Wikipedia talk:Subject-specific guidelines proposal

Comments

I think that the MOS should take precedence in a conflict with a SSG section. Since MOS is being crafted as a generalize style guideline, nothing in a SSG section should really conflict with it. In fact, in the round of discussions that revised WP:ELG to become WP:RJL, we were clear to make sure that the guideline didn't conflict with guidelines on boldface text and icons. I imagine that similar discussions have taken place with respect to the other guidelines that would be included in this SSG.

A second comment is that this should not single out compliance with just Featured Articles. Ideally, if there's overlap between SSG sections, they should be harmonized. WP:SHIPS and WP:MILHIST, in my experience work together on the range of overlap between their projects. Should a section be proposed to be added to SSG that conflicts with an existing MOS or SSG section, the two sections should be harmonized. Imzadi 1979 → 09:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this stage I think WP:BRD. There is no point in discussing every issue. The point of the SSG is that they often running contra to the MoS so while Wikipedia:MOSICON says use the correct flag Wikipedia:IMOS#Flags and WP:RU says well for WP:RUIRLFLAG it's ok not too Gnevin (talk) 10:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see where some of the geographic-specific style guides need to override the general styles proscribed by MOS sections for various reasons. Imzadi 1979 → 11:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not an MOS regular at all, but this proposal makes sense to me (including SSG precedence) and I would support it upon reading the proposal and current comments.

Perhaps my one thought would be to add that subject guidelines should try to harmonize with other overlapping or parallel subject guidelines unless there is good reason not to, as their default design approach. In other words if a similar standard exists that can be adopted, default should be to adopt and reuse what can be well reused rather than create a completely different style (for a similar point or issue). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I fully understand but are you saying that if for example I was to create a SSG Aircraft I would use the current SSG Ships as the template? Gnevin (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More that you would generally keep it close to SSG on similar topics to "aircraft" (if any) rather than unnecessarily invent completely new things. In other words if there's no benefit to novelty, try and keep it similar to what's been done elsewhere. Only change where it's actually achieving something. It makes it easier for readers to follow. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree no need to reinvent the wheel for each SSG Gnevin (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up wording

I cleaned up the wording a bit and fixed several grammar issues. The meaning has not changed. You can see the changes here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 23:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed this but thanks for you efforts Gnevin (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much more?

Do we need much more here? Gnevin (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should we open a RFC to get more input? Gnevin (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name thought

Done

I love the idea of classifying style guides into general-usage guides that apply to almost all articles and subject-specific ones that are more limited in scope. I think I threw out such an idea some months ago. I'm thinking, though, that maybe the first "S" should stand for "subject" not "supplememtal". That change would, I believe, not only make the names of these guides more accurate (as they are guides for subject-specific usages) but also help prevent arguements that they can be ignored as they are merely "supplememtal". Cause you know that is going to happen. It will also help editors understand the guides' purpose, and therefore find the right guide for their needs if the subject-specific nature of these guides is put out front. Just my $0.02.oknazevad (talk) 12:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that ''subject style guide is clearer. Gnevin (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

I've used Irish flag examples 2 times here it would be nice to have a different example Gnevin (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation of species names would be another de facto example, but it's currently under discussion. Hans Adler 18:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Should this be marked as a guideline Gnevin (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would one have a separate page for this? Why wouldn't it be included in the MOS?Chhe (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is to be a subset of the main MOS for subject-specific content. This would simplify the main MOS so that it applies to all articles, but certain kinds of articles would have supplemental style guides. Imzadi 1979 → 02:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also currently the MoS contradicts itself in several places. SSGs as stated here and here have been designed to handled these contradictions in ways the MoS never could Gnevin (talk) 08:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

As an originator of the concept, I whole-heartedly support this proposal. Imzadi 1979 → 02:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as the most logical way to organize style guides while letting editors know their scope. oknazevad (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support To help limit the scope of the MOS to generic concepts and to help define some of the contradictions that must be in the MoS/SSG Gnevin (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think this accomplishes two things at the same time: (1) makes it easier for those editors who want to know "the full story" about the MOS to get an overview of all its generally applicable advice, and (2) encourages us to organise the subject specific parts better, so that someone with a specific problem and no idea where it could be discussed has a chance to find out where it is covered or, equally important, that it is not covered anywhere. Hans Adler 08:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Making SSGs easier to find and use would be a good thing. --Lord Pistachio ^talk 02:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support but it could and should be improved. (For example, "Articles in the scope of two or more SSGs" appears to suggest that in the article Arnold Schwarzenegger one should decide that either the style guide for actors or that for politicians should be picked as the "primary" one and used whenever the two conflict, while I think SSGs should be made in a way to make such conflicts as rare as possible, and when they happen anyway they should be decided on a case-by-case basis according to what would be better in the article, not according to which SSG says what.) A. di M. (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A largely logical and sensible proposal. I share some of the concerns expressed by other users but this is nonetheless better than the current system. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support as this is more of an organizational fix which won't have much effect on how they actually operate in practice. It's just formalizing how everything works and bringing some order to the tangled mess of MOS pages. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 23:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: An important step in the guideline rationalization process.—DCGeist (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's a centralist tendency to try to fix all style guidelines in one place; that, in practice, gives too much weight to the views of style pundits, and not enough to those of experts on the specific content. Hopefully this idea can restore some balance to the process. --Trovatore (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If this guideline can enforce strict scrutiny over subject-specific guides, making them all to the level of MoS, then this should be a welcome change. I believe that instruction creep would actually lessen should SSG enforce individual guidelines to adhere to high standards. That said, the SSG page itself may be better off as a sub-section in MoS. — Hellknowz ▎talk 23:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Moved from neutral. Oppose this pointless and confused process wonkery. Fences&Windows 16:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second. Playing musical chairs with names isn't particularly useful. Where the MOS and ahem "style guides" do conflict, it can be worked out via consensus. Normally there's no good reason why they should. Ironholds (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overly complicated instruction creep. We should be looking for ways to make Wikipedia less confusing and intimidating to new users, or for experienced users for that matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no practical benefits. This looks like it will involve changing a lot of page names (which is irrelevant; see The page name is not the guideline), while utterly ignoring the mess on (some of) the pages. No matter how the deck chairs are arranged, the problem that needs solving is the contents of these style guides, not their names. Additionally, many of these so-called "style guides" are nothing more than essays, and I oppose any wholesale re-naming efforts that would seem to canonize them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide covers more than just MOS issues such as page naming and that is clearly not part of the content of an article and so not part of the manual of style. It my well be that other style guides contain suggestions that are nothing to do with the MOS. -- PBS (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then it shouldn't be marked as part of the MOS so Gnevin (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That should be discussed on the talk page of the guideline. It is a style guide part of which is about style, but not all of it. -- PBS (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The IMOS examples that Gnevin bring up demonstrate that the current system works so I would have to agree with those that it seems like a needless over-complication. It can be clarified to editors that "MOS (xxx)" takes precedence over other the general MOS without without introducing another layer of complexity (just slap a sentence saying so into WP:MOS). There also doesn't seem to be a problem right now, nor would I see this as a solution did one exist. So if it ain't broke, don't fix it. --RA (talk) 08:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- the MOS is overcomplicated as it is, developing new categories of guidelines is moving in the wrong direction. Nor do we need to be encouraging people to create new guidelines for every subject out there; these are usually not a very useful practice in any case. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
System works, why change it? Does not really change anything... so better leave it as it is.--Garrondo (talk) 08:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the system ain't working and this changes just enough to improve the system Gnevin (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Instruction creep. --Lambiam 21:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wow. This !vote reflects a deep misunderstanding of instruction creep. Allow me to quote from the article you cite: "The constant state of flux in [complex organizations] often leads them to add or modify instructions, rather than simplifying or consolidating existing ones. This can result in considerable overlap in the message of directives, at the expense of clarity, efficiency, and communication, or even of consistency." This proposal is designed precisely to promote the consolidation, clarification, and consistency of the naming, structure, substance, and interrelationships of the many subject-specific guidelines that currently exist here under a bewildering variety of rubrics. We will be simplifying and streamlining our instruction regime by passing this proposal.—DCGeist (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How does it promote such clarity or consolidation? (i.e. what existing points of confusion are intended to be resolved?) Specifically, every point here seems either an obvious implication of WP:CONSENSUS, or related to the use of guideline tags that have no meaningful differentiation. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gnevin/SSGMED V WP:MOSMED . Which is clearer? Gnevin (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how the distinction between those two pages is relevant to the proposal. What's stopping you from just editing WP:MOSMED to look like your version? Christopher Parham (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOSMED is a style guideline and shouldn't contain any non stylistic advice Gnevin (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So just replace the style guideline tag with "guideline." Problem solved. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed guideline fails to provide a rationale for its existence – it never identifies what problem it is supposed to address. Much of it is common sense (such as "Where multiple kinds of guidance are given on one page, they should be clearly sectioned"), but guidelines can have innumerable kinds of imperfections, and it is pointless to single some out for a meta-"Manual of Style for style guidelines" – or else why not add that guidelines should use English orthography and follow proper typographical conventions? And since consensus trumps any guideline, it is equally pointless to prescribe in this meta-guideline that guideline conflicts should be resolved by consensus. So what remains? Vacuous rules such as "SSGs should make all attempts possible to comply with other guidelines. When there is a valid, subject-specific reason for the SSG to not comply with others guidelines, the SSG takes precedence." – vacuous because as long as there are no conflicting opinions this is not needed, but when opinions clash this gives no actual guidance on how to resolve the issue. And overly specific requirements like "SSGs should follow the title format Wikipedia:Subject-specific guideline (x)", which would require renaming all currently existing subject-specific guidelines, with no appreciable gain. --Lambiam 10:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed guideline has identify 4 problems it helps solve. Mainly the case of mixed guidelines. Common sense doesn't exist on wiki as you can see by the fact that Where multiple kinds of guidance are given on one page, they should be clearly sectioned" is followed no where currently and that wiki doesn't allow for mixed guidelines above project level. which would require renaming all currently existing subject-specific guidelines, with no appreciable gain. There is a clear gain if small,like the recent move of everything to MOS (x) it groups things to better and makes it clearer for the average user. And since consensus trumps any guideline so lets get rid of every guideline? Guideline are collections of consensus used for easy reference. vacuous because as long as there are no conflicting opinions this is not needed, but when opinions clash this gives no actual guidance on how to resolve the issue. This isn't conflict resolution this is a guideline , no other guideline gives guidance on how to solve disagreements . Gnevin (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's become obvious in my discussion with Gnevin that he plans to enforce his own interpretation of this page onto a heck of a lot of existing guidance, renaming and reorganizing according to his own whims. He doesn't need to propose this to do that: if the name or organization of a guideline is a problem, {{sofixit}} and get consensus on that page. Don't try to prescribe a solution that tries to be all things to all people. Nifboy (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you've came to this conclusion, I move this page at your request and said I'm not attached to the reorganising Gnevin (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let me break it down. The original proposal was to move MOS pages with limited scope to SSG, just changing the names and banners. I asked that the scope be expanded to include other guidelines like WP:VG/GL that had consensus but hadn't become a part of the MOS. I was under the impression that since the scope had expanded the breadth of changes should be narrowed so that we aren't disrupting a lot of pages by moving them. Somehow reorganization snuck into the proposal, and it's been kind of a sticking point for me especially since the examples highlight it. My philosophy on prescriptive proposals, ones that don't document current consensus, is to change as little as possible: Moving MOS pages to SSG names (without preference for moving any given page from the SSG to, say, WikiProject space) and changing the banners to be consistent. All I really want out of this proposal is for Projects to stop worrying about whether their guideline is stylistic or content or whatever, and just give good guidance and know what banner to put on it once it gets consensus. Thus, I don't like the idea of even recommending that Projects worry about subdividing their guidance into those vaguely-defined categories. Nifboy (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why all the talking? WP:BRD! It was an idea I though was good clearly this is not the case . So put it in the dust bin Gnevin (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bluntly, I was wondering if other portions of your proposal also had such wildly varying interpretations, and I tend to be cautious editing the content of other peoples' proposals. Nifboy (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't WP:OWN this proposal and is this still a vote for oppose, I've assumed it is and as such have restored the numbering? Gnevin (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Speaking entirely for Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Canada-related articles) Canada has unique problems and it makes sense for us to deal with our own issues separately without interference from outside forces. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, way to totally miss the point . I think half the people who voted no didn't even read the proposal Gnevin (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

#Now opposed. Needs to make clear that the individual style guides themselves need to be accepted as guidelines. Also this seems to be process wonkery, who cares if it's considered to be a sub-section of the MoS, a WikiProject (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines) or a new "style guidelines" super-guideline? Category:Wikipedia style guidelines seems fine to me. Fences&Windows 20:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved to oppose) I'm not convinced Category:Wikipedia topic guidelines isn't functionally this already, except without an explanation page. While we do need to better organize our ever-creeping guidance (I blame {{subcat guideline}}), I'd rather not simply create a redundant category and shuffle some of the MOS off on it. Nifboy (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A week later, I like renaming existing guidelines to something less misleading, and explaining the rules of precedence in a way that makes sense. I really don't like Gnevin's proposal-by-example of forcing them all into a particular organization scheme, categorizing sections of guidance by vaguely-defined types. Nifboy (talk) 04:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to suggestions but grouping them is better the the current WP:MOSMED where randomly style ,then content , then style appears Gnevin (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't, though. It's totally arbitrary: Why does it matter that each section is named according to the kind of advice it gives? Nifboy (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd applaud initiatives to rationally organize Wikipedia guidelines. Whether the creation of this page helps, I am less sure; it may be better to go to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and create some typology of style and content guidelines there. Ucucha 14:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC comments

Comment/Question:How does this tie into the polling on the MOS naming conventions? If, say, the slash/subpage convention carries, will these be at, say, SSG:SHIPS, for example. oknazevad (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess we'd just follow that convention here, substituting "Subject specific guide" for "Manual of Style" as needed in any page moves needed to create the SSG. Imzadi 1979 → 03:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what I figured, but I just wanted to bring it up for discussion. oknazevad (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's at the bottom Wikipedia:Subject_style_guide#Naming but will be updated depending out the outcome of the poll Gnevin (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Can I get a summary of what pages would change and what would change about them as a result of this? Are WikiProject-specific pages like WP:VG/GL (see Category:Wikipedia topic guidelines and Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects) impacted by this at all? Nifboy (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't really involved in the recent planning of this, but I expect that initially this only affects pages that were previously marked as part of the MOS. The idea arose in the context of removing a the MOS category from a page of the type that this proposal calls an SSG. However, I think the project-specific style guides should be integrated in one way or another. Depending on how much enthusiasm there will be for the SSG structure once it's implemented, and on how much the projects value independence, this could be any of the following methods or something in between:

Create a well-organised list of project-specific guidelines and link it from the main SSG page.
Integrate the project-specific guidelines into the overview of SSGs, but mark them as something special. Create some common header for project-specific guidelines that links back to the SSG overview.
Call them all SSGs but leave each in its present location and under the responsibility of the "owning" project. But otherwise integrate them into the overall SSG structure.
Mark them all as SSGs and move them if necessary, so they are not subpages of project pages.

I would think that something in the area 2/3 might be realistic for most such pages, with a number of projects opting to make their style guides standard SSGs (4) and only a few insisting on 1 or making their own thing. Hans Adler 23:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most project pages are not up to SSG standard and while they should aim to become SSG standards most won't as SSG standards are as high as MOS standards. So we can provide a link to PSGs for here but we are not going to move them under the banner of the SSG and by de-facto the MOS Gnevin (talk) 07:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nifboy, the following would move to the SSG

Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (arts)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (legal)

Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (regional)

Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (religion)

Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (science)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (road junction lists)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide

Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (Wikipedia content).

The only thing that would change is there title and some contradictions with the MOS proper could be handled better. Also note this is about style not topic guidelines Gnevin (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between a topic guideline and a style guideline? The only difference I see between e.g. WP:VG/GL and, say, WP:MOS-ANIME is that the VG page includes a section specifically about style. Nifboy (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the context of highway articles, there's the style guideline on how to construct junction lists/exit lists. (The rest of the article would just follow regular MOS.) A topic guideline would be along the lines of what types of highways or other roadways to cover in articles, which should be relegated to lists, what sections should be present in the article, etc. In other words, a style guideline tells someone how to present information so that it is done consistently. A topic guideline would tell that person what information to present. Imzadi 1979 → 15:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. That doesn't really follow from my experience, which is that subject-specific guidelines tend to pile all their guidance in one place, and your example of a topic guideline sounds like a sub-notability guideline. Are there any subject areas that have MOS entries and topic guidelines at the same time? Nifboy (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's the notability aspect, but there's the aspect that a US highway article should have at its core, a description of the route the highway takes, a history of the roadway and a list of the major junctions along the route. That's the information that should be covered in the what. As for the how, that information is presented to conform to the MOS and the style guideline on road junction lists. Imzadi 1979 → 15:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See, that description doesn't help me because I'm staring at WP:VG/GL and WP:MOS-ANIME and they both address content (what) and style (how). Nifboy (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good style guide shouldn't be addressing content, only the presentation. I worked for the student newspaper in college, so I learned to use the AP Style Guide back then. The AP's style guide does address content in the context of words to avoid, better terms to use, etc., but it focused on the how, not the what. IMHO, guides accepted into an approved SSG should be focusing on the presentation of content, not what content to include.Imzadi 1979 → 15:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about WikiProject Style Guidelines, like the Film one I linked to? I think this proposal is pointless and totally confused, so I am moving to Oppose. Fences&Windows 15:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just in my quick skimming of the project page, a lot of that isn't a style guide, it's a topic guide. The difference is that the page is giving guidance on what to include in an article, not the format to include it in. Some purely style matters related to film would make a great addition to the SSG though. Things like how to format content in the articles where the main MOS doesn't already provide specific guidance, or that guidance isn't appropriate to film articles. The key examples given for content in the SSG have been things like how to format junction lists for highway articles, guidance on using flags/icons that contradicts MOS:FLAG. It could even be guidance on specific infoboxes to use in articles based on topics, or specific citation requirements or formats used in specific topic areas. Imzadi 1979 → 16:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's, functionally, my complaint with creating a new class of guidance and stuffing everything into it; it doesn't do anything to actually clean up the MoS, and just makes worse the problem that our treatment of subject-specific guidance operates under wildly varying names, because nobody is sure how to classify their guidance. Nifboy (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So your solution would be to split the Film 'style guide' to match your own idea of what a style guide should be? Even more reason to oppose this, as that guideline is just fine as it is with content and style guidance combined. Fences&Windows 22:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Film's style guide would only need to be split if it was to push to become as SSG just as the same split would need to happen if it was to push to become part of the MOS . If wiki project film are happy not to become part of the MOS/SSG then it can stay as is Gnevin (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fences and windows, as a guideline a new SSG would have to gain CON to be accepted like every other guideline . You can add a line to the text to state this if your worried Gnevin (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from above (For example, "Articles in the scope of two or more SSGs" appears to suggest that in the article Arnold Schwarzenegger one should decide that either the style guide for actors or that for politicians should be picked as the "primary" one and used whenever the two conflict, while I think SSGs should be made in a way to make such conflicts as rare as possible, and when they happen anyway they should be decided on a case-by-case basis according to what would be better in the article, not according to which SSG says what.) A. di M. (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree maybe you could have a go at tweaking the wording. What I was going for was that for Schwarzenegger that his politic lift is covered by SSG politic and his acting life is covered by SSG acting if a case like SSG Ireland and SSG Mil His clearly SSG Ireland is the primary SSG in terms of flags Gnevin (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebroxm, this proposal make the MOS simpler by clarifying what is core MOS and users should know and what is topic related and only a small subset need to know Gnevin (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply to WhatamIdoing moved [reply]

Comment Eh no , none of them are essays. They are all part of the MOS. Maybe you should read the discussion before voting? Gnevin (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, they aren't. Maybe you should read the standard policy pages. Pages are only part of the MoS if they've been approved. Not all style guides are part of the MoS, and not all purported style guides are actually style guides.
See WP:GUIDES, "Other pages that can be found in the Wikipedia: namespace include community process pages (which facilitate application of the policies and guidelines), historical pages,[1] WikiProject pages, how-to or help pages...These pages are not policies or guidelines, although they may contain valuable advice or information."
See also WP:PROJGUIDE#Advice_pages, "Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional {{essay}}." WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which on the following aren't part of the MOS : Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (arts), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (legal), Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (regional), Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (religion), Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (science), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (road junction lists), Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide, Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (Wikipedia content) . As this is what we are talking about Gnevin (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's part of what we're talking about. There's not one word on this page that says it applies to WP:Manual of Style (legal), but not to WP:Manual of Style (medicine). There's also nothing on this page that says it won't be applied to any of the dozens of non-approved/non-MoS style guides, e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Style guidelines. If you want to propose that eight pages be renamed, and dozens of others be left alone, then you need to say that directly on the project page, using unambiguous wording like "This applies only to the following pages... 'Legal' is declared to be a specific subject, but 'Medicine' is declared to be a vague subject" (or whatever criteria it is that makes an approved MoS page not be subject to this approach). (And then doubtless someone will ask why you aren't just discussing these page moves at WP:PM.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does apply to medicine,is part of that list I gave you. Its part of Cat:MOS (science). There's also nothing on this page that says it won't be applied to any of the dozens of non-approved/non-MoS style guides, e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Style guidelines. Yes there is , there is no CON for Classical music to be part of the SSG and it would need to be gained first like all guidelines Gnevin (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find no evidence that WP:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) was ever formally proposed to or adopted by the community as any kind of guideline, much less as part of the Manual of Style. For that matter, I find no evidence that {{Taxobox}}, which is listed at Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (science) isn't just a template. Merely adding a cat, or typing "Manual of Style" in the page title is not a sufficient WP:PROPOSAL.

More importantly, I find no evidence that renaming the pages provides any benefit to Wikipedia. The MoS and style guides are a mess because of their contents, not because of their titles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed removing Taxobox from the MOS before and it was objected too,redrafting the MOS still a work in progess and will IMO Taxobox will eventually be removed. If you think LDS shouldn't be part of the MOS then be bold and remove it or open a discussion . Objecting to this page will not change the fact the MOS is a bit of mess at the moment, while not objecting will help improve the MOS .

This page does more than just rename pages and the proposal have expanded past just being about the MOS . This proposal will create a clear line between the MOS and subject style guidelines . It can also cover several different guidelines in one subject-specific guideline something which currently shouldn't happen and as such we've things shoe horned into the MOS and other guidelines which offer style ,naming and content guidance. But I don't know why I bother attempting to explaining this too you. You clearly made up your mind this is a RM in disguise as evidenced by your nutshell you added Gnevin (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the key point where we seem to be at cross-purposes: How exactly does renaming Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) to Subject-specific guideline (medicine-related articles) "improve the MOS", or otherwise improve Wikipedia's advice pages? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Random break

Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) might not seen an imediate improvement but the MOS would as would MOS:Ireland and MOS:MILHIST

This proposal will create a clear line between the MOS and subject style guidelines, meaning users will know which parts of them MOS apply across the board and they should know and which parts of the MOS are SSG and they don't need to know . So for example , I should know the MOS + SSG Ireland as I've an interest in Ireland but SSG Ships I have no need to know .
This proposal give a proper place for MILHIST, currently this guideline should be stripped of all no stylistic advise, do we really want MOS:MILHIST, NamingConventions:MILHIST , Categories:MILHIST etc.
The proposal defines a Precedence between the SSGs and other guidelines . Something we don't currently have but is clearly needed as other guidelines should not contradict.
The proposal outlines how SSGs should interact with each other due to the sometimes conflicting nature of subject-specific guidelines .

All of which you could get from reading the proposal . Gnevin (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improved MEDSSG User:Gnevin/SSGMED Gnevin (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I understand your four points:

By renaming MOS (ships) to SSG (ships), you will be able to find out that the advice page about ships does not apply to articles about Ireland. Under the current system, you (or other editors) are apparently confused on that point, right? And you believe that changing the page names will help editors figure out that Ireland is not a ship, and that therefore the ship advice is inapplicable?
I see no problems with MILHIST. The tag at the top doesn't actually apply to the whole page, but then again, neither do the cats at the bottom. That will continue to the be the case if the page's name is changed. I think editors are smart enough to figure it out, and I don't think that changing the page name will make the contents of the page any easier for them to understand.
The proposal defines a system for figuring out what to do when guidelines conflict with the main MOS, which they are not supposed to do in the first place. Why not solve the real problem, which is the existence of unauthorized conflicts?
The proposal defines a system for figuring out what to do when "equal" guidelines conflict with each other, which they are not supposed to do in the first place. The planned resolution system is already extremely well-documented at WP:POLICY and WP:CONSENSUS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I expect to believe this is serious question? Gnevin (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes clearly that what I meant as it's a very common misunderstanding . The point which you so deleratly missed is that when a user looks at the MOS they will see 30 or so
The current CON at guidelines deal with one type of guidelines and it is most certainly the con at the MOS Gnevin (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained this several times already your clearly not listening Gnevin (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained this several times already your clearly not listening Gnevin (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You only have to take the questions seriously if you want me to understand your point. You don't seem to have finished your explanation, however.
(A) WP:GUIDELINE makes no demand that a guideline fit neatly into categories like "style" or "content", and there is no consensus for any such requirement. As an example, WP:EL is probably more like a content guideline than a style guideline. It contains a tiny section on how to format links, and several screenfuls on how to evaluate the content of the external links section.
There might well be a consensus that non-style information not be considered part of the MOS. However, I'd be surprised if anyone looked at, say, WP:WikiProject_Military_history/Style_guide#Notability and thought that this plainly labeled notability essay was actually part of the MOS.
(B) So your plan is to evict non-style-related advice (e.g., naming conventions) from any page that is labeled "Manual of Style" anywhere on it. I infer that the smallest unit of MOS in your mind is a full HTML page, not a section. This goal could presumably be met by fragmenting the advice pages, so that MILHIST's guide becomes three or four pages, only one of which is nominally MOS. (I suspect that fragmentation would be opposed by MILHIST.) However, you think it is better to make the pages of the MOS contain zero non-style information by the simple expedient of evicting 30 pages from the MOS, including any that are already exclusively devoted to style information. Your approach saves you the trouble of creating a section-based MoS template, i.e., {{MoS-guideline|section}}, to indicate that only part of a page is in the MOS.
(and #4) At the linked discussion, I find three short comments from you. Two are apparently irrelevant, and the remaining one (the first) contains an assertion that there are some conflicts, and the statement "There is no point in discussing every issue." I am not sure how this comment is supposed to explain your apparent reluctance to eliminate the conflicts. The existence of the conflicts are pointless? Resolving this is pointless? Discussing them is pointless? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't expect people to confuse Ireland with a ship, maybe Britian ;). The point is that this makes the distinction between parts of the MOS that apply every where and that GA for example need to follow and parts of the MOS that certain editor and articles never need to known exist
Can you show me one guideline currently in Category:Wikipedia_guidelines the scope of two guidelines. I've never seen it .
Some conflicts can't be eliminated . The point of the SSG is that they often running contra to the MoS so while Wikipedia:MOSICON says use the correct flag Wikipedia:IMOS#Flags and WP:RU says well for WP:RUIRLFLAG it's ok not too Gnevin (talk) 10:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Yeah, I see where some of the geographic-specific style guides need to override the general styles proscribed by MOS sections for various reasons. Imzadi 1979 → 11:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing non-MOS content from MOS-containing pages

Are all those voting oppose in favour of stripping out non stylistic advise from the 30 or so guidelines currently listed on the MOS but which offer content and other type of guidelines or do they have a suggestion as how to deal with this? Gnevin (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information in the MOS has precisely the same status as information in any other guideline. How the pages are tagged is completely meaningless. I don't think we need to "deal with this"; it's a non-problem. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gnevin's question, which the response avoids, gets to the crux of the matter. (A side question: If one believes that article tags and titles are "completely meaningless," why bother to comment on them or participate in this process at all?) Perhaps if we put it this way more people will get the point: Many of the guidelines currently listed as parts of the Manual of Style are NOT dedicated style guidelines. They are subject-specific guidelines that cover a broad range of matters. Many users that read their names or the style guideline template atop their pages will naturally conclude, incorrectly, that they are purely style guidelines and thus ignore them if they are searching for content or naming convention guidance. Other, similar subject-specific guidelines are marked as style guidelines but named according to different systems; still other subject-specific guidelines are marked as "content" or "naming" guidelines though they actually contain substantial style guidance. At present, there is simply no convenient, open way for users to readily identify what guidance, if any, is available for particular subjects. Are you content with the present state of affairs, in which guidelines are misnamed and mislabeled? We hope not. If you do not like the solution proposed here, what solution do you propose?—DCGeist (talk) 04:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we need an additional guideline to tell us to name a page in a way that is not misleading. If you believe a page is inappropriately named, just move it - if someone reverts you, evidently not everyone found the title misleading. Then remove the MOS tags, which as you mention may be confusing, and replace with "guideline." The first paragraph of the page will (should) make perfectly clear what's in there, without having to force pages into one of a handful of guideline families. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear, the process of tagging pages with "style" "content" or "naming", then demanding that these distinctions be diligently enforced, is not a useful one. There is no bright line between these categories and not every sentence needs to be sorted into one category or another. This proposal attempts to wash over this fact by letting different sections of an article be tagged different ways; but that just pushes the "problem" down to a lower level. When the actual problem is that we've invented a categorization scheme that is devoid of significance. I understand the desire to clearly identify the content of the page, but this is primarily the job of the title and the first paragraph. It's as if we decided to tag every article as either "Eurasia" or "Americas" and then fretted over how to rewrite the NATO article so it could fit our tagging system. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. This is exactly why I don't like the examples (below), and why I've moved over to oppose. Nifboy (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded that section. Gnevin (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion has stopped. There is no consensus for this proposal to be made into a guideline. SilkTork *^YES! 00:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative proposal

How about, instead of creating a new class of guidelines, we just shunt all the existing subject-specific guidelines, MoS and non-MoS, over to Category:Wikipedia topic guidelines and create a page Wikipedia:Topic guidelines explaining what they are and grouping them all together? It seems to me it's more important to group subject-specific guidance together, rather than try to differentiate between certain kinds of guidance. Nifboy (talk) 04:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because some of them are not up to MOS standard. When I attempted to move the ships style guideline to Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects the objection was that no one would follow it anymore as it wasn't part of the MOS just a local guideline that could be ignored Gnevin (talk) 10:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and because everyone wants their projects' style guidelines to be integrated into the MoS, the MoS is a WP:CREEPy mess. I'd like to see all the local consensuses gathered in one place, not just the ones that have shoehorned themselves into the global MoS. Nifboy (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone doesn't want there project to be integrated I see zero evidence of this . There are only 2 project related MOSs in the MOS ships and mil history. All the local consensuses are already gathered in a category . Gnevin (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I count five in Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (arts) alone. Nifboy (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arts is a generic concept that isn't really part of any one MOS project. Even if I accept your suggestion that everyone wants their projects' style guidelines to be integrated into the MoS how does accepting SSG change this for the worse? It make no odds if we create it or not people will still their projects' style guidelines to be integrated into the MoS Gnevin (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you looked at the category you would see that it contains WP:MOS-ANIME, WP:MOSFILM, WP:CMOS, WP:MOS-NOVELS, and WP:MOSTV, every major fiction-related project's guidance except for WP:VG/GL, which is currently marked as a topic guideline. That inconsistency is the problem, and SSG just moves the inconsistency to a different name. Nifboy (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created the category and look it when you linked to it. Please don't start making assumption about what I've done and not done. How does SSG move inconsistency to a different name ? And more to the point how does your proposal not move the inconsistency to a different name , it doesn't. I've nominated Category:Wikipedia topic guidelines for deletion and WP:VG/GL is now marks as part of Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects. If the user there want the guideline to become part of the MOS they are free to do so Gnevin (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So long as WP:MOS-ANIME etc and WP:VG/GL etc are in different categories (inconsistent) there is something wrong. This proposal, and nominating the topic guideline category for deletion, do nothing to solve that problem. Nifboy (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an tending to agree. What if Wikipedia:Subject style guide was changed to be Wikipedia:Subject specific guide which would allow content from any of the sub categories in Category:Wikipedia_guidelines. Then WP:MOS-ANIME etc and WP:VG/GL etc would be in the same group without the need to split of content guidelines, style , category etc etc guidelines Gnevin (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be good. Nifboy (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you think? Gnevin (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with the new "layout" section? ~~I don't understand why we're now saying "this is how the guideline should be written".~~ Nifboy (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gave it a rewrite, tried not to change too much of its content, and where I did, defaulted to current practice. Nifboy (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can add WP:MEDMOS to the list of widely approved, subject-specific Manual of Style pages. It, BTW, also contains information about content (specifically, suggested orders for presenting information, which double as checklists for comprehensiveness). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyeditor?

This is a direct quotation from this page:

When creating a SSG ,the SGG should be layout in sections such as style ,deletion,content etc .

I count seven problems in this single sentence. If this is representative of the level of thought that went into this proposal, then I think we're in serious trouble.

I thought about fixing it, but I'm really not sure what advice the author is trying to provide. Use sections, so that the page isn't an oblong gray blur of text? Use these particular sections? Follow this order? Something else? Additionally, telling editors to do what they're already doing seemed kind of WP:CREEPy to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes much better to give out about fixing it than clicking the edit button and fixing it . Gnevin (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What intend is for SSG's to indicate which guidelines they are referring to such as User:Gnevin/SSGIreland Gnevin (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was right to be cautious: If I'd attempted to fix it, I wouldn't have ever guessed that this section had anything to do with indicating which guidelines the page referred to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, based on the example given, that it's saying that SSGs should, in each section, indicate whether the section is a content guideline, style guideline, or naming convention, etc. I don't understand why. Nifboy (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine you don't understand it , post a note friendly saying can you clarify this please. Not If this is representative of the level of thought that went into this proposal, then I think we're in serious trouble. Gnevin (talk) 08:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nifboy I thought it would be good to section off the content so we don't have a section which starts off as style drift into content and end up giving naming convention advise Gnevin (talk) 08:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

Feel free to WP:BRD my rewrite of the proposal. My primary goal was to get it out of first/second person (The "Am I creating a SSG or MOS?" section) and into a third person talking about the guidelines instead of talking to someone creating a guideline. I changed a lot of other things beside, such as getting rid of the naming convention left over when this was strictly about MoS pages. Nifboy (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A choice: "subject specific guide" or "subject style guide"?

It would help a great deal to be consistent about what SSG stands for, which is most definitely not the case now. Which way do we want to go? An important...yes...style point: if we go with subject specific guide, it should actually be subject-specific guide.—DCGeist (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was renamed to "subject-specific guide" earlier today, because "style guide" is not well-defined; See #An alternative proposal for the discussion. Stuff like page names in the prose don't seem to have been changed yet, and since these are no longer strictly ex-MoS pages I'm not sure if a strict naming convention is as desirable as before. Nifboy (talk) 06:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it would subject-specific guidelines be better? Gnevin (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're talking about pages that have or should aim to have the status of guidelines: subject-specific guidelines strikes me as correct.—DCGeist (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gnevin (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of SSGs V MOSs

Not accepted

To me there is a clear and major improvement over the current guidelines just by introducing this structure. It would also remove a lot of non stylistic advice from our Manual of Style Gnevin (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I disagree. IMOS only really benefits because "Use of the Irish language" is a lousy name for a section. Putting the "Flags" section into its own "content" subsection hides the fact that the content section only talks about flag usage and nothing else. MOSMED, on the other hand, doesn't seem to benefit at all, because for instance its advice in the "sections" section is both style (how to organize) and content (what info you should have in an article). Further, MOSMED is already organized in a way that makes sense: from the top of the article to the bottom. I don't think enforcing this categorization scheme on sections of guidelines is a good idea. That's one of the reasons I wanted to compile subject-specific guidelines regardless of what advice it contained; so Projects could give advice without worrying about how to categorize it (a form of meta-instruction creep). Guidance is guidance, regardless of what kind of guidance it is, so I don't understand the need to categorize it like that. Nifboy (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMOS only has 1 content issue to discuss ,so what?

This was top level over view. MOSMED would need more work for sure . MOSMED is not organised in a way that makes sense it jumps from style to content to style and back again about a dozen times .How ever I wouldn't object to each section being split into style , content but keeping the over all layout it currently has. What you think? Gnevin (talk) 11:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you edited User:Gnevin/SSGMED, are you happy with that or do you still have issue because to me that is grand now Gnevin (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think guidelines should be organized in a way that makes sense for them, and forcing a universal organization scheme on all SSGs would make a great many of them worse. My edit to MOSMED was because your example had destroyed the organization that was already there. For IMOS, a section with one sentence and a single subsection is poor sectioning (WP:LAYOUT), and implies there's more content guidance than just flags, which is misleading and bad. Nifboy (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny page indeed!

I just linked it to the French page, WP:Critères spécifiques de notoriété, expecting this to be about subject-specific notability guidelines, as opposed to GNG.

I must say I was somewhat surprised to see it is basically just about MoS, whereas I believe there is plenty to say and clarify about when/whether specific notability guidelines are needed, or acceptable.

So, to me, this page is just off-topic. Am I wrong? --Azurfrog (talk) 08:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]