Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Contents

Organization

This might be easier to read if it were a compact list with less description, and clustered more by type of style than by alpha. –SJ + 00:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to reorganize. I just tried to have something you could do a quick search through for finding the correct page. Circéus (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can be converted to a sortable wikitable with both alphabetical and topical organization. (I am giving this section the heading Organization.)

—Wavelength (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ofc bro 32.143.209.106 (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

vuvj 103.127.70.103 (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

Anyone object to renaming this page to something like WP:List of Manual of Style pages or something of the sort? We seem to speak of "the" manual of style, as comprising all these pages. Also I think WP rather than Help is the right namespace, since all the MoS pages are in the WP namespace (compare WP:List of policies, WP:List of guidelines, etc.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer (first) Wikipedia:List of subpages of the Manual of Style and (second) Wikipedia:List of Manual of Style subpages. If the name includes the word pages, then the list can include the main page of the Manual of Style.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather Wavelength's second: it's more succinct. Tony (talk)

I certainly prefer the succincter version too, but don't see why we need "sub" - the list does include the main page (and adding "sub" makes the title less succinct). But I don't really mind, it's still much better than the present title.--Kotniski (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

◤The second version is prone to misinterpretation, which can be avoided by means of hyphenation: Wikipedia:List of Manual-of-Style subpages or Wikipedia:List of Manual-of-Style pages.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use "MoS" rather than the ugly hyphenated version, if this is really felt to be an issue.--Kotniski (talk) 09:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page itself can be a subpage: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pages or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Subpages.

(I renamed Wikipedia:Manual of Style Register as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register.)

—Wavelength (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to do it that way, then WP:Manual of Style/Contents seems more appropriate.--Kotniski (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is acceptable to me, and seems to be the best option that anyone has suggested.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a shortcut, WP:MOS/C is still available.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any objections to this solution?--Kotniski (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not, so I'm going to do it.--Kotniski (talk) 10:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, this old version used the expression “Submanuals” in one of its headings.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge sections

The items under "Other relevant pages" ought to be moved to "Items outside article text". "Citing sources" contains important information about citation format and "Article titles" is largely stylistic. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct MLA citations in Cite this page

Hi -

I work with middle school students for whom the content of Wikipedia is often accepted as a "good source" for projects (e.g., ancient Egyptian gods) - and we were happy to see the Cite this page option - to make the process easier for the students. (We use NoodleTools - which has a "Quick Cite" function for citing sources). The problem is that although the MLA 8 ed is referred to in the article about citing sources, the actual citations available through "Cite this page" do not include the URL - as is required in MLA 8 and the citation should also not include "Wikipedia Contributor" as author. The relevant instruction in the MLA 8 handbook reads - "When a work is published by an organization that is also its author, begin the entry with the title, skipping the author element, and list the organization only as publisher). Can you put me in touch with someone who might be able to remedy this issue? It isn't a huge problem as all the information is laid out and the students can fill out the template manually,

(See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CiteThisPage&page=Dog&id=918619099 as an example)

Thanks.

LPSlibrarian (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic References

Hi,

I have a very specific question with MOS:GEOCOMMA, which states the following:

"In geographical references that include multiple levels of subordinate divisions (e.g., city, state/province, country), a comma separates each element and follows the last element unless followed by other punctuation. The last element is treated as parenthetical."

How should Washington, D.C., or other similarly abbreviated multi-level geographical references, be punctuated when not being used at the end of a sentence? In this way, "D.C." is followed by "other punctuation," but should it also be treated as parenthetical with a comma.

This may just be an edge case, but I have seen many instances with and without the comma, and not for other grammatical reasons so am very curious about it. Many of these are on prominent political pages (e.g., articles about former presidents), so I would need to know with certainty before editing.

Please advise.

Thank you.

Edward Bednar (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have always considered "D.C." to be subject to the same logic as, say, Oklahoma, per MOS:GEOCOMMA. That is, I don't believe there's anything special about the dots in "D.C." that make the parenthetical comma less appropriate. One could travel to Washington, D.C., to see one's Congresscritter and ask, but they might not see you. And I, too, have quite often noticed the missing comma following "D.C.", and it annoys me every time. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 12:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response, JohnFromPinckney. I really appreciate it. The missing comma annoys me every time, as well. But I'm still very new at editing and wanted to vet my understanding before starting to make those edits. Important to be precise on all articles, but especially so with the types that are mostly in need of this type of update.

It's really an edge case, but I also do not think that the MOS accounts for this scenario adequately and have left a similar question on the MOS Talk Page, as well.

I will now start making these types of edits. Please join me!

Thanks again,

Edward Bednar (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Edward Bednar. The comma after "D.C." should be used (if you don't write it "DC" anyway, as many of us do). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Military History

Lieutenant Colonel Robert L Barrows ChrisJon7 (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currency:

why is it that some country currency are higher than some Williwinwindy (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption

Is it possible for a country to stay without corruption Williwinwindy (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]