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)

@Trovatore: Thanks for bringing that up, in those terms. This is part of what I've been getting at when (above, below, and in previous versions of this debate) I've pointed out that MoS is a style guideline, not a behavior policy, and that "there may be exceptions, and it should not be treated as a battlegrounding platform" applies to all our rules, not to MoS differently. The MoS lead already makes this point clear and even cites ArbCom against battlegrounding over style nitpicks, so this would appear to be sufficient. It is good to point out, as you did, that a guideline is not in a position to dictate how guidelines may be interpreted and applied. That's what the WP:POLICY page is for.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:26, 27 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 a 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)

I'm still trying to understand what you mean by "enforcing"; and "blindly". Your examples don't help. I admit things got weird in early 2015, on both WP:JR and WP:USSTATION related edits, and I'm not going to try defend my own weirdness at that time, but it was not about doing anything blind, and I never had any intent that I could classify as "enforcement". And as SMcCandlish points out, it all got pretty nicely settled, including the USSTATION stuff totally without me, in alignment with the guidelines. It takes work to move WP toward better compliance with guidelines and policies, and we do it without enforcers, for the most part; I wouldn't want to be one, or act like one. Dicklyon (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I already withdrew my point with respect to your temporary stationary weirdness; to make that even clearer I'm now striking it. EEng 06:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

As to the more substantive point, see Primergrey's comment immediately below. MoS does not need to state that doing inappropriate things is not appropriate. This is not a behavioral guideline, much less one issued by the Department of Redundancy Department. There is no demonstrable problem of editors "blindly" "enforcing" this or any other guideline. If something like that happens, there are already ANI and ArbCom processes for addressing such a behavioral matter with the editor engaging in it, and MoS already says what it needs to on the topic, even citing ArbCom about "style warring". You seem to be stenuously arguing for us to enact what was already enacted years ago.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:10, 27 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)

User:Dicklyon, I've reread your comment above [4] and feel I need to comment further.

Firstly, If you have an actual complaint, name names...: Not only do I have no specific complaint, if I did it would be inappropriate to raise it here. Wouldn't it be?

Secondly 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: No such intent. I have better things to do, and any such attempts tend to boomerang anyway. Contentious editors tend to see themselves off the premises unassisted. I certainly don't want to eliminate the MOS or the crew that maintain it. It includes some (perhaps most) of our very most helpful project pages.

The reason I started this whole section, with the post that has been so misunderstood, is that I believe that the MOS should be written in order to best help those who do both have good faith and (probably more important but the two tend to go together) are willing to assume it on the part of others, rather then to encourage editors to jump to a confrontation. And again I have no intention of naming examples. If you have never seen it happen I am very pleased for you.

Thirdly, what do I mean by holding a gun to another editor's head? I mean giving them no choice but to comply with a particular interpretation of the rules, or trying to do this, rather than working for consensus and dare I say it, rather than assuming good faith and the willingness to work towards consensus on their part. I thought it was a very clear metaphor, vivid and easily understood, and I was wrong, wrong, wrong. But is it clear now what I meant? Andrewa (talk) 07:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

No, still not really clear without an example of "giving them no choice but to comply with a particular interpretation of the rules, or trying to do this, rather than working for consensus and dare I say it, rather than assuming good faith and the willingness to work towards consensus on their part." Dicklyon (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll work on one if it would help. Good idea.

I'm not asking whether you think it's a good metaphor. It's now a given that it failed miserably to communicate. I'm not asking here whether you and User:SMcCandlish (the other to complain) agree with the point I was trying to make (but more on that below). I'm simply asking, is it now clear what I was trying to say? Andrewa (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

There are more productive things for us to do that try to work out what one editor meant by a post they self-describe as a miserable failure to communicate. As I suggested before, I think that's a userspace conversation, since it really doesn't have anything to do with improvement and interpretation of MoS, which is what this talk page is for.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Andrewa (talk) 01:21, 28 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)

You posted a section about seeing editors off the premises. It's hard to interpret where you're coming from with that, or what imagined problem you are talking about. Dicklyon (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

No I did not. I mentioned seeing editors off the premises in a section on assuming good faith. Andrewa (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

See WP:LAWYER and WP:NOTGETTINGIT. This is not a venue for arguing to death about how to interpret your personal posts, Andrewa. Just because you titled the section "Good faith" and then posted something that to others reads like "You must assume good faith, because I don't assume it about you and are doing to see you kicked off the system if you don't, and laugh as you fail elsewhere, too, you jerks" doesn't mean that anyone else has to take that seriously, or constrain themselves to talking about what you want to talk about. "Good faith" is obviously not the actual topic under discussion here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

So can we all drop discussion of that particular post if I let that be the last word? Andrewa (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

My view directly contradicts the phrasing of User:SMcCandlish's User:SMcCandlish/Manual of Style extended FAQ#Why does MoS exist, and do I have to follow it? which reads in part The Manual of Style exists primarily to prevent and resolve disputes over style matters (in bold). That's a near-perfect expression of exactly what I want to avoid. It's not any legalistic consequence of this clause that I'm questioning, it's fine from that point of view. It's the emphasis and the resulting social consequences.

The Manual of Style exists primarily to help editors to write and improve articles in the first place. Yes, part of its primary role is preventing disputes, that is true but it's also a very negative way of putting it. The way the MOS prevents disputes is by enabling editors to get it right in the first place. That is the goal.

And a valid and important but secondary role is in resolving disputes. This role is in a sense unique to Wikipedia, which is part of the issue. Other encyclopedia style guides don't need to do this, as disputes are resolved by the pecking order of the editorial staff. Any dispute between equals is simply resolved by the next level up of management. Andrewa (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's unfortunate that what you want to avoid is what MoS, like our other guidelines, unmistakably evolved and continues to exist for. Everyone is welcome to have their input on how to build a better screwdriver, but when someone's input is how to make it work better as a hammer or crowbar instead, that input is not going to be very helpful. You seem to be confusing the difference between policies and guidelines, too. We expect policies to be absorbed rapidly by new editors and to directly shape how they contribute, at all, to Wikipedia, because they are integral and necessary key components of how the encyclopedia work can be performed in the first place. (Style matters in particular do not rise to this level, and if you doubt me on that, see the rather stern administrative close lower down this page in the thread on dashes.) Guidelines are secondary material, primarily used in dispute prevention and resolution, and just encapsulate best practices at a more detailed and explanatory level, things that help make the project more successful. You'll see this if you read, for example, the WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policies, and compare their tone, nature, and foci with closely related guidelines like WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, and WP:N.

It self-evidently is not true that MoS "exists primarily to help editors to write and improve articles in the first place". We do not expect new editors to read MoS at all or to even be aware of its existence, nor do long-term editors usually refer to it except as a reference work, especially to resolve an inter-editor conflict over a style matter. No one is required to refer to it, ever, before writing here, regardless of their experience level, and you cannot be sanctioned for not writing in MoS-prescribed style (only from interfering with others doing so). "Getting it right in the first place" is very nice when it happens, but it only happens when whoever is writing is actually already deeply familiar with MoS, which is rare. This is by design and necessity; it's more important that the content be generated than that its chrome be polished. This is also why we have GAN and FAC processes, and they come later; no one has to produce GA- or FA-quality content as their first draft, and no one has to produce MoS-compliant text right off the bat, either. From both a style and a content perspective, WP process is to get the gist in there, then let go, and let the community improve it. MoS is almost entirely used for dispute resolution, and as a cleanup checklist by gnomes. It is a work for copyediting much more than for writing. This is also true of off-WP style guides of a similar sectional, rule-based nature (as opposed to usage dictionaries like the AP Stylebook and its competitors produced by other news publishers, which are short, mostly about specific turns of phrase (i.e. are more like MOS:WTW), and are often essentially memorized by the writers who adhere to them professionally. By contrast, no one but a professional academic pre-press editor (i.e. the off-WP equivalent of a copyediting gnome) attempts to memorize something like the Chicago Manual of Style, and it is used by writers mostly just as an occasionally consulted reference work, if at all – just as with MoS. This goes double for Scientific Style and Format; only a professional science editor attempts to absorb vast amounts of it, and even then usually only field-specific details (chemistry, or whatever).

Because MoS is mostly based on those two specific style guides (sometimes with almost as much detail), plus the also complex Oxford Style Manual (renamed New Hart's Rules), it is totally impractical to approach MoS differently, and treat it as required reading and guidelines that must be followed in order to write here. It would require every noob to already have the skills and interests of professional editors. It's no accident that most MoS gnomes are (in real life) copyeditors, proofreaders, linguists, professors of English, and others who do in fact possess these skills and interests. (Even those who don't are usually professional writers with editing experience.) MoS is not a usage dictionary, and will never be one. Even the tiny one we have at MOS:WTW is frequently a source of controversy for prescribing the very few things it does (as WP:NPOV policy matters, not arbitrary style concerns). It seems to me that the chain of reasoning that runs "I'm required to follow MoS at all times, yet it is complex, so I can't, thus MoS is broken/bad" is the source of much MoS-related conflict, but we know that the starting assumption is false, ergo the reasoning based on it is also fallacious.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Much of that concerns behaviour, which should be discussed on our user talk pages if you wish.

But there is a fundamental disagreement which you have not addressed at all, and which IMO should be the main topic of this section. Let me try another angle. There are three stages to wp:BRD of course. (I'm not citing it as policy, it's an essay of course, just borrowing its framework.)

Now, I'd like the MOS to be optimised for stage one, the bold stage. You seem to want it optimised for stage three, the discuss stage, while I'd prefer that, wherever possible, we don't even get to that stage.

Your second paragraph starts well, It self-evidently is not true that MoS "exists primarily to help editors to write and improve articles in the first place". If you could justify that rather bold claim, this would be real progress. But none of the rest of the paragraph supports it. It seems to just be your opinion, and that's OK but we should recognise it as that. For example We do not expect new editors to read MoS at all or to even be aware of its existence, nor do long-term editors usually refer to it except as a reference work, especially to resolve an inter-editor conflict over a style matter. Not true. Template:Welcome links to Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style, an essay that defers explicitly to the MOS. Many of us do brush up on the MOS from time to time, particularly after discussions in which we find we're mistaken about what it says (it happens to all of us).

The Welcome template informs new editors that we have an MOS, it in no way even suggests that an understanding of it is expected. Similarly, there is no such implication of a required adherence on the MOS page it links to. Primergrey (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree with that second sentence, and partly agree with the first. But the Welcome template (indirect) MOS link does suggest to me that it's good for new editors to be aware of its existence. Not to you? Andrewa (talk) 05:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't create an expectation of awareness; it creates an awareness of its existence s by virtue of having been read. Primergrey (talk) 06:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Some editors do use the MOS mainly to resolve conflicts, and I guess you're one of them, and that's not a bad thing. But not all do or should. Andrewa (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

To promote archiving

I would like to promote the above section #Good faith to a second level heading ==Good faith== in order to allow it to be archived sooner in case there is any ongoing discussion in other sections of #Removal of clarifying phrase from lead of which it otherwise remains a sub-heading. I think we've got badly off-topic and admit that my poor choices in the introductory paragraph got us off to a very bad start. I'd also as part of that promote this subheading to level three. Any objections?

I'm developing my thoughts on the matter at User talk:Andrewa/The primary purpose of the MOS, which may eventually lead to an essay. Anyone interested in further discussion is of course welcome there. Andrewa (talk) 08:27, 31 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)

Agreed that is within the normal typographic conformity range, as it's just a style matter. Contrast this sharply with the similar question about changing "He" to "he" in direct quotations of religious scripture, which is not okay because it changes the meaning and intent of the material being quoted.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was looking for! Thanks, EEng! — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:27, 28 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)

Thanks for taking the lead on this, Tony. I'll be happy to help with the calm approach you propose. Dicklyon (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me, as well.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

wp:TLDNR Though I tried. Not even certain what the issue is. Executive summary and a new section sounds good. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate this approach, as well. The most important thing, for me, is to see that some form of the above passage be reinstated. RGloucester — ☎ 16:07, 28 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.

• I've been trying to think of a suitable chump patsy fall guy editor of sufficient esteem and stature to actually implement this. I've hit on it: The Blade of the Northern Lights. EEng 02:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Guidance on use of italics

Regarding this edit: note the link that was removed pointed to additional details on a separate page. I feel it is more appropriate for a manual of style to give a link to the appropriate guidance, rather than just saying "the usual way". Would anyone else like to weigh in? isaacl (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The solution is to either link to #Titles on the same MoS page (which does not cause a confusing reload of the same page), or to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Italics, a more detailed drill-down on the same topic.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The removed link was to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Italic type, which does not cause a reload of the same page. isaacl (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Capitalized "The" University of Foo

At some point (I haven't dug it out of diffs yet) someone added the following to MOS:INSTITUTIONS:

The word the at the start of a title is usually uncapitalized, but follow the institution's own usage (a degree from the University of Sydney; but researchers at The Ohio State University).

I have reverted this as clearly controversial and against consensus. This idea has come up very frequently at university and other organization articles, and in every single case I can recall, the consensus was that this was specialized-style fallacy overcapitalization, in particular just marketing-based aggrandizement, and was not some magical exception to MOS:CAPS. I note that it directly contradicts what has long been at MOS:CAPS, including specific wording to the contrary at MOS:CAPS#Institutions, and there is also no such exception at its subsection MOS:THECAPS, or MOS:TM. So, this was a guideline WP:POVFORK, and one that runs counter to years of consistent consensus against this overcapping, and three applicable guideline sections. If people want to see consensus change on the matter, open an RfC about it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

That came in with this diff on a particularly busy editing day many years ago, with edit summary indicating that "The Ohio State University" is the only institution he knows of that it would apply to. So, should this institution get a capitalized "The"? If so, doing so as an exception might be a better idea than writing it into the MOS such that we turn over the style to arguments about editors' opinion of what institutions want, sort of like what we backed away from in cleaning up MOS:JR. Just undo it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I already have, putting it in line with the three other guidelines.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

And as the article says, the basis for the cap The is actually pretty sketchy; essentially just a logo. See this ref. Seems overblown, or over-interpreted, to interpret that the institution cares much about the caps on "the". Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I.e., it's precisely what's addressed already at the other guidelines. We just need to cross-reference them with a note at MOS:TM that "The" isn't capitalized in the name of organizations even if their own materials style it that way. It's just a missing line-item at that page, that you have to look in MOS:THECAPS or MOS:CAPS#Institutions to find. (Publications are an exception, per MOS:TITLE, and rarely an organization can "inherit" the capitalization by including the full name of the publication in the company name ("The New York Times Company", "The Hunger Games Fan Club", etc), but we need not get into that.) If we update MOS:TM, and cross-ref it to MOS:THECAPS, while MOS:CAPS#Institutions already has the rule, there's no need for the main MoS page to have a line item about it. It's already implicit in all the other rules, and it doesn't come up often enough any more that MoS-main has to address it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Update: It was also already covered at MOS:THEMUSIC. I've now cross-referenced all of these at MOS:TM, and we can probably just remove the line item from the main MoS page. Either that, or replace it with a more general one that is not specific to "institutions", a minor sub-matter of the general rule. Scratch that; it's concise and seems to fit there, and as a more general matter is already covered at WP:MOS#Capitalization of "The" and its cross-reference to MOS:THECAPS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it's important to make clear what we mean by "publication". Thus there are websites and online databases that are effectively "publications", such as The Plant List. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I would think MOS:TITLE would cover that. I agree that we do need to clarify (because it keeps coming up again and again – just saw it early today in an RfC, and people keep trying to re-litigate it article by article by article) that an e-publication is still a publication, and receives the same capitalization and italicization as a dead-trees one, when it's being addressed as a published work not as an organization (my go-to example for this: "She had an article published in Salon", versus "He left his job as the webmaster at Salon.com in 2009". This is the same distinction as The New York Times (the publication) and The New York Times Company (the legal entity). For one thing, our citation templates are always going to italicize it when cited as a work, and for another it just doesn't make sense that an online publication is less of a publication and doesn't get the same stylistic treatment as one printed on wood pulp. What next? Does my song not get "The Conventional Song Quotation Marks" because I released it online instead of on a CD?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

MOS:TIES

Can Hong Kong English, Philippine English and Singaporean English be included to that list to distinguish related articles from the prevailing dialect (British English) used in articles about Southeast Asia. Irish English is obviously related to formal British English since they are next door to each other but the Philippines and the United States are halfway around the world so unless a reader is well versed in history, this is not always clear. In practical terms, it is annnoying to correct the proper date format from British to Philippine since Philippine-related articles use their own variant (mmmmddyyyy) (mdy). Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what some list article may say, the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Formats doesn't provide for a MMMMDDYYYY date format to be used in articles, and I don't see it used, for example, in Philippines or History_of_the_Philippines. EEng 06:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• It's Template:Use mdy dates. The long form is just the the colloquial in Philippine writing. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing in support of anti-MOS attack by Nyttend

An editor has canvassed Wikiproject Film to endorse an outrageous anti-MOS move close by an involved admin; at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 December#Steamboat Bill, Jr.. Should we list that discussion more centrally to balance the harm done already by that canvassing, or what? The question of move or not is not a big deal, but the closing statement and the fact that it's from an admin who had already taken a strong stand against the relevant guideline should not be allowed to stand. Dicklyon (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The first point at Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification is:

• The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion.

But your highly biased post here is breaking Wikipedia:Canvassing which repeatedly says that notifications must be neutral. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see the problem with the neutral and open post made at WP:FILM, which is of course the relevant wikiproject. By contrast the post here is not only phrased in loaded language but made as a clear call for MOS editors to come and supposedly defend the MOS (even though the part of it in question is about biography, not film). Given that language, on top of the fact that MOS is usually limited to about three or four regular editors, all of whom are likely to – indeed already have – come to argue for the exclusion of the comma in question, I'm not sure that the accusation of canvassing might not better be applied elsewhere. N-HH talk/edits 16:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

As the editor whom Dicklyon has falsely accused of canvassing, let me agree with the two editors above and also place my post here for anyone to judge for themselves. Here is the notice, broken into phrases, emphasis added. Tell me what sentence is anything other than straightforward fact. Note that "WP:BIO" is shorthand for WikiProject Biography. The actual link is WP:WPBIO.

• "An admin closed the discussion at Steamboat Bill, Jr. in favor of using the film's actual onscreen title with comma,
• despite a couple of WP:BIO editors believing WP:BIO guidelines for people supersede WP:FILM guidelines for film titles.
• Now those WP:BIO editors are trying to overturn the admin's decision.
• You may wish to comment — either to endorse the admin's close or not — at [link to here]." --Tenebrae (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, the guideline Dicklyon keeps bringing up is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies ... so his bringing a notice here, as if to suggestion the WP:BIO guideline is actually the overall WIkipedia guideline, seems .... inappropriate, let's say. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not bring up any guideline other than that involved admins should not close discussions, especially not with inflammatory one-side POV as Nyttend did. Dicklyon (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

You continue to make biased canvassing here with accusations against Nyttend. Stop it. Nyttend had not participated in the debate he closed but only in other debates you apparently think disqualifies him from closing this one. That is your opinion and others may agree or disagree but it's not what is usually meant by the term "involved admin". PrimeHunter (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The whole basis for the review is my accusation against Nyttend for closing a discussion in which he was substantively involved. Not by posting in that discussion, but by posting previously his opposition to WP:JR in general, and more recently calling a move to implement it "hoaxing" when applied to a non-biography title, which is precisely the issue in this case. Dicklyon (talk) 06:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'm afraid "closing a discussion in which he was substantively involved" is just blatantly, confirmably false. I invite anyone here to go to Talk:Steamboat Bill, Jr.#Requested move 15 December 2016, do a search for Nyttend, and you absolutely will see he was not involved in the discussion in any way. To open a post with a false claim and then try to walk it back in the second sentence ... My goodness. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• All for a comma. I suggest that those who can contribute substantively to the encyclopedia go do so, and abandon this trivial argument to those unafraid to demonstrate that they have nothing better to do. EEng 19:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The comma is trivial, but the issue of an anti-MOS closing rant by an involved admin is intolerable. The comic is nice; I think it's more real than you think, for many of us; I quote it often. Dicklyon (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more constructive to ponder on why the admin left such a remark, rather than focusing on the fact that the remark was made. Blueboar (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

If you want people to take uour closing/involved concern seriously, wait until it arises in a nontrivial context. And I agree with Blueboar. EEng 00:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

You don't think a threat like "...is disruptive and will result in sanctions if repeated" is not serious, when the only behavior at issue is opposing a requested move? The move itself is no big deal, but this closing statement by an admin with a history of involvement in opposing the underlying guidelines is outrageous, and not trivial. Dicklyon (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Then it belongs on a forum addressing admin behavior, not here, where the consensus is that this admin read the consensus there correctly. Trying to overturn a consensus decision on some perceived technicality is WP:WIKILAWYERING. You don't agree with the consensus. We get that. But the consensus is still the consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not there was a consensus to move is not the issue, as I've pointed out repeatedly. The issue is the involved admin and the outrageous closing statement. Isn't WP:MR the place to address such things? I agree that venue is pretty dead and useless, usually just getting people rehashing the move arguments, which is pointless. What forum do you suggest for admin misbehavior? Dicklyon (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I say we ask Arbcom whether AN is the right place to argue over what constitutes canvassing regarding a Move Review of a comment in a close for a comma in a movie title. P-E-R-S-P-E-C-T-I-V-E. EEng 18:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

How does one "ask Arbcom", and why would they be the ones to answer such a question? Dicklyon (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

S-A-R-C-A-S-M. S-T-I-C-K. EEng 18:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Why are you such an _-_-_-_-_-_-_? Dicklyon (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Mountain

        Molehill

W-H-I-Z-K-I-D? Please – you're making me blush, and anyway those days are way behind me. (I thought for a moment you were going to say WP:DICK, but of course I would hardly expect that to come from you.) EEng 19:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is this discussion continuing here? The place for discussion of the move is the move review, while the place for discussing any behavioural issues is ANI or ARBCOM. Trading insults here doesn't help anybody and merely makes the participants look silly. I suggest someone hats this discussion.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

That's what I've been saying all along. For the record, I certainly don't feel insulted. EEng 20:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The Dance of the Seven Veiled Commentaries –EEng

EEng, I think you (and some others throughout the project) should dial back the use of snark, cute sarcasm, and subtle ridicule as debate tools. Even when you're right. (The last sentence should not be read as a veiled commentary on this particular situation.) ―Mandruss ☎ 01:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

References

False titles

Sure, the issue of false titles is more of a style issue that it is of grammatical correctness. Nor does it serve to any correct any pre-existing ambiguity, as far as I know. But then WP:MoS, as the name suggests, is a style guide. So, as we continue to strive for a richer linguistic consistency on Wikipedia, I propose WP:MoS have a stance on the topic. Personally, I find the weight of argument against its use to be heavier, but if we as a community decided to go in favor of it, I would still happily accept it. Wikipedia is glutted both with the use and non-use of false titles, and a common ground on this affair, I think, would help to maintain a much-needed evenness in style. I am not sure if this proposal has been put forward before, but at least the AI overlords running the "Search Archives" insist in the negative. I would love to hear your thoughts on this. Please remind me if I am missing something. Thanks! Inimesh (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Can you provide diffs (e.g. of editors arguing about this over and over on many different articles' talk pages) showing that there is a problem here that needs solving? Because if not, then we don't need a rule on this, and if MOS does not need to have a rule on something, then it needs to not have a rule on that thing. EEng 14:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
• Seems like WP:BLP covers this in the case of living or recently-dead people, and for long-dead people, probably don't need to worry about it. --Izno (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

  Er, um, I think you need to follow the link at the beginning of the OP. The question here is whether you should write Economist John Smith asserts (in which Economist is a so-called "false title") or write The economist John Smith asserts. (Prissy Brits seem to insist on the latter.) EEng 15:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

  I did! I was thrown off by the rather negative false title in the lead. --Izno (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Use of {{abbr}} with Vol. and No.

At WP:NUMBERSIGN we have:

Avoid using the # symbol (known as the number sign, hash sign, or pound sign) when referring to numbers or rankings. Instead write "number", "No." or "Nos."; do not use the symbol №... When using the abbreviations, write {{abbr|Vol.|Volume}}, {{abbr|No.|Number}}, or {{abbr|Nos.|Numbers}}.

I propose we drop the last sentence. I sampled a dozen comic book articles and couldn't find any that actually do this, and I submit that, even if (let's say) a reader doesn't know that Vol. means Volume, then there's a good chance that if we use {abbr} to inform him of that, he won't know what volume means in this context anyway. EEng 17:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Scope of application

The introduction of Wikipedia:Manual of Style, in its version of 21:30, 1 January 2017, begins with this sentence: "The Manual of Style (abbreviated as MoS or MOS) is the style manual for all Wikipedia articles." It is unexplicit about talk pages and other namespaces and non-talk pages which function as talk pages—for example, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).

Valenciano asked at User talk:Jimbo Wales (permanent link) about whether the Manual of Style applies outside article space, and specifically to watchlist notices. I propose that just a few words be added to the introduction, to make the scope of application clearer. Some pages have a more official nature, and editors can be influenced (rightly or wrongly) to imitate the style of writing found there.
—Wavelength (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Now and then I have to explain to people that MOS applies to articles only -- even MOS itself is not subject to MOS -- so I suppose it wouldn't hurt to add a word or two (literally). EEng 02:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree; otherwise I'd fix your double hyphens to dashes. Dicklyon (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I assume you realize that was deliberate. EEng 01:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

My sense of humor is obviously not as well developed as yours. But nice one. Dicklyon (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Well you accepted the offer beautifully. I'll be here all week. EEng 03:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

What reason is there for MOS applying to articles only? —Wavelength (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

You'll understand after you read a post I made in another conversation several years ago:

In the last 48 hr I've become aware of a simmering dispute over whether the text of MOS itself should be in American or British English. With any luck the participants will put that debate (let's call it Debate D1) on hold in order to begin Debate D2: consideration of the variety of English in which D1 should be conducted. Then, if there really is a God in Heaven, D1 and D2 will be the kernel around which will form an infinite regress of metadebates D3, D4, and so on -- a superdense accretion of pure abstraction eventually collapsing on itself to form a black hole of impenetrable disputation, wholly aloof from the mundane cares of practical application and from which no light, logic or reason can emerge.

That some editors will find themselves inexorably and irreversibly drawn into this abyss, mesmerized on their unending trip to nowhere by a kaleidoscope of linguistic scintillation reminiscent of the closing shots of 2001, is of course to be regretted. But they will know in their hearts that their sacrifice is for the greater good of Wikipedia. That won't be true, of course, but it would be cruel to disabuse them of that comforting fiction as we bid them farewell and send them on their way.

EEng 04:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully those who wanted to go that way have long since gone. Wavelength, what are you thinking? By the way, sometimes editors try to make templates and category names correspond to the styles in the articles (I did a few such things myself a while back). That doesn't bother me, but strikes me as mostly a waste of time compared to working on articles. Dicklyon (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, the focus should be on articles only. The concentration required there is exhausting enough. Discussions about improvements, articles, processes - in whatever casual form - cannot themselves be a focus in such like. (Please don't make me fix all the misspellings in talk pages! Nooooo ...) Shenme (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Watchlist notices should absolutely be covered by WP:MOS. Otherwise there's the chance that people will subconsciously copy any MOS errors into article space. Valenciano (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Dicklyon, I am thinking of harmony and consistency. If WP:MOS does not apply to other namespaces (except user pages, talk pages, and project pages functioning as talk pages, mentioned in my opening post), then where is a style guide that does apply to them? Incidentally, I am in favor of replacing WP:ENGVAR with a unified English style, incorporating principles from User:Angr/Unified English Spelling.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Not going to happen. Dicklyon (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Consider also that Angr last contributed to that essay way back in 2009. I respect his opinions and would take direction from him. Note he also mentions the word 'fantasy' at end of essay. I am an EngVar nut, because I wish to respect the diversity of English-using populations. That does not say I 'celebrate' the diversity of English. It is an imperfect tool, but today it makes possible the work here, as editors can make themselves understood without "perfection required". Please don't throw up walls of knits (sick) to get in the way of the work. Shenme (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

This entire question seems to assume that the MOS is a policy that would be mindlessly implemented. Even if the MOS "applies" to non-articles, if it is only a guideline that is not mandatory (as some have argued above), the fact that it "applies" doesn't really mean anything. Until the question of "how mandatory" the MOS rules should be is resolved, this question is hard to answer in any meaningful way. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't be silly; that's not what this is about. And I wish people with stop throwing around things like "mindless" and "policy" when discussing guidelines they don't care for. And nobody has proposed that anything be "mandatory"; feel free to ignore the MOS if you don't care about it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

"Feel free to ignore the MOS if you don't care about it"? Would that also apply to whether to include commas in the names of articles - can we just ignore the MOS if we don't care about it in that situation? But, back to the subject, when someone asks "does the MOS apply to ZZZ", it usually means "I want to edit ZZZ to match the MOS". But the idea that something should be edited solely because it does not match the MOS is very much about whether the MOS is just a page of advice or a policy that can overrule the established style of each page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a second part Dicklyon's comment that he leaves out. Yes, editors can "Feel free to ignore the MOS if you don't care about it", but that is because "Someone who does care about it will follow along after you, and conform the article to MOS guidance." Normally this is a good thing. Unfortunately, there are occasions when that second part gets parlayed into "Feel free to insist on MOS compliance if you care about it... even when others are saying that an exception should be made." It's the insistence on MOS compliance that sometimes causes conflicts, not the specific provisions of MOS. Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hear, hear! I've got two favorite quotations on that:

The flip side of "ownership" is the problem of editors who come to an article with a particular agenda, make the changes they want to the page according to their preconceived notions of what should be, and then flit off to their next victim, without ever considering whether the page really needed the change they made, or whether the change improved the article at all ... Their editing is an off-the-rack, one-size-fits-all proposition, premised on the idea that what improves one article, or one type of article, will automatically improve every other article or type of article ... -- Beyond My Ken

One area the hit and run editor gets involved in is the formatting ... The quality of work has increased in some areas, which makes it harder to contribute without good knowledge in the subject matter and sources. Fiddling with the formatting seems to be a suitable alternative passtime. -- Ritchie333

Those who clean articles up with intelligence and discretion are a boon to the project, but there's a species of blind self-appointed roving enforcer (described in the quotes above) who wastes others' time in exchange for at best very marginal benefit. (I got blocked -- twice, in fact -- by one of these self-appointed roving enforces for using the phrase self-appointed roving enforcer, and if someone wants to do that again I welcome the martyrdom.) EEng 02:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I actually agree... however, what you describe is a behavioral issue, not limited to style editors. All of our policies can be overzealously enforced. What is disruptive is the zealotry. Blueboar (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but MOS peculiarly lends itself to being reduced to scripts, which allows people with little or no idea what they're doing to pretend to themselves that they're "improving" thousands of articles per day, and to fend off 90% of those who question them with a vague wave toward "MOS compliance". There's no script that can even pretend to enforce V, NPOV, UNDIE, and so on. EEng 03:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)