Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Removal of clarifying phrase from lead

See here for the first part of this discussion.

"Where more than one style is acceptable under the Manual of Style, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason."

There have recently been multiple removals and reinstatements of the words I've highlighted above. The clarification has been there since at least early this year. In the larger context, it's clear that the intended meaning is "optional styles" under the MOS, not optional styles in the view of anyone who wants to push their local likes and dislikes. The meaning is clinched by the final statement: "Discuss style issues on the MoS talk page."

This is why we have a MOS: to minimise style disputes in the articles themselves. All respectable publishers have a style guide.

Removing the phrase means that editors have to winkle this out of the broader wording. Is the motivation to diminish the MOS to something we don't really need, on the likelihood that some editors might miss the point? That would be to stifle the long-established function of the MOS in centralising debate and resolution here, so that article talkpages can get on with the already-difficult business of writing balanced and referenced content.

Tony (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

See the section Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Retaining above. I don't think there is any difference of meaning: there is no other sense in which a style could be acceptable on Wikipedia, except for being acceptable under the manual of style. However, the new language could be misunderstood to mean that only things explicitly mentioned in the MOS need to be retained. That reading is not correct, because styles can be acceptable even if they are not mentioned at all in the MOS, as long as the MOS doesn't require some other style. So the language that was removed could only cause confusion, I believe. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

One might ask why there's an edit-war if there is no difference of meaning. Second, it's not "new language"—it's been there for nearly a year. Tony (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

What difference of meaning do you see - in what sense could a style be acceptable on Wikipedia without being acceptable "under the MOS"? — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Very well, if we think the provision could be read that way, amplify the wording to prevent that reading. One way to do this is by replacing the existing text:

For some elements of style, there is more than one format that is acceptable. In general, the Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change articles between acceptable formats "unless there is some substantial reason for the change" (unrelated to the choice of style or the preference of the editor), and that edit-warring between optional styles is unacceptable.

with:

On some points MOS sets out two or more acceptable options, any one of which may be used consistently in an article. Do not change an article from one MOS-approved option to another without giving a definite substantive reason. Do not edit-war over styles that MOS declares to be optional. And generally, do not edit-war over any matter of styling; discuss the matter on the article's talkpage, or at the MOS talkpage if the matter is of wider relevance.

Tony (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Tony, I'm not opposed to including "under the Manual of Style" if I'm convinced that the possible misunderstandings that others have pointed out can be avoided, but I think the wording you suggest above is worse. Specifying that the options have to be "MOS-approved" makes it appear that any option not specifically listed in the MoS is not protected by this clause. I understand that the reverse concern is that this might be used to game the system, but I'm having a hard time seeing how anyone could plausibly make that case. If you or one of the other commenters can point at a discussion where someone seriously tried to use the wording to game the system, I might be more sympathetic to leaving "under the Manual of Style" in place. Without that evidence it seems unnecessary at best, and misleading at worst. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Mike, I'd accept the reinstatement of "under the Manual of Style" as sufficient clarification. You say that you're "having a hard time seeing how anyone could plausibly make that case". OK, here's just one smoking gun (also requested by Carl), in which the sentence is quoted (without the clarification) to justify opposition to LQ—in a featured article no less—by appeal to the very wording under discussion. Here's another example, in which the same sentence is used to support an editor's personal preference for not using the serial comma, disregarding the technical advice provide in the MOS on this matter. Tony (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the examples. The correct response to those comments would have been that, no, a style is not acceptable if the MOS says it is not acceptable, because the MOS is what determines acceptability for Wikipedia. On some matters, the MOS makes a requirement; on others it allows variation; on others it is silent and any reasonable style is acceptable. I don't think the new language resolves the issue I am bringing up, however, which is that the new language would allow me to find a style issue which is not mentioned by the MOS and then begin to change it on numerous articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Yet see all the "tautology" stuff below. Clearly, at least one editor does not at all accept that when WP:POLICY pages say something that this is in any way definitive. Unless they like what the page says; the same editor takes exactly the opposite approach to the WP:CITEVAR guideline and treats it like Holy Writ, in ways that are detrimental to the project. There's a cadre over at WP:CITE convinced of the completely unreasonable interpretation that someone making up their own completely idiosyncratic citation "style" out of nowhere must be respected, and that people are within their rights to fight against citation formatting changes of even the smallest technical kind, even if they're a functional improvement with no visible effect on the article. This is a "let chaos reign as long as I can totally own my article" meme that needs to be put to rest and cannot be allowed to spread to other guidelines, which is exactly what's going on here.

Anyway, the community already takes a dim view of going page by page making identical trivial changes; that guy that was doing nothing but edits to "comprised of" every day was stopped at WP:ANI, and we have an actual rule against bots doing such things. Just because there's not an explicit, detailed rule against something doesn't mean people can do it disruptively, per WP:GAMING and WP:LAWYER. Drawing on another thread on this same talk page: prove it's a problem. Show us anyone going around WP changing page after page for purely stylistic reasons that are not covered in MoS, and against objections. (If there is such a case, it's probably a candidate for a new line item in MoS, whether pro or con or neither, especially if people are fighting over it.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Your responses are too verbose for my reading comprehension to keep up with - could you please try to keep to your main point? For an example of people making up styles not mentioned in the MOS and then trying to implement them across lots of articles, see this thread on the Village Pump as we speak: [1]. A handful of AWB operators made up a rule that adjacent footnotes must be in increasing order - despite complete silence of the MOS on that issue - and added code to AWB to enforce their new rule everywhere they run AWB. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@CBM: Repeat: we have an actual rule against automated tools doing such things. This is the WP:COSMETICBOT policy. The Village Pump discussion you point to is not an MoS matter at all, it's a WP:CITEVAR matter. While, like anything on WP, a consensus could conclude to codify some kind of technical exception to COSMETICBOT, that RfC is clearly not going to do that, and is is going to close with COSMETICBOT enforced, because the objections to what that AWB script is doing are substantive and tied to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR policy, while the support for the script amounts to WP:ILIKEIT preference for numeric ordering. Did you have an example that actually relates to MoS and is not effectively moot already? PS: WP consists almost entirely of paragraphs of text; I'm skeptical that me using two of them above, to make clear and relevant points, is actually too much for you, or WP would not be your hobby. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

When this language came in last April 11, the intent was clear: to close a loophole that some had used to misinterpret the intent. SMcCandlish's edit summary said "Closing another WP:GAMING / WP:LAWYER loophole." Not a change of meaning, but a preventative, to help prevent arguments that "acceptable" meant acceptable in some context somewhere, as opposed to in the MOS. This seems important. The fact that SlimVirgin, a long-time opponent of central style guidance, would want to take it out seems important, too. Why that? Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see a link to a discussion in which this was misinterpreted as you describe. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that a link to that discussion would be helpful; I asked for it above as well. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Tony has linked examples above. In particular, it was SlimVirgin who invoked exactly this loophole here et seq. in arguing that going against WP:LQ was an "acceptable style". Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I'm not opposed to central style guidance, and I also took out the language. Because I think it doesn't change the meaning, but can be misunderstood to suggest that RETAIN only applies to things explicitly mentioned in the MOS. The issue of central style guidance is separate, because a style is not acceptable at all if the MOS says it is not, so the existing language covers this. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Yet multiple editors have explained what the meaning change is, and why it's needed. How many times do we need to re-re-re-explain it?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Let me explain the source of my concern. There is a cadre of editors, many of whom are fond of AWB, who like to invent their own style rules unrelated to the MOS. The principle RETAIN helps keep them from deciding the randomly go through thousands of article making a change from one style to another on matters that the MOS does not discuss at all. That kind of style instability is not desirable - the right way to achieve the change would be to come here and discuss it, and then implement it only once there is consensus to add the style to the MOS. We don't want to suggest that any style that is not explicitly mentioned in the MOS can be changed at whim, but the new language does this. If we wanted to clarify that, once the MOS chooses a set of styles, no other style is acceptable, that would be reasonable to me - I am not "anti-MOS". But the language that was added does not do that, it does something else. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@CBM: It does exactly what it was intended to do: it instructs editors to no get in moot, productivity-wasting, collaboration-eroding disputes about things MoS already covers, while it also avoids doing anything to enable "you cain't change muh style!" chest-beating nonsense about matters MoS does not cover in detail. Much of WP editing consists of taking poorly styled earlier content and making it much better later content. Aside from adding new materials and sources that's what we're here for. MoS cannot micromanage every contextual nit-pick that can arise in the process of that, nor can it act as some anti-WP:EDITING pseudo-policy that amounts to "thou shalt never contradict the earliest major contributor's preferences about anything at all". We were already seeing the unclarified shorter version of this wording leading directly to exactly the latter problem; that's why the clarification was added at all, over a year ago, with a markedly stabilizing result. Meanwhile, the entire purpose of trying to remove that clarification (or to turn its meaning on it's ear, as in the subthread below) is to engender more battlegrounding against what MoS actually recommends, a wedge to drive in idiosyncratic, jargonistic, nationalistic, or otherwise non-encyclopedic language. We just can't have that, or both quality of output and internal collaboration will greatly suffer.

People who just will not get it through their heads that all professional-grade, multi-writer publications have a style guide that contributors are expected to follow even if they would write differently on their own website, and that it is physically impossible for any style guide to agree with all other style guides on anything, and that the point is to have a rule so fighting stops and we get the work done, well, they just need to give it a good WP:NOTGETTINGIT rest and stay out of style disputes, for the same reason that Cascadians who can't stop demonizing Elbonians need to stay away from articles on the Elbonia–Cascadia conflict [or whatever]. It's perfectly fine for "style compliance objectors" to write however they like, as long as they don't battleground against other people later bringing it into guideline compliance. Now that I think of it, of the five editors I recall personally who have stormed off Wikipedia in a WP:HIGHMAINT huff (plus one who got indeffed), in every single case it was mostly or entirely because they started spending less time on productive editing and instead devoted more and more to "style warfare" against others editor in a tendentious and increasingly "everyone who disagrees with me, go screw yourselves" WP:1AM pattern. Either one gets that style is largely arbitrary and a matter to agree on and get out of the way, or one treats it as a WP:GREATWRONGS matter and slides down a slippery slope.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've fully protected the article for one week because of the edit-warring. If a clear consensus is reached that resolves the dispute, please let me know, and I will decide whether the protection can be lifted earlier.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of clarifying phrase: arbitrary break I

• I wonder if Carl's concern would be addressed by saying --

Where more than one style is acceptable under the Manual of Style (including in matters not addressed by it)

or

Where more than one style is acceptable under the Manual of Style (including in matters on which it is silent)

--? EEng 05:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The second sentence does resolve my issue, and I would be OK with it. I wonder if there is any other way to phrase it, but I can't suggest an improvement. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I think either of these resolve my concerns, though I would prefer Where more than one style is acceptable under the Manual of Style, including styles on which it does not offer guidance, .... The key point is to ensure that retain is not taken as meaning only those styles explicitly provided for in the MoS. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I feel the proposals are a little dissonant, as the parenthetical remark/appositive appears to modify "style is acceptable under the Manual of Style" with a clause discussing matters not covered by it. I think it would be better to include the two scenarios with an or, such as Where more than one style has consensus support in the Manual of Style, or the manual does not offer any appropriate guidance. isaacl (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the "or" form is better. I wonder if we could agree on this? Naive hope, perhaps! Peter coxhead (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The sentence written by Isaacl is fine with me, and resolves my concern. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what function is served by the words consensus and appropriate. Why not just Where more than one style has support in the Manual of Style, or the manual offers no guidance? EEng 03:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The word "appropriate" is shorthand for "the manual offers no guidance on the matter in question". The use of the word "consensus" is a reminder that the Manual of Style records choices that were made by community consensus. How about the following: Where the Manual of Style describes multiple choices of style for a given matter, or offers no guidance, editors should not change an article from one style to another without a good reason. isaacl (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding acceptable, and something at the end:

Where the Manual of Style describes multiple choices of style for a given matter, or offers no guidance, editors should not change an article from one acceptable style to another without good reason; when in doubt, seek consensus on the article's talk page first.

EEng 06:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Support adding this wording. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It addresses my concern, and the wording is fine with me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

That seems to cover the points that have been discussed. A minor proposed copy edit: break up the sentence into two by replacing the semi-colon with a period. isaacl (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I would have to oppose this "including in matters not addressed by it" and "including in matters on which it is silent" stuff. It's fallacious reasoning. It simply is not the case that any and all style of [whatever] that don't happen to be addressed be MoS are auto-permissible on Wikipedia. This is because it is written in an encyclopedic register. It is not just possible but very, very frequent, especially at the intersection of content and style (grammar, syntax, code switching, parseability, and other readability and comprehensibility matters) for article-specific edits to be made or objections raised over how the underlying meaning is presented. There are literally millions of potential context-specific scenarios, and MoS could never address them all. There is no way on earth we can have some confused pseudo-rule suggesting that "as long as MoS doesn't say it, you can't change it without some drawn-out process". That's a direct violation of WP:EDITING policy, our most central one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: please read the actual final wording suggested by EEng immediately above, and say whether you oppose it. Neither of your quotes appear there. Your argument above is irrelevant; "acceptable" does not mean "any and all style[s] whatever", it means "acceptable". And it's perfectly clear what "acceptable" means, as CBM notes below. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: I have to disagree. The "Where the Manual of Style ... offers no guidance, editors should not change ... without good reason" wording is just a long-winded way of saying the same thing. It's the same back door to "you can't change my style, because someone somewhere thinks it is 'acceptable'" tendentiousness. The entire problem here is that is not clear at all what "acceptable" means. It can't really have but one meaning, practically: "acceptable on Wikipedia because Wikipedia specifically say so". We already know for a fact (see diffs already provided) that if wiggle-room is left, people will misinterpret any "don't change 'acceptable' styles" rule as meaning "any attested style cannot be changed" (without time-wasting drama). But of course much of what we do at WP every single day is rewording suboptimal material into better material, a process that necessarily entails changing from one of "multiple choices of style for a given matter" that are not MoS-specified without having to engage in tedious "good reason" defenses against over-controlling objections.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: the problem is that what you see as having to engage in tedious "good reason" defenses against over-controlling objections others see as using over-contolling MoS enthusiasts using it to avoid the "tedium" of reaching consensus. However, it seems to me that consensus here is against your addition without some qualification regarding matters not in the MoS, so if you can't accept a qualification, even so reasonable a one as EEng's, then no change at all will be made, which will be a pity. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: There's a communication problem here. I'm talking about edits to content and its presentation that are not MoS matters. This is also what the idea of adding a "Where the Manual of Style ... offers no guidance" provision is about. That logically has no connection to 'over-contolling MoS enthusiasts using it to avoid the "tedium" of reaching consensus'. There really are two distinct conflicts involved here: A) Some editors who don't like style centralization and want WP to be wildly inconsistent just for the sake of "editorial freedom", "authorial creativity", and wikiproject-by-wikiproject control by "experts", want to see MoS made inapplicable to their fiefdoms (or eliminated, pruned down to a handful of obvious basics, reduced to an essay, forked into project-by-project style guides, or whatever). B) Other editors want to impose idiosyncratic, jargonistic, legalistic, nationalistic, or other reader-unhelpful style, most of which is not detailed in MoS and never could be (but which most editors would object to, so it should not be a burden to improve such poor uses of language on Wikipedia). These groups often have substantial overlap, but the motivations are distinct, as are the problems they cause. Removing the "acceptable to the Manual of Style" wording serves both these camps' interests, as does adding a clause against editing without pre-established consensus in "matters on which MoS is silent" (cf. WP:EDITING policy, WP:MERCILESS, etc.). Neither change would serve reader interests or editorial community interests, only those two factions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: there certainly is a communication problem. In response to my question as to what is wrong with the, in my view, very reasonable suggestion of saying Where the Manual of Style describes multiple choices of style for a given matter, or offers no guidance, editors should not change an article from one acceptable style to another without good reason; when in doubt, seek consensus on the article's talk page first you tell me about editors who "want WP to be wildly inconsistent" or want to impose "idiosyncratic, jargonistic, legalistic, nationalistic, or other reader-unhelpful style", which is simply way off-beam. No more from me. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, a style can be unacceptable because it is just too crazy. But we cannot suggest that RETAIN only applies to things that are explicitly mentioned in the MOS. Unless the MOS explicitly says that a reasonable style is forbidden, RETAIN applies to that style. "Acceptable" has historically had that double meaning: not forbidden by the MOS and otherwise reasonable. This is the same standard as e.g. CITEVAR and ENGVAR. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It is not. ENGVAR says nothing like this at all (though what it does say makes moot the desire to insert some "Where the Manual of Style ... offers no guidance" provision into the wording under discussion here). CITEVAR doesn't either; it very unwisely permits people to make up idiosyncratic citation "styles", and this has caused problems; the last time an attempt was made to bring CITEVAR back into line with ENGVAR, DATEVAR, etc., it was staunchly resisted specifically on the basis that people would not be able to continue using their fake citation "styles" that don't exist in the real world but only in their heads.

As far as I can tell, the concern here that no one can quite seem to articulate, much less demonstrate is a real problem, is that some yahoo might use the long-stable "Where more than one style is acceptable under the Manual of Style, editors should not change ..." provision to go around to thousands of articles and change "programme" to "program", but that already prohibited by ENGVAR; or change all cases of "cats" (in the broad sense) to "felids" or vice versa, but ANI would put a stop to that as disruptive. There are no cases where people are doing something like this but have not be shut down. Exiting rules and process are self-evidently sufficient, ergo trying to add a "Where the Manual of Style ... offers no guidance, editors should not change" rule is blatant WP:CREEP with a strong dose of WP:BEANS, which will also have other negative effects that have been explained in detail already.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

It's up to the judgment of the interested editors to determine if there is a good reason for changing the currently existing style, should there be no previous documented consensus on the best approach. For many cases, the "bold, revert, discuss" cycle is adequate to enable changes to be made, without any drawn-out process. isaacl (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of clarifying phrase: arbitrary break II

• I'm not opposed to "central style guidance", as Dicklyon says above (and I don't appreciate the attempt to personalize this), but I do oppose treating the MoS as if it were policy. One guideline I edit a lot is WP:COI. The language of that clearly marks it as a guideline: editing with a COI is strongly discouraged, doing it for money very strongly so, etc. In fact, COI and paid editing are widespread. The only policy is that paid editing must be disclosed.

The sentence in question marks the guideline status of the MoS: "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason." It has been there for years, in that form or similar, and shouldn't be changed without clear consensus. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The sentence in question only says that, if the MOS requires does not require a particular style, some other style can be used. That applies to the old wording as well as the new wording: they only apply when more than one style is "acceptable". e.g. because the MOS gives options or doesn't mention the a particular issue. The "guideline" vs. "policy" issue is a red herring - if the MOS says some policy is not acceptable, then that style isn't acceptable. The issue I am concerned about is only for styles that are not mentioned at all by the MOS. For styles that are mentioned by the MOS, the solution would be to amend the MOS if some other style would be better. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not my reading of it. I read it to mean that if someone is following an acceptable style (not necessarily acceptable to the MoS), and if the article's internally consistent, it shouldn't be changed without good reason. So, for example, someone might follow the Chicago Manual of Style, but would expect that to be changed in a British article, because ENGVAR provides a "good reason" for the change.

I wonder whether the best thing is to hold a central RfC to ask whether the MoS should become policy. The issue of its status has been rumbling on for years. There would be advantages and disadvantages to promotion. If it were policy, it might stabilize and become less of a walled garden. Having it as a guideline means it's easier to change, but it also means it can be ignored (in theory). The current situation is that it's edited as a guideline but enforced as policy. It's that dual status that I oppose. I would prefer it to be a much-loved guideline, rather than something that causes ill-feeling. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I think a separate RFC might be a good idea. I have always read "acceptable" to mean two things: not explicitly forbidden or overruled by the MOS, and not otherwise so crazy as to be completely unreasonable for an encyclopedia. That is the same standard as e.g. CITEVAR: an article can use any citation style as long as the style is not explicitly forbidden or overruled by WP:CITE and otherwise not completely crazy. This is also the same general situation as ENGVAR. One "good reason" for a change is that the MOS or other guideline explicitly says to do something else. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I mostly agree with your interpretation, just with a different emphasis, but I don't agree that "good reason" = the MoS says so (I think that would amount to tautology here). "Acceptable" to me means "in the MoS" or "widely regarded as okay". The importance of that emphasis for me is to underline that the MoS is not policy. I would prefer that to be made more explicit in the lead, but because that sentence was there, I haven't pushed to introduce something. But if the force of that sentence is to change, I'd like to see the status decided, described and respected, whichever way it goes. If there is to be an RfC asking whether it's policy, it should be held on the pump because it would affect all articles. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

It is almost a tautology, in the same way that WP:CITE determines what citation styles are acceptable. I think an RFC on the village pump would indeed be a good idea. The key is to have clear wording. I don't think that "policy v. guideline" is the right way to look at it because those terms already have so little meaning. Perhaps a better question is whether, if the MOS says some particular style is required, if that means that the style should generally be employed at all articles, or if it is acceptable for editors as a matter of general practice to ignore the MOS and follow other style guides. Of course there will be rare exceptions, which is a separate matter. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I think editors do understand the difference between policy and a guideline, and that's the issue that keeps bubbling up. The GA criteria, for example, don't require articles to follow the MoS, except for certain sub-pages of it. That alone tells us that it's a guideline that can be safely ignored; if someone tries to impose the MoS on a GAN, the nominator can say no. We would never have GA criteria that say an article needn't be neutral, needn't contain sources, needn't comply with BLP, so we do have that clear distinction.

A few editors want to erase the distinction; note SMcCandlish's edit summary about closing a "loophole" when he removed those words. If those words—"under the Manual of Style"—are added, I would like to see something else in the lead that reminds people that this is a guideline only. I know that will be fought, so I feel the best step is to go to the community and ask what status it wants for the MoS. Policy or guideline? Applied everywhere or strongly encouraged but not mandated? More like NPOV or more like COI? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The Manual of Style's "guideline" status doesn't appear to be widely contested. The disagreement seems to pertain to the relevant distinction between a guideline and a policy at Wikipedia.

If I've understood your position (conveyed above and in previous discussions) accurately, you assert that our guidelines document informal recommendations that individual editors may override simply because they disagree with them or prefer something else.

Conversely, while I agree that our guidelines are less firm than our policies, I believe that they should be followed in the absence of a well-reasoned exception (the existence of which is subject to consensus if a disagreement arises). In other words, a determination that a particular guideline's application to a specific subject area is unhelpful might be a valid reason to deviate from it in that context, but "I don't feel like doing it that way" is not.

Of course, users are welcome to dive in and contribute content without even reading the MoS, let alone adhering to it. Others, however, are welcome to edit the resultant articles to incorporate Wikipedia's style conventions, with no obligation to retain something simply because it's considered "acceptable" elsewhere. I agree with others above that you've misinterpreted the relevant statement, wherein "acceptable" is intended to mean "not contradicting the MoS". —David Levy 23:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

[Replying to this whole subthread at once:] Much of WP:POLICY, like much of any system of policies, regulations, laws, sport rules, and other rule systems, are tautologous in that sense. Any style guide is, by the nature of language itself, partially arbitrary, partially based on norms and expectations, and mostly simply intended to produce desired outcomes. As has been noted many times, it is not MoS's role to declare what is True and Right and Ideal for the world; it is to answer the question "what should we do in this situation [and this one, and this one, ...]?" with a single answer (often any answer, so that we have one at all, but also many times a particular one that is especially appropriate for the encyclopedic register, for WP's technical or audience needs, because it's how all the high-end sources do it, etc.); the goal is not correction but cessation and prevention of conflict. MoS evolved and has continued to do so because people will fight article after article, year after year over the same stylistic trivia as if the world depended on it, unless there are rules that short-circuit this. The remaining dispute is rarely about particulars, but primarily just resistance to there being rules at all. Dispute reduction and prevention is the primary the function of MoS, like most organizational rules of all sorts (when they are not simply responsive to an external pressure, e.g. corporate compliance with laws, network security rules to prevent hacks, etc.).

I think it's those who come here to rattle "just a guideline" sabers who do not understand the difference between a policy and a guideline. They are the same thing but for one distinction: policies reflect absolute necessities for the project to function; guidelines present best-practice "strong suggestions" for the smooth functioning of the project. This distinction is hardly unique to WP. You'll find it in one form or another in any organization and in any project (even in the MUST versus SHOULD of standards documents). There is no fundamental difference between them (or even between them and essays that the community takes seriously, such as WP:BRD and WP:AADD, which differ only in presenting philosophies, methods, approaches, and other material that is not in the form of line-item rules). Those looking for excuses to ignore guidelines are exhibiting a WP:COMPETENCE problem in the broad sense of that document, a failure to exercise their ability to set aside personal peccadilloes and work within the game rules, to play the same game on the same team.

As has also been said many times, it is correct that MoS is not a document we expect people to read before contributing, or to ever memorize. As with the vast majority of guidelines, and many policies, it is a reference work to thwart disputes, and which people absorb slowly the more they participate. This is the way people learn any complex, human system. So, of course, one is not required to comply with MoS; one is just required to not tendentiously editwar (neither in flamey nor in "slow editwar" and "civil PoV" fashion) against others doing so with content that one has released to the project for others' editing. Anyone doing otherwise is in WP:NOT territory, using WP as a personal publishing platform. Territorial attempts to control content and its presentation are the #1 source of MoS- and WP:AT-related conflict (the second is "that's not what I learned in school or what we do at my job, so it is Wrong and I must fight to the death to change it".)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's "conditions" for dropping this Quixotic quest – 'If those words—"under the Manual of Style"—are added, I would like to see something else in the lead that reminds people that this is a guideline only' – have already been met. There's a huge banner template atop this and every other MoS page, reading "This guideline is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." So, why is this still an argument? Let's move on to something more productive.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

In the section above, several editors have been working productively to resolve a separate issue with the new wording, which seem to be different from SlimVirgin's concerns. Don't be hasty to put down the concerns of others... — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm out of time for reading all the above, but will try to catch up. My two cents, since I haven't contributed much to the conversation yet: First, if the MoS is silent on a topic of style that comes up in a discussion between editors, the editors are free to come to a local consensus on how to address it. Hence "acceptable" doesn't mean "specified in the MoS". Second, if the MoS specifies a style, but there is a local consensus that something else is preferable, that's OK. That's because the MoS is a guideline, not policy, and also because local consensus can change. If an editor (in good faith) changes something away from that local consensus in order to comply with the MoS, and then is reverted by one of the editors working on that article, the first editor should understand that the local consensus is acceptable. To be honest I think this will be quite rare, because the MoS is generally pretty sensible, but saying anything else implies MoS is policy. It's the second of these points that is a RETAIN issue; the first point is more of a clarification. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: you're raising a different and wider issue than slightly tweaking the current wording in the MoS, which is what we are discussiong. As it happens, I strongly disagree that "local consensus" can or should over-ride community-wide consensus encoded in the MoS, but this is not the issue here, and we should not be distracted into discussing it. The issue is clarifying the status of styles not covered in the MoS. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The trouble is that Mike Christie may be fairly representing SV's intent, to make it OK to ignore the MOS guidelines based on a "local" or "specialist" style with "local consensus". I agree it's a bad idea, but I'm not sure I agree with you that this is not what we're discussing. Consider the intent of SMcCandlish's mod of last April that SV is now wanting removed. She has a history of arguing against the MOS, citing "only a guideline" as justification for ignoring it, and things like that. For example, in this diff, SV says "... the point is that, as a matter of fact, groups of editors (and individual editors) can and do decide to ignore the MoS. The GA criteria have been that way for years. They wouldn't be able to say 'we have decided that GAs should not be neutral,' but if they say they're not adhering to the MoS, no one bats an eyelid." I don't agree that no-one bats an eyelid, but it's true that we don't generally require full MOS compliance to get to GA status; that doesn't mean that style is then to be forever regarded as "acceptable", when an editor later finds that improved compliance with WP style is possible. Dicklyon (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Editor freedom to ignore our MOS is not a revelation. As has been said already, edits in any style are acceptable but will eventually be copyedited into line with our MOS. This, I'm sure, is the reasoning behind that aspect of GAs. "Good" articles are not "perfect" articles, there's always room to improve in many areas, including style. Primergrey (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Exactly; "acceptable" in terms of getting to GA status is not the kind of "acceptable" that this MOS section is about, which is why we need something like SMcCandlish's mod to clarify it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Dicklyon's observation about GA/FA and MoS compliance is actually a crucial one. If you go witness the WT:FAC brouhaha a month or so ago, the problem he describes is unmistakably apparent. The idea is that if something passed FA (or GA), back when, that it is forever "acceptable" and does not have to be made compliant with later guideline changes or even with long-extant provisions that were not raised during the original reviews. It's an excuse to prevent other editors from working on these articles (sometimes with "I'm gonna quit if I don't get my way" drama added as a chest-beating tactic). While I didn't touch on this in the above material, this is clearly a strong factor at play here, and is another tentacle of the "don't you touch my article" territoriality monster that has been growing as the editorial pool condenses and has fewer eyes to enforce WP:OWN and WP:CONLEVEL policies. FA and similar labels are being held up as if they are "permanently exempt from all additional compliance or improvement" licenses, against MOS, against WP:CITE, against infoboxes and other templates, etc. It's not really an MoS issue.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

While it's clearly wrong to argue that being given FA (or GA) status means that an article is not subject to the MoS, it's also important to note that the reduction in the number of active editors cuts both ways. Changes to the MoS are based on fewer eyes, too, and frequently attract comments from only the very small set of MoS regulars. The MoS will command respect only if it really does reflect community consensus, and that has become very hard to demonstrate. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Probably resolvable by "advertising" MoS RfCs (and other major MoS discussions) at WP:VPPOL. This isn't a specific MoS concern, but affects decisionmaking generally across the site. RfCs are also useful in that they trigger the WP:FRS system to pull in more editors, and are expected to be neutrally worded (they can be closed as invalid if they're not).
If the editorial pool reduction continues unabated, the entire policy consensus system will probably have to be more centralized, such as by requiring that all RfCs that affect multiple topics be held at Village Pump directly. I doubt this will happen, however, since a project with the scope and importance of WP should always attract a critical mass of participants. What we saw was a huge, wild boost in popularity in the mid-to-late 2000s, followed by a bursting of the "wow, I can edit an encyclopedia?" enthusiasm bubble a few years ago after the novelty wore off, people realized this is real work, and most of the "exciting" articles already got written. I don't think it translates into a downward participation spiral with no limit.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Another reason this proposal is effectively mooted by its own goals and assumptions: The desire is that MoS should indicate that people can't editwar over style matters that aren't [yet or ever] explicitly covered by MoS. But this is already addressed in MoS's own lead, with "Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable", citing ArbCom cases about this in a footnote. So, adding another note to the same effect would just be redundant. It's within MoS's scope to observe what is already not permitted by the community for reasons beyond MoS, but it's outside MoS's remit to set new behavioral guidelines for what may be done with regard to matters that are not covered by MoS, which is what the proposal above would do.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: - the issue I see is that the new language that was added to the MOS might incorrectly suggest that "optional styles" only means "styles where the MOS lays out options", rather than its longstanding meaning of "all reasonable styles not prohibited by the MOS, regardless whether they are explicitly mentioned". The longstanding behavioral principle from MOSRETAIN, CITEVAR, ENGVAR, etc. is to encourage standardization on things required by guidelines and encourage stability on things not covered by them. In any case, it seems from the conversation that there's no positive consensus for the addition of the words "under the Manual of Style" without some additional qualification to continue encouraging stability in matters not mentioned by the MOS. What language would you propose? — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Mike Christie. He wrote:

if the MoS specifies a style, but there is a local consensus that something else is preferable, that's OK. That's because the MoS is a guideline, not policy, and also because local consensus can change. If an editor (in good faith) changes something away from that local consensus in order to comply with the MoS, and then is reverted by one of the editors working on that article, the first editor should understand that the local consensus is acceptable."

That is the point I was making above. An internally consistent, non-MoS style (for example, from a mainstream style book) might be chosen by editors in preference to the advice in the MoS. That local consensus is okay, because MoS is not policy. Therefore, I oppose SMcCandlish's addition of the words "under the Manual of Style" to the sentence: "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason."

"Acceptable", as I have always understood that sentence, might mean "acceptable according to a mainstream style book" or "acceptable according to the style guidelines of a professional or academic body". I have never understood it to mean "acceptable under the Manual of Style". The whole point of that sentence is to caution editors that, if a style is stable, consistent and working, leave it be unless there's good reason to change it. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't recall the last time I departed from the MoS, because I work almost entirely at FAC, and the MoS is part of the FA criteria. I've always assumed that local consensus was acceptable (though I've never taken advantage of it myself). But if it's not true that MoS can be overridden by local consensus, what does it mean to say that it's a guideline, not policy? How would things be different if it were policy? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds, for example, had a particular way of capitalizing, because it's what bird experts expect to see. The GA criteria don't require compliance with the MoS, except for a few subpages. If the MoS were policy, that couldn't happen. We wouldn't allow a set of articles to violate copyright or be non-BLP compliant. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: No, BIRDS does not have a particular way of capitalizing. --Izno (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Izno, that's an interesting link, because the point was made there (by Andrewa) that the distinction between guideline and policy was in fact the underlying issue. WP:GUIDELINE says " Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". I'm not being rhetorical here when I ask what the difference would be if the MoS were policy. Really, what would be different? Some here are arguing that local consensus cannot override the MoS. So surely it's de facto policy in some editors' eyes? Or am I missing some other nuance in the policy/guideline distinction? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: WP:LOCALCON clearly comments on the case of participants at a local project having some consensus not shared by a greater-consensus-level policy/guideline. The practical effect of this document being policy and not guideline, or vice versa, seems irrelevant in that case. --Izno (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Izno, as you know, they did, but the editors who wanted that were overruled and several left. It should never have happened. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: That would be a non sequitur. I have nil interest in arguing whether it should have happened; I just wanted to clarify the circumstances of your woefully under-explained comment on the point. --Izno (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Really, showing that there is still enough support behind a central consensus to override a local consensus should never happen? Seems odd to suggest. Also the premise that "it's what bird experts expect to see" is far from consistently the case, which was part of the issue; even bird specialists use different cap style for naming. We have a similar thing in astronomy, where local consensus is to use caps even where NASA's and other style guides say not to; but that bunch was strong enough to get their variant written into the MOS, so I guess we're stuck with it. Dicklyon (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello everyone, since I've been pinged above I'll make some comments.

Firstly and off-topic... If you change the headings in an ongoing discussion [2] it makes it extremely difficult for people to find the relevant section if (like me) they're coming from a notification. I have no idea what the edit summary of that particular edit means, but I'd suggest (don't fix it now that would just make it worse) that it was ill-advised and probably violates talk page guidelines. Please find another way of doing whatever it is you're trying to do.

I hope nobody sees that sorry discussion on bird article titles as a good model of discussion. Perhaps see User:Andrewa/How not to rant instead, it describes some of the techniques used more succinctly. (;->

But to the issues raised: Both guidelines and policies represent what I'd prefer to call historic consensus, and as such should never be ignored. But of course neither is perfect or set in concrete. The difference to my mind is, before violating a policy you should discuss and justify your action. After violating a guideline you should be prepared to discuss and justify your action. It's an important distinction (and one I often used in a professional capacity in a past career), but IMO there is no other difference at all. Andrewa (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

An internally consistent, non-MoS style (for example, from a mainstream style book) might be chosen by editors in preference to the advice in the MoS.

If personal preference (as opposed to a specific circumstance warranting an exception) is the sole justification, the resultant prose can and should be edited for consistency with the Manual of Style.

That local consensus is okay, because MoS is not policy.

Again, Sarah, you're mistaken in your belief that "guideline" = "optional and unenforceable".

"Acceptable", as I have always understood that sentence, might mean "acceptable according to a mainstream style book" or "acceptable according to the style guidelines of a professional or academic body". I have never understood it to mean "acceptable under the Manual of Style".

As discussed above, your understanding doesn't jibe with that of others.

The whole point of that sentence is to caution editors that, if a style is stable, consistent and working, leave it be unless there's good reason to change it.

Consistency with the MoS is a good reason.

The point of the sentence is to prevent needless changes from one MoS-compliant style to another. Under your interpretation, the exception swallows the rule (and the MoS is rendered essentially useless). —David Levy 19:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a lot of merit to the position that if the MOS requires a particular style, then no other style is "acceptable". Similarly, per WP:DUPCITES in WP:CITE, precisely duplicated citations in any article can always be combined - even if the local style did not originally do that. But I want to keep pressing my point that my concern with the new language is not about that. In cases when the MOS requires something, I agree it is required. I am concerned about the case where the MOS is silent on some particular issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Understood. I support the proposed use of wording intended to prevent both misinterpretations. —David Levy 21:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Very well put. Andrewa (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

"Local consensus"

I suspect that the phrase "local consensus" is being used above to describe two subtly different concepts, potentially resulting in some degree of misunderstanding.

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS describes a situation in which a group of editors decides to override a consensus of the Wikipedia community, which contradicts the policy.

However, this doesn't mean that exceptions to guidelines (including the MoS) cannot be identified and applied to articles. Special circumstances can exist, typically because some element of a subject or subject area is unusual or wasn't considered when the relevant guideline was established. This is materially different from a scenario in which editors disagree with a guideline and believe that they possess the authority to control certain content, effectively overruling the community at large. —David Levy 19:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. But anyone who is aware of consistently violating the MOS should initiate a discussion to get this exception agreed and documented. Otherwise, there is a largish risk that they are just making work for others in eventually repairing their non-compliances, wasting both their own time and that of others.

I shudder a little whenever I see the term local consensus. It normally means that someone (often but by no means always the person using the term) doesn't like a consensus decision and is going to ignore it.

Consensus is consensus. Andrewa (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The point of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is not that the consensus is local, but whether it overrides a higher level of consensus: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." If it does not override anything, then it's merely a "local consensus", not WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. WikiProjects can have discussions to override wider community consensus without the wider community being aware, thus biasing the outcome to Project members' preferences—that's WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

See #Local consensus below. Andrewa (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of clarifying phrase: arbitrary break III

I think the "Guideline" vs. "Policy" status discussion no more than a tangent, and a bit of a red herring.

For me its about the issues presently not covered by any sections of the MoS (and subsequent pages such as WikiProject level guidance). Let me give you an example: I write articles about musical compositions. Currently there's no MoS or other guidance on how to list musical scores (significant manuscripts and their facsimiles, score editions and their introductions/critical apparatus,...). Widely divergent formats are used to give an overview of such items (or suppress them as not relevant), so I look around and see how other editors approached this, try my own formats, etc. I hope that one day there will be some guidance on how to approach this in a more or less uniform way, but until that happens (might still take some time before this can be figured out), the MoS shouldn't suggest that anything not covered by it is up for indiscriminate style changes. "Where more than one style is acceptable under the Manual of Style, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason" has too much of an implication that if not covered "under the Manual of Style" styles can be changed at random, even if there's nothing wrong with the original style. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: Yet "not up for indiscriminate or random changes" already applies site-wide to everything, per the interplay of the WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EDITING policies. Anyone can add/remove/alter just about anything. Anyone else can revert that change. Discussion ensues. We have dispute resolution processes for when discussion over the matter fails to come to a new consensus easily. So, our extant policies and procedures are sufficient, and making up a new one here is a just WP:CREEP. The weird desire to add a "special" version of that to MoS to address that which MoS does not address (WTF?) is aberrant, would impede actual consensus formation (by giving the green light for opposing camps to dig trenches), and conflicts with editing policy anyway. Making up a new rule that amounts to "no style, MoS-covered or not, in an article can be changed without a time-sucking RfC" is an unbelievably bad idea, but that's what the proposed change would be interpreted as (we know this from direct experience of WP:CITEVAR and the problems caused by OWN-leaning misinterpretations of it; this is a mistake to learn from).

Instead of looking for a way to dig one's "classical score listing style" preference trench deeper and defend it against enemies, it would be more productive to have a very well-advertised (Village Pump notice, etc.) RfC on arriving at a standardized way (or several variant standardized ways) to do this, and codify that in MOS:MUSIC (including a rule to not change from one standardized variant to another without consensus, if we arrive at more than one).

The very ability to change non-standardized things in various ways and see what gets accepted is how standardization evolves in the first place. The proposal above is essentially a proposal for us to thwart our own ability to arrive at best practices through experimentation and discussion about it, and to instead enshrine every local experiment permanently. It's fundamentally "un-wiki". Wikipedia is a unified project (that we're writing for the public not ourselvles); it isn't a bunch of warring sovereign content-and-style fiefdoms.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

it isn't a bunch of warring sovereign content-and-style fiefdoms. Sure coulda fooled me. EEng 08:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: The longstanding practice is exactly that "optional styles" - which include reasonable styles not covered by the MOS - should default to the established style in case of disagreement, unless the MOS or other guideline says otherwise. That is not in any way a new proposal, it is the way things have been for many years. If there was a proposal that suddenly MOSRETAIN (and, similarly, CITEVAR and ENGVAR) should only apply to styles that are explicitly mentioned, while other styles can be changed at whim, that would be a very significant change to the current practice, and would require a very well publicized RFC. It is not the current situation, however. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Nor is it what SMcCandlish intends, although it would be an unintended consequence of the original wording. Unfortunately, this discussion has got muddled up between those trying to improve SMcC's wording, while respecting the spirit in which it was proposed, and those who have long-standing objections to the MoS being more than "optional guidance" and who believe that local consensus should rule all. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I do see what youse guys are getting at, but your wording so far substitutes one problem for another instead of eliminating problems. This often happens when people try to create a new rule rather than slightly tweak existing ones. The clear solution to me is to put the "ArbCom says you can be punished for style editwarring" sentence and footnote first, then follow it with the "don't mess with an explicitly MoS-acceptable style" rule second, and linking them with "In particular," before the MoS-acceptable-style sentence, with no wording changes of substance, other than that the MoS-acceptable sentence should probably end with "without consensus" rather than "without good reason" which really applies to the don't-stylewar rule). This would be in consonant with WP:EDITING policy (by default, you can change any content in WP with a good reason, though your changes are BRDable) as a general matter, and consonant with ArbCom enabling sanctions for stylewarring over MoS stuff in pariticular, as disruptive. It would also be more consistent with ENGVAR, DATEVAR, etc., which are rules about consensus formation not about having good reasons. It would, finally, avoid both of the problems discussed above (gutting MoS entirely, or acting as an unwitting enabler of style WP:OWN behavior). If this is agreeable, I would suggest it be a separate subsection here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• I wouldn't want to change "without good reason" to "without consensus", which seems to rule out a bold change even on some diddly little thing that MOS happens to mention somewhere as having two acceptable approaches.
• Maybe I'm overlooking something (probably am, because I can't follow these huge discussions in detail -- life's too short) but I don't understand why you wouldn't want something clarifying that editwarring isn't OK on style points on which MOS is silent. Well, OK, I guess that might open the door to almost anything being a "style point". I give up. But keep at it, dudes. EEng 06:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Summary so far

We have two separate objections to SMcCandlish's proposal to add "under the Manual of Style" to the lead sentence, to qualify the word "acceptable": "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason." That section of the lead is known as WP:STYLEVAR. The VAR principle is one on which many editors rely. The objections are:

(1) An "acceptable" style need not mean "acceptable under the Manual of Style". It could mean acceptable under another style guide/professional body, or even acceptable under an earlier version of the MoS. The point of this objection is that the MoS is a guideline, not policy. Maintaining that distinction helps to avoid situations such as the WikiProject Birds capitalization dispute or Talk:Thorpe affair.

(2) Styles not covered by the MoS, but used in articles, are currently "protected" by the "first major contributor" or VAR principle. The proposed addition would change that, implying that only styles acceptable "under the Manual of Style" would be protected from being changed without good reason. This has been summed up as: "the MoS shouldn't suggest that anything not covered by it is up for indiscriminate style changes."

SarahSV ^(talk) 07:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; good summary. And I strongly object to the principles expressed in both 1 and 2. As many have pointed out, in 1, the policy/guideline distinction is a complete red herring, and the whole point of the MOS it to supercede the style guidelines of other professional/topical organizations. As for 2, the premise that "Styles not covered by the MoS, but used in articles, are currently 'protected' by the 'first major contributor' or VAR principle" is certainly not a widely accepted idea – there is no such "VAR principle". But again, thanks for clarifying how you see it. Dicklyon (talk) 07:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The distinction between policy and guideline is clear enough, even if fuzzy in the middle. Note again: the GA criteria do not require MoS compliance, except for subpages such as LEAD. But we could never have GA criteria that said "feel free to ignore BLP, copyright or NPOV". Ditto with the COI guideline. COI editing is strongly discouraged, but the Articles for Creation process allows COI articles so long as the COI is disclosed. These examples show that we do recognize and understand the policy/guideline distinction.

As for "there is no such 'VAR principle'", WP:STYLEVAR says:

Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. If a style or similar debate becomes intractable, see if a rewrite can render the issue irrelevant.

This used to have its own section within the MoS, but it was moved to the lead. Perhaps we ought to move it back so that it's clearer as a principle. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Note again: the GA criteria do not require MoS compliance, except for subpages such as LEAD. But we could never have GA criteria that said "feel free to ignore BLP, copyright or NPOV".

We can all agree, I think, that compliance with those policies is significantly more important than compliance with the Manual of Style is. A Wikipedia article can be good (and be recognized as a good article) despite deviating from the MoS. This, however, doesn't mean that the deviation itself is good or carries some sort of seal of approval that bars its elimination. Good articles can be made better. Bringing them into compliance with the MoS is one way to accomplish that.

Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason.

Indeed. And consistency with the Manual of Style is a good reason. Otherwise, it would serve no purpose.

Again, your interpretation of "acceptable" constitutes an exception that swallows the rule. You're arguing that we have a style guide, but no one is permitted to apply its style guidance to content that someone else wrote (unless it's so far astray from normal written English that it wouldn't be found in any respected publication).

Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable.

This refers to instances in which multiple styles are consistent with the MoS (either explicitly or because the matter isn't addressed).

If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

Pay particular attention to the sentence's first clause. We "defer to the style used by the first major contributor" as a fallback, intended to end a dispute by undoing changes not supported by our policies and guidelines. It's a means of halting an edit war and encouraging users to concentrate on productive endeavors. It does not mean that the style used by the first major contributor is preferred on that basis. It's a solution to a problem that arises when no preference (beyond editors' personal preferences) exists between/among various styles at Wikipedia. The Manual of Style documents such preferences. —David Levy 21:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• I concur totally with Sarah's summary above. Where two (or more) styles exist, people should not go about and change an article from one style to the other without a very good reason. There is no consensus to use "under the Manual of Style" without justification to continue encouraging stability in matters not mentioned by the MOS. The MoS is just a guideline and is not policy; every article differs from the next and each, depending on the writer, has their own stylistic values, regardless of what the MoS says. When I (used to) write FA's, I wrote them based on what I thought was good, not what a bloody guideline told me was good. That includes the writing, the images, and the use of quote boxes. Those who display such fetishes with the MoS should come to realise that for the benefit of moving forward. Cassianto^Talk 08:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

each, depending on the writer, has their own stylistic values – that goes to the heart of the matter. I believe we are constructing an encyclopedia, not a collection of articles. You clearly do not. Nothing prevents editors writing in their own style, but they do not own an article, and copy-editors must be free to achieve some reasonable level of standardization, allowing for the fact that English is a multi-national language and it was decided not to use one ENGVAR. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Please don't try and tell me what I do and do not believe. Who's said anything about "owning"? Cassianto^Talk 13:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto if we're nit-picking over wording (a very Wikipedia behaviour :-) ), I did not say that you believed in "owning". My statement of what you believe – which is based on what you wrote – relates to "constructing an encyclopedia, not a collection of articles". Peter coxhead (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Neither did I say you "believed I was owning" articles; you really must keep up! But since you appear to like to assume others preferences, I'm wondering why you're calling into question a perceived and wholly inaccurate belief that I like to go about "collecting articles" rather than to build an encyclopedia? How do you know what I like? Cassianto^Talk 19:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

If you write every article differs from the next and each, depending on the writer, has their own stylistic values, regardless of what the MoS says. When I (used to) write FA's, I wrote them based on what I thought was good, not what a bloody guideline told me was good it's reasonable to assume that you are not overly interested in the uniformity of style that would characterize an encyclopedia. If everyone writes based on what they individually think good, the result is a collection of stylistically distinct articles. Anyway, I'll leave others to judge whether I have misinterpreted what you wrote. Let's get back to the issues. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I still don't understand how me ignoring the stylistic preferences of a flawed guideline - the MoS - while choosing instead to adopt my own preferred style mean that I OWN the article and/or article collect? I think we can both agree that you're talking out of your backside. Cassianto^Talk 20:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I still don't understand how me ignoring the stylistic preferences of a flawed guideline - the MoS - while choosing instead to adopt my own preferred style mean that I OWN the article and/or article collect?

It doesn't mean that, assuming that you permit others to edit said content to replace your preferred styles with those documented in the MoS. —David Levy 21:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

To "permit" something is to allow it, so you're trying to lead me down the well trodden "OWN" path there, which I'm not going down. My point is that if I, as the main author of a FA or GA, choose to adopt a style which differs from that of the MoS, then I'm entitled to ignore it and not have the likes of McCandlish darkening my doorstep. Cassianto^Talk 21:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

To "permit" something is to allow it, so you're trying to lead me down the well trodden "OWN" path there, which I'm not going down.

Huh? The subject was raised above. I'm agreeing with you that writing in your own preferred style doesn't constitute an attempt to "own" content, assuming that you don't seek to counter others' efforts to edit said content in accordance with the MoS. I'm referring to the policy directly, not attempting to trick you in some way.

My point is that if I, as the main author of a FA or GA, choose to adopt a style which differs from that of the MoS, then I'm entitled to ignore it and not have the likes of McCandlish darkening my doorstep.

If, by "darkening [your] doorstep", you're referring to harassment or belittlement, you're quite right. If you mean "editing the article for consistency with the MoS", this is a textbook example of ownership. To be clear, I don't know which interpretation (if either) is accurate, so I'm not accusing you of anything or attempting to lead you down any paths. I'm simply citing a policy and its potential relevance to the matter at hand. —David Levy 23:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

When I (used to) write FA's, I wrote them based on what I thought was good, not what a bloody guideline told me was good.

And that's fine. As I noted elsewhere in he discussion, editors needn't even read the MoS before contributing, let alone adhere to it. But you accept, I presume, that your contributions "can and will be mercilessly edited" by those who concern themselves with such matters. —David Levy 21:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

...and if they do then justification, and subsequent consensus, would need to be sought in order to alter the stylistic preferences of the main author, particularly if the article is an FA. Cassianto^Talk 21:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, provided that the stylistic preferences of the main author are consistent with the MoS.

If the stylistic preferences of the main author are not consistent with the MoS, this generally constitutes justification. Of course, exceptions arise, and I certainly don't advocate that anyone purposely perform unhelpful edits purely for the sake of MoS compliance. The MoS documents conventions for which consensus has been established, with the understanding that deviation therefrom (in accordance with the same principles of consensus) sometimes is appropriate. —David Levy 23:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

SV, you censure Dicklyon for saying "there is no such 'VAR principle' ". You then show the wording of one version that purports to be this mysterious WP:STYLEVAR. You say it has always been around, pretty well; and that it once had a section of its own.

But I do not find "WP:STYLEVAR" anywhere on this main page of MOS. Please help us here. Where did that name come from? In what edit was the name invented? Who made the redirect that takes us there, and for what purpose? What documentation and discussion accompanied those actions? I ask you, because you seem to be the main supporter (and certainly the main protector and user) of that invisible location in MOS and the seemingly "official" redirect that you present as a documented and consensually settled feature of MOS.

Tony (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Both sides of this discussion seem to me to make good points. The contradiction seems to be between "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" (from WP:POLICY, which is itself policy), and "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope" (from WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, which is also policy). If any deviation from a guideline can be overridden without argument simply by pointing to LOCALCONSENSUS, then the comment in POLICY has no force at all; but if editors can simply point to POLICY whenever they want to deviate from a guideline, then LOCALCONSENSUS has no force at all. Neither of these positions seem acceptable to me, but I don't see how to come up with a well-defined middle path. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

LOCALCONSENSUS cannot be used to override "any" deviation from the MOS. It simply ensures that discussion of that deviation does not occur in the recesses of, for example, a wikiproject's talk page. Primergrey (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I prefer a middle-ground myself. But I've come to discover that there is very little middle ground to be found in any discussion on Wikipedia. But put me down as thinking we need to acknowledge that Sarah's got some good points, even if you don't agree with them, but that we do need some overarching MOS on big style issues also. I just don't think the wording that SMC's adding is the solution. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone think that we could have GA criteria that said, "feel free to ignore MEDRS" or "GAs do not need citations"? This distinction looks like boiler-plate pettifogging. Primergrey (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

In fact the GA criteria do indeed ignore parts of the MoS. I don't think that's a good example, though, because GA doesn't require ignoring it; it simply allows it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Where in my question do you see "require". I was simply pointing out why the GA criteria example is being viewed by some people as being a red herring. Where was your criticism when SV used this very language to frame her argument? Primergrey (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• There was a similar discussion to this in January 2013, with people disagreeing about whether the MoS had to be followed. And in September 2012, there was an RfC after an editor tried to change the same STYLEVAR paragraph we're discussing. He argued unsuccessfully that we should remove "though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia ..." from "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia".
  Policies and guidelines on Wikipedia have to be descriptive as well as prescriptive. That's where we differ from other publications. A normal publisher pays writers and says "Here is the house style. Follow it." But we're volunteers, and we're supposed to respect what other volunteers do at articles they're working on. The policies and guidelines reflect best practice; they're not top-down instructions.
  All attempts to impose central control over style and citation issues have been rejected, because we don't want bosses. When people feel they are being bossed, they leave or reduce their involvement. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Rather than clutter this discussion further, I've expanded my thoughts above at User:Andrewa/The MOS is neither optional nor compulsory. Andrewa (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Local consensus

I feel I should point out that the term local consensus does not appear in the policy to which that shortcut links, other than in the shortcut sidebar of the relevant section. Both it and the (undocumented) parallel shortcut from wp:LOCALCONSENSUS appear to be unilateral, undiscussed (but IMO helpful) redirects. Again IMO, the term is better avoided. Andrewa (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Non sequitur—why would the term be better avoided? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

  Because the concept is ill-defined, as has been said above by others, and probably irrelevant. Just my opinion. My main point, which is fact, is it's not mentioned in the policy. There have been some attempts to promote it, but all failed. Andrewa (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

  Everything that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS points to is policy. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is defined by what's in those two paragraphs. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

  Agree that Everything that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS points to is policy. But disagree that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is defined by what's in those two paragraphs. There is no attempt to define it there, and the value of the redirects is to make this clear. But the danger is that people may assume, as you seem to have, that the redirect indicates a consensus supporting the concept of local consensus and incorporating it into policy. There has been no such consensus, in fact the term seems to mean various things to different people, as observed above, and sometimes even within the one argument. Such confused thinking is a danger whenever ill-defined terms are used. Andrewa (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

  It means what's in those two paragraphs. If anyone's trying to shoehorn "LOCALCONSENSUS" into any other meaning, then they're the problem. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

  Well, yes. I think the point being made though is that the terminology naturally leads to the assumption that all "local consensus" is disallowed per LOCALCONSENSUS, which is not the case. Now, is there another term that could replace LOCALCONSENSUS? I'm not sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

  "Level of consensus" is the header name. There's already a redirect WP:CONSENSUSLEVEL. Is the argument seriously being made that local consensuses are in and of themselves disallowed? That would mean doing away with every WikiProject-local MoS—which are meant to cover details too fine for the general MoS. I don't believe anyone's made anything like such an argument. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

  I don't believe so either, but it appears that such a meaning may have been mistakenly inferred above, due to differing uses of the phrase "local consensus". —David Levy 03:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I think my point that the term local consensus is better avoided is now amply made. The earlier discussion concluded The point of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is not that the consensus is local, but whether it overrides a higher level of consensus... If it does not override anything, then it's merely a "local consensus", not WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. (My emphasis, see this diff for the unabridged and unaltered quote.)

Then why not use the wp:level of consensus or WP:CONLEVEL shortcuts instead? These both reflect the section heading Wikipedia:Consensus#Level of consensus, to which all four shortcuts lead. Why instead introduce local consensus, a term that has two significantly different meanings depending on whether or not it's capitalised (and perhaps many more depending on who uses it, but that's bad enough)? A pseudo-technical term that has never been adopted by consensus, and therefore appears nowhere in policies and guidelines?

Its only effect seems to be to complicate discussion and to make consensus more difficult to attain, so my advice is even more strongly, avoid the term. Andrewa (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

So you're suggesting derailing discussions by browbeating those who happen to use the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS shortcut instead of the WP:CONLEVEL shortcut? I mean, seriously, who has suggested that a "local consensus" is in and of itself invalid (such as WP:JAPAN's "local consensus" to use modified Hepburn romanization for Japanese terms and names)? What are you hoping to achieve with this hairsplitting? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not my intention, nor did I anywhere mean to suggest that a a "local consensus" is in and of itself invalid. Just the opposite... I suggest that as the term local consensus has (at least) two completely different meanings, there is no way of deciding whether that statement is true, false, or even meaningless, and no point in even trying. (I do however think it's a very poor paraphrase of whatever I said.)

I'm not intending to browbeat, but I do have a rather strong opinion, and every right to express it. Don't I?

What I am trying to achieve is to clarify arguments by avoiding the term local consensus. If an argument can't be made without using this term, then that's itself evidence that there's a logical problem with it... that somewhere, local consensus is being used to mean two different things.

(And I should admit that I'm also collecting material to add to my essay User:Andrewa/Consensus is consensus, which is a work in progress to address exactly this issue.)

My hope is that, by doing this, we can get this and related discussions back on track, not derailed. Andrewa (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you point me to a dispute at an actual article that hinged on someone using the term "local consensus" instead of "level of consensus"? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

JHunterJ invoked LOCALCONSENSUS in an RM discussion at Talk:The_Shadow_over_Innsmouth#Requested_move_4; it closed as not moved, essentially in favor of sticking with what the MOS says. I'm not sure the argument "hinged on it" though. Dicklyon (talk) 07:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

And Ohconfucious invoked it at Talk:Kumi_Koda/Archive_3#Requested_move_2013, and lost; I can't say I understand the issue there. Dicklyon (talk) 07:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

From what I can tell, JHunterJ invoked it out of a belief that the capitalization issue was settled at higher level, and that an overriding consensus was being sought on that talk page. In that case, he invoked WP:LOCALCONSENSUS correctly (regardless of whether he was right about capitalization). Ohconfucious invoked it out of ignorance of just how complicated the issue of name-formatting of Japanese people in English is—an issue far more complicated than a body could glean from the discussion. In short, it's an issue that will never be solved to everyone's satisfaction, because every solution sucks dirt in an important way, and WP:COMMONNAME is inadequate and often inappropriate to handle it. The issue can only be "solved" locally at WP:JAPAN, but will never be solved there, and so we'll see these move requests until the end of time. Ohconfucious invoked WP:LOCALCONSENSUS correctly in the mistaken belief that WP:JAPAN was overriding wider consensus. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Whether you use the short-cut term "local consensus" or not is surely irrelevant. If you go back to May 2008, for example, the wording in the lead section was Consensus among a limited group of editors can not over-ride community consensus on a wider scale, until convincing arguments cause the new process to become widely-accepted. There's no need for the distinction Andrewa is trying to make; it's never been said that "limited group consensus" or "local consensus" is in any way wrong of itself; only that it can't over-ride community consensus. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree with nearly all of this. I still think it would be helpful to avoid the term local consensus, as it seems to be seriously ambiguous, and I see no benefit to using it. Disagree that the shortcut is irrelevant, it's very helpful to use the correct terminology.... I suppose if you piped it as [[wp:local consensus|levels of consensus]] that would be harmless enough, but it also seems pretty pointless. If that's the distinction I am trying to make, then yes, I disagree with that too. It's controversial I know, but I believe that terminology is important both in expressing thoughts and in forming them. Andrewa (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It's also wasted effort and hairsplitting when it hasn't led to any sort of concrete problem and there's content to edit. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I generally agree with this, even if it is mildly insulting as I've seen many discussions over the years that have been concrete problems and would not waste my time and everyone's time otherwise. I wish I had a diff conveniently at hand for you, but as you say there are other things to do. I do intend to add more examples to User:Andrewa/Consensus is consensus as I run across them; Neither of the examples already there are relevant to this. I'll try to remember to ping you when I add a relevant one. Andrewa (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I wish we could do away with the term "local consensus"... and replace it with the more accurate "limited consensus". The page on which a consensus is achieved does not matter - what matters is how many editors contributed when reaching it. We do occasionally have significant RFCs that take place on "local" article talk pages - RFCs that involve a large number of editors - These discussions can even involve more editors than were involved in reaching a consensus on MOS guideline pages. Sure, it does not happen often, but it does happen. My point is that in such situations, the "local" (but wide) consensus can (and should) "over-rule" the more "limited" consensus on the relevant MOS guideline page. After all MOS itself says that there will be occasional exceptions. I am definitely not saying that a small group of editors "OWNing" a local page or group of pages should be able to set aside MOS guidance ... but lots of editors at a local page can.

to put this another way... we should not dismiss a strong (and wide) consensus that just happens to occur on a local page. If that strong consensus disagrees with MOS guidance, we need to step back and ask whether the relevant MOS guidance actually enjoys as strong (and wide) a consensus as we assume it has. It may be that we need to change our MOS guidance... more often it will simply mean that we need to accept a subject specific exception to otherwise valid MOS guidance. Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, but it's rare that a wide consensus such as you describe happens. SarahSV linked above to some examples where there was support expressed for variance from guidelines, but the bird project discussion was an example where the global consensus overruled the variance. (I have no opinion on who was right in any of those cases.) It sounds like the situation that would annoy some editors is if they make a thoughtful decision to vary from MoS, and then revert a change made for MoS reasons, and then get no substantive discussion of the validity of varying from the MoS in that instance. An editor who argued to reinstate MoS-compliance solely on the basis that it is MoS-compliance is essentially treating it as more than a guideline.

I still don't like the "acceptable under the MoS" language because it privileges the MoS, but I also don't want to see people departing from the MoS without some considered reason. I like Ealdgyth's summary above the best so far: Sarah has some good points, but we need some overarching MoS guidance. And, like Ealdgyth, I think discussions like these are terrible at finding a middle ground. I don't think this discussion is going to go anywhere; I think the "acceptable under MoS" language is going to stay, simply through inertia; and I don't think we'll get any clarification on when an editor can reasonably vary from MoS. If any RfC were to provide clarification it would have to start somewhere like VPP, not here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Very well put. I'll think about that phrase limited consensus, it has potential. My initial reaction is that it's certainly better than local consensus, but perhaps there are traps with it that only experience will reveal. Andrewa (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

"An editor who argued to reinstate MoS-compliance solely on the basis that it is MoS-compliance is essentially treating it as more than a guideline." Are they? That is exactly what happens with edits that violate, say, MEDRS, all the time. Primergrey (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

MEDRS is a policy that still has the guideline tag on it.

@Mike Christie and Blueboar: the "under the Manual of Style" words are not in the guideline, and there's no consensus to add them. I think we do need a central RfC about the MoS and local consensus, and what we mean by the latter. There's a clear difference between policy and guidelines. No group of editors could decide to exempt one article from the copyright policy or the need for sourcing. People doing that repeatedly would be banned. But clearly a group could decide, say, to use spaced em dashes, which the MoS advises against. If there was a disagreement, they'd discuss and follow whatever consensus emerged on talk. It would be up to that local group. No one would be blocked for repeatedly using spaced em dashes. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

No one would be banned, but I wouldn't expect such a consensus to hold up unless accompanied by a robust justification. I'd need convincing that departure from a guideline can be based only on preference; some reasoning must be given, surely. As it stands my concern is that it appears no justification would be considered sufficient. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: no, a group could not decide to use spaced em dashes without a very strong reason that itself commanded community consensus (when it could be put in the MoS as an exception). "Guidance" doesn't mean "anyone is free to ignore this" but "there could be exceptions in well-supported special cases (unlike policy)". The clear community consensus, as embodied in the MoS, is not to use spaced em dashes, and community consensus outweighes local consensus. If this were not so, then, for example, bird articles would still be using capitalized English names, since there was clearly a majority among bird editors for this at the time of the RfC that decided to follow the MoS.

The only valid issue I can see applies only to a 'recent' change to the MoS where there has not been a widely advertised RfC, so it's not completely clear whether it does embody community consensus. But long-standing MoS guidance clearly does reflect community consensus. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this cuts to the very heart of the issue. Any editor is perfectly entitled to argue to reinstate MoS-compliance solely on the basis that it is MoS-compliance. They have a prima facie case, and it's up to those who wish to depart from the MOS to justify the departure.

Similarly, any editor is entitled to boldly correct any non-compliance to the MOS, without discussion. It happens all the time. There's nothing wrong with it. If it's reverted then it should be discussed, but the onus of proof is on those who wish to depart from the MOS.

Am I missing something? Andrewa (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree; this is how it should work, and I would think this is not controversial with anyone. The issue appears to be with "If it's reverted then it should be discussed". Should it be discussed? That would imply it might result in agreed-upon non-compliance. Is that the case? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

So, if an editor were to replace single quotemarks with double for quotations on, say, an English municipality, and the group maintaining the article BRDed and and came to a consensus amongst themselves that the article would use single quotemarks "because that's what we do here, and that's what British styleguides recommend ..." Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Then they'd have to justify it; the justification you give doesn't seem strong enough to me, and I'd expect it to be overridden. To be clear: though there are places where I dislike the MoS preference (spaced em dashes, please!), I've never seen a case where I felt it was wrong enough for a particular article that it should be challenged. But if someone does challenge it, the tone of some participants here seems to be that they should never prevail. If that's the case, then I think we should mark the MoS as policy, not as a guideline. I'd regret it as an erosion of the individuality of this place, but if it's policy let's say so. And if it's really not policy, in what way is it not? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

That's the thing—in the example I gave, it's justified with "because that's what we do here, and that's what British styleguides recommend" and a majority of !votes by the local editors. That's pretty legit justification, but unacceptable under the MoS. If that's not sufficient, then what is sufficient for legitimate "agreed-upon non-compliance"? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

"But if someone does challenge it, the tone of some participants here seems to be that they should never prevail." I might not be an expert at picking up "tone", but that doesn't seem to me to be at all the case. There's been some claiming that they 'will never prevail, but I disagree with that, too. As for what is sufficient for non-compliance, if I knew of a reason why a particular subject needed an exception, I would have brought it up right then and there here. I would hope anyone else would do the same. Primergrey (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

So when (and how) can we "make exceptions"?

OK... we seem to agree that there are (occasional) times when an exception to the MOS guidance might be made... but disagree (frequently) on whether an exception should be made, once we start getting into the weeds of particular cases. What this seems to indicate is that we need better guidance as to when (under what circumstances) a potential exception should be considered, and how (the procedures involved) to achieve consensus on granting that potential exception. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, any editor is entitled and encouraged to boldly make any good faith edit that they consider an improvement, are they not? That's rule one, and it includes edits that violate the MOS.

But any editor is also entitled and encouraged to correct any article that departs in any way from the MOS, by bringing it back into compliance. It's part of copyediting and it happens all the time. Call that rule two for the moment.

At some stage, there's an expectation of discussion. I would suggest that edits made under either of those two rules need not be discussed in advance. An edit summary is sufficient. But as soon as it appears that there's disagreement on how or whether the MOS should be applied to a particular article, discussion should take place on the article's talk page, with the goal of reaching a consensus.

And I'd also highly recommend that any editor who knowingly departs from the MOS should include a see talk in the edit summary, and provide a brief rationale for the departure on the article talk page. That advice should I think be prominently displayed, or more prominently if it already is and I've missed it. Perhaps the when in doubt clause in the nutshell of WP:MOS could be made explicit on this point, but it seems to refer to the guideline itself, not its application.

This requirement to justify exceptions should be a clear part of the guideline, IMO, in view of rules one and two above. That might be a good improvement to make to the MOS. But it doesn't yet address either the question asked at the top of this section, or of this subsection.

But OK so far? If so we can go on to how consensus is assessed at these discussions. Andrewa (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that "This requirement to justify exceptions should be a clear part of the guideline". It's integral, conceptually, to the entire notion that an MoS-acceptable style should not be changed without justification, and with the ArbCom admonition to avoid "style warring".

As to the "how" question, I've started a long-delayed Manual of Style extended FAQ by beginning it with a tutorial on this question.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Editors should be strongly discouraged from making changes solely in order to bring articles into MoS compliance. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that's far too sweeping.... For example, next time I run across an article which has an External Links heading (yes the capital L there is deliberate) before several other appendices, is there any reason I should not boldly fix it? Andrewa (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's a point I think needs to be made: The MoS does not have "jurisdiction" over the rule that exceptions can be made to guidelines. The MoS is a guideline, and the fact that exceptions can be made to guidelines is a matter of policy. Putting language in the MoS about how to handle exceptions to the MoS risks implying that the MoS could unilaterally withdraw the facility to make exceptions, which it cannot. --Trovatore (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Exceptional cases are handled by exceptions being made for them. I agree that no language needs adding to this effect. I think the language being considered for addition is that exceptions must indeed be exceptional and not, for example, because of a personal preference. Primergrey (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, to the extent that's true, it's a general rule, not something special to the MoS. My point is that the MoS has no authority whatsoever to legislate itself any more deference than guidelines in general get. --Trovatore (talk) 08:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

And no less deference, as well. That's pretty explicitly stated on the banner atop every guideline page. Primergrey (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point. Subtle perhaps but important IMO. Andrewa (talk) 10:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Good faith

What seems missing from this discussion (unless I've missed it which is quite possible) is the good faith principle.

The policies and guidelines do need to deal with situations in which there is angst and even ill intent, but most often they are used by editors with good intentions and calm nerves - and otherwise we would not be viable. It's at least as important to cater for these more common non-adversarial situations.

And note also that WP:AGF is a guideline, and also a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It seems to me that it ranks with the most fundamental policies. Doesn't it?

Or in other words, the basic function of most guidelines, and of the MOS in particular, is to guide an editor, not to adjudicate between two editors in conflict.

And in Wikipedia at least, the same goes for most policies, if we're to assume good faith.

Any editor who wants to use the MOS (or any other policy or guideline) as a gun to hold at another editor's head is probably best seen off the premises. They'd be very welcome at Citizendium, which does as I understand it officially allow such legalism... I've made a few edits there myself. But citizendium is equally legalistic about civility and respect, and I predict that such editors would be banned there within a week or so. Andrewa (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It certainly would be great if trench-digging camps at various wikiprojects and such would actually assume good faith about MoS's maintainers for a change. We're subject to more verbal abuse than any other volunteer functionaries on the entire project, yet what we do is genuinely difficult, and one of the support beams of the entire system. WP would be a dysfunctional firestorm of constant page-by-page bickering over trivia if MoS was not here, was not as detailed as it is, and was not such a carefully balanced consensus between nearly innumerable competing demands. It is no accident that MoS was one of the first guidelines to start evolving in WP's early days, because the fight-to-the-death behavior over style quirks was present from the beginning and had to be addressed.

Please see WP:POLICY; the function of WP policies and guidelines is a mixture of pre-emptive guidance and post-hoc dispute resolution, and always has been. To deny the latter function is a fantasy. MoS in particular definitely has a dispute resolution function, as no one is expected to memorize all of it, and we don't expect new editors to read it at all, but absorb its key points mostly through "osmosis". It is principally a reference work used in dispute resolution, as are many other style guides in other contexts, especially the more comprehensive ones on which MoS is largely based (like Chicago Manual of Style, Oxford Style Manual, and Scientific Style and Format, which all run to many hundreds of detailed pages). By contrast, some news organizations that follow the short and specialized AP Stylebook actually do expect professional journalists to absorb and assiduously follow everything in it, and to use it quite literally as guidance while writing; the popular edition comes spiral bound so that it may be laid flat on newswriters' and editors' desks and referred to constantly. WP expects nothing but familiarity with the gist of some basic core content policies before people start writing here. This is a major subcultural and procedural difference between WP and traditional publishers, and is a major distinction between our MoS and some off-WP ones.

Andrewa, it's unclear who you are targeting with your pseudo-civil rant about editors to kick out of Wikipedia and to watch fail elsewhere. Please follow your own civility advice. I'll take this up on your talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not targeting anyone, that's why it is unclear.

Yes, behavioural issues should be taken up on my talk page, not here. Andrewa (talk) 10:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I honestly do not understand how bringing edits into line with our MOS can be seen as "holding a gun to someone's head" or, as was said earlier, "bossing" someone. No one is even being asked to write articles in a MOS-compliant way, let alone being forced to. Primergrey (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

"The policies and guidelines do need to deal with situations in which there is angst and even ill intent, but most often they are used by editors with good intentions and calm nerves - and otherwise we would not be viable. It's at least as important to cater for these more common non-adversarial situations." We have behavioural policies and guidelines that exist almost solely to deal with angst and ill-intent. The MOS is a style guideline and, as such, deals exclusively with style and not with any editor-to-editor situations, adversarial or otherwise. Primergrey (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, since experience shows people often fall into inappropriate ways of applying MOS (e.g. running about blindly "enforcing" it) it's worth putting in something to at least hint that that's a bad idea. EEng 06:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any examples? Dicklyon (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Offhand, no. Surely the phenomenon is well known. EEng 06:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@EEng: I believe the phenomenon is in your head. If you can't even give an example, why the broad accusation? You state "since experience shows people often fall into inappropriate ways of applying MOS (e.g. running about blindly "enforcing" it)." I maintain there is no such phenomenon, and if there is, we need to know who is doing it so we can address it. We don't need to tar the MOS with your fake news. Dicklyon (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Cool it, cowboy, but since you ask... a couple of random examples:

• Talk:Herb_Caen/Archive_1#Nationality_in_lede
• WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive881#Dicklyon_and_mass_moves

EEng 18:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

These aren't examples of anything relevant, EEng, much less "smoking guns". The first is you and one other editor (plus two or three late commenters at the end) having what appears to be a civil and productive conversation about how to craft an article's lead. There is no problem of any kind in evidence. "Someone didn't agree with EEng" is not a problem on Wikipedia, much less one that requires drastic changes to guideline interpretation and wording. The second example is very old news about unilateral move activity, a WP:AT and WP:RM matter, and is not an extant dispute (the editor in question changed the behavior at issue in that ANI, and perhaps more to the point, the question underlying the moves and the complaint about them was actually settled by a site-wide RfC at WP:VPPOL in Feb. 2016, in favor of the direction the moves were made, so both the behavioral and content issues raised in that April 2015 ANI report are entirely moot). So, Dicklyon's request for evidence (from you and, below, from Andrewa) of any actual problem that would be resolved by what you propose remains unaddressed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Look, all I said is that it's probably a good idea to tell people not to run around blindly "enforcing" MOS on a mass basis unless they really understand what they're doing and can do it in such a way as to not run afoul of thisVAR and thatVAR. I'm not looking for an drastic change to anything. Forget the second bullet, but if you look at the edit history of the editor involved in the first bullet, you'll see [3] that he was on a mission to add the word "American" to the first sentence of the bio of every American, whether that made sense or not‍—‌because, he said, MOS calls for that (notwithstanding that it doesn't). EEng 04:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Doing anything inappropriately is a "bad idea". Primergrey (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not proposed to tell editors that doing inappropriate things is a bad idea, rather to explain that certain things they may not realize are bad ideas/inappropriate (e.g. blindly "enforcing" MOS) are indeed bad ideas/inappropriate. EEng 17:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, content guidelines and even the MOS are also regularly cited in adversarial situations. Andrewa (talk) 10:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

As they should be. Debate positions should be policy and guideline based. Problems arise when behavioural policies and guidelines are ignored. Primergrey (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It's unclear who you are targeting with the reference to the "trench-digging camps at various wikiprojects", but there are many instances of MoS maintainers (who are not, as a rule, functionaries) being seen as a WP:Local consensus. Trouble arises when people make ill-considered changes to the articles to make them conform to the MoS. A good example is the recent MOS:JR fiasco. Change were made to drop the parenthetical comma around "Jr". This resulted in a plethora of blue links turning red. The article maintainers then, quite rightly, reverted the changes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the fiasco you mention. I agree that if someone made edits that broke links, it's OK to revert them if you don't feel like repairing them. I know I make mistakes now and then, and am happy to have them reverted; I'll generally try again more carefully. But I don't see how/where this would have come up with the Jr changes such as several of us were doing. Maybe I missed it? Dicklyon (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The change I'm thinking about was this, which forced me to do this; subsequently you did this, but it should have been correct in the first place. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, I made a mistake, and we fixed it; that's not a fiasco, just a slight side trip in otherwise normal processes; I fixed over a thousand articles per WP:JR, and make a mistake or two, I admit again, and yes, I agree that "it should have been correct in the first place" is a good goal. Dicklyon (talk) 17:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I've made quite a few of those changes and I'm not aware of turning any links red. In any case, a word like fiasco seems hyperbolic from where I sit, and characterizing these changes as "ill-considered" seems ill-considered. If one wants to help improve the quality of this work they are welcome to jump in and do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Andrewa: Your statement "Any editor who wants to use the MOS (or any other policy or guideline) as a gun to hold at another editor's head is probably best seen off the premises" certainly does sound like a complaint that doesn't assume good faith, and a threat to try to remove people who do whatever it is you mean by holding a gun to another editor's head, somehow related to those who work to improve compliance with MOS guidelines. If you have an actual complaint, name names, so I can know whether you have me in mind or not. Dicklyon (talk) 17:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

This is exactly what has also worried User:SMcCandlish I gather. It takes two to communicate, and I have not done well! I must take responsibility for at least part of this miscommunication.

It was not intended as a threat to either of you, or to anyone else, and I unreservedly apologise for and withdraw any such implication. The comment was intended purely as one on the topic under discussion, that is, how the MOS should read, and specifically how the assumption of good faith should affect how it is phrased.

User:SMcCandlish and I have had previous heated conversations, and we disagree as strongly on this as we ever have on anything, but I would see them as a great loss to Wikipedia as I think would many.

And I would see you as a great personal loss, you have so often been right on the money on difficult issues that when we disagree my first reaction now is to look for the flaw in my own thinking (while I admit that my first reaction to SMcC tends to be to look instead for the flaw in their thinking). You're not alone in this, but it's a small club and you're a very valued member of it.

We need to clean up this talk page, behaviour discussion does not belong here... please hat anything you think appropriate. Andrewa (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, that would start with your "Any editor who wants to use the MOS ... as a gun to hold at another editor's head is probably best seen off the premises ... and I predict that such editors would be banned [elsewhere] within a week or so" smear paragraph. There's nothing assumptive of good faith about it. If you really "unreservedly apologise for and withdraw any such implication", then hat away.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

As I have said, that comment was not intended to attack (or as you said target) you or any other user. It was intended to express an opinion as to how the MOS should read, and why. You do not like this view, but that does not make it irrelevant to this discussion.

However it was obviously badly phrased, and if User:Dicklyon thinks it better hatted, I've encouraged them to hat it. Andrewa (talk) 14:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

This "add yet more warnings and admonitions to MoS" idea is not a reasonable plan. Nothing good or constructive has ever come from treating MoS and what it contains as "special and different" from any other guidelines and their contents. No other guidelines contain such disclaimers, WP does not operate on disclaimers, and MoS already has fairly dire warnings in it, in multiple places, against assholery in MoS's name, citing ArbCom decisions and mentioning discretionary sanctions. Additionally, not only its talk page but all of the talk pages of MoS sub-guidelines also bear such warnings. This is already more than enough.

The vast majority of style-related strife on WP either a) has nothing to do with MoS at all (squabbling over infobox addition/removal, citation formatting, and WP:AT matters being the three most common and consistent causes of style flamewars), or b) is due to insular camps of editors pursuing anti-MoS campaigning over some (usually geeky specialist) style peccadillo. or worse, a nationalistic one, and frequently accompanied by entirely unreasonable levels of hostility and incivility, that all flows in an anti-MoS direction. Style conflict rarely has anything at all to do with misapplication of MoS or to "overzealous" application of it.

Guidelines exist to be followed, not combatted, MoS is one of the most-watchlisted non-articles we have, it attracts the input of editors from every interest on Wikipedia, and few guidelines are as precisely worded as MoS with so little room for misinterpretation (when one arises, we usually fix it pretty quickly). MoS is built the same way as all the rest of WP:POLICY: people propose changes to it and consensus accepts them or it doesn't, and someone sometimes just unilaterally makes a change to it, which consensus either accepts or it doesn't (usually doesn't unless it's non-substantive copyediting, since any non-trivial change to it affects many articles). This perennial idea that MoS does not and must not operate like all the rest of our guidelines and policies is misguided and counterproductive. There is neither a policy-based nor commonsense rationale for such a change of approach, including this attempt to demote it to a "half-guideline" by effectively threatening, with nebulous clouds of doom and sanction, anyone who expects to have articles actually comply with MoS the way they comply with other guidelines. No one ever suggests any such approach to other guidelines, and it really needs to stop here, too.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with most (not all) of this, but what any of it has to do with good faith eludes me.

The point is simply, the basic and most important function of the MOS is to help editors to write articles in a way that is most helpful to readers. Editors want to do this, and according to the policy of assuming good faith they are assumed to want to do this, and the MOS is a tool for them to use. Andrewa (talk) 14:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Shortcut MOS:VAR

RGloucester reverted what is supposed to be the shortcut to the section about English varieties. If that is not a suitable shortcut, where else? --George Ho (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

We already have the universally used WP:ENGVAR for that section. There is absolutely no need for another shortcut. Not to mention that there are other 'VAR' shortcuts, such as MOS:DATEVAR and MOS:CITEVAR. There is no justification for using the bare 'VAR' as a shortcut to ENGVAR. It ought be deleted. RGloucester — ☎ 18:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I created it as far as I did. I don't want to delete it. What if I can turn this into a disambiguation page? Would that help? --George Ho (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I suppose that redirecting it to the same place as MOS:STYLEVAR might make some sort of sense. RGloucester — ☎ 18:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done. --George Ho (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

hyphens used in the original source

I'm citing a webpage whose title is simply and exactly "2010-Present". When I cited that page using {{cite web}}, I used that just as presented. Another editor, referring to Wikipedia's standards for dashes, changed it to "2010–Present". Is there an SOP for making or not making such a change? — fourthords | =Λ= | 23:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

That's purely a style issue, and there is a guideline somewhere that says we should convert source's style to Wikipedia's style, or some such thing. I ran across it the other day but I doubt I could put my finger on it now. For example, we don't preserve a source's curly quotes/apostrophes but rather convert them to straight quotes/apostrophes, and we would generally convert "AN ALL CAPS NEWS ARTICLE TITLE" to "An All Caps News Article Title" or "An all caps news article title". ―Mandruss ☎ 20:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

You're thinking of WP:Manual_of_Style#Typographic_conformity. EEng 20:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

"Retain existing style": finding common ground

A return to shared and neutral principles is long overdue. We have just seen fruitless discussion of provisions in the lead under the dubious and concealed title "WP:STYLEVAR", and the addition of a new section called "Retaining existing styles".

What and where is WP:STYLEVAR?

My inquiry addressed to SlimVirgin on this talkpage yielded no answer:

... this mysterious WP:STYLEVAR. You say it has always been around, pretty well; and that it once had a section of its own. But I do not find "WP:STYLEVAR" anywhere on this main page of MOS. Please help us here. Where did that name come from? In what edit was the name invented? Who made the redirect that takes us there, and for what purpose? What documentation and discussion accompanied those actions? I ask you, because you seem to be the main supporter (and certainly the main protector and user) of that invisible location in MOS and the seemingly "official" redirect that you present as a documented and consensually settled feature of MOS.

So I went looking for an answer myself. Slim Virgin turns out to be responsible for attempting to make that shortcut a "thing", in this edit to MOS on 31 August 2015. Among the addition and shifting of other stuff, note the insertion of "STYLEVAR". SV's two-word edit summary was "per talk". But there was no discussion of that insertion here at WT:MOS. What we do find is SV then using the shortcut at this talkpage as if it were something long-settled, fully transparent, and presumably discussed. It was never discussed.

With an edit summary reading "+ red", SV minutes before had created the redirect called "WP:STYLEVAR". Such an "official" WP shortcut is normally subject to scrutiny and discussion; this one never was discussed, anywhere by anyone.

The new section "Retaining existing styles"

Apparently because WP:STYLEVAR was nowhere to be seen, though SV often referred to it, someone added a new section in MOS with the shortcut MOS:STYLEVAR. We have seen more confusion since then. The section had other problems, apart from duplication and mixed-up signage. It incorporated a shortcut that reloads the huge MOS page itself, where an internal link would be the proper procedure (heaven help mobile-device users). It had a note (a "footnote") that takes us not to the foot of the page but to the section dealing with italics. It perpetuated one set of contested interpretations of ArbCom decisions and ignored others. All of this it did without discussion, though there was some tinkering of the section later by others.

My own edits: back to transparency and shared principles

This sort of to and fro has been going on for far too long: SV removes wording from the lead that has stood for about 12 months; others restore it; SV or someone else reverts, appealing to "consensus" and using a spurious WP shortcut that was never anything like consensual.

I've removed contested material from the lead altogether. It was never consensual, and it is now redundant given the new section "Retaining existing styles". I've put WP:STYLEVAR among the shortcuts to that section, so at last it is visible to everyone (not just those who edit the lead).

I've shortened that new section, reducing it to something minimal we can all accept. Perhaps that is enough; but if anyone wants to add content, let them justify it here. This page is still under ArbCom sanctions, and we are quite rightly required to get consensus for the provisions of MOS.

Looking forward to that discussion, and to no insertion of controversy again.

Tony (talk) 10:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I have never in my life heard of the priniple that shortcuts should be discussed beforehand. Perhaps you can link to it? A shortcut is just a shortcut; in itself, it says nothing at all about policy or anything else. The page loading issue is easily dealt with. No need to remove anything to achieve that.

The purpose of the section was merely to gather together in one place links to places where the MOS has specific guidance on style variation. It also notes that there is a common thread running through this guidance, and that people shouldn't edit war over style issues. None of that invents anything new, nor was it intended to. It links to existing guidance, the existing lead establishes a general principle, and edit warring is against existing policy.

On arbcom, I don't think that arbcom should be mentioned at all in the text. It should be reworded so that it does not sound like a threat to editors, with the arbcom ruling relegated to a footnote. SpinningSpark 11:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I was the one who added (or rather transcribed) the reference to Arbcom from the lede to the section. Before I got there, it read like the rule applied only to those four specific areas. Better not to leave the point open to debate: it applies across the board to any style choice where different options are available. Don't matter if it's variety of English or infobox styles or whatever else. If there are multiple options, people shouldn't be changing between them unless there's a good substantial reason (beyond personal preference) to do so.

This is per the existing guideline. The general principle has been at the top of WP:MOS for a while (or was, until Tony just removed it to this new section this morning) and is also at the top of WP:MOSNUM. Whether we mention Arbcom in the text or a footnote, I'm not overly bothered. But I would be very concerned if the general nature of the rule were to be downplayed or removed. Kahastok talk 11:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that the principle shouldn't be stated (don't think we should call it a rule though). My point was we can state it without invoking the threat of arbcom. SpinningSpark 11:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

...and ha ha, an IP has just reinstated Tony's edit. How convenient. SpinningSpark 11:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• Tony, I have a question for you. As far as I can see, you are the originator of the modern form of what we are now calling 'STYLEVAR'. At the time of its introduction, in 2007, it read:

In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so (for example, it is acceptable to change from American to British spelling if the article concerns a British topic, and vice versa). Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk.

This piece of the lead has continued on since then in various forms, and I believe it should stay. It has been an important principle, and I believe that consensus supports it. I do not think that it was wise of you to remove it, and can't understand why, given that it seems to have originated with you. Prior to that edit, various forms of the same passage had been part of the MoS from 3 March 2006, with an addition by the above mentioned party following an arbitration case. In any case, I do think it is important that editors are made aware of the fact that ArbCom has issued multiple rulings on this matter, and that discretionary sanctions have the potential to apply. Furthermore, anything we can do to discourage edit-warring, whilst also maintaining the primacy of the MoS, should be done. RGloucester — ☎ 16:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Where is your question, RGloucester? I don't see one.

You point out that SV first inserted a version of the contested wording. She started a new section for it: "Disputes over style issues". Back before we suspected what use SV would make of her text, all I did was to trim the version I found and join it into a tidier lead. Note my clear edit summary, inviting discussion. Just two weeks ago we find Slim wishing it back into its own section: "This used to have its own section within the MoS, but it was moved to the lead. Perhaps we ought to move it back so that it's clearer as a principle".

I agree. Given the use her wording has been put to over the years (most often by SV herself), the surreptitious addition of "WP:STYLEVAR" (which took the hapless reader merely to the top of the MOS page), and the fact that there is now a separate section (called "Retaining existing styles"), I've done what SV has wanted. I've also removed SV's extra provision: "Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk." But this is not supported in any of the ArbCom links.

Here is what we do find from ArbCom (my underlining): "Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike". But we have seen SV herself appealing to "WP:STYLEVAR" to do just that: to go against MOS:LQ, which has always enjoyed sturdy consensus despite all attempts against it from SV and others.

Does anyone think ArbCom is happy for an editor to alter style that Wikipedia does mandate? ("As for punctuation, I don't use LQ ...".) Hmm.

Have I answered your implicit question, RGloucester? Your last sentence: "Furthermore, anything we can do to discourage edit-warring, whilst also maintaining the primacy of the MoS, should be done." This is what I've done, in my minimalised common-ground text. For which I invite further discussion—and any additions that are demonstrated, here at talk, to be necessary and to reflect current consensus.

Tony (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

My question was about the reason for your surprise at the nature of the so-called 'STYLEVAR', despite your having edited said passage as far back as 2007. In any case, you've answered the question. And, I agree whole-wholeheartedly with the ArbCom principle as you've recounted it, and I would like some form of the above passage to remain in the lead (not in a separate section), with that principle as a basis. The recent revisions on both sides have created a mess. RGloucester — ☎ 08:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Five steps toward stability: fixing "Retain"

RGloucester, I'm glad that's sorted out. We agree: many recent revisions have created a mess. So have several that are not so recent, as I have shown. It's time for a collegial effort to bring about stability. Let's all work together. That's what I propose, starting from the simple shared foundation I've now put into MOS.

Best-practice Wikipedian procedure, in such a case:

1. We focus first on the section itself: "Retaining existing styles".
2. When there's been proper discussion and review of that section here, we insert the new version into MOS.
3. We consider just how much of its content should go into the lead. (No content belongs primarily in a lead, as WP:LEAD makes clear: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents.")
4. We make sure that all internal and external links are correct, visible, up to date, and stable, and generally tidy the workshop once the job is done.
5. We place a note (an "advertisement") that the work is completed here on the talkpage, and appeal for any future changes to the lead, and to the crucial "Retain" section, to be discussed here first. A hidden note or two in MOS would help.

SpinningSpark, you'll understand my need to sweep things clean earlier (as I saw it). Of course your own work was well motivated. I for one think some of it should go back in. The centralised information (linked using "MOS:VAR" especially) is important. Let's work together to incorporate that element again properly. I can suggest ways of linking that don't reload the page, and others that will not load another page twice. Let's keep things navigable and readable, especially to help those unfamiliar with the sprawling suite of MOS pages (this "MOSCentral" is daunting all by itself).

Kahastok, and everyone else here who cares about MOS as a core resource for Wikipedia, let's insist to everyone that good intentions are not enough. This has been a perennially difficult area to get right. Despite claims that one or another version is time-honoured and stable, no version ever has been. Can we all move forward cautiously, with respect for views held on all sides? (Better, let there be no "sides".) If anything is inserted in the absence of well-conducted dialogue, and without good notice in edit summaries, the same old problems will return. Could be days, weeks, or years: but as we have seen, they will come back to bite us.

As I see it, keeping things short and simple is the best default strategy. What we have right now can be accepted by everyone, right? Some will think X is missing, some will clamour for Y instead. So a basic version lacking both X and Y may be best.

I suggest a completely new talkpage section below (referencing this one), for orderly discussion toward stability in "Retaining existing styles" and the all-important lead. Step by systematic step.

Tony (talk) 07:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

even if capitalized in a religion's scriptures

Does this mean that if our article quotes a portion of text from a religion's scriptures that does so, we should use square-brackets to decapitalize the "He" in "but He did not have regard for Cain and his offering". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

No; see MOS:QUOTE. Doing that would be changing the intent of the original material in the quotation. When a Christian capitalizes "He" in references to God or Jesus, this is a special theological signifier. WP doesn't do that in WP's own voice (per WP:NPOV – WP is not a Christian publication endorsing a particular religious view), but we're not in a position to strip it from the voice of those we're quoting directly.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to stop supporting pull quotes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved from archive for closing

The general proposal is: Shall we stop implying support for pull quotes in our documentation, yes or no. The specific proposal doesn't include text to flat-out forbid pull quotes, they are just no longer mentioned. Herostratus (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Specifics, and examples

(A "pull quote" repeats text that is also in the main body of the article, typically in a box or highlighted in some other way, to emphasize it and/or for page layout enhancement. This RfC devolves from a long discussion, here, which indicated very little use of or support for pull quotes in the Wikipedia.)

The suggested specific edits are shown below. Deletions are showed as bolded struckthrough and additions or changes are shown underlined

Specific changes

1) At this WP:MOS page, change MOS:BLOCKQUOTE as shown: Format a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, indented on both sides. Block quotations can be enclosed in the {{quote}} template, or between a pair of <blockquote>...</blockquote> HTML tags. The template also provides parameters for attribution. Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the {{pull quote}} a.k.a.{{cquote}} template, which are reserved for pull quotes). Block quotations using a colored background are also discouraged. 2) Move {{Pull quote}} to {{Cquote}} to and {{Reduced pull quote}} to {{Rquote}} (these already exists as redirects; this is simply to remove any reference to pull quote from the template name). 3) {{Pull quote/boilerplate}} is transcluded into the documentation for {{Quote box}}, {{Quote frame}}, {{Cquote}}, and {{Rquote}}. Rename this page and edit it as follows: This template is meant for pull quotes, the visually distinctive repetition of text that is already present on the same page. In most cases, this is not appropriate for use in encyclopedia articles. The Manual of Style guidelines for block quotations recommend formatting block quotations using the {{Quote}} template or the HTML <blockquote> element, for which that template provides a wrapper. Pull Quotes work best when used with short sentences, and at the start or end of a section, as a hint of or to help emphasize the section's content. * For typical pull quotes, especially those longer than the rest of the paragraph in which they are quoted, {{Cquote}} provides a borderless quote with decorative quotation marks, and {{Quote frame}} provided a bordered quote. Both span the article width. * For very short pull quotes, {{Rquote}} (with decorative quotation marks) or {{Quote box}} (framed) can be used to set the quote off to either the right or left as in a magazine sidebar. This can be effective on essay pages and WikiProject homepages. 4) Edit the "Usage" sections of {{Quote box}}, {{Quote frame}}, {{Cquote}}, and {{Rquote}} (which comes just below the above text) as appropriate to remove mentions of pull quotes. For instance, the edit for {{Cquote}} would be For actual pull quotes, this template provides a centered, borderless pull quote, with scalable decorative quotation marks... 5) If we've missed any other mentions of pull quotes in any documentation, remove those also. IMPORTANT NOTE: This leaves the following warning at the top of {{Quote box}}, {{Quote frame}}, {{Cquote}}, and {{Rquote}}: Which leaves these templates with little function (technically, although editors may continue to use them in defiance of the warning template). This is intentional. Removing the template, which amounts to formally permitting the templates to be used for regular quotes, is a contentious question and will be part of a separate RfC down the line. Herostratus (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, just FYI, here is an example of how pull quotes work and look

You don't need to read all this text. Just scan the page with the realization that all of the text in the little boxes repeats text found in the main body of the article. That is what pull quotes do. “ Pull quotes are a technique used by magazines as a layout device. ” Pull quotes are a technique used by magazines as a layout device. The make the page layout sportier and more inviting to the eye, or are supposed to. They also emphasize and highlight some passage. This may interest the reader (who may be just scanning through the magazine's pages) and draw her into the article. In the opinion of most – really, virtually all – editors, this is not really an appropriate device for an encyclopedia. We are not eyeball bait. We aren't paid by how many views our articles get. We have no need to or interest in drawing the reader into the article in this way. In fact, use of pull quotes would, in this writer's opinion, serve only to confuse the reader. [P]ull quotes are never used here – virtually never. This is why pull quotes are never used here – virtually never. Some editors claim they see them from time to time. I've been here eleven years and I've only seen one use of a pull quote, and that was because someone pointed one out to me in a discussion of pull quotes. So whether its "virtually never used" or "almost actually never used", they are very rare. “ [W]e aren't a top-down hierarchy and fail if we try to be, we can crowdsource format as well as content to arrive at best solutions, and it's better for morale to give editors as much creative control as is consistent with good layout. ” — Herostratus, This talk page At the same time, this writer is not an advocate of straitjacketing the editors. There are good reason for this – we aren't a top-down hierarchy and fail if we try to be, we can crowdsource format as well as content to arrive at best solutions, and it's better for morale to give editors as much creative control as is consistent with good layout. As a volunteer organization, morale is very important. At the same time, we aren't an anarchy. But in my experience our current rules can be used to make a bad layout – too many images, or conversely walls of text, and so forth – and these are best handled by correcting and educating editors on an article-by-article basis. I'm tired of talking about pull quotes. Herostratus, This talk page And, to be honest, I'm tired of talking about pull quotes. We don't use them, they don't help us in our mission. This really ought to be unanimously accepted RfC. We shouldn't even need an RfC, but an editor objected to the proposition, and so here we are; getting anything done here is like pulling teeth, it seems sometime. But OTOH, democracy. As you see all of the quotes above are pull quotes. If you like what I've done here you can vote against the proposal, I guess. As to the larger question of how strict we should be about whether or not a quote can have a box around it – which is not at issue in the RfC, but indirectly affects it – for my opinion I'll drop a real (non-pull) quote: Consistency is often overrated. — Ralph Spoilsport, Essays About Stuff That quote above was a real quote, not a pull, quote, just as an example of that. It's formatted with {{Quote}}, which is basically HTML <blockquote>...</blockquote>, and is the only formally permitted way to show a quote in an article, although in real life editors use the boxed and big-quote templates above (which are supposed to only be used for pull quotes) for regular quotes. Herostratus (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as proposer. Pull quotes are (virtually) never used in articles, and a good thing too: they are a format useful for magazine articles but no good for an encyclopedia, where they would only confuse. So this is just cleaning up artifacts; it's time and past time to stop having templates and documentation all over the place implying that pull quotes are used or useful. It's silly that RfC even has to be run on this question; this should be unanimously supported (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 184 shows zero support for pull quotes). Herostratus (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support Not that I follow all the technical steps above, but if the effect is to simply remove all reference to "pull quotes" (which certainly do have a place – if limited – in articles) in template names and documentation, with the understanding that the generic concept of "quote boxes" is not being affected, that's fine with me. EEng 18:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

That's the intent, yes. Herostratus (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support Are you saying that if pull quotes are not mentioned in template names and documentation, they will cease to be used? What about all the editors who already know how to format pull quotes? Some editors love to highlight a favorite quote like that, paying little attention to guidelines in the MOS. I still come across them. I suppose if they are not mentioned in template names and documentation, they will become less likely to be used.  – Corinne (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

This RfC is only against formally supporting pull quotes by inference (which is the current situation). If editors want to put in pull quotes (using an existing quote template or hand-writing the format) this RfC does not forbid them. I (the RfC initiator) am personally skeptical that pull quotes are ever useful, but I don't like to straitjacket other editors with absolute provisions; a little humility and a little leeway in telling editors how to design their pages, within reasonable limits, makes for a better project IMO. Also: in my eleven years here I've only seen pull quotes used once so I don't consider it an issue, and flat-out forbidding use of pull quotes is a side issue which would make this RfC more difficult to pass, which is a second reason I didn't propose it. Herostratus (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: ″Pulling″ is content reuse, which is much more favorable than duplication at any rate. Duplication leads to avoidable errors, multiplication of maintenance efforts etc.--*thing goes (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I would support providing even better and more prominent means for excerpting and reusing parts (e.g. for "pulling").--*thing goes (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're saying. EEng 23:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I also cannot make head nor tail of this. I've asked the editor to clarify. Herostratus (talk) 02:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

What I am trying to express is, that

1. referring to existing text as kind of quote ("pull-quote") is valid, as it is readily accessible, while cross-references are not so much: Ever tried reading through your car's manual? It is filled with references to look up. This has its justification in print for reducing the amount of pages required etc., but this limitation does not exist in the digital world of Wikipedia.
2. (more off-topic) editors should be given better tools to reuse content in and across pages without producing a textual duplicate, which has no connection to the original text.

I hope, that this made my points a little more clear.--*thing goes (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

In all seriousness, no. I still have no idea what you're trying to say. EEng 15:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Same here. I've created a whole section, "FYI" (above). Look at that section. You are saying "Yes! This is what we ought be doing more of in our articles!", is that correct? Herostratus (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support the first part, but the third is broken. MoS has already deprecated both pull quotes and abuse of pull quote templates (to over-emphasize block quotes) for years. Pull quotes are deprecated because its not an encyclopedic style, but a reader-browbeating journalistic style. Aggrandizing block quotations is deprecated because it runs afoul of WP:UNDUE policy. As I've said dozens of times, the obvious fix for this (or one of them, anyway), is to install namespace detectors in these templates so that they output standard block quotation formatting (i.e. Template:Bq) when used in mainspace. There will be no temptation to either use a pull quote or misuse pull quote templates for block quotation "décor" if it simply doesn't work. People could continue to decorate wikiproject pages, user essays, etc, however they like. I would tweak the proposal, however, by changing the suggestion in point #2 to something like "2) Move {{Pull quote}} to {{Decorative quote}} and {{Reduced pull quote}} to {{Reduced decorative quote}}". WP:TFD has for years been moving us away from obscure template names like "rquote", this move would still remove "pull quote" from the wording, and it would also clarify what these templates are and suggest by inference why they are not used in mainspace but are kept for project and user space.

  The changes in #3 are not really necessary and kind of miss the point. The note about Rquote in it would, if changed as above, just introduce a new conflict with MoS by suggesting that short quotes (which MoS says to do inline, as do all style guides except when addressing pull quotes) be put in a decorative template. We do not want people using Rquote to format short quotations. The FAC crowd raised hell about this stuff a few months ago because several of them like to include documentary excerpts in sidebars. So, we should create a template for this purpose called something like {{Document excerpt sidebar}}, and sharply limit it, both in its documentation and in MoS, to be used for nothing but excerpts from cited sources. Not for quotation emphasis, not for pull quotes, and not for anything that is a WP:UNDUE problem, like giving excessive attention to primary sources that are dubious or one-sided. That should be enough of a compromise to get past this "our faction versus your faction" stuff that mired the last version of this discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support per EENg - as long as this doesnt affect the use of quote boxes removing the wording regarding pull quotes is fine.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

One question is where this will leave {{Quote box}}, {{Quote frame}}, {{Cquote}}, and {{Rquote}}. Technically they wouldn't have any function anymore. But in real life 1) nobody has been using them for pull quotes anyway (since nobody uses pull quotes) and 2) some editors use them for regular quotes (in defiance of the documentation). This is all discussed in exhaustive detail at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 184.

My expectation is that, if this proposal is adopted, nothing about actual usage will change (people will continue to not use pull quotes, and some editors will continue to use {{Quote box}}, {{Quote frame}}, {{Cquote}}, and {{Rquote}} for regular quotes). Based on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 184, there is some support for formally permitting {{Quote box}} (but maybe not the others) for regular quotes (by changing the documentation, e. g. by removing the "{{warning|This template should {{strong|not be used}} for block quotations in article text.}}" warning etc.). But of course a separate RfC would have to be run on that question. Herostratus (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The MOS is supposed to document actual practice. If the MOS differs from what the editors do, then the MOS is wrong and will have to be changed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Well I agree with you; many editors do, although editors editors favor a prescriptive MOS. In point of fact {{Quote box}}, {{Quote frame}}, {{Cquote}}, and {{Rquote}} are used for regular quotes in (what strikes me as) high numbers, considering that their documentation absolutely says not to do that; and they are almost literally never used for their putative function, pull quotes.

So yes, any editor that believes that the MOS should follow practice would definitely vote for this proposal, I would think. Down the road, and based on the earlier discussion (here), there ought to be an RfC on whether or either "legalize" the use of {{Quote box}} etc. for regular quotes, or abolish {{Quote box}} etc., or leave the situation nebulous. Herostratus (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to notify editors who frequent WT:FAC about this discussion, since I think it's a good idea to let editors who focus on content know about suggestions that can change the format of articles, but the last time I posted a note there at least one editor here considered it to be canvassing. Before I post a note there, can I get input on how to make sure those editors are aware of this discussion? SMcCandlish, you felt it was canvassing; what should I do? I'm happy to post to multiple areas to ensure a neutral notification if that's the best approach. I'd like opinions from others too; Herostratus, anyone else?

Also, I'd like to make sure I understand the intent of this suggestion, as I'm not really a MoS aficionado. Pull quotes are quotes that are both in the article text and in a separate highlit quote box of some kind, and regular quotes are quotes that are not in the article text, and only appear in a separate box. What this proposes is to remove mention of pull quotes without changing what MoS says is permitted. Is that all correct? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

That is correct. Your description of the difference between pull quotes and regular quotes is correct.

The intent here is simply to clear away an old cobweb, the support of (and therefore implicit suggestion for) pull quotes.

However, editors should be aware of this fact: in about 27,000 articles {{Quote box}}, {{Quote frame}}, {{Cquote}}, and {{Rquote}} are in use for regular quotes, despite the fact that the documentation specifically and strongly forbids this in several places. (About 120,000 use the officially prescribed method for regular quotes), which is either {{quote}} or just raw <blockquote>...</blockquote>; thus about 18% of our quotes are formatted "illegally", which IMO is testimony to the high value that editors place on {{Quote box}} etc.)

So while the intent here is just to clear away a cobweb, an effect will probably be to create a climate a little bit more favorable to more use of {{Quote box}}, {{Quote frame}}, {{Cquote}}, and {{Rquote}} for regular quotes -- in that the prescription "Use these only for pull quotes!" is removed. (Nowhere are they recommended for regular quotes (they are not mentioned here in the MOS at all), and the banner saying "This template should not be used for block quotations in article text" remains in the templates, for now, so the barrier to formally allowing these for regular quotes remains; a separate RfC will be required to discuss whether we want to remove that barrier.)

For this reason User:SMcCandlish will certainly oppose this proposal. He greatly loathes the idea of anyone ever putting a box around a quote, and will fight like the devil on all fronts and in all ways to for anything that makes that less likely. IMO you can't worry about that too much; he holds his beliefs very strongly, and it's just politics. One has to carry on and do what seems best despite politics. Herostratus (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you; that's clear, and I'll wait for SMcCandlish to comment. Do you have any advice on my first question above? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Well if I understand your question: I'm OK with this RfC being advertised as widely as possible in a neutral manner. Why not? I can't imagine any objection to that, save for political reasons as I mentioned.

But Featured Article solons might have little interest in the proposition, as the number of Featured Article candidate that have ever included a pull quote is certainly at or very near zero, so there's little practical effect on FA. On the other hand, since the effect is to indirectly somewhat lighten the proscription against using boxes (or big quote marks) around regular quotes, if a FA solon was of the mind that such an article could never pass FA, a word to that effect might be called for. Herostratus (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I think "solon" is a little grand a title for FA writers! More to the point, there might be more pull quotes around than you realize. Take a look at Courtney Love, which I've just supported at FAC; the third quote box is a pull quote. I don't dislike pull quotes. I think they should be up to editor discretion; I've seen the arguments against them and there's some risk of inappropriate emphasis, but editorial discussion seems the right way to handle that, not a MoS prescription. I'll have to think about this RfC; my preference would be to move the MoS in the direction of less instruction in this case, so I'll probably end up supporting.

Do I also understand that there was never a close of the discussion under the heading "Permit Template:Quote box for regular quotes" that SMcCandlish and a couple of others objected to as being a hijacking of the RfC? I don't see any sign of a close in archive 184; what happened? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I do dislike pull quotes, but I'm with you: I think they should be up to editor discretion (and discussion). Note that this proposal, while it (purposely) doesn't ban pull quotes, does end all documentation support for them. This I think will have the net effect of "burying them deeper in the toolbox" -- editors will have to extrapolate from examples, or just use their own judgement, in figuring out whether and how to use pull quotes. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as you say, but it might be.

The Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 184 discussion, that was intended to be a true "discussion" with no close, just a chance to talk about various issues and maybe come up with some action items for future RfC; this RfC is the first fruit of that.

Within that RfC an editor created a vote-yes-or-no subsection on a sub-issue (it is "Permit Template:Quote box for regular quotes", here. This is pretty unusual for an RfC, and maybe for that reason it was never closed (despite a request at WP:AN) and just disappeared into the archive. But that question was specifically about changing the documentation to specifically say "Hey, in addition to {{quote}} you can put a line around the quote with {{quote box}}". That's a contentious separate question from this RfC, and is another action item to come out of the Archive 184 discussion, and I intend to run a separate RfC on that question presently. Herostratus (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The politicized canvassing was probably why it was archived without closure. No sane admin would have touched that, since any result other maybe "no consensus" would have produced another wave of side-taking and accusations. It's best to just leave it for a considerable time until tempers cool.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Herostratus: stop putting words in my mouth and casting aspersions about my mental processes, which you clearly do not understand and badly mischaracterize.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, this RfC is still active, and though I can see why you suggest the issue be left to cool for a while, we have to deal with the RfC in front of us. Are you saying we should agree to stop the RfC without prejudice to restarting it or something similar later? I don't think that's likely. And though I didn't feel there was politicized canvassing last time, I understand that you did think that, and I want to avoid that this time -- so what is an appropriate method to notify others of this RfC? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Just let it run. People who care about this will already notify their "camps" one way or another, and far more importantly WP:FRS exists for a reason: it will bring in fresh eyes and minds that are not already dug into trenches.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

So in your eyes there is simply no way to evenhandedly notify any other groups of the existence of this RfC? I understand the concern about canvassing, but I would like to post a neutrally worded note to a group I think may be interested. (And in this case, unlike the previous one, I hope you find it easier to believe that I'm really not canvassing for or expecting a particular position; I haven't even made my own mind up as to which way I want to !vote.) The strictures against canvassing are against soliciting !votes for one side or another; surely there's an acceptable way to neutrally notify others who might be interested? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I took this to your talk page, but the short version is there is no reason to do this (people who care will show up anyway), and it is only likely to have a polarizing and factionalizing effect again, exactly as it did last time. "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." <;-) (Variously attributed to Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, and Fred Zamberletti, among others.) Quotation formatting is not an intrinsically FA-related subject, so it would be taken as canvassing of a special interest group regardless, by various participants.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to post a query at WP:VPM since I think your preference for not posting notices is not the same as the requirement not to canvas, and I'd like to get other opinions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dashes and Engvar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello MOS editors. Is there a difference between BR Eng and Am Eng with regards to use of endashes and emdashes? I cannot see anything described at Comparison of American and British English. Please see this short thread for context. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

No, by WP's standards it's an arbitrary choice which should be consistent within articles but has nothing to do with Br vs. Am. You're right and Neilinabbey is wrong [4] – it's amazing how often we get "professional editors" pontificating without apparently understanding what a house style is. This is exactly the kind of worthless style-warrior busywork being discussed elsewhere on this page. EEng 22:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

While both are acceptable, em dashes are primarily used in US English, eg 'the President—who at that time was Obama—approved', while British English generally uses en dashes, nowadays with spaces (unless when used in a range, such as 2010–2016), eg 'the Prime Minister – who at that time was Cameron – approved'. See https://www.gsbe.co.uk/grammar-the-dash.html and many other sources.

And thank you, EEng, I am perfectly aware of what a house style is, having written several for different organisations. You may wish to see this, which confirms what I have said is, contrary to your view, correct: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Dash#En_dash_versus_em_dash

Neilinabbey (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, you apparently still don't know what a house style is, because if you did you'd have recognized that WP:MOSDASH (to which PaleCloudWhite so helpfully directed you in the thread linked in his OP) ends the discussion. Instead you replied, "I would also add that my opinion as an individual is at least as valid as yours and if I want to make these changes - which are not a waste of time - I will do so!"

As for what someone or other wrote in our article Dash to which you link, that has zero weight here. But for the sake of argument let's suppose it does. Hmmmm. Well, what is says is,

In the United Kingdom, the spaced en dash is the house style for certain major publishers, including the Penguin Group, the Cambridge University Press, and Routledge. However, this convention is not universal. The Oxford Guide to Style (2002, section 5.10.10) acknowledges that the spaced en dash is used by "other British publishers" but states that the Oxford University Press, like "most US publishers", uses the unspaced em dash.

That hardly supports your claim that endases are universally used in the UK. But thanks for playing our game. EEng 23:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

At no point did I claim that en dashes (not endases) are "universally used in the UK", I clearly said "generally". I am sorry you are unable to differentiate between the two things - until you can, I suggest you stop pontificating in so arrogant and aggressive a manner. What you have posted confirms my point, showing that several UK major publishers use en dashes, while only that prefers em dashes, the OUP, is named. What is more, the OUP has long been known to prefer styles more normally associated with the USA, such as the Oxford comma. Moreover, WP:MOSDASH says that either style can be used, placing more emphasis on consistency. I have applied consistency in the article that started this - therefore I am perfectly in alignment with its requirements and the house style, so get off your high horse. Neilinabbey (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

• What part of I have never seen em dashes used in British books about British topics, only in American books or books by US writers do you not recall writing? It's nice, though, that you've now seen the wisdom of backpedaling to generally.
• Again, we don't use our own articles as style guides, for reasons that surely must be obvious. I'll take OUP as outweighing Mr. Dobbs' class-handout style guide any day.
• Contrary to what you say, you have not "applied consistency in the article". What you did is change the unspaced emdashes—the established and consistent style of the article—to spaced emdashes (huh?) in at least one case [5] and spaced endashes in other cases, [6], and leave the rest alone. Hardly consistency.
• It's cute how you took time to point out that I mistyped endashes as endases. Devastating!

The view from up here is fine, so I think I'll stay. EEng 00:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not that hard to find other British guides that mandate the serial comma—from the serial comma article, there's also MHRA Style Guide nd Fowler's Modern English Usage. Usage is mixed on both sides of the Atlantic—where do Brits even get the idea that the serial comma is an Americanism? I hope Neilinabbey can at least avoid sniping at typos. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Wait until he focuses that steel-trap mind of his on the fact that you mistyped "and" as "nd". Then we'll really get put in our places. EEng 01:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, but that's Canadian ENGVAR. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Pretty smart, eh! EEng 02:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

That I em! In fact, I can recite the whole alphabet from "eh" to "zed"! Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• I think it's quite understandable to want to ensure that style points within an article adhere to the most common usage in a particular variety of English. Dashes are more commonly rendered as spaced ens in Brit English, in Australian English also. JG66 (talk) 23:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, JG66 Neilinabbey (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not understandable, because people have an astonishing variety of ideas about what's common or appropriate, and such efforts lead to timesinks such as the one we're in right now‍—‌see [7]. If you want MOS to say one form of dash is preferred in this or that variety of English, propose it and get consensus. EEng 00:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

EEng is correct. Editors are wise to respect community consensus, which is not established in content disputes at articles or on MoS talk pages. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Tearing myself away for a moment from the warm glow of your validation... If consensus on style matters isn't established on MOS talk pages, where are they established? EEng 01:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

LOL. Yeah, the MoS talk page (or one of it's sub-guidelines' talk pages) is about the only place consensus on style matters is established on WP. That's pretty much why these particular talk pages exist.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to unstructured little discussions between a few editors (hence the words "content disputes"). That is not how to achieve change to any community consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah. I parsed your comment as not established (in content disputes at articles) or (on MoS talk pages). EEng 14:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed the answer is "no"; there is no evidence of any national divide on this issue, and even if a faint preference could be demonstrated it would not rise to MOS:ENGVAR level anyway. The distinction is one of genre not of geography (and is not "arbitrary" as someone suggested above). En dashes are used in formal, academic writing, distinctly from em dashes, hyphens, and minus signs, but two of these essentially do not even exist in journalistic writing. I mean that literally; if you check news style guides like the AP Stylebook they do not mention the existence of the en dash or minus glyphs at all, and only recognize the hyphen and the em dash. This is a historical artifact of pre-digital typesetting for multiple-editions-per-day speed, and really doesn't have anything to do with what WP does or should. The consensus to use en dashes and minuses the same way as other academic publishers has been stable here for years.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, there is a clear difference between British English and American English with regards to use of endashes and emdashes (to capture PaleCloudedWhite's original question phrasing). Anyone who reads, writes or edits British English recognises that the em-dash is a rarity, seen almost exclusively in USEng examples. In general, where BrEng separates interjections and subsidiary comments by a spaced en-dash, US writing applies the unspaced em-dash. Fortunately MOS reflects and accommodates the different usages in English VARiants, and so the spaced en-dash can properly be used in BrE articles.Onanoff (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there is a correlation, with spaced en dash being more common in British publications, and unspaced em in American. But keep in the mind that these are style choices, quite orthogonal to the English language variant. On WP, all combinations are acceptable per the MOS, just as all combinations are found in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a strict boundary between US–UK usage. Tony (talk) 07:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree that endashes are more common in British English and emdashes in US, but that it's not a fixed or official thing. Nor has any evidence been presented that explicitly makes that claim. User:Neilinabbey seemed to accept that when they stressed endashes are "generally" preferred in the UK not "universally" (although they did initially deploy the often-seen-on-WP fallacy that because they've never seen something, it doesn't exist), but it should then be clear that the distinction doesn't fall under Engvar; and in any event MOS is clear that either is OK so long as used consistently. N-HH talk/edits 21:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• In the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and all the saints and apostles, someone please close this. EEng 21:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion at Talk:Unknown Pleasures#RfC: Italics for Pitchfork (website) magazine?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Unknown Pleasures#RfC: Italics for Pitchfork (website) magazine?. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)Template:Z48