffix meaning without, as less in boneless chicken.]Drphilharmonic (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Drphilharmonic makes several useful points there, some of which deserve their own sections. Personally, I would not copyedit an article simply to remove a logically-sound (sic) but conventionally deprecated hyphen, nor normally change it whilst editing for some other reason. Both forms are commonly used and serve their purpose of conveying the meaning. I didn't intend to recommend that "we do not use the hyphen, period". The MoS subsection itself describes its content as "broad principles that inform current usage" rather than a statement of what is correct and incorrect.

Perhaps neither "yes" nor "no" are adequate answers to the original question, a more detailed alternative being: "is such a hyphen mandated, encouraged, discouraged, banned, or does WP have no policy on the matter?". My reply was meant to suggest "discouraged" but on reading Drphilharmonic's argument I think "no policy" would be an equally sound response. Certes (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• While I disagree with Drphilharmonic's emphasis on a particular notion of logic over convention, I would be willing to accept an agreement from Drphilharmonic that he (or she) will no longer add unnecessary hyphens to this kind of phrase. A broad application of this principle is appropriate. For example, I would also be pleased if an original choice of "...is generally accepted..." was not changed to Drphilharmonic's preferred phrase, "...is, in general, accepted...".

• For the MoS, please note that Drphilharmonic has not named a single style guide to support "logical" hyphenation. This absence of support is doubtless because grammar and style guides from the last century all either deprecate or outright condemn the unnecessary use of hyphens in this context. Therefore, I do not support changing the MoS guideline to reflect what amounts to one editor's personal preference. Cogent or passionate arguments in support of this preference are unimportant, because hyphenation in these phrases is ultimately a matter of convention. The MoS should support the existing convention when the convention does not substantially interfere with meaning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I really like Drphilharmonic's little essay for some of its acute and well-chosen points. I do, incidentally, change thru (only accepted in America) to through, since this is not a purely American encyclopedia. For the same reason I also change alternate to alternative and through to to where the meaning is preserved and is made understandable to all speakers of English. I also change whilst to while for reasons of style; and I supply a more durably acceptable alternative to as per, thusly, and overly. We are free to improve style according to our best judgement, aren't we?

I am against allowing -ly+hyphen in our guidelines. This is contrary to all precedent in publishing practice, and to all style guides; and it tends toward more punctuation, where the modern preference is generally for a cleaner and less cluttered appearance. Some style guides are beginning to acknowledge home education students and the like, where there is no ambiguity. Like it or not!

Adherence to the consensus of all style guides is not compulsory for us; but widespread practice in poorly edited writing is no reason for us to alter our guidelines.

Certes says:

The MoS subsection itself describes its content as "broad principles that inform current usage" rather than a statement of what is correct and incorrect.

But this is not quite right. The qualification in full:

Hyphenation involves many subtleties that cannot be covered here; but the rules and examples presented above illustrate the sorts of broad principles that inform current usage.

That doesn't license just any departure from the rules given; it only says that there is more to say, and that it can't be said here.

– Noetica Talk 23:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Tangential note: I'm an American and certainly do not accept "thru" in formal writing. Agree with most of the rest at least in broad outline. But I can't think of an example where "through" can be changed to "to" while preserving the meaning -- just what would be an example of this? --Trovatore (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I work 6 pm through 10 pm is only American. In British and other English it's I work 6 pm to 10 pm, or variants. Since this to is accepted by Americans also, it is preferable since it avoids alienating either side. I work Monday to Friday may not be thought ambiguous, since it would surely be taken to include Friday. But if it is thought to be ambiguous, I work Monday through Friday is not available outside of American. Prefer I work from Monday morning till Friday evening, or whatever is more accurately intended.

– Noetica Talk 03:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree entirely with what Noetica is saying. Tony (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• • I work 6 pm through 10 pm is not good American English, in my opinion, nor is it clear: When do I walk off the job? At 10:01 pm? At 10:00:01 pm? I work from 6 pm to 10 pm is good American English, and is accurate. I work Monday to Friday in American English does not include Friday, although no one who means Monday through Thursday would say Monday to Friday. In American English, I work from Monday morning till Friday evening means the person's work includes all the hours from Monday morning through Friday afternoon, which includes a lot of overtime, but is only possible for insomniacs. Correct American English would be My work week is Monday through Friday. This topic has strayed rather far from hyphens. Finell (Talk) 03:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)