Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10


  • October 18, 2004 – November 30, 2004.

See also




Please note the current discussion on dashes has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dashes) as it was too long for this page.

Contractions

For what it's worth, I think the elimination of all contractions on this page was a bit hasty. Some of the resulting expressions, such as "Do not get fancy", seem quite awkward to me. I'd also argue that Wikipedia's tone in general is more informal than paper encyclopedias and so benefits from more conversational wording (I also used this to argue for singular they.) While eliminating contractions is often acceptable, I would suggest it be avoided when it results in a stilted or awkward expression. Am I alone in this? Derrick Coetzee 16:18, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it was needed, especially because the style guide isn't part of the encyclopedia per se. For that matter, I'd be OK with eliminating the style guide's rule against contractions. Maurreen 16:26, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
See my comments above. Personally, the non-contraction style do not seem awkward to me in the examples. But people use different kinds of English and are used to different kinds of English. If most disagree, then I have no horrible objection to changing Wikipedia style. But unless a new consensus appears, the recommendation should remain and the style guide should follow it. Jallan 01:16, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps a better solution for the Manual of Style would be to use different expressions that don't seem so awkward without contractions? "Keep it simple" would work instead of "Don't get fancy". (Although I agree that contractions are becoming more and more standard in English writing, and there are places where it seems appropriate to retain them.) [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 03:20, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That's a good idea. I don't feel strongly either way, but I'm a big believer in work-arounds. Maurreen 03:27, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Derrick Coetzee. The advice on contractions should be removed. Different articles adopt different styles. It would be inappropriate to use contractions in an article with a very formal style, and no doubt would be quickly edited out where there are inappropriate. But similarly, it is inappropriate to force a "no contractions" rule on articles that do not adopt a very formal style. Contractions are part of standard English: there should be no absolute ban on them. I propose leaving this discussion open for a further week to 20:00 on 3 November, and if there are no strong objections (or objections are in a clear minority), then I'll delete the section. jguk 06:45, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No. Jguk is going further than Derrick Coetzee. Jguk is the only person supporting changing the contractions policy. Maurreen 17:30, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sept. 11 attacks

You're invited to a poll at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks over whether that should remain the article's title or it should be changed to "Attacks of September 11, 2001".

I favor the latter, because using two commas to set the year off is widely supported by U.S. English reference books, and Wikipedia style says: "If a word or phrase is generally regarded as correct, then prefer it to an alternative that is often regarded as incorrect." Maurreen 07:38, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This poll has now ended. jguk 04:30, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See also

I would like to suggest removing the following guidline:

do not add any links to the "See also" section that are already present in the text of the article

I think this is wrong for the following reasons:

  • It is difficult to maintain.
  • It is not really followed in practice.
  • It makes the see also section less useful. Sometimes a practical way to search for a page is to go to a related page and check the see also section. If this guideline were enforced, you would need to check the entire article.

Gadykozma 14:45, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent. Maybe it would be good to just soften the language. Maurreen 15:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Gadykozma's first two points. On the final one, it really depends on the length of the article. If it's one or two paragraphs long, there's no need to put the links in the "See also". Where it's a long article, Gady's comment is certainly correct. Since there's no need for the Manual of Style to have softer language when the advice is "do what seems most useful/appropriate in the circumstances", I support Gady's proposal to remove the guideline. jguk 15:48, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I would guess that the original intent was that a "See also" section should be included only when there were useful links that could not be included easily in the text of the article. But it is more useful in long articles that the most useful links are together in one section. It could be changed to:

In short articles, do not add any links to the "See also" section that are already present in the text of the article.

A short article might be defined as an article entirely visible on a terminal without scrolling, but then that despends on the user's resolution settings. That's the best defence I can come up with to keeping this in some form. Unless someone has a better one and a different modification, I'd go with deleting it. Jallan 22:48, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I like this suggestion:

In short articles, do not add any links to the "See also" section that are already present in the text of the article.

Maurreen 17:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

First: Notice the also in "See also". Second:No one needs links made in the article body also in a "see also" section in an online article when computers have the capability of instantly searching through text. In windows try Ctrl-F. Hyacinth 03:04, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Duplicate links are sometimes useful in long, sectioned articles. I particularly find that the same topic is likely to occur in the lead paragraph but be fully treated in a much later section. In such cases a link in both places makes sense when the link is an important one. Also, in-text links may be applied to a different form when in text than those in the See also section (which should probably always contain the current proper name of the article linked to while a text reference may not.) There is a difference between a link casually appearing somewhere in the text and the same link appearing explicitly in a See also section as especially recommended. I take the "also" to as a recommendation that one should "also" check the other article(s), without indicating one way or the other whether a following reference is the only gateway to that other article in the article one is reading. I still prefer deletion, but very weakly. It would be nice to actually remove an instruction. But if kept as Maurreen wishes, I recommend shortening:

Again, do not add any links to the "See also" section that are already present in the text of the article. If you remove a redundant link from the See also section of an article, it may be an explicit cross reference (see below), so consider making the link in the main text bold instead.

to

In short articles and within sections of longer articles there should normally be no duplication of links: a particularly important link should be only in a See also section or in the main text in bold style, but not both.

Or even:

Avoid duplicating links in short articles or within sections of long articles. An especially important link can be emphasized by placing it within a See also section or by bolding it.

Jallan 03:31, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Those work for me. Maurreen04:25, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Don't like Jallan's first one. Am ok with nothing, slightly prefer Maurreen's suggestion, and could live with a slightly revised reversion of Jallan's second one ('bold' is not a verb, 'by putting it in bold font' is correct). jguk 06:41, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In English adjectives and nouns are quite often quite acceptably used as verbs. Googling for the form bolding falls foul of the surname Bolding for obtaining counts, but bolded gets 128,800 hits. Common use of bold as a verb probably arises from computerized word processing. I expect it has gained hold within the last fifteen years. Merriam-Webster Unabridged does list a transitive verb bold, but claims it is obsolete. (The 1913 Webster accepts it as current.) It would appear that many dictionaries, as usual, lag a decade or more behind usage, quite understandibly. However the Canadian Oxford Dictionary released in 1999, which I often consult, states: bold adj., n., & v." and gives for the verb meaning under "v.tr.": "(also boldface) set in bold type." The entry boldface just redirects to bold. This use of bold as a verb is not marked as being a distinctive Canadian practice and I would be astonished to find that this usage was especially Canadian. That said, I don't care if the verb bold is paraphrased. Jallan 19:30, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm perfectly aware that every noun can be verbed, but why not go with Maurreen's version? It has the benefit of being shorter. jguk 20:14, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Just for clarification: None of the versions are mine. I was just agreeing with all of Jallan's versions, which were compromises with me, because I'd prefer not to delete the section. Maurreen 04:07, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
OK. I thought 'In short articles, do not add any links to the "See also" section that are already present in the text of the article.' was yours. Go with that if you object to deleting it. jguk 17:22, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article on style guides

I am looking for a input to help resolve a dispute about the article on style guides. The question is this: Was the article better before or after the rewrite? Thanks. Maurreen 15:30, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, that's not the question in dispute. The question is should it be clearly mentioned that style guides may be descriptive and/or prescriptive or should the article be restricted to a discussion of prescriptive style guides with no reference to descriptive ones. jguk 15:44, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What would be the point of a descriptive style guide? Hyacinth 03:07, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Or, the question is: Are style guides prescriptive by definition? Maurreen 03:34, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I would say not. A "guide" is often something that shows you around an area, so I see no reason why a style guide couldn't be a map rather than a set of rules. I can't see what use this would be of (outside of in the development of future style guides, maybe a synthesis of guides). Hyacinth 04:05, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The latest version of the best known British English style guide, Fowler's Modern English Usage (3rd Edition), is a mostly descriptive style guide. An interesting read, if you're into that kind of thing, though there are other style guides out there that are even more descriptive. [1]. Birchfield's rewrite of Fowler into a far less prescriptive (and thereforE into a descriptive) form was not universally popular. [2] See in particular the first reviewer's comments. As far as the point of them: well, they are not suitable for publishers and newspapers as they don't impose consistency. They are suitable for users interested in how language is used and help the user decide what form of words, spelling, etc to choose for the particular audience the user is addressing. jguk 07:24, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
While a style guide could be descriptive, most style guides are not. I know of none that I would call mostly descriptive that also has a title indicating it is a style guide or style manual. A truly descriptive style guide would be one of those linguistic books about New England dialects, a guide to different styles of usage. I am not aware of a book of that kind being called a style guide, though such a book could in theory be called something like A Guide to Styles of English Midland Language. Birchfield's rewrite of Fowler was more descriptive than the two previous versions of Fowler's work. But it was a far cry from being only an informed and dispassionate study on the current state of the English language. The Chicago Manual of Style is also increasingly descriptive in recent editions, providing alternative ways of doing things, though still purportedly mainly for use as the style guide for the University of Chicago Press. That limitation provides freedom. One can prescribe firmly and absolutely without also making any claim that one's preferred way of doing things is the only correct way. One would, I think, be better to refer to Birchfield's work as "more descriptive" rather than simply "descriptive". But almost all guides of that kind for the general public must be so today. Jallan 23:44, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Section on specialised vocabulary

I added a section on specialised vocabulary. Feel free to edit as required, but certainly for rail transport, a warning is needed. The US and UK evolved entirely separate terminology or "jargon". So I first said that most situations people need to explain jargon anyways, or avoid its use, but pointed out that this was especially necessary as some places use an entirely different set of jargon.

For topics that have unique vocabularies, for example rail transport, effort should be made to adequately explain jargon or avoid its use where possible. This has another purpose, as in the case given, disparate terminology has evolved in different locations around the world (see rail terminology as an example). In other words, even experts in another location may not be familiar with jargon used in your location.

Should I add the section to this current page? zoney ♣ talk 11:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How about this?
For topics with unique vocabularies, such as rail transport, try to avoid or explain jargon. This has another purpose, as in the case given, disparate terminology has evolved in different places around the world (see rail terminology as an example). In other words, even experts in another location may not be familiar with jargon used in your location.
Maurreen 18:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
We already have a policy on Wikipedia:Explain jargon. Any proposal to change this policy should (i) bear the existing policy in mind; (ii) appear on Wikipedia talk:Explain jargon. Easy to miss this policy, it was right at the bottom. jguk 20:38, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reformatting

I've moved a list of where all the Manual of Style-type guidance can be found to the top of the page. (i) It will be easier to see what policies we've got now; (ii) It will shorten that annoyingly long contents list; (iii) it's slightly shorter. Hope this isn't seen as too controversial. (And I'm not attached to the linking sentence I've added at the top of the new list. If anyone can think of better wording, please change it.) jguk 20:38, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is a drastic change, but I consider it an improvement. It's centralized things, eliminated a lot of redundancy, and drastically reduced the page and table-of-contents size. Derrick Coetzee 23:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I changed it, partly to get the table of contents higher. Maurreen 04:02, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The main point I have re: Maurreen's change is that many of the "guidance" bits really are policy and should be in the specialised section. These are Wikipedia:Captions; Wikipedia:Categorization; Wikipedia:Cite sources; Wikipedia:Explain jargon; Wikipedia:List; Wikipedia:Naming_conventions; Wikipedia:Proper_names. I'd rather rename these as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (captions), etc.. and put them in the first section. (I thought this too radical to do straightaway, without discussion, though.)jguk 06:21, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This isn't clear to me, but I liked it better how it was before. Maurreen 21:06, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Maurreen, you've removed the guidance on Captions, Identity, Specific countries (and the references to the style guides within that section), When All Else Fails, Do Not Get Fancy, and all the other stuff that was at the end of the article. May I ask why? [3] jguk 06:27, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It was an accident that I didn't realize and can't fix on this computer without reverting. Apparently the page is too long for me to edit on this computer. My apologies. Maurreen 07:30, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Linked Lists

Sometimes I think it is work repeating a link. For instance, Maher Arar contains the text "Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and Sudan"; Syria is not linked because it is mentioned further up the article. I would link it. PhilHibbs 14:18, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I've thought about linking, and here are some general criteria I came up with for a good link:
  1. The subject being linked should be somewhat unfamiliar to a significant proportion of people who read the article (unlike, say, water, or town). In more specialized articles, there is an even higher standard of such expectations, and obvious concepts within the field (such as vector in math, variable in computer science) should only be linked in the intro, if at all.
    There's already a principle that as the number of links grows, less interesting links should be removed to avoid clutter. PhilHibbs 10:16, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. A link should only be given more than once if the reader may not have seen the first link, or the new link is in a new context. For example, if a reader might reasonably have skipped the section containing the first link, another link is probably warranted.
  3. If the linked article is unfamiliar to most readers and important to the article, it should be briefly summarized in the linking article.
  4. Never ever link to an article that describes a completely different concept from the one actually being referred to in the linking article. For example, linked list has nothing to do with this section. Mislinks are worse than no link.
    Agreed, except for disambig, such as "This article is about the animal. For the White Stripes album, see Elephant (album)". PhilHibbs 10:16, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. The link text should unambiguously describe the linked article. In particular, no "surprise" or humourous links.
Some of these seem very obvious, but they're broken all the time. Probably other stuff I'm forgetting, but this is the jist of it. I've been occasionally attacked by people who like to dump links throughout an article, often linking to articles completely different from my intended meaning, as well as subjects that are totally obvious (in general) or totally obvious within the field, and often repeatedly. Derrick Coetzee 18:14, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Whilst what you say seems reasonable, I'm not convinced that we need a policy on this. You claim that there are instances where you;ve been attacked by people dumping links throughout an article, though, which suggests it is a problem area. Could you provide examples? jguk 18:21, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There is already a policy about linking the first instance, I'm going to add a suggestion "links may be repeated if it is considered helpful to the reader". PhilHibbs 10:16, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Capitalization for region names

The existing guideline for capitalization of region names is confusingly vague. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Directions_and_regions currently says:

Whether a region has attained proper-noun status can be a gray area. Use an appropriate reference if needed. Use lowercase when in doubt.

This seems to conflict with the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization), which I've codified in that page as "region names are proper nouns". I suggest trimming the confusing text quoted above and replacing it with the following guidelines: (a) region names and geographic features notable enough to have Wikipedia articles are proper nouns, and should be capitalized; (b) region names containing directions (eastern Iowa) are proper nouns only if widely used enough to merit their own articles, and should otherwise be lowercased in article text. Comments? -- Rbellin 22:14, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better to clear up the ambiguity if we can. For what it's worth, the reason for the ambiguity in the wording is that there is a lot of ambiguity in actual use. You can read the discussion that led to this wording here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style--Archive8. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:25, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It seems that this basically substitutes "Wikipedia article" for "appropriate reference". I have no objection to that. Undoubtedly it will sometimes be the case that a Wikipedia article should exist, but does not yet, but if the capitalization is fixed when links to a new article are added, then I don't think it will be a terribly big deal. —Triskaideka 22:41, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think I agree with your rationale but not your policy as written. The suggested change could be read that capitalization depends on Wikipedia contents, but Wikipedia is a work in progress. I don't think I'm saying this very well. But if a given area could merit an article, but doesn't yet, then what? I think the policy as written is concise, and recognizes that the style guide can't cover all possible situations. Maybe we could compromise with a link to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization). Maurreen 02:38, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The primary thing that confused me about the existing guideline is that it seems to apply to all region names, when in fact (I think?) it wants to discuss the specific case of region names including directions. That is, regions like the Connecticut River Valley (this was the one I was trying to deal with) are preferably all-caps, at least according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), while the case of eastern Iowa or Western Massachusetts can be more complicated. So I'm okay with the vagueness, if it must persist, on this subtopic, but the broader topic should be handled more prominently. (And "notable" or "meriting a Wikipedia article" is not a standard based on the current state of Wikipedia.) -- Rbellin 03:29, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you to a point, but can't figure out a good way to explain my disagreement or another suggestion. And because I'm the only one dissenting, I'll go along with your proposal. Maurreen 15:56, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I disagree with the proposed change. Whether a particular region or geographical name is notable enough to be a Wikipedia article is both a grey area and irrelevant. I can imagine an article Grasslands of Wyoming in which within the article the form used would be "grasslands of Wyoming". There is a small valley within the city of Toronto commonly known as Hogg's Hollow, well known as place where traffic is often backed up to in local traffic reports. It probably will never deserve a Wikipedia mention. That doesn't mean that it would be correct to call it "Hogg's hollow" if mentioned in an article on Toronto.
Whether a descriptive name for an area is a proper name or the normal description of the area is also dubious. Do a Google search on "north circumpolar region". It seems about 80% of the hits have the description titlecased and about 20% in lower case. I don't think either convention is wrong. Search "northeastern states" for a similar variance. Saying "region names are proper nouns" is circular reasoning. Of course they are. But that doesn't help. Is "northeastern states" being used as a supposed region name or being used as a description? I did a study a few years back on capitalization of the term "prairie provinces". They phrase was usually titlecased when considered as a region. But the same article would probably lowercase it in a sentence such as: "The prairie provinces consist of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta." The same term, when its meaning is transparent, may in the same article be used sometimes as a name or proper noun and sometimes as a description: "Manitoba and Saskatchewan are prairie provinces." Titlecasing proper nouns is standard. The difficulty is in determining whether a particular short descriptive phrase referring to a region is best considered to be a proper noun or as a normal descriptive phrase, but not really a name or proper noun. The proposed emendations and the change at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization) provides no clarification on that point. That change is redundant. It misses the point.
Jallan 17:57, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Country order

We might want to consider how to avoid or resolve alphabetic international rivalry within Wikipedia. For example, when listing items, do you have a preference for either of these two formats: "U.K. style guides, U.S. style guides" or "American style guides, British style guides" ? Maurreen 16:30, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Policy proposals (usage and spelling): Poll ends 20:00 on 8 Nov

The Manual says: 'For the English Wikipedia, there is no preference among the major national varieties of English.'

I agree with this rule. But there are two exceptions to this rule in the manual. I propose removing these exceptions. Poll to run until 20:00 UTC on 8 November.

Objection to poll

I object to this poll. The person who started it didn’t even sign the proposal. This proposed change in policy has had no previous discussion, let alone a serious effort at consensus.

See Wikipedia:How to create policy, which includes changing current policy. It includes the following:

  • Consult widely.
  • Do not rush.

Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines says: "Wikipedia policy is formulated for the most part by consensus. This consensus may be reached through open debate over difficult questions, or it may simply develop as a result of established practice."

Wikipedia:Survey guidelines says: "Wikipedia is not a democracy. In general decisions are made by consensus (see consensus decision making) rather than a strict majority rule. However, on occasion it is useful to take a survey of opinions on some issue, as an aid to achieving consensus and an indication of which options have the most support. ... Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process." Maurreen 06:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Another point, though possibly academic, is that the poll is based on a fallacy (that both "U.S." vs "US" and the use vs non-use of the Oxford/Harvard comma are based on American vs. British English differences). The latter certainly is not, and the former probably is not. - Nunh-huh 07:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. I know that both the abbreviation and the comma have broad variance in American English, but am not knowledgeble about British English. I think the archives at least suggest variance in the comma issue in both countries. Maurreen 07:40, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As regards "both countries", do not forget that the rest of the world may conform to the British standard (or not). Even definitive "British English" differences do not mean a clearcut US vs. UK issue.
Adding a little bit of extra comment as regards the trailing comma on the second-to-last clause; to me it looks rather strange where disambiguation is unnecessary. Certainly my teaching in Irish primary school grammar was to omit the comma before "and" in a list.
For this reason I like the second proposal (not the omission one). zoney ♣ talk 19:20, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Both styles (U.S. and US) and having, or not having, an Oxford comma are in standard usage in both America and Britain. More Americans use U.S. than use US, more Bris use US rather than U.S.. The Oxford comma is more popular in the U.S. than in the UK, though probably more people use the Oxford comma in the UK than don't (though the non-Oxford comma approach has been gaining popularity in the UK for as long as I can remember). jguk 07:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposal 1

Proposal 1 is to delete the following:

When referring to the United States, please use "U.S."; that is the more common style in that country, is easier to search for automatically, and we want one uniform style on this. When referring to the United States in a long abbreviation (USA, USN, USAF), periods should not be used.

Rationale for:

  • UK and International English tends not to use stops/periods in abbreviations, preferring US over U.S.
  • Creates inconsistency in UK and International English articles that refer to the US, unless the US style of stops/periods in all abbreviations is adopted (which is against the principle of showing no preference among the major varieties of English).
  • It is a rule which is largely ignored: why have a policy that is largely ignored.
  • Searching under "U.S." is likely to come up with all sorts of subjects unconnected with America, and won't find all the articles anyway because of the large number that ignore the rule.

Support Proposal 1

  1. jguk 18:55, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. violet/riga (t) 19:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Gadykozma 20:01, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Niteowlneils 20:37, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC). I violate it routinely, and I'm in a US ;) native.
  5. Sinuhe 20:48, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. Improv 22:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. Dieter Simon 00:10, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC). It does seem to come more easily to me as a Brit to use US, however, no disrespect intended.
  8. Arwel 01:43, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  9. Mintguy (T) 01:50, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  10. Chris 73 Talk 02:04, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
  11. zoney ♣ talk 17:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  12. Dainamo 20:29, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) I emphasise, however that I disagree with some of the logic against U.S. and probably would prefer the latter in US/U.S. specific articles. Nevertheless, both forms work in context and, provided consistency is applied throughout a single article, there should not be any rule on one form or the other except when refering to titles such as U.S. Navy as opposed to The US (or U.S.) economy. One can use both cases in searches
  13. --NeilTarrant 14:08, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) Seems to me that deleting the policy will allow appropriate regionalism.
  14. --Chris Q 15:29, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) Seems natural to me as a Brit.
  15. --Rednblu | Talk 18:31, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) In my opinion, deleting this exception to the general rule allows appropriate NPOV on how English is written.

Oppose Proposal 1

  1. RickK 20:46, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC). Brit-centric. RickK 20:46, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Jmabel | Talk 21:30, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  3. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:26, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) Shouldn't we use the local form? See the third point under Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Usage and spelling.
  4. Violations of the policy could be fixed across all articles with a SQL query and a single dedicated editor. Use of "US" seriously damages the ability of a case-insensitive search engine (as most are) to locate the word, as well as not meeting the general convention used in the U.S. itself. To use the same form for UK and US also implies some strong analogy or relationship between them which does not exist. Deco 00:16, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. Nunh-huh 01:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC). Use of U.S. is a standard style guide recommendation in style guides for publications other than those for newspapers, where every character that can reasonably be omitted, will be omitted.
  6. Factitious 07:07, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC). "U.S." is clearer and more useful for searching. This rule should definitely be followed in all articles, which would eliminate three of the four rationales above. To help our style be consistent, I'll make an effort to watch for the "US" mistake when browsing, and correct any instances of it.
  7. PhilHibbs 09:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  8. Grammatically incorrect. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 17:02, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
  9. It has been suggested that the form "U.S." is grammatically incorrect, but I am afraid that this assertion only holds true in American English, not in International English. And, if this proposal is "Brit-centric," as one user asserts, the current policy is Americo-centril. Nevertheless, I must oppose this proposal, which seeks to entirely delete the item of policy instead of providing a suitable replacement. I think that it would be more appropriate to require that "U.S." be used if the article is in American English, and that "US" be used if the article is in International English. Any bias toward either American or International English would thereby be eliminated. -- Emsworth 21:40, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  10. mav 20:39, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) We need to respect regional differences.
  11. PedanticallySpeaking 22:00, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  12. JohnyDog 22:17, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  13. Jallan 01:04, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) Inconsistant usage, but would need much cleanup as the policy as also been much followed as well as much disregarded. I would rather not take any action in the direction of changing this policy without more information, even though seeing "U.S." and "UK" in the same sentence does rather scream for correction of one form or the other. Would a policy of inserting periods in two-letter intitialisms but not in longer intitialisms be too idiosyncratic. Probably not any more than only putting periods in the initialism "U.S." Jallan 01:04, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  14. Use either but link to United States so people can use what links here to find it rather than relying on search. Angela. 03:07, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (A)

Replace the policy:

8.3 Commas

As stated by Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, the Chicago Manual of Style, Strunk and White, and other authoritative sources, when a conjunction joins the last two elements in a series of three or more elements, a comma is used before the conjunction: "The wires were brown, blue, and green." The reason for the final serial comma is to prevent the last two elements from being confused as a unit. Consider its utility in this sentence: "The author would like to thank her parents, Sinéad O'Connor and Pope John-Paul II."

With:

Take care to avoid ambiguity when using lists as part of a sentence. Ambiguity can arise when it is unclear whether words are or are not in apposition. Consider the following sentences:

"The author would like to thank her parents, Sinéad and Bob."

"Joe Bloggs was congratulated by John Smith, the Chairman of the committee, and Jane Doe."

Is the author thanking two people (her parents), or three?

Did two or three people congratulate Joe Bloggs?

Disambiguate by rephrasing or using semicolons:

"The author would like to thank Sinéad and Bob, her parents"

"Joe Bloggs was congratulated by John Smith, the Chairman of the committee; and Jane Doe."

Rationale for:

  • There are two styles for lists that are in common English usage: A, B, and C and A, B and C. Wikipedia should not favour one over the other. The requirement should be to disambiguate.
  • People who use the formula A, B and C tend to use a comma after B when there is a real need to disambiguate. There's no need to require them to use the comma all the time.
  • It is a policy that is frequently ignored. And where there is a real need to disambiguate, the phrase will be edited out sooner or later.

Support proposal 2 (A)

  1. jguk 18:55, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. violet/riga (t) 19:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Gadykozma 20:01, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC), on the condition that Sinéad O'Connor and Pope John-Paul II's daughter stays in one of the examples.
  4. Sinuhe 20:48, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) (though in the above example explanation, the text should read 'two people or three', not 'two people, or three' (ie, without a comma), notwithstanding the text in brackets)
  5. Chris 73 Talk 02:02, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC) Less complicated that way
  6. Filiocht 08:47, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC) Much less complicated
  7. zoney ♣ talk 17:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  8. Dainamo 20:55, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) From the Minster Guide to English Usage (c. 1979 reprinted 1983, 1992) The chief function of a comma is to separate or set off different parts of a sentence. It should be used to avoid ambiguity, to achieve clarity and to prevent a sentence becoming unwieldy, but should always be used sparingly. Too many commas hold up the flow of thought and are irritating to the reader........In modern practice the comma is often ommitted before the conjunction connecting the last two items The guide does not say the use of A, B, and C in this specific case is incorrect but infers a preference for conservative use of the mark where it is not improving clarity. Hence: A, B and C.
  9. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 23:18, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  10. Arwel 00:14, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  11. A serial comma should be used in cases of ambiguity, but there's no need to force people to use it when it isn't needed. Angela. 03:11, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  12. --NeilTarrant 14:12, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  13. --Chris Q 15:30, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  14. Rednblu | Talk 18:40, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose proposal 2 (A)

  1. Niteowlneils 20:29, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC). a) General writing manuals such as Strunk and White are more likely to favor a, b, and c, while the a, b and c form is more likely to appear in more limited manuals, such as journalism guides. b) I believe the majority of Wikipedia articles follow the current standard. c) I believe consistency seems more professional/authoritative. d) I can not think of a case where the final comma before 'and' or 'or' doesn't enhance the clarity of the text. e) Makes the copious Wikipedia MoS even larger.
  2. Joe Bloggs was congratulated by John Smith, the Chairman of the committee; and Jane Doe. is just wrong usage of the semicolon. Proper English would be Joe Bloggs was congratulated by John Smith, the Chairman of the committee, and by Jane Doe.RickK 20:43, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
    OK - but what about if the proposal was reworded along the lines you suggest? Of course rewording entirely ....Jane Doe and John Smith, who is the Chairman...' is, of course, even better. jguk 20:49, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    Of course, but people don't tend to write that way.  :) RickK 22:59, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Improv 22:18, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. The policy cannot kindly suggest ambiguity be avoided. It must demand it. Otherwise, there is no strong rationale for making a change that eliminates ambiguity introduced by commas. I favour this proposal's attempt to be less simple-minded, in dealing with the more semantic problem of ambiguity instead of a purely syntactic heuristic. I'll move my vote if there is a change in wording. Deco 00:23, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. Nunh-huh 01:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC). Use of the Oxford comma is a perfectly reasonable style guide recommendation.
  6. James F. (talk) 01:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) Indeed, Oxford commas are very much a better style of list.
  7. Factitious 07:07, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC). Wikipedia needs to either always use the serial comma or never use it. Allowing both list styles creates far more ambiguity than either one can on its own. Of the two options, the serial comma is much more logical. Hardly all style guides that I know of are unreservedly in favor of leaving it out — even the AP Stylebook actually takes something of an intermediate position on the issue.
  8. PhilHibbs 09:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  9. VeryVerily 18:38, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. Long live the serial comma! PedanticallySpeaking 22:01, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Jallan 03:03, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) The choices given misrepresent the issue. See my comments below. Serial comma preceding a final and is recommended by almost all current literary and scientic style guides. I don't care much personally, but we do try to follow the most prestigious style guides and there should be a particular reason to depart from something that almost all of them agree on. Jallan 03:03, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments

I would support allowing authors to choose whichever style sounds better if clarity is not an issue, but as the serial comma has actual utility and the alternate style is just some people's preference, I'd rather see our policy favor the serial comma a little more strongly than this proposal does. Perhaps it could say that the serial comma is the "default" style, or the one that should be used when there is any doubt. I think a style guide should say something definite that people can refer to in an argument. —Triskaideka 21:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have no problem saying that the serial comma (or Oxford comma, to give it its technical term) should be used when there is any doubt. The proposal is about dropping the obligation to use the Oxford comma and (possibly) replacing it with a more general requirement to make sure lists are unambiguous. (The replacement wording clearly needs some work, and proposed amendments of it are welcome.) jguk 21:22, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Some people have voted for 2A saying that it's less complicated. I'm not sure I understand that. The current policy is "Use serial commas." The proposed new policy is "Use your choice of list style, except when apposition may be ambiguous, in which case rephrase or use semicolons." Is there a hidden complication in the current policy that I'm not seeing? On the other hand, proposal 2B is obviously less complicated (well, less complicated when writing, anyway), though that's about all it has going for it. Factitious 17:56, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
Before voting people should read the fuller discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style--Archive (U.S. vs. U.K. 2)#Should we cite serial comma opposition?. See also Serial comma and talk:Serial comma. Practically all current style guides except newspaper style guides support regular use of "A, B, and C". The discusion of usage that leads this poll is misleading. I do not think I have ever read any full style guide or grammar which recommended "A, B and C" (as many once did) which did not also have a general rule about adding a comma into a sentence when necessary to avoid ambiguity when other rules fail. Grammars and style guides still have such a rule. The Wikipedia Style Manual does not pretend to be a full style guide or grammar. (Nor do some other style guides.) A recommendation of invariant usage "A, B and C" has never been seriously presented. The two competing usages are "A, B(,) and C" in which the parenthesized comma represents a comma occasionally necessary to avoid misinterpreation and "A, B, and C" in which the second comma is always present. There are three positions:

1). Leave it up to individual editors to choose between "A, B(,) and C" or "A, B, and C".
2). Mandate "A, B, and C" as is currently done and which follows almost all current publically accessible style guides except those for newspapers.
3). Mandate "A, B(,) and C" which used to be the common recommendation in many litterary and academic style guides.

Choosing any of these involves taking a position. Not mentioning the issue at all here would have meant going with #2 since that is the current position of recommended style guides.
Jallan 02:51, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (B)

As per proposal 2 (A), but do not replace the deleted text with anything.

Rationale for:

  • There are two styles for lists that are in common English usage: A, B, and C and A, B and C. Wikipedia should not favour one over the other.
  • People who use the formula A, B and C tend to use a comma after B when there is a real need to disambiguate. There's no need to require them to use the comma all the time.
  • It is a policy that is frequently ignored. And where there is a real need to disambiguate, the phrase will be edited out sooner or later.
  • Reduces the relentless tide of instruction creep.

Support proposal 2 (B)

  1. jguk 18:55, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. RickK 20:44, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose proposal 2 (B)

  1. violet/riga (t) 19:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) – the house style will be asked by new people that join, may as well have it here
  2. Niteowlneils 20:36, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC). Same reasons I oppose 2A, plus what Violet said.
  3. Wikipedia takes a very laid-back attitude to style: articles should be made to conform, eventually, but people need not: that is, if you don't want to take care of it, someone else will. In light of this, I don't think the fact that some people may be ignorant of policy or bothered by instruction creep should stop us from setting a useful policy for the benefit of those who do want one. —Triskaideka 21:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. I, for one, have come across many, many ambiguous missing serial commas in my editing. The claim that people use serial commas in ambiguous situations is simply incorrect. A final word on the subject is absolutely necessary. Deco 00:27, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. Nunh-huh 01:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC). Use of the Oxford comma is a perfectly reasonable style guide recommendation.
  6. James F. (talk) 01:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) Indeed, Oxford commas are very much a better style of list.
  7. Factitious 07:07, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC). Even worse than 2A. This is one of the areas where consistency is necessary.
  8. PhilHibbs 09:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. I favor the serial comma and we need to explain clearly what the policy is. PedanticallySpeaking 22:02, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Jallan 03:09, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) I presume the reason why this appeared is that it is a point on which opinions of prestigeous style guides have changed over the years. What was taught to many in school as right, following some of those same guides, is now wrong. If anything this needs better explanation.
  11. Removing the section without explanation will just lead to confusion. Angela. 03:13, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Rednblu | Talk 18:41, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) I vote for what Angela said.

English versions

In Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style--Draft Trim discussion archive, Jguk said: “Where we can, we should avoid using language that marks it out as being US/UK or as preferring one particular style of writing words over another.” He has made similar statements elsewhere.

I believe that his view in this regard is at least part of the basis for the poll above. If so, probably that is what should be discussed, at least initially to see if anyone shares his view. Maurreen 12:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Style guide philosophy

In my view, some of the issues concerning this style guide might be resolved more easily if we decided some general philosophical issues that could guide future decisions. For example, these could include whether we think it should be more concise or more detailed, or how formal to be with the language. Any comments about such a possible philosophical underpinning? Maurreen 12:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I favor a concise, prescriptive guide, clear and to the point, but one which also contains links for each item to sub-pages giving rationale for that rule, further examples, reasons for debate, and so on. In some cases the sub-page might contain nothing but links to sections in discussion page archives and external links to sections of other style manuals on the web or discussions of the points being considered. The main guide would be short for those doing a quick look to see if there is a rule there and what it might be. But if someone wants fuller examples, more clarification, or discussion of the rationale behind the rule along with what objections may have been raised to the rule, the information is only one or two clicks away. Jallan 03:27, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jallan, all that sounds smart to me. A few other things I favor:
I think we don't need to be nearly as extensive as many other guides. I think the style can more or less evolve on a basis of what is needed.
The links you suggest above could also better integrate the specialized style guides, etc. For example, "Dates" could link to the Dates and Numbers style guide or the dates section within it, or a similar set up.
I'd also like a more alphabetical organization and possibly cross-references. That is, a user could find "commas" under "C" (and perhaps also under "punctuation). But I think most style guides favor the topical approach, so I'd understand if anyone objected. Hopefully, the guide could eventually evolve so people could find things very quickly regardless of how they look things up.
Clarity and accuracy are two top guiding principles.
Maurreen 06:28, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Visual presentation

Along the lines of what Jallan suggested about organizing supporting material for the style guide, I've been working on organizing the archives topically. One of these is called "Visual presentation."

I'm not sure what's the best title. Other options include "Layout" or "Design." What do you think? Maurreen 07:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I like "Visual presentation". "Layout" or "Visual design" would also be OK. Just "Design" would be bad, because the term has such a broad meaning. —AlanBarrett 19:02, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Connexion

I recently executed a vendetta against the word "connexion". Although it occurred primarily in EB 1911 articles, there are a few users actually actively using this obsolete spelling, and not in reference to the church organization. To quote American_and_British_English_differences#..._-xion_.2F_-ction:

The spellings connexion, inflexion, deflexion, reflexion are now somewhat rare, perhaps understandably as their stems are connect, inflect, deflect, and reflect and there are many such words in English that result in a -tion ending. The more common American connection, inflection, deflection, reflection have almost become the standard internationally.

Shall we add a bit of policy to make these four words officially spelled in the American way? Deco 07:35, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's needed. Maurreen 07:48, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Whilst 'connexion' is perhaps indeed relatively seldom used – but is, mind you, perfectly permissible according to dictionaries and it has not quite disappeared – the other three words, inflexion, deflexion and reflexion, are all very common, particularly in linguistics, maths and chemistry (and probably the other sciences). To name just one recent series, 'inflexion' and 'reflexion' are both spelt thus in Further Pure Mathematics (Gaulter, B., Gaulter, M., Oxford University Press, 2001, ISBN 0199147353) and in Introducing Pure Mathematics (Smedley, R., Wiseman, G., same, ISBN 0199148031); admittedly, connection is with -ct-. The -x- spellings are most certainly not obsolete and there is no reason to make up some rule against their use. —Sinuhe 08:10, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
My fourpenn'orth:
On a technical point, I'm not sure I agree with Deco that the spellings ending in -xion are obsolete (yet), though they may well become obsolete in the next few decades. Sinuhe's examples back up the non-obsolescence of the spelling (though I wouldn't use -xion myself except for the words 'crucifixion' and 'transfixion', where I would have though the -xion ending is far from obsolete).
  1. The spellings ending in -ction are not 'American', they are acceptable throughout the world.
  2. Having a policy saying 'we require the American spelling' is just going to annoy every non-American Wikipedian. We really should avoid preferring things because they are 'American'. (Though as I note above, there would be no need to call these spellings 'American' anyway.)
  3. I think American_and_British_English_differences#..._-xion_.2F_-ction needs changing in this regard (which I'll go and do now).
  4. I agree with Maurreen. I'm not sure we need a policy about this. jguk 08:17, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I really, really disagree with removing valid spellings of words because people have a personal dislike for them. "Connexion" is fine, and not at all obselete. The "vendetta" edits should all be reverted, and talk of a policy is decidedly the wrong way to go about things.
James F. (talk) 12:44, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I really believed this was an archaic spelling that was no longer in use, based on what I'd read and personal experience. I have nothing personal against the spelling, but just thought its rarity might damage reader comprehension. If it is an acceptable alternate spelling I apologise for my changes and the suggestion — but I would suggest that at least the edits to the EB 1911 articles be kept. Deco 17:27, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
One should think carefully before using the terms British spelling and American spelling. Dictionaries encourage their misuse. A British dictionary will list esthetic as an American spelling, quite rightly, as it is a spelling used very rarely in Britain and more commonly in the United States. But within the United States aesthetic is far more common. An American dictionary is likely to mark waggon as British use. It is a spelling sometimes used in Britain and more rarely in the U.S. But wagon is more common in both countries. Unfortunately a statement in a dictionary that something is an American spelling or a British spelling tends to be misunderstood to mean that it is the most common American spelling or the most common British spelling. For example, Advertize and advertizement are supposed American forms. But they are not the common American forms See advertizement or advertisement at [4]. Pam Peters here seems to think the forms hardly exist. However see [5] where H. L. Mencken in 1921 gleefully speaks of British usage:

... and yet I find surprized, advertizement and to advertize in the prospectus of English, a magazine founded to further "the romantic and patriotic study of English," and advertize and advertizing are in the first number.

That article is an excellent one, and could be updated for use today with different example words in many cases, but exactly the same words in others.
Different publishers and groups and organizations/organisations have different style guides, often mandating exactly what spellings are allowed. For example, see the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations style guide at [6] which insists on connection rather than connexion and so with other -xion words. Probably Deco's understanding came from some such source. It does appear that the -xion spellings are much deprecated and not "in style" today according to many, so therefore probably quite rightly described as "not the standard internationally. However, see [7]:

To which I can add that "connection" offers a similar problem: Chambers 21st Century Dictionary [4] lists "connection" first and then immediately adds "or connexion". Yet many leading British newspapers consistently use the "x" spelling.

See also [8]. A recommendation in style guides that one spelling should be used over another is actually good evidence that the other spelling is in use, otherwise there would no need for a recommendation on that point. And most style guides insist on one spelling per word, the silly things! :-( I do not see anywhere the in this guide a recommendaton to use "international" spellings. If there were, than we could start by eliminating British -ise spelling (along with reflexion and so forth) since international scholarly usage and international organization usage almost universally supports the -ize forms. In style sheet after style sheet one finds the spellings of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary mandated, with particular mention that -ize forms preferred by that dictionary must be used rather than the alternative -ise forms.
Jallan 21:34, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Policy proposals (usage and spelling): Poll ends 20:00 on 8 Nov

The Manual says: 'For the English Wikipedia, there is no preference among the major national varieties of English.'

I agree with this rule. But there are two exceptions to this rule in the manual. I propose removing these exceptions. Poll to run until 20:00 UTC on 8 November.

Objection to poll

I object to this poll. The person who started it didn’t even sign the proposal. This proposed change in policy has had no previous discussion, let alone a serious effort at consensus.

See Wikipedia:How to create policy, which includes changing current policy. It includes the following:

  • Consult widely.
  • Do not rush.

Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines says: "Wikipedia policy is formulated for the most part by consensus. This consensus may be reached through open debate over difficult questions, or it may simply develop as a result of established practice."

Wikipedia:Survey guidelines says: "Wikipedia is not a democracy. In general decisions are made by consensus (see consensus decision making) rather than a strict majority rule. However, on occasion it is useful to take a survey of opinions on some issue, as an aid to achieving consensus and an indication of which options have the most support. ... Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process." Maurreen 06:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Another point, though possibly academic, is that the poll is based on a fallacy (that both "U.S." vs "US" and the use vs non-use of the Oxford/Harvard comma are based on American vs. British English differences). The latter certainly is not, and the former probably is not. - Nunh-huh 07:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. I know that both the abbreviation and the comma have broad variance in American English, but am not knowledgeble about British English. I think the archives at least suggest variance in the comma issue in both countries. Maurreen 07:40, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As regards "both countries", do not forget that the rest of the world may conform to the British standard (or not). Even definitive "British English" differences do not mean a clearcut US vs. UK issue.
Adding a little bit of extra comment as regards the trailing comma on the second-to-last clause; to me it looks rather strange where disambiguation is unnecessary. Certainly my teaching in Irish primary school grammar was to omit the comma before "and" in a list.
For this reason I like the second proposal (not the omission one). zoney ♣ talk 19:20, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Both styles (U.S. and US) and having, or not having, an Oxford comma are in standard usage in both America and Britain. More Americans use U.S. than use US, more Bris use US rather than U.S.. The Oxford comma is more popular in the U.S. than in the UK, though probably more people use the Oxford comma in the UK than don't (though the non-Oxford comma approach has been gaining popularity in the UK for as long as I can remember). jguk 07:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposal 1

Proposal 1 is to delete the following:

When referring to the United States, please use "U.S."; that is the more common style in that country, is easier to search for automatically, and we want one uniform style on this. When referring to the United States in a long abbreviation (USA, USN, USAF), periods should not be used.

Rationale for:

  • UK and International English tends not to use stops/periods in abbreviations, preferring US over U.S.
  • Creates inconsistency in UK and International English articles that refer to the US, unless the US style of stops/periods in all abbreviations is adopted (which is against the principle of showing no preference among the major varieties of English).
  • It is a rule which is largely ignored: why have a policy that is largely ignored.
  • Searching under "U.S." is likely to come up with all sorts of subjects unconnected with America, and won't find all the articles anyway because of the large number that ignore the rule.

Support Proposal 1

  1. jguk 18:55, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. violet/riga (t) 19:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Gadykozma 20:01, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Niteowlneils 20:37, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC). I violate it routinely, and I'm in a US ;) native.
  5. Sinuhe 20:48, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. Improv 22:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. Dieter Simon 00:10, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC). It does seem to come more easily to me as a Brit to use US, however, no disrespect intended.
  8. Arwel 01:43, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  9. Mintguy (T) 01:50, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  10. Chris 73 Talk 02:04, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
  11. zoney ♣ talk 17:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  12. Dainamo 20:29, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) I emphasise, however that I disagree with some of the logic against U.S. and probably would prefer the latter in US/U.S. specific articles. Nevertheless, both forms work in context and, provided consistency is applied throughout a single article, there should not be any rule on one form or the other except when refering to titles such as U.S. Navy as opposed to The US (or U.S.) economy. One can use both cases in searches
  13. --NeilTarrant 14:08, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) Seems to me that deleting the policy will allow appropriate regionalism.
  14. --Chris Q 15:29, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) Seems natural to me as a Brit.
  15. --Rednblu | Talk 18:31, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) In my opinion, deleting this exception to the general rule allows appropriate NPOV on how English is written.
  16. Sietse 21:10, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC), I agree with Rednblu.
  17. Ortolan88 01:12, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) This is one of those cases where "right or wrong" simply doesn't apply. The question is "clean or cluttered". Eliminate the periods for a cleaner, easier-to-read look. This is similar to capitalizing only the first word in a header, which we do because it looks better, not because it is "right".

Oppose Proposal 1

  1. RickK 20:46, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC). Brit-centric. RickK 20:46, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Jmabel | Talk 21:30, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  3. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:26, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) Shouldn't we use the local form? See the third point under Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Usage and spelling.
  4. Violations of the policy could be fixed across all articles with a SQL query and a single dedicated editor. Use of "US" seriously damages the ability of a case-insensitive search engine (as most are) to locate the word, as well as not meeting the general convention used in the U.S. itself. To use the same form for UK and US also implies some strong analogy or relationship between them which does not exist. Deco 00:16, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. Nunh-huh 01:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC). Use of U.S. is a standard style guide recommendation in style guides for publications other than those for newspapers, where every character that can reasonably be omitted, will be omitted.
  6. Factitious 07:07, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC). "U.S." is clearer and more useful for searching. This rule should definitely be followed in all articles, which would eliminate three of the four rationales above. To help our style be consistent, I'll make an effort to watch for the "US" mistake when browsing, and correct any instances of it.
  7. PhilHibbs 09:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  8. Grammatically incorrect. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 17:02, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
  9. It has been suggested that the form "U.S." is grammatically incorrect, but I am afraid that this assertion only holds true in American English, not in International English. And, if this proposal is "Brit-centric," as one user asserts, the current policy is Americo-centril. Nevertheless, I must oppose this proposal, which seeks to entirely delete the item of policy instead of providing a suitable replacement. I think that it would be more appropriate to require that "U.S." be used if the article is in American English, and that "US" be used if the article is in International English. Any bias toward either American or International English would thereby be eliminated. -- Emsworth 21:40, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  10. mav 20:39, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) We need to respect regional differences.
  11. PedanticallySpeaking 22:00, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  12. JohnyDog 22:17, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  13. Jallan 01:04, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) Inconsistant usage, but would need much cleanup as the policy as also been much followed as well as much disregarded. I would rather not take any action in the direction of changing this policy without more information, even though seeing "U.S." and "UK" in the same sentence does rather scream for correction of one form or the other. Would a policy of inserting periods in two-letter intitialisms but not in longer intitialisms be too idiosyncratic. Probably not any more than only putting periods in the initialism "U.S." Jallan 01:04, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  14. Use either but link to United States so people can use what links here to find it rather than relying on search. Angela. 03:07, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  15. The current system is fine, and is a great compromise. Keep it. -- Mattworld 05:22, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
  16. Jeff Q 22:24, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC). There is no perfect solution, and the current policy merely suggests rather than demands. As I've pointed out elsewhere, the U.S. Government itself is not consistent in its use of "U.S." or "US", although it tends to prefer the former, which is recommended by Wikipedia. The various key U.S. style manuals are divided on the subject.
  17. Why change? The policy does say: Please use... No demand is made and both work for me. -Vsmith 00:52, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (A)

Replace the policy:

8.3 Commas

As stated by Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, the Chicago Manual of Style, Strunk and White, and other authoritative sources, when a conjunction joins the last two elements in a series of three or more elements, a comma is used before the conjunction: "The wires were brown, blue, and green." The reason for the final serial comma is to prevent the last two elements from being confused as a unit. Consider its utility in this sentence: "The author would like to thank her parents, Sinéad O'Connor and Pope John-Paul II."

With:

Take care to avoid ambiguity when using lists as part of a sentence. Ambiguity can arise when it is unclear whether words are or are not in apposition. Consider the following sentences:

"The author would like to thank her parents, Sinéad and Bob."

"Joe Bloggs was congratulated by John Smith, the Chairman of the committee, and Jane Doe."

Is the author thanking two people (her parents), or three?

Did two or three people congratulate Joe Bloggs?

Disambiguate by rephrasing or using semicolons:

"The author would like to thank Sinéad and Bob, her parents"

"Joe Bloggs was congratulated by John Smith, the Chairman of the committee; and Jane Doe."

Rationale for:

  • There are two styles for lists that are in common English usage: A, B, and C and A, B and C. Wikipedia should not favour one over the other. The requirement should be to disambiguate.
  • People who use the formula A, B and C tend to use a comma after B when there is a real need to disambiguate. There's no need to require them to use the comma all the time.
  • It is a policy that is frequently ignored. And where there is a real need to disambiguate, the phrase will be edited out sooner or later.

Support proposal 2 (A)

  1. jguk 18:55, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. violet/riga (t) 19:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Gadykozma 20:01, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC), on the condition that Sinéad O'Connor and Pope John-Paul II's daughter stays in one of the examples.
  4. Sinuhe 20:48, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) (though in the above example explanation, the text should read 'two people or three', not 'two people, or three' (ie, without a comma), notwithstanding the text in brackets)
  5. Chris 73 Talk 02:02, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC) Less complicated that way
  6. Filiocht 08:47, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC) Much less complicated
  7. zoney ♣ talk 17:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  8. Dainamo 20:55, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) From the Minster Guide to English Usage (c. 1979 reprinted 1983, 1992) The chief function of a comma is to separate or set off different parts of a sentence. It should be used to avoid ambiguity, to achieve clarity and to prevent a sentence becoming unwieldy, but should always be used sparingly. Too many commas hold up the flow of thought and are irritating to the reader........In modern practice the comma is often ommitted before the conjunction connecting the last two items The guide does not say the use of A, B, and C in this specific case is incorrect but infers a preference for conservative use of the mark where it is not improving clarity. Hence: A, B and C.
    I believe you mean implies, not infers. — Jeff Q 22:14, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  9. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 23:18, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  10. Arwel 00:14, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  11. A serial comma should be used in cases of ambiguity, but there's no need to force people to use it when it isn't needed. Angela. 03:11, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  12. --NeilTarrant 14:12, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  13. --Chris Q 15:30, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  14. Rednblu | Talk 18:40, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  15. Sietse 21:15, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose proposal 2 (A)

  1. Niteowlneils 20:29, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC). a) General writing manuals such as Strunk and White are more likely to favor a, b, and c, while the a, b and c form is more likely to appear in more limited manuals, such as journalism guides. b) I believe the majority of Wikipedia articles follow the current standard. c) I believe consistency seems more professional/authoritative. d) I can not think of a case where the final comma before 'and' or 'or' doesn't enhance the clarity of the text. e) Makes the copious Wikipedia MoS even larger.
  2. Joe Bloggs was congratulated by John Smith, the Chairman of the committee; and Jane Doe. is just wrong usage of the semicolon. Proper English would be Joe Bloggs was congratulated by John Smith, the Chairman of the committee, and by Jane Doe.RickK 20:43, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
    OK - but what about if the proposal was reworded along the lines you suggest? Of course rewording entirely ....Jane Doe and John Smith, who is the Chairman...' is, of course, even better. jguk 20:49, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    Of course, but people don't tend to write that way.  :) RickK 22:59, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Improv 22:18, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. The policy cannot kindly suggest ambiguity be avoided. It must demand it. Otherwise, there is no strong rationale for making a change that eliminates ambiguity introduced by commas. I favour this proposal's attempt to be less simple-minded, in dealing with the more semantic problem of ambiguity instead of a purely syntactic heuristic. I'll move my vote if there is a change in wording. Deco 00:23, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. Nunh-huh 01:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC). Use of the Oxford comma is a perfectly reasonable style guide recommendation.
  6. James F. (talk) 01:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) Indeed, Oxford commas are very much a better style of list.
  7. Factitious 07:07, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC). Wikipedia needs to either always use the serial comma or never use it. Allowing both list styles creates far more ambiguity than either one can on its own. Of the two options, the serial comma is much more logical. Hardly all style guides that I know of are unreservedly in favor of leaving it out — even the AP Stylebook actually takes something of an intermediate position on the issue.
  8. PhilHibbs 09:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  9. VeryVerily 18:38, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. Long live the serial comma! PedanticallySpeaking 22:01, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Jallan 03:03, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) The choices given misrepresent the issue. See my comments below. Serial comma preceding a final and is recommended by almost all current literary and scientic style guides. I don't care much personally, but we do try to follow the most prestigious style guides and there should be a particular reason to depart from something that almost all of them agree on. Jallan 03:03, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  12. Jonathunder 03:26, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC) Using the serial comma does the reader a courtesy by helping avoid even momentary doubt about whether the final two elements are meant to be grouped.
  13. Oppose. The current system is clearer. -- Mattworld 05:24, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
  14. I like the serial comma. And this seems to be an end run way to get rid of it. john k 21:27, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  15. Jeff Q 23:15, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) Oppose. How often do we need to vote on this? (See Comments for my rebuttal to the cited reasons for changing policy.)
  16. Keep it like it is.-Vsmith 01:02, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments

I would support allowing authors to choose whichever style sounds better if clarity is not an issue, but as the serial comma has actual utility and the alternate style is just some people's preference, I'd rather see our policy favor the serial comma a little more strongly than this proposal does. Perhaps it could say that the serial comma is the "default" style, or the one that should be used when there is any doubt. I think a style guide should say something definite that people can refer to in an argument. —Triskaideka 21:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have no problem saying that the serial comma (or Oxford comma, to give it its technical term) should be used when there is any doubt. The proposal is about dropping the obligation to use the Oxford comma and (possibly) replacing it with a more general requirement to make sure lists are unambiguous. (The replacement wording clearly needs some work, and proposed amendments of it are welcome.) jguk 21:22, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Some people have voted for 2A saying that it's less complicated. I'm not sure I understand that. The current policy is "Use serial commas." The proposed new policy is "Use your choice of list style, except when apposition may be ambiguous, in which case rephrase or use semicolons." Is there a hidden complication in the current policy that I'm not seeing? On the other hand, proposal 2B is obviously less complicated (well, less complicated when writing, anyway), though that's about all it has going for it. Factitious 17:56, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
Before voting people should read the fuller discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style--Archive (U.S. vs. U.K. 2)#Should we cite serial comma opposition?. See also Serial comma and talk:Serial comma. Practically all current style guides except newspaper style guides support regular use of "A, B, and C". The discusion of usage that leads this poll is misleading. I do not think I have ever read any full style guide or grammar which recommended "A, B and C" (as many once did) which did not also have a general rule about adding a comma into a sentence when necessary to avoid ambiguity when other rules fail. Grammars and style guides still have such a rule. The Wikipedia Style Manual does not pretend to be a full style guide or grammar. (Nor do some other style guides.) A recommendation of invariant usage "A, B and C" has never been seriously presented. The two competing usages are "A, B(,) and C" in which the parenthesized comma represents a comma occasionally necessary to avoid misinterpreation and "A, B, and C" in which the second comma is always present. There are three positions:

1). Leave it up to individual editors to choose between "A, B(,) and C" or "A, B, and C".
2). Mandate "A, B, and C" as is currently done and which follows almost all current publically accessible style guides except those for newspapers.
3). Mandate "A, B(,) and C" which used to be the common recommendation in many litterary and academic style guides.

Choosing any of these involves taking a position. Not mentioning the issue at all here would have meant going with #2 since that is the current position of recommended style guides.
Jallan 02:51, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy agrees with every notable style manual except the New York Times (which apparently only started printing its manual a few years ago, unlike many others who've been at it for decades or even centuries). Many newspapers, weeklies, and online news sources do follow the NYT, but anything other than casual reading will reveal an untoward increase of bad grammar, spelling, and even occasional outright incomprehensibility in such sources (especially those online feeds) that I suspect reflects significant budget cuts in the print media's proofreading departments and a general "don't-care" approach to proofing online and in AP and other newsfeeds. This is not a model by which to build an encyclopedia. In contrast, not a single book that I've read in the past two weeks omits serial commas, and I have failed to find any ambiguities caused by this practice.

I will address separately the cited reasons for changing policy above, and why they are spurious:

  1. There are two styles for lists that are in common English usage: A, B, and C and A, B and C. Wikipedia should not favour one over the other. The requirement should be to disambiguate.
    I agree that disambiguation is essential, but that doesn't require abandoning the standard rule. It merely requires some small attention to the infrequent occurrences of the cited ("John Smith") case above. Such a parenthetical-comma use can almost always be rephrased to avoid the ambiguity. In the above example, a better and more concise rephrasing would be: Jane Doe and committee chairman John Smith congratulated Joe Bloggs. One can argue about the order of the two congratulators, and about active vs. passive voice, but the essential difference is using the phrase "committee chairman John Smith" rather than "John Smith, committee chairman" (which introduces the ambiguity of parenthetical commas) or "John Smith, who is committee chairman" (which removes the ambiguity, but is needlessly verbose).
  2. People who use the formula A, B and C tend to use a comma after B when there is a real need to disambiguate. There's no need to require them to use the comma all the time.
    I doubt anyone can make the above claim authoritatively. If anything, I've found that "people" tend to write sloppily and don't pay much attention to how their text sounds to someone who didn't write it (i.e., everyone else). I certainly wouldn't count on such awareness. That's a major reason we have grammar rules.
  3. It is a policy that is frequently ignored. And where there is a real need to disambiguate, the phrase will be edited out sooner or later.
    This is a common but foolish objection to policy. "It's" is frequently confused with "its", but there's no reason to abandon the extremely simple rule just because so many people get so easily confused. (For the record, if you can logically separate "its" into "it is", use "it's"; otherwise, use "its". End of confusion.) And excusing illiteracy by pointing out correctly that someone will eventually come along and fix it is bad editorial policy.

What this whole problem boils down to is that 90% of the time (and that's just a SWAG, admittedly), presence or absence of serial commas doesn't materially affect the meaning of the text. Likewise, correct meaning can often be gleaned from run-on sentences and incomplete sentences. But we have grammar and punctuation rules to help format text into properly-digestible components and to significantly reduce the effort in tracking down and correcting the infrequent ambiguities. Modern apathy is no reason to abandon these rules wholesale. — Jeff Q 23:23, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For the record, rather than relying on vague assertions of who says what, here's what I found when I recently researched serial commas (which itself is a correct technical term and removes the implication of national usage inherent in calling them "Oxford commas" or "Harvard commas"):
  • Always use serial commas:
    • Chicago Manual of Style, 15th Edition, 2003
    • Elements of Style, 4th Edition, by Strunk & White, 1972 (reprinted 1999)
    • Merriam-Webster Manual for Writers and Editors, 1998
    • Prentice-Hall Style Manual, 1992
    • U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual, 2000
  • Omit serial commas when not needed:
    • New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, 1st Edition, 1999
Presumably whatever style guides Oxford and Harvard recommend also support serial commas. Note that the only supporter is also the only newspaper-based guide. All others are either from university presses, scholarly researchers, or general publishers, all of whom cover a wider range of English language usage than that of an institution that regularly practices excessive brevity for the sake of reducing printing costs.
As far as the Minster Guide to English Usage cited above in support of omitting serial commas, I've never heard of it. I found exactly two Google references to it, one of which is this page, the other of which mentions it's out of print. I also couldn't find it even listed, let alone available or out-of-print, on Amazon's U.S. or UK sites. (I did find all the others I checked on, plus style manuals from Oxford and Harvard, on the UK site, which I checked more thoroughly because I suspect this guide is British.) This Minster Guide hardly seems to be an authoritative reference.
Regardless of scope, none of the sources says serial commas should be universally excluded. One or two of the supporters (I forgot to note which) do call attention to the potential for ambiguity, but suggest rephrasing rather than omission of serial commas. Given the simplicity of adding a tiny punctuation mark to avoid potential confusion, the availability of concise and elegant rephrasing to avoid the rare serial/parenthetical comma confusion, and the recommendations of nearly every authoritative source (and every one that deals with book-like media like encyclopedias), there is really no excuse to leave out serial commas, let alone change the policy just to support lazy punctuation practice. — Jeff Q 04:36, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (B)

As per proposal 2 (A), but do not replace the deleted text with anything.

Rationale for:

  • There are two styles for lists that are in common English usage: A, B, and C and A, B and C. Wikipedia should not favour one over the other.
  • People who use the formula A, B and C tend to use a comma after B when there is a real need to disambiguate. There's no need to require them to use the comma all the time.
  • It is a policy that is frequently ignored. And where there is a real need to disambiguate, the phrase will be edited out sooner or later.
  • Reduces the relentless tide of instruction creep.

Support proposal 2 (B)

  1. jguk 18:55, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. RickK 20:44, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Ortolan88 01:12, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) This is absolutely right. The rest of you folks should be writing an article about the evils and goods of the serial Oxford compulsive neurotic comma conspiracy. (humorous remark not intended to offend).

Oppose proposal 2 (B)

  1. violet/riga (t) 19:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) – the house style will be asked by new people that join, may as well have it here
  2. Niteowlneils 20:36, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC). Same reasons I oppose 2A, plus what Violet said.
  3. Wikipedia takes a very laid-back attitude to style: articles should be made to conform, eventually, but people need not: that is, if you don't want to take care of it, someone else will. In light of this, I don't think the fact that some people may be ignorant of policy or bothered by instruction creep should stop us from setting a useful policy for the benefit of those who do want one. —Triskaideka 21:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. I, for one, have come across many, many ambiguous missing serial commas in my editing. The claim that people use serial commas in ambiguous situations is simply incorrect. A final word on the subject is absolutely necessary. Deco 00:27, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. Nunh-huh 01:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC). Use of the Oxford comma is a perfectly reasonable style guide recommendation.
  6. James F. (talk) 01:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) Indeed, Oxford commas are very much a better style of list.
  7. Factitious 07:07, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC). Even worse than 2A. This is one of the areas where consistency is necessary.
  8. PhilHibbs 09:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. I favor the serial comma and we need to explain clearly what the policy is. PedanticallySpeaking 22:02, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Jallan 03:09, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) I presume the reason why this appeared is that it is a point on which opinions of prestigeous style guides have changed over the years. What was taught to many in school as right, following some of those same guides, is now wrong. If anything this needs better explanation.
  11. Removing the section without explanation will just lead to confusion. Angela. 03:13, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Rednblu | Talk 18:41, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) I vote for what Angela said.
  13. Sietse 21:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) Ambiguity problems in lists are an issue that should be addressed by policy, so I think 2(a) is better.
  14. john k 21:28, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) We have to have some sort of advice on what to do, don't we? john k 21:28, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

English versions

In Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style--Draft Trim discussion archive, Jguk said: “Where we can, we should avoid using language that marks it out as being US/UK or as preferring one particular style of writing words over another.” He has made similar statements elsewhere.

I believe that his view in this regard is at least part of the basis for the poll above. If so, probably that is what should be discussed, at least initially to see if anyone shares his view. Maurreen 12:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Style guide philosophy

In my view, some of the issues concerning this style guide might be resolved more easily if we decided some general philosophical issues that could guide future decisions. For example, these could include whether we think it should be more concise or more detailed, or how formal to be with the language. Any comments about such a possible philosophical underpinning? Maurreen 12:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I favor a concise, prescriptive guide, clear and to the point, but one which also contains links for each item to sub-pages giving rationale for that rule, further examples, reasons for debate, and so on. In some cases the sub-page might contain nothing but links to sections in discussion page archives and external links to sections of other style manuals on the web or discussions of the points being considered. The main guide would be short for those doing a quick look to see if there is a rule there and what it might be. But if someone wants fuller examples, more clarification, or discussion of the rationale behind the rule along with what objections may have been raised to the rule, the information is only one or two clicks away. Jallan 03:27, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jallan, all that sounds smart to me. A few other things I favor:
I think we don't need to be nearly as extensive as many other guides. I think the style can more or less evolve on a basis of what is needed.
The links you suggest above could also better integrate the specialized style guides, etc. For example, "Dates" could link to the Dates and Numbers style guide or the dates section within it, or a similar set up.
I'd also like a more alphabetical organization and possibly cross-references. That is, a user could find "commas" under "C" (and perhaps also under "punctuation). But I think most style guides favor the topical approach, so I'd understand if anyone objected. Hopefully, the guide could eventually evolve so people could find things very quickly regardless of how they look things up.
Clarity and accuracy are two top guiding principles.
Maurreen 06:28, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm all for a concise, prescriptive guide, that is clear and to the point, together with subpages giving examples of how the policy in the prescriptive guide may be implemented in practice. The subpages should be clearly marked as being non-binding guidance (ie they are not policy), but should, of course, be consistent with the concise, prescriptive policy in the Manual of Style proper. I don't mind a short discussion of why something is policy on a subpage, but any detailed discussion and arguments should be moved to the talk page of any subpage.
I also note that we have other 'style' type guidance on Wikipedia other than the Manual of Style (including its supplements). Wikipedia:How to edit a page and a host of other articles in the Wikipedia namespace that show how to write better articles. I'm trying to condense the latter type into one document on User:Jongarrettuk/Better writing guide, and will propose it as a consolidation of existing guidance (that is not policy) shortly.
I see these as three interconnected streams. Wikification (How to edit a page); a Style Guide that is policy (Manual of Style, including supplements); and suggestions as to how to write better articles (currently numerous articles that I will shortly propose consolidating). Some mixture of the subpages Jallan suggests and a Better writing guide (all properly ordered so it is easy to find related topics) in addition to a shorter, but definitive, policy in the Manual of Style, and would certainly make sense to me. I certainly agree with Maurreen that some sort of order and cross-referencing needs to be put into the supplemental Manuals of Style so that it's easy to find things. jguk 10:02, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That sounds good overall. Maurreen 06:05, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Visual presentation

Along the lines of what Jallan suggested about organizing supporting material for the style guide, I've been working on organizing the archives topically. One of these is called "Visual presentation."

I'm not sure what's the best title. Other options include "Layout" or "Design." What do you think? Maurreen 07:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I like "Visual presentation". "Layout" or "Visual design" would also be OK. Just "Design" would be bad, because the term has such a broad meaning. —AlanBarrett 19:02, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Connexion

I recently executed a vendetta against the word "connexion". Although it occurred primarily in EB 1911 articles, there are a few users actually actively using this obsolete spelling, and not in reference to the church organization. To quote American_and_British_English_differences#..._-xion_.2F_-ction:

The spellings connexion, inflexion, deflexion, reflexion are now somewhat rare, perhaps understandably as their stems are connect, inflect, deflect, and reflect and there are many such words in English that result in a -tion ending. The more common American connection, inflection, deflection, reflection have almost become the standard internationally.

Shall we add a bit of policy to make these four words officially spelled in the American way? Deco 07:35, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's needed. Maurreen 07:48, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Whilst 'connexion' is perhaps indeed relatively seldom used – but is, mind you, perfectly permissible according to dictionaries and it has not quite disappeared – the other three words, inflexion, deflexion and reflexion, are all very common, particularly in linguistics, maths and chemistry (and probably the other sciences). To name just one recent series, 'inflexion' and 'reflexion' are both spelt thus in Further Pure Mathematics (Gaulter, B., Gaulter, M., Oxford University Press, 2001, ISBN 0199147353) and in Introducing Pure Mathematics (Smedley, R., Wiseman, G., same, ISBN 0199148031); admittedly, connection is with -ct-. The -x- spellings are most certainly not obsolete and there is no reason to make up some rule against their use. —Sinuhe 08:10, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
My fourpenn'orth:
  1. On a technical point, I'm not sure I agree with Deco that the spellings ending in -xion are obsolete (yet), though they may well become obsolete in the next few decades. Sinuhe's examples back up the non-obsolescence of the spelling (though I wouldn't use -xion myself except for the words 'crucifixion' and 'transfixion', where I would have though the -xion ending is far from obsolete).
  2. The spellings ending in -ction are not 'American', they are acceptable throughout the world.
  3. Having a policy saying 'we require the American spelling' is just going to annoy every non-American Wikipedian. We really should avoid preferring things because they are 'American'. (Though as I note above, there would be no need to call these spellings 'American' anyway.)
  4. I think American_and_British_English_differences#..._-xion_.2F_-ction needs changing in this regard (which I'll go and do now).
  5. I agree with Maurreen. I'm not sure we need a policy about this. jguk 08:17, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I really, really disagree with removing valid spellings of words because people have a personal dislike for them. "Connexion" is fine, and not at all obselete. The "vendetta" edits should all be reverted, and talk of a policy is decidedly the wrong way to go about things.
James F. (talk) 12:44, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I really believed this was an archaic spelling that was no longer in use, based on what I'd read and personal experience. I have nothing personal against the spelling, but just thought its rarity might damage reader comprehension. If it is an acceptable alternate spelling I apologise for my changes and the suggestion — but I would suggest that at least the edits to the EB 1911 articles be kept. Deco 17:27, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
One should think carefully before using the terms British spelling and American spelling. Dictionaries encourage their misuse. A British dictionary will list esthetic as an American spelling, quite rightly, as it is a spelling used very rarely in Britain and more commonly in the United States. But within the United States aesthetic is far more common. An American dictionary is likely to mark waggon as British use. It is a spelling sometimes used in Britain and more rarely in the U.S. But wagon is more common in both countries. Unfortunately a statement in a dictionary that something is an American spelling or a British spelling tends to be misunderstood to mean that it is the most common American spelling or the most common British spelling. For example, Advertize and advertizement are supposed American forms. But they are not the common American forms See advertizement or advertisement at [9]. Pam Peters here seems to think the forms hardly exist. However see [10] where H. L. Mencken in 1921 gleefully speaks of British usage:

... and yet I find surprized, advertizement and to advertize in the prospectus of English, a magazine founded to further "the romantic and patriotic study of English," and advertize and advertizing are in the first number.

That article is an excellent one, and could be updated for use today with different example words in many cases, but exactly the same words in others.
Different publishers and groups and organizations/organisations have different style guides, often mandating exactly what spellings are allowed. For example, see the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations style guide at [11] which insists on connection rather than connexion and so with other -xion words. Probably Deco's understanding came from some such source. It does appear that the -xion spellings are much deprecated and not "in style" today according to many, so therefore probably quite rightly described as "not the standard internationally. However, see [12]:

To which I can add that "connection" offers a similar problem: Chambers 21st Century Dictionary [4] lists "connection" first and then immediately adds "or connexion". Yet many leading British newspapers consistently use the "x" spelling.

See also [13]. A recommendation in style guides that one spelling should be used over another is actually good evidence that the other spelling is in use, otherwise there would no need for a recommendation on that point. And most style guides insist on one spelling per word, the silly things! :-( I do not see anywhere the in this guide a recommendaton to use "international" spellings. If there were, than we could start by eliminating British -ise spelling (along with reflexion and so forth) since international scholarly usage and international organization usage almost universally supports the -ize forms. In style sheet after style sheet one finds the spellings of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary mandated, with particular mention that -ize forms preferred by that dictionary must be used rather than the alternative -ise forms.
Jallan 21:34, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jallan - no, international usage does not "universally" shun the "ise" forms. They are commonly used by the European Union for one thing (apart from the fact that the more official UK usage is "ise" and this has a large bearing on international usage). Note the introduction to the EU at [14] – referring to "organisation" etc. at Wikipedia's European Union entry for example is correct *international* usage (not merely British, but specifically non-US). zoney ♣ talk 01:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The usage of Commonwealth English spellings isn't "specifically non-US" if that implies that only the U.S. uses -ize, etc. "American English is also used by countries and organisations, such as Japan, Liberia, and the Organization of American States, whose use of English is most influenced by the United States." (from American and British English differences) Therefore, while Wikipedia's European Union article properly calls it an organisation, Wikipedia's Organization of American States article properly calls it an organization. Returning briefly to this section's nominal subject, I never use the -xion spellings but I see no need to extirpate them. JamesMLane 00:26, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I referred to "international scholarly usage and international organization usage", not to all international usage. I admit I overstated even in that, as certainly the EU is at least an organization or organisation and is international. From one of their guides at European Commission Translation Service English Style Guide (with my own bolding):

Words in -ise/-ize. Use -ise. Both spellings are correct in British English, but the -ise form is much more common. It is the convention in most British book publishing, and in British newspapers. The Times converted overnight in the mid-1980s, at about the time two new broadsheets were founded (The Independent and The European), which have used -ise from the beginning. Using the -ise spelling as a general rule does away with the need to list the most common cases where it must be used anyway. (There are up to 40 exceptions to the -ize convention: the lists vary in length, most not claiming to be exhaustive.)

That this rule is here explained at length is probably in part because it does run counter to what had been common practice. The United Nations has always used OED British English English and still does. See their English website at [15]. So do many corporate standards organizations like ECMA [16] (though they are sometimes inconsistant). And, I reproduce here some references I placed on the Village Pump which indicate that -ize spellings are still often mandated in academic circles: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. I located these by searching on "-ize -ise" in Google. I only recall once seeing the oposite for international of scholarly use. I believe it was a style sheet from Australia or New Zealand which mandated use of the Concise Oxford Dictionary but also mandated use of -ise spellings. But I am sure there are others who have done similarly. As a counter-example, the Olympics organisation uses the -ise forms [27] (though a search shows that some z forms have crept into their text). But that is based in Britain.

Oddly, despite the -ise forms being "more official" (at least as being in common use by the British government and also more popular within Britain) the current editions of the New Oxford Dictionary of English, The Chambers Dictionary, Collins English Dictionary, and New Penguin English Dictionary all give priority to the -ize forms, sometimes leaving out the ise forms altogether on derived forms. These were the only British dictionaries I could quickly locate. Burchfield's Fowler's Modern English Usage says under -ize, -ise in verbs:

The matter remains delicately balanced but unresolved. The primary rule is that all words of the type authorize/authorise, civilize/civilise, legalize/legalise may legitimately be spelt with either -ize or -ise throughout the English-speaking world except in America, where -ize is compulsory.

But in Canada -ize is far more common while in Australia and New Zealand the -ise forms are the norm. Burchfield himself uses -ize, as did Fowler before him.

Under connection, Burchfield indicates that the Oxford University Press gave up their long-standing preference for connexion at some time between 1964 when connexion was the preferred spelling in the 5th edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary and 1976 when connection became the preferred form in the 6th edition. At that point academics would have largely dropped its use ... as it is by the convention of always using the preferred spellings of the Concise Oxford Dictionary, right or wrong, that much vain argument on how things should be spelt have long be avoided.

But as connexion is still in use in British English, there is no particular reason to go out of our way to ban it here, however deprecated it may in many style sheets. But I do not see that it would be altogether wrong to change the spelling when updating a 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. I suppose that the practice in 1911 was to follow the preferred spellings of the Oxford English Dictionary. Since the following Britannica editions including the most recent have mostly followed the spellings of the Concise Oxford editions of their day, it is reasonable to argue that one can leigtimately update spellings from the 1911 articles to the current Concise Oxford spellings.

Jallan 01:58, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
For what it's worth (and it probably isn't much), I grew up reading British authors like J. R. R. Tolkien and Agatha Christie (I had unusual tastes) so I am quite used to British spellings. Spellings with -re, -our, and -ise do not startle me in the slightest (in fact, I tend not to notice the difference). Connexion, however, still catches me off guard. For that reason, I would be inclined to change connexion to connection, on the basis that the latter form does seem to be well understood by everyone and the former will probably cause many to scratch their heads. Our goal ought to be clear communication. (I don't know that a rule is necessary, however.) -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 04:22, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, as to Tolkien, from The Lord of the Rings:

Since Meriadoc and Peregrin became the heads of their great families, and at the same time kept up their connexions with Rohan and Gondor, the libraries at Bucklebury and Tuckborough contained much that did not appear in the Red Book.

'Still, there may be no connexion between this rider and the Gaffer's stranger,' said Pippin.

There is a connexion with Bilbo's old adventures, and the Riders are looking, or perhaps one ought to say searching, for him or for me.

And so forth. I feel somewhat as Aranel does, that connexion is an odd spelling, that stands out, yet I don't believe I have ever really noticed it in Tolkien especially. Quite possibly for every time it strikes me as odd there are fifty times I just don't notice it. Reading is funny that way. A search on Google, set for English only, gives 22,900,000 hits for connection and 1,890,000 for connexion. That gives connexion a good 8% in usage. But a very large portion of the use is to Boeing Connexion and other brand names, connexion being the kind of cute spelling that fits this kind of thing. One can try to filter out the brand names. A search on "Harry Potter connexion" gets 3,390 hits while "Hary Potter connection" gets 435,000 hits. That's only 0.78% of usage. I tried some comparison with other names and connexion comes out at approximately 0.9% in total, nothing as low as 0.7% and nothing as high as 2.0%. But a look at the hit pages does show genuine usage. Can anyone in Britain support the claim that it is much used by newspapers?
Jallan 21:22, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A Google news search tells its own story; of the 127 matches, very, very few, all of them likely to be the work of non-native English speakers, use the spelling. Susvolans 12:43, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Even just a normal search, with restriction to English and in page text is very telling. Result: 1,480,000 pages, but Google only throws up 805 with the filtering of (" entries very similar to the 805 already displayed"). In browsing the first 100 entries and taking random samples of the rest, I found not one example of connexion used in ordinary text (i.e. not a company name or such). The actual usage of connexion in proper English must indeed be miniscule/non-existent, at least on the net. zoney ♣ talk 13:18, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Connexion" is a cute, old-fashioned variant of "connection". I rather like it, though I wouldn't use it. Note that any Google searches for the terms are likely to accidentally pick up quite a few instances of the French connexion. As for British newspapers, the Guardian Style Guide says "connection, not connexion". Chameleon 10:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Connexion" is ugly and outdated - it should not be used. I can honestly say that I'd not accept it in coursework submission. Next people will insist on using doth, gaole, quene, heddes and other things from here. violet/riga (t) 10:54, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree; I use "connexion" in my written English, but I wouldn't do so on Wikipedia, because it's unknown to some and an archæism to others, whereas "connection" will be recognised by all. Similarly, I use "gaol", but would put "jail" in Wikipedia, unless there was a compelling reason not to. Many British English readers would find "gaol" jarring, let alone "connexion". I would suggest policy on -ct-/-x- should be to favor the -ct- forms (unless there's a compelling reason not to, such as with the scientific examples supra). (Yes, I'm a Brit; yes, I spell -ou-/-o- words without the "u"; deal with it ;o) — OwenBlacker 12:13, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
What?? You're conservative enough to use old-fashioned stuff like "gaol" and "connexion", but you use the totally non-standard "favor"? Chameleon 12:21, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What can I say, I have quirky (written) English. :o) — OwenBlacker 12:28, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

I still can't see a need for a policy on this. Wikipedia accepts different writing styles. We don't have a style guide in the same way as a newspaper has (and even if that would be desirable from a consistency point of view, we shouldn't do it as if we did, we'd just drive away lots of readers and editors). Me: I'll go for connection, gaol and favour every time:) .jguk 20:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Same here. Leave it alone. Exploding Boy 21:03, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)


Re: Use straight quotation marks and apostrophes

Am I right that, despite this policy, what I have done with the mark „ in the Spanish-language text at Image:Fuero.JPG is correct, since I am transcribing a document? -- Jmabel | Talk 09:52, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

If you are transcribing, then reproduce exactly what you see there. If you then translate it into English, do not use that exotic punctuation. Chameleon 10:28, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Pardon me, but at Hawai‘i related subject articles, we have been using the left-quote-style ‘okina, because its appearance is preferred both in Hawaiian and Hawaiian English. I think an exception should be stated for situations where certain conventions are preferred even in English standards, such as in Hawaiian English. We do not use "Hawai`i", nor "Hawai'i". We use "Hawai‘i". - Gilgamesh 08:44, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think the ‘okina is a different issue. It's not really an English apostrophe or speech mark. Chameleon 14:07, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Part of the reason for using straight marks is consistency and part is technological issues. Not everyone uses browsers or operating systems that support the extended Unicode characters. See Quotation mark#Curved quotes in English for a good explanation. The MediaWiki Handbook also provides a list of safe characters at Help:Special characters. And if you read down further in the document you will see that double quotes can be entered by using the entities „ and ” („ and ”). —Mike 20:16, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

New template

I've created a new template to make it easier to navigate between all the various bits of guidance. I'll try it on this page first and roll it out more generally if people are ok with it. The template itself can be edited on Template:Style. jguk 10:38, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you're going to put all of that into a template, maybe you should add the "Further information" section to it. All of it is "further information." Maurreen 17:38, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm tempted to add Wikipedia:How to edit a page and Wikipedia:The perfect stub article (and also Wikipedia:The perfect article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article which don't appear as "further information"). The other stuff in "further information" isn't really guidance on style, so wouldn't be suitable for the template. jguk 17:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Draft trim

In line with the "style guide philosophy" section listed above, I have produced a concise version of the current Manual of Style. I have tried not to delete key policy and that is not my intention, I will reinsert bits that are missing. The aim is to shorten the Manual (and considerably too), but without changing policy. Guidance on how the Manual can be applied can then go on subsidiary pages. Going through the Manual has made me think that there's too much on links in the Manual (most, if not all, of it is already covered where it should be covered on Wikipedia:How to edit a page). I'm also thinking of tabulating the Capital letters section.

My proposed version is on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Draft trim (November 2004). Please leave detailed comments on its talk page: Wikipedia talk:Draft trim (November 2004). A comparison of the current manual and the proposal can be seen on [28]. jguk 16:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It appears that you have reorganized some things also. I disagree with considering reorganizing under the scope of a trim. I'm not sure what you mean by tabulating the Capital letters section. I disagree with deleting the "Further information" section and the following:

ca:Viquipèdia:Llibre d'estil da:Wikipedia:Stilmanual es:Wikipedia:Manual de Estilo ga:Lámhleabhar Stíle he:ויקיפדיה:המדריך לעיצוב דפים ja:Wikipedia:スタイルマニュアル minnan:Wikipedia:Siá-chok ê kui-hoān ro:Wikipedia:Manual de stil sl:Wikipedija:Slogovni priročnik fi:Wikipedia:Tyyliopas sv:Wikipedia:Rekommendationer zh-cn:Wikipedia:格式指南/简 zh-tw:Wikipedia:格式指南/繁

Maurreen 18:15, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Taking your points in reverse order. I don't mean to get rid of all the interwiki links, I just haven't copied them across yet as I don't know whether they work like category links and appear somewhere or not. On the further information section, I intended only to delete the two bits I've now deleted on the MOS proper. I'll readd the other links.
I've just rechecked. The further information is sitting there under See also. In compliance with MOS policy it should be called either See also or Related topics. Hence the renaming:) jguk 18:29, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
By tabulating I mean having three columns. The first column will have the subheadings pretty much as they are now. The second column would be 'Start with a capital letter', the third column 'Do not start with a capital letter'. If this is not clear, maybe I should just try it out - see what you think (and see if I think it works too:) ).
I think a reorganisation very much is necessary as part of a draft trim, though on reflection perhaps draft redraft may be a more accurate description. I reorganised as some stuff was duplicated. The trim removed the duplication, and a reorganisation was needed to tidy this up. And anyway, I don't think the reorganisation is too extreme (eg one of the things I've done is move a one sentence section called 'Contractions' into 'Punctuation'. Is that objectionable?). That said, if there are particular elements you think should be put back in their current order, let me know and I'll change the draft. jguk 18:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It is hard to compare both deletions and reorganizations. One thing is, I think the stuff in the draft's "article name" section" should be put back wherever it came from. I think a table for capitalization just makes more complication. Maurreen 18:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have now put the stuff removed from Section to Article Name back to Section. I may try constructing a table. I have a feeling that once constructed we'll either both agree it should be kept, or both agree it shouldn't be put into the article. jguk 18:57, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Draft trim and restructuring

In line with the "style guide philosophy" section listed above, I have produced a concise version of the current Manual of Style. I have tried not to delete key policy and that is not my intention, I will reinsert bits that are missing. The aim is to shorten the Manual (and considerably too), but without changing policy. Guidance on how the Manual can be applied can then go on subsidiary pages. Going through the Manual has made me think that there's too much on links in the Manual (most, if not all, of it is already covered where it should be covered on Wikipedia:How to edit a page). I'm also thinking of tabulating the Capital letters section.

My proposed version is on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Draft trim (November 2004). Please leave detailed comments on its talk page: Wikipedia talk:Draft trim (November 2004). A comparison of the current manual and the proposal can be seen on [29]. jguk 16:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments

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

Right floating TOC

Should the TOC be floating right instead of left-aligned? Please see Wikipedia talk:TOC. Angela. 17:19, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

The guidelines currently suggest that more than one link to the same target "may be considered" too much if the links are within 40 lines of each other. I think we should distinguish between paragraphs of text, and tables. Paragraphs are usually read from beginning to end, and more than one link to the same target within the same paragraph (or even within the same multi-paragraph section) is unlikely to be useful. However, in tables such as those in List of asteroids (1-1000) or List of Members of the European Parliament 2004-2009, I think it's useful for every cell to be linked. Tables are often searched to find a particular entry of interest, and the reader might easily ignore everything outside the one entry of interest, so it's useful if the entry of interest has links for all the relavant terms, whether of not those same terms are also linked elsewhere in the article. —AlanBarrett 21:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Maurreen 05:17, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree as well. Matt 04:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Punctuation as punctuation

When words are written about as words, they are italicised. But what is the convention when punctuation is written about as punctuation? Should the punctuation marks be italicised in the same way? I notice that there are inconsistancies within the articles about punctuation.

For example, should one write, "The & sign," or write, "The & sign"? Zoggie50 22:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How about something like: "The ampersand (&) is..." —Mike 23:28, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

In other words, a punctuation symbol should never be used directly, but referred to by name instead. The symbol should only be used the first time that it is referred to, in which case it should be enclosed in parentheses. Zoggie50 14:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Maurreen 16:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

O.K., a bit off topic, but you three seem to know your stuff: Where is it most clearly spelled out in these pages when to italicize and when to use quotes? Most articles bounce back and forth between the two, and the M.O.S. isn't too "specific"/specific on the subject. My impression was that italics are to be used here in many situations where one would elsewhere use quotes. Thanks.Sfahey 04:17, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Suggested amendment to Usage and Spelling

I would like to see a small change in the following rule. Instead of "Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings..." I would like to see an emphasis that collections of articles be required to maintain spelling, so that categories (particularly Category:Colors) do not contain a mish-mash of different spellings. Darrien 14:08, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

I disagree. Too hard to settle. Maurreen 14:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
By the looks of it - to obtain consistency (which is required by the MOS already), you just need to change Buff (colour), Cream (colour) and Orange (colour) so that American spelling are used. Not hard to settle at all (and no need for a revision to the MOS either). jguk 15:57, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but we brits will complain... Color just looks too ugly to our eyes ;). --NeilTarrant 18:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Consistency within one article is hard enough to achieve; spelling consistency across multiple articles seems pointless and unlikely to be achieved. Make a redirect from Orange (color) if you like (there is one already), but please don't move Orange (colour). —AlanBarrett 20:56, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think it's perfectly accetable to attempt to attain standard disambiguation within a certain subject. It is not at all unreasonable to move Orange (colour) to Orange (color), if the latter format was in use by other articles first. But one cannot expect the editor of one article to have necessarily read and discovered the conventions of every single article in the same subject area. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 21:20, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I do not find any rule about spelling consistancy being demanded by the MoS within a collection of series of aricles, despite jguk's claims. What is a collection of articles: all articles on parrots, all articles on the Jurassic era, all articles on sailboats, all articles on Egyptian gods? The meaning of collection would have to be defined very clearly first. I don't think it worth the trouble. I notice that Darrien is mentioned at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Current requests for Arbitration#Arminius and Darrien as attempting to "Americanise the project". I have just reverted an edit by Darrien at White guilt, in which he had removed occurrences of the word colour and replaced them by references to blacks, a term discouraged by Wikipedia MoS. He justfied this as being "neutral English", even though it changed the meaning of what was being discussed. As I've stated before on this page, removing words because they happen to have two spellings is not neutral. It is an attempt to lay down on Wikipedia a unique and original dialect of English used nowhere else. In Wikipedia one accepts that many articles will contain divergent spellings. Such inconsistancy across articles is invited by the MoS.

Jallan 01:07, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That request was filed by a disgruntled user with a history of inserting anti-American bias into articles. He was blocked by an admin shortly after for incessant personal attacks. According to his user page, he no longer contributes here.
Darrien 01:31, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
I absolutely disagree with this notion, unless we switch to having a default of English (i.e. the standard international form) for all articles not specifically pertaining to the US (or other countries where American spelling is standard).
I also would not regard removing US bias as "anti-American".

zoney ♣ talk 02:00, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neither would I. I was refering edits such as these [30]
Darrien 03:09, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
A reasonably accurate edit, although certainly leaving much to be desired in its tone (not particularly anti-American, but certainly inclined to elicit strong reactions from people such as yourself). While careful wording is often needed in Wikipedia policy, it does no justice to us to pretend that US influence on the English language is anything but quite dominant. It's pertinant to ensure that Wikipedians (and particularly those from the US) are aware of this. In the case of "billion", it's quite sensible to explain the history involved - thus preparing a user for those who will indeed fight vehemently against the assumed "standard" usage for 1,000,000,000. zoney ♣ talk 16:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Darrien's POV on this is very one-sided.

That's to be expected in any conflict.
That does not justify it.

Though user:Chameleon was blocked, the block was quickly reverted by Theresa Knott. See User talk:Theresa knott#Bias. Theresa and three other admins reprimanded Arminius (who kept reblocking) on his misuse of blocking power. See [[31].

What does that have to do with me?
It has to do with setting your statements in a more revealing context. Jallan 16:45, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nor do I see any anti-American bias in [32] which seems to be a straighforward and true explanation of how the difference in the meaning of billion came to be. Probably it didn't belong there, but instead in the [billion]] article. But it was not removed for that reason, but supposedly because it was POV. I don't see the POV.

You think that "Nowadays the English-speaking world has almost entirely succumbed to American influence on the matter" is not biased?
It is not biased, if it is true. There are contradictory meanings of the world billion. One has mostly triumphed over the other. What produced the triumph of one meaning over the other if not American influence? (It wasn't British influence and it wasn't innate superiority of one usage over the other.)

I'm becoming very sympathetic to user:Chameleon who left Wikipedia in disgust after the unwarranted blocks. Jallan 21:03, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Don't worry, he'll be back. I think this is the third time he was "leaving for good". On a side note, I'm glad that you've publically admitted to being sympathetic to a user that calls people liars, bigots, chauvanists, vandals, dickheads, and "wiccan freaks"; it has prevented me from ever asking you for a neutral opinion.
Darrien 09:59, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)
A user can be rude and obnoxious but entirely correct in particular cases. A users can be polite and soft-spoken but entirely wrong in particular cases. Anyone who wishes can view your edit history and easily make up his or her own mind whether all of your pushes for U.S. spelling in articles are justified and whether attempting to remove a word entirely when you can't get your way in the matter of spelling is justified. Jallan 16:45, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What is the motivation for uniformity within an article? Right! So does that extend across multiple articles, of any grouping? No. Only one article is shown at a time. Simple. Lets leave our baggage on the porch. --Wetman 02:05, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Divergence

Um, some of this conversation seems to be diverting from the topic of the style guide. Maybe it should be moved elsewhere? Maurreen 16:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposal for style change

I would like to propose that links not have additional character styles applied (such as bold or italics). As a professional technical writer/editor, that has been the convention whenever I have dealt with HTML writing/editing. (Besides, it just looks ugly.) I know that this would go into effect slowly since people learn by imitation, rather than reading the style guide, but I have started making these changes wherever I see them. User:Ksnow

In my opinion, whether or not something is a link should be independent of whether or not it is emboldened or italicised. However, could you provide some links to diffs for edits you have made where you think removing bold or italic markup improved an article? —AlanBarrett 20:42, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposal to remove consistent synonym recommendation.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Usage and spelling contains a recommendation about words with variant spellings where their spellings are typical of different forms of English:

If the spelling appears within the article text, also consider a consistent synonym such as focus or middle rather than center/centre.

The sentence fist appeared on June 29 of this year, added by Adamsan.[33] There is no related discussion on the talk pages of that period. I myself first noticed it on October 18 when looking through Maureen's draft trim. I was surprised that I had not noticed it before. My comment was:

This advice is horrendous! Is there another style guide in the world that would suggest one should reconsider using normal, everyday English words because they have more than one common spelling? The result of this, if people paid any attention, would be a non-standard Wikipedia dialect of English, limited to spelling-neutral vocabulary. Better to go with a fixed spelling, whether US or Britsh or whatever, than this![34]

Maureen suggested, quite rightly, that we not deal with substantive changes when considering the draft trim, and I let the matter pass at that time.

I believe the sentence should be removed because:

1 Advice of this kind almost certainly does not appear in any other English style guide or style manual.
Generally Wikipedia follows the standard styles recommended by other manuals, sometimes choosing one recommendation over another.
2 Following this recommendation to any great extent, that is doing more than simply considering, would produce a non-standard English within Wikipedia.
Common, ordinary words used widely in English would be discouraged in Wikipedia alone. The deprecation rules would be seen as a joke to any reader who knew of this policy, who would giggle to see hue used so widely in place of semi-banned color/colour, taste instead of flavor/flavour, brimstone instead of sulphur/sulphur. The result of this bias against normal words would not be a neutral English but a bogus, neutered English.
3 This recommendation has no consensus.
I do not believe this new recommendation is widely known. On the Village Pump jguk attempted to gain support for a stronger implementation of this rule, without mentioning the weaker version on the MoS. He got no support. Maurreen recently brought up the matter on this page, asking if anyone supported jguk's proposal. There was no response. I believe this indicates no interest in the spirit of this rule.
4 This recommendation is a dangerous tool for spelling conflict.
There many debates now about whether particular spellings should be used in particular articles without this in addition. The article White guilt, contained British spellings from its creation on February 4 of this year, until a revision by Spleeman's August 20 reduced three occurrences of the word colour into two occurrences of the form color. At that time these occurrences of colour were the only remaining specifically British forms, though some subsequently appeared. On November 18, Iota, who had previously done a major overhall on the article, made some further changes and, in particular, changed to the occurrences of color to colour and mentioned in the edit summary: "restandardised to BE which has been in article since early on". The following day Darrien changed the references to people of colour to blacks, a change he explained by the edit summary: "Use neutral English". When I suggested on the talk page that the change was an incorrect one, Darrien cited the rule here being discussed. Darrien has previously been vigorous in pushing American spelling ... not always wrongly in my view. But a rule encouraging a change of this kind seems questionable, a method of forcing out spellings one does not like. I suppose someone could now fight back back by forcing similar "neutral" English on articles Darrien has written, citing this same rule. I do not think this was the intended purpose of the rule and I do think that the neutered English that would result is what most people want here.

Is there any support for retaining this rule?

Jallan 04:34, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments

For any and all of those reason, I agree with deleting it. Besides that, it's not written very clearly. Maurreen 06:17, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh dear, I added that in the hope that it would be used sensibly to avoid conflict rather than cause it. I'm all for a debate though and apologise for not running it through a consultation beforehand.

I disagree that it encourages the use of 'bogus, neutered English' as surely all words in a Wikipedian's standard lexicon are as 'authentic' as each other? It is up to the editor's personal choice as to the vocabulary he uses so whether or not people 'giggle' at it is a subjective decision. Is 'hue' really an intrinsicly funny word or does it have a valid role to play in certain sentences? Additionally I stressed that only consideration should be given as the advice can work in certain cases. I am not suggesting that Sulphur/Sulfur be moved to Brimstone but I note that Railroad and Railway redirect to Rail Transport. Some may giggle at the choice, but the practice of choosing consistent synonyms clearly exists and should be managed in some way.

Nor am I suggesting that all articles be rewritten in neutrally-spelt English, merely that the use of this system may in some cases reduce conflict in already contentious topics.

Is there any style guide that has to cope with numerous different regional orthographies? The wiki MoS has evolved in the face of differring styles from around the world whilst the style guides I have used in the past have been targeted at users of British or American English only. If we are breaking new ground in the subject by producing a style guide for all then past examples are invalid on this subject.

I think the example of the conflicts at White Guilt has more to do with the editor's choice of a poor synonym rather than a fault with the whole concept of choosing different words to make the text easier on the reader's eye. If colored/coloured is really the best word to choose then it should be used and spelt consistently.

As I say, I worded this as advice, that consideration should be given to the idea. No more than that. If the implementation needs tightening then I would be pleased to join in any effort to do this but I feel the idea has merit and although the style guide didn't mention it, this practice is occurring and needs to be acknowledged or things really will start happening in the manner of the Doomsday scenario Jallan describes. adamsan 09:07, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Because it says "consider", I see your point. But I've also seen "neuterization" of the language. I don't know what the solution is to the overall problem. That is, how we could get people not to get so excited about the issue of spelling and other national preferences. Maurreen 17:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
But then how is 'hue' more neutered than 'colour/color'? I can't understand this premise that some words are blander than others. If you mean that the advice contributes to the impoverishment of the language, I would disagree. If an editor is encouraged to give more consideration to the vocabulary he is using then surely it will contribute to a more varied and diverse use of English?

I agree that there are wider issues here though. adamsan 18:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is one situation where I think a Google test is appropriate.
Hue: 2.9 million
Colour: 143 million
Color: 179 million
This indicates to me that people are more likely to use the word “colour” than “hue” by a factor of about 50 to 1. “Hue” in at least general contexts has no other possible merit over either spelling of the word. It would sound stilted and awkward if all instances of “color” or “colour” were changed to “hue.” Maurreen 18:31, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Incidentally, "Rail transport" isn't neutral. The U.S. version would be "Rail transportation". "Trains" might be better all around. Maurreen 18:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Trains" would not be acceptable to me - it's quite simply incorrect as a general form in British English. Contrast "train station" and "railway station" (the latter is the correct title in the British Isles and elsewhere). I should also point out, that it is simply not possible to acheive consensus on many topics. See rail terminology. The vocabulary for rail topics evolved almost completely separately in the US and UK (and even separate elsewhere). So topics (such as railroad tie vs. sleeper) simply have to be named one or the other. zoney ♣ talk 18:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree with getting rid of this rule. I have only ever seen it cited by spelling partisans who use it as a justification for replacing spellings they dislike. - SimonP 19:04, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that when it comes to things that need their own page titles then any attempt to regularise orthography fails horribly. And I am not suggesting that we do a Wiki-wide Find and Replace, like globally changing 'colour' to 'hue'; that would indeed be ridiculous. What I was hoping to achieve was to avoid low-level spelling conflicts when less important words like 'center' get needlessly changed to 'centre' in articles on..I don't know... Grasshoppers or something. By encouraging use of consistent synonyms (and thesaurus.com lists about 30 for centre as a noun alone) I hope that the wiki can produce articles where editing time is not wasted arguing about spelling. A possible side benefit is that editors will use more varied language, thereby widening everyone's vocabulary! Hooray! :-) adamsan 19:31, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A recommendation only to "consider" is hardly a recommendation. It could just as well be replaced by its opposite:

But if the spelling appears within the article text, normally it is not necessary to consider a consistent synonym such as focus or middle rather than center/centre.

This strongly implies that in some cases such consideration might have value (which is true) and appears to be closer to adamsan's intent as stated than what was written. I would find this far more acceptable.

But is there use in stating something so obvious when the number of times when it can be valuably employed are few and specialized and probably obvious.

"Railway" and "railroad" are different words, which is another issue, though in such cases forced attempts to find neutral synonyms are sometimes worth a giggle at tightrope attempts to balance two opposed usages. But such articles will normally use both terms in their respective enviroments, speaking of railroads in Britain and railways when talking of the United States, rather than banning the words altogether.

But that some few find color and center intolerable and some few find colour and centre intolerable should not influence most people's choice of words at all. Why should I consider using middle over centre or center only to placate spelling bigots, those who dispise one or the other of the spellings, who think a particular spelling is correct rather than merely conventional? And who else but spelling bigots care about the matter? Books appear world wide with words spelled variously and most people don't particularly notice the spelling in most of what they read. If the U.S. converted totally to British spelling, what real difference would it make? If Britain converted totally to U.S. spelling, what real difference would it make? People would still be writing and reading exactly the same words. Choice of a word should very rarely have to do with avoiding words that have more than one spelling. How many writers anywhere have ever normally avoided a word because it has more than one spelling?

Jallan 19:16, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good points. I agree that this cannot be enforced in a hard-and-fast way but disagree that it can only be employed on rare occasions; there are lots of examples of centre, labor, grey, licence and practise cropping up in article texts. I realise that the MoS prefers rules rather than recommendations however and if we can only put comments in it that refer to contextual things then this would be better off elsewhere. As to the spelling bigots, using a non-controversial spelling will keep them off your watchlist! I am not spelling bigot and like to respect the hard-fought conventions so far thought up. I am concerned at the time, effort and vitriol spent chopping and changing and I suppose my addition to the MoS looking for a way out of this problem. As for books, they have one author who can write what he wants, the wiki has lots of us jostling to edit away, all with our different Englishes. adamsan 19:31, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think there are incidences where using a synonym (or some other explanation of terms that are used) is particularly desirable. I'm thinking of words and phrases that are so peculiarly British or American or Australian, or whatever, that they have not entered into general International usage. (See List of British English words not used in American English; List of American English words not used in British English; List of words having different meanings in British and American English; Britishism.) Using words on these lists (without further explanation) will just confuse international readers - entirely if terms like "public school" are bandied about liberally.
Clearly this doesn't apply to "colour". Anyone understanding the word "colour" will also understand the word "color" and vice versa. So may I just that we change policy so that we advise either to avoid using words peculiar to a particular type of English or, failing that, to require explanation? jguk 22:01, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


I don't think this very good piece of advice should be abandoned entirely. It's a good tool for compromise. Over at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, we recently dealt with the athletes/sportspeople/sportspersons/whatever confusion by choosing "Olympic competitors" instead. Not only is the intended meaning conveyed unambiguously, but the new terminology has the potential of including Olympic teams, making it more useful.
Words like center/centre and colour/color are not good examples. Communication is not impeded by choice of one or the other. Your average American has no trouble with (and in fact may not notice) an occurence of colour. This technique is more useful with words like athletes, where the same word conveys very different information. Our goal should be mutual understanding. Spelling variations do not hinder understanding (usually), but other usage variations can.
jguk's reference to the lists of words specific to one variety of English was very appropriate. Those are the kinds of words that may require a compromise. Minor spelling variations do not. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This part of the style guide should be kept. It is a useful way to resolve edit conflicts over spelling. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 03:45, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
I can see some value in resolving edit wars, and that might be worth a compromise in the style guide. But why can't edit wars be resolved using the general guidance on national preferences? Maurreen 04:39, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unclear words

Some of the above discussion has veered into the topic of expressions which have different meanings in different countries, or exist in one country but not another (or countries, as the case may be). I'd like to suggest moving that topic here. Maurreen 11:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The quotation in the style guide

Material which is taken verbatim from another source generally deserves to noted as such. In the lead section of our style guide, attribution to The Chicago Manual of Style was removed, and I am going to restore it. Maurreen 11:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jguk has replaced this:

In this regard the following quote from The Chicago Manual of Style deserves notice: Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity."

with this:

But rules on style (like not starting sentences with a conjunction) are made to be broken. They are not observed rigidly and they change with time. Any guide has its limitations, and where necessary or appropriate, they are diverged from.

I diagree with this change. For one thing, it is no improvement, there is no need. For another, saying Rules are made to be broken is much stronger than saying that rules aren’t rock-ribbed law. Maurreen 19:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The improvement I am seeking is to change the beginning of the article from having an academic and USian feel, to being neutral and inclusive. Since we ask all Wikipedians wherever they are and whatever their background to use this Manual of Style guide, it should adopt an inclusive approach. jguk 19:27, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The sentiment in the quotation is universal to every style guide I am familiar with and is not in the least bit "USian" (hmm, pretty "stylish" word) and the replacement wording was much weaker. There is plenty of "Britainian" sentiment in the style guide, including all the stuff about spelling and use of quotations, for instance. The qauotation has also been in the style guide since its very first iteration. As the paragraph two below says, don't make fundamental changes (such as replacing the epigraph) without discussion. Ortolan88 19:50, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC), original author/compiler of style guide

I've no idea what "Britainian"'s meant to mean. Maybe it's one of these purely American words that needs explaining to others. Anyway, my point is that I think the article should be neutral. Putting British comments in is hardly neutral from an Australian, South African, Indian, New Zealand, Canadian, Nigerian, Kenyan, etc. perspective. I'd happily get rid of all the references to British style guides too. Finally, a quotation from a style guide that is not adopted as the Wikipedia style is not fundamental, and neither are edits to it. After all, as we are constantly reminded: if you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. :) OK, I'm being a bit cheeky and a bit flippant. But everything can be improved, and making policy internationally neutral is an improvement. After all, you may have started the article, but can you as an American honestly say you (at least subconsciously) did not adopt a USian POV? jguk 20:27, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, anything can be changed. And then changed back. And Jguk, because you are the person seeking the change, and the person at least apparently in the minority so far, the burden is on you to persuade others.
I'm not aware of anyone else offended by a quotation from a U.S. book. Are we to neutralize anything that is related to any country? Or set quotas?
I asked some time ago, early during your poll on "U.S." and serial commas, about your preference for what you call language neutrality. Neither you nor anyone else responded.
If you want language neutrality, I ask you to do that discussion. Maurreen 21:01, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
While I disagree with any intention to remove the statement because of any US/UK bias, it does seem silly to include a quotation from a style guide when the guide is not used for wikipedia, and it is just a seemingly minor paragraph. It seems to be offering a justification for this statement when none is needed. --NeilTarrant 21:11, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This is a trivial point, and I suspect you may have been partially ironic when you said "I've no idea what "Britainian"'s meant to mean" , but I think it was itself an ironic response to your use of the Wikipedia colloquialism / neologism "USian". [Although perhaps "UKian" would have been a better equivalent.] As for whether the quote should stay or go, here are my thoughts:
  • there is no "bias" inherent in quoting a particular style guide; it doesn't imply the superiority of that guide, or its country of origin.
  • nor is there any reason not to replace the quote with something better, if the quote is felt not to reflect the message intended.
  • however, the replacement used, as pointed out, produces quite a radical change in the tone or degree of the message, which warrants specific discussion. There is an old page called Wikipedia:Ignore all rules - a proposed rule that proved rather controversial; a lot of people feel that bending the rules (as implied by the original quote) is significantly different from breaking them (as implied by the revised line).
  • if we don't want to make this significant change, I don't see any reason not to keep the quote as is; sure, we could put it in the words of one or more Wikipedians, rather than one or more Chicagans, but really, why bother? - IMSoP 23:37, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would also like to see the quote from / referral to an external US source removed. If necessary, a suitable replacement can be written (I'm not suggesting the replacement offered thus far is acceptable). zoney ♣ talk 23:56, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Chicago Manual of Style is to be used for deciding Wikipedia style, as are the other works referenced in the MoS. That is stated in the MoS in the section When All Else Fails. That the Chicago Manual of Style and other style guides agree on something has often been one reason why consenus has been reached on various issues of style. Where they disagree, then a special rule may be necessary in Wikipedia, or the matter may left up to individual editors to choose which style to follow. And the custom of quoting something which is especially well said from another work is a common one. jguk has continually attempted to change the meaning of passages in the MoS under guise of a trim. He wishes, it seems, to remove most indications of other works that may be consulted.

The MoS is not neutral. No prescriptive style guide is. Wikipedia's rules are not neutral. Had things been somewhat different when Wikipedia was set up, we would have somewhat different rules, perhaps worse, perhaps better, probably a bit of both. I have no problem with quotations from Australian style guides or South African style guides or a newspaper style guide from anywhere in the world, if what is said is is well said and appropriate. But there is no such thing as internationally neutral policy. Spelling, grammar rules, punctuation rules, and vocabulary differ from region to region and according to different kinds of writing and according to individual house style.

The Chicago Manual of Style is one of the most prestigeous style guides in the world for general writing and gains authority because it is so widely referenced. It is so widely referenced because it is very complete and very, very good, not because of any compulsion to reference it. A decision not to recognize The Chicago Manual of Style is no more neutral than one that recognizes it. That the Oxford Guide to Style is not listed, might be seen as non-neutral. So list it. But then what of Canadian style guides, and Australian style guides. So list one from each country. But which guide for each country? Then there are other guides as well. You could list every style guide known in the world, which would be silly, and the listing would still not be neutral, as it would suggest all had the same authority, which would be very non-neutral position to take.

Replacing a quotation from The Chicago Manual of Style with one's own words, is anything but neutral, especially when a change of meaning occurs. Replacing it with the words of any particular Wikipedian would similarly not be neutral.

Since jguk disagrees so greatly with the MoS as it stands, perhaps he might draft a complete new guide without worrying about the old one, remembering that one way is often as good as another, and that therefore the amount of work to change Wikipedia on any single policy to another that is no better itself speaks against any radical changes in style.

Jallan 06:05, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jguk's changes

Is anyone interested in discussing Jguk's recent changes? Please see the history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&action=history. Maurreen 11:09, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Or see diff between the versions of 18:55 26 Nov 2004 and 11:06 27 Nov 2004.

Support

I totally agree with them. violet/riga (t) 11:14, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I support all the changes visible in a diff between the versions of 18:55 26 Nov 2004 and 11:06 27 Nov 2004. —AlanBarrett 13:45, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree with the diff above. zoney ♣ talk 20:28, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

I reject these totally. Separate changes should be discussed separately, not altogether in a package. One thing at a time, please. I totally disagree with removing references to source material. We should have more referencest, rather than less. Document your sources. There are changes within this I do agree with, but am tiring of Jguk mixing of changes of different kinds together in a package. And is it Jguk's plan that throughout the manual of style, whenever mentioned, both period and full stop must be replaced by perfiod/full stop or full stop/period or similar concatinations? I am happy with either period and full stop. Neither bothers me. And the MoS, of all places, should not display such bad style as to repeat the synonyms again and again. It's rather insulting to the intelligence of the reader. And it looks like pandering to chauvinism. Jallan 23:08, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I concur with Jallan. Further:
  1. Saying "Fowler has guidelines for this" is weaker than "Fowler has good guidelines for this".
  2. Combining "full stop" and "period" as he has done does not follow the spirit of the style guide in that either British or American English is acceptable. It doesn't say both are required. Nor does it follow this: "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another."
  3. Changing the section on serial commas from "is used" to "should be used" weakens it.
  4. About using periods to abbreviate "United States": It is weakened by deleting "we want one uniform style on this".
I'd also like to point out that Jguk recently held a poll about the serial commas and "U.S." He failed to gain a majority. This is even though the poll was biased by him giving rationale for his proposals without giving equal prominence to any rebuttals.
If Jguk wants to weaken the style guide, or change it so it doesn't follow its own style, that calls for discussion. Maurreen 04:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let's work to an acceptable alternative to the quote at the top

Currently the Manual of Style starts with:

In this regard the following quote from The Chicago Manual of Style deserves notice: Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity.

In line with the discussion above, let's see if we can write our own Wikipedia version of this. Ie a version that retains the sentiment, but without the need to make an outside reference.

I'll start off, perhaps other editors can make tweaks as they see appropriate. jguk 11:21, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Suggested rephrasing (please suggest other options below)

The rules in this Manual of Style are not set down as permanent, fixed rules. They do not discuss every scenario that you will come across and must therefore be applied with elasticity. As both Wikipedia and English usage continue to develop, these rules will also change with time

Puzzlement and question

I do not understand or accept jguk's bias against external references, in an encyclopedia of all things. And I do not accept that semi-plagiarism is superior to quoting an original, especially when the point of the quotation is partly that it is well said.

That semi-plagiarism unfortunately does occur very commonly in Wikipedia is not a reason to openly encourage it.

What is not acceptable about the passage as it stands? Is it that is an external reference? There is no policy against that. Indeed, external references are encouraged. Is it that happens to be to a U.S. source? Then say no to the chauvinism that cares about such things. If not these reasons, what is bothersome about the original?

Jallan 23:34, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Further, there is no consensus to remove the quote.
I also second Jallan's suggestion: If Jguk finds the current style guide so disagreeable, it could be useful for him to draft a new version. Maurreen 03:16, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Since we're not talking about changing the policy, but just how it is stated, and there appears to be a majority in favour of a neutral, easy to understand rewriting, we should discuss a sensible replacement. jguk 08:04, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Neutrality"

Jguk, because your preference for what you call "neutral language" appears to be at the heart of much of what you do, why don't you have that discussion?

This is not a rhetorical question. I'd really like to know. Maurreen 11:49, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_5&oldid=1153821683"