User talk:The Duke of Waltham/MoS/Charts

Some changes

Since, from what I understand, you have not yet begun, I find it an excellent opportunity to fine-tune the survey system. I have been thinking today, and have the following changes to propose:

Remove the Application field from the chart, and leave it for the structure sheet's sections alone.
Change the overlapping categorisation in the chart so that they will better reflect the distinction between simple wording changes and substantial guideline differences. My proposed classification is:
- Identical wording
- Different wording but no substantive difference in meaning
- Different wording and substantive difference in meaning
Move the Guideline summary field to the first position, given that it is the most important one.
Rename the Immediate references field to Direct links or Links to related pages; the current name is not that clear, after all.
Remove any redundant fields (i.e. the empty ones, usually Notes and Exceptions). This could also apply to the Application field for when it is General, but I am not sure.

Finally, I should like us to consider the possibility of converting the entire structure sheet into a table. That way, comparing information might be easier. Just an idea. Waltham, The Duke of 22:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All this sounds fine, I'll make the changes to .../Charts/Manual of Style. Before we convert to a table, let's see if we get dramatically different amounts of text in the various sections, which might make a table look awkward. Another potential downside to table is, the more the chart page resembles the actual style page, the easier it will be on the eyes for people to flip back and forth. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you've demoted 2-headings to 3-headings, 3-headings to 4-headings and so on in MoS (Text). I think keeping the 2-headings as 2-headings is a little easier on the eyes when trying to compare quickly. What do you think? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is. In this case, however, we shall need to convert the two basic headings to level 1.

I'll make the other changes to the key, prototype, and template. Waltham, The Duke of 14:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've seen the new order, I have also taken the liberty to move Exceptions up a slot. If you disagree, then I can undo the changes. Waltham, The Duke of 14:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed post on WT:MoS

Duke, I'm working hard, it just isn't visible yet :) I suggest a post in WT:MOS to get people to help select style guidelines to "promote" to editing guidelines, something like this:

[begin post]

Some of the style guidelines are due for a "promotion" to editing guidelines. The goal is to get new people patrolling those pages and their talk pages. People have been pretty good about patrolling the four "top-level" guideline categories, which you can see at CAT:G:

Cat:Wikipedia guidelines (miscellaneous but important guidelines such as WP:AGF, WP:Overcategorization, and WP:Reviewing good articles)
Cat:Wikipedia content guidelines (examples: WP:Don't create hoaxes, WP:Fringe theories, WP:Non-free content, WP:Public domain)
Cat:Wikipedia behavioral guidelines (examples: WP:Canvassing, WP:Conflict of interest, WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point)

Pages in the "Wikipedia editing guidelines" cat are not linked quite as often as those, but these pages are still patrolled more often than style guidelines. We don't have enough people to regularly patrol the 68 style-cat pages, and a partial solution is that some of these pages really ought to be considered editing guidelines or content guidelines, since they have more in common with pages in those two cats than with the other pages in the style-guidelines cat. Here are the current editing-guidelines-cat pages:

and here are the current style-guidelines-cat pages: [end of copy of post]

I suggest we list the style-guidelines pages. Do you think this post is a good idea, and which style-guidelines pages strike you as having more in common with the editing-guidelines-cat pages? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just got 3 things out of the editing guidelines cat, and hopefully they'll stay out. I'm trying to make it clear that certain style guidelines more closely match the editing guidelines. I just deleted them from the list above.

WP:Writing better articles was in both editing and style cats; I moved it to just style cat.
WP:Build the web changed to "essay"; it's a very stubby stub.
WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion moved to just the "guideline" cat; doesn't seem to be about editing.

- Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just created a new cat, "Manual of Style". I don't see a way around a new cat; people are used to slapping the style-guidelines cat and the various templates (MoS-guideslines, style-guidelines, etc) on whatever article they want to consider a style-guideline; there's no point in arguing it. The new cat is intended to be identical with the set of pages in {{tl:Style}}, and this is a matter of negotiation. Personally, I think that {{tl:Style}} is unnecessarily scary and long. The subject-specific styleguides could be mentioned in some central location such as WP:MoS; they don't need to be mentioned in the sidebar on every single page in the new MoS cat. I had to remove the sidebar completely from WP:Captions ... it didn't leave any room for the pictures with captions! - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WT:MOS#New category for discussion of the new cat. I hope I struck the right tone by saying "one editor" is working on this; I know you didn't want your name public yet, but I also didn't want it to look like I was taking credit. I should be done in 2 hours with re-reading all of the style guidelines and deciding which ones I like for the MoS-cat, and then I can start writing the WP:MoS chart. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there. Do excuse my delay in replying

Not a problem, I hope it was okay that I proceeded without you.

but it was late yesterday when I noticed this, and I have been quite busy today, both on-line and off-line. It is Easter here, you see, so I get to spend some quality time with my family. ;-)

It seems that the ball is finally moving in Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid; I cannot be sure that it is due to my short reply that everything else has followed, but I should certainly have no scruples taking the credit for this fortunate turn of events. (evil grin)

Thanks for showing up!

On to business, now.

Your plan is an interesting one; categories are often under-valued as navigational tools, which is just wrong.

The style guidelines cat was all I had. "Whatlinkshere" to the MoS-guidelines template and style-guidelines template were useless; too much trash and too few style guidelines.

The problem is that they should be better-maintained

I am watchlisting the cat, shortcut is CAT:MOS. I pity the fool who screws around with it.

and the lack of such maintenance is apparent now. Posting this message at MOSCO is a good idea,

I posted some of it at WT:MoS; not much of a response, which is fine by me. I wasn't expecting much help, and it's nice to know that no one is resisting.

and if anyone responds that might be useful feedback for the process; we should try to avoid rash action, as not all changes are uncontroversial.

Now, as far as specific examples are concerned... I've had a look at Category:Wikipedia style guidelines and I should say that Wikipedia:Red link looks more like an editing guideline to me. I am not sure about Wikipedia:Stub, and I am also on the fence when it comes to WP:DATED.

Okay, I just converted WP:Red link to an editing guideline, I completely agree. WP:STUB was a harder call; from reading the page, I thought it might be an editing guideline, but almost everything on the talk page is people asking style-related questions. However, I still don't want to CAT:MOS this one, because for editors who write few or no stubs, this is a spinout or offshoot page; they don't really need to know all about stub cats in order to write good articles. For WP:DATED, the first part of it is handled better at WP:MOSNUM, and the second part may soon become irrelevant, because WP:As of is up for AfD.

I can see why the three pages you mention in your next message were categorised as they were, but I think you were right in at least some of your actions. The polling guideline was certainly poorly categorised; on the other hand, one is not supposed to de-guideline-ify (urgh) pages on one's own.

Well, after reading a lot of discussion at WP:VPP on the subject, especially from Kim Bruning, I think the right position is: you can do it, but you better have your arguments handy. I had a variety of good arguments, I thought, but I don't mind that I was reverted. If people do actually rely on that page, even though it seems very stubby to me, that's good enough for me.

Which is one of the reasons why you were promptly reverted; the page's short length is also not necessarily an indicator of low value (compare with WP:IAR). Now, as far as WP:BETTER is concerned, my reaction to your action would probably be Weak support.

A new Manual of Style category might be a step towards the right direction, only that it is not always clear what should be included. In my opinion, there should be a sub-category in there for all the subject-specific MoS pages.

I would not be opposed to a sub-cat, or we could just continue to use the style-guidelines cat for this purpose.

However, this does not mean that they should leave the sidebar template; they could as well occupy their own, collapsible section.

Wonderful idea.

I am surprised that nobody has yet considered making the template's sections collapsible; look at this one for an example of a very useful template which used to be quite awkward and unwieldy. Collapsibility is the way forward, and it is the trend throughout Wikipedia, from what I notice.

Good start in WT:MoS; the good thing is that we don't have to do any "heavy lifting" at the moment, as we are still at the survey stage. The moves, mergers and so forth will be done after proper discussion and with consensus. Waltham, The Duke of 00:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your careful consideration! - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New category

See WT:MoS#New category for my latest work. Can you make a copy of the current {{Style}} template, making all the sections collapsed except for the first one? I'm template-impaired. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to apologize, I didn't realize how impossible it was going to be to make connections between articles without copy-editing and changing the articles that I'm supposed to be summarizing. I see you haven't gotten far either; you probably had the same problem as I did. Every time I start analyzing one of the style guidelines pages, I see many unresolved arguments and unfortunate wording, so I start editing, then people revert or discuss. It's a long job, but I think we'll eventually get it done. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to tinker with {{style}} a little, but couldn't do much. I have little knowledge myself when it comes to templates, and the specimen at hand does not seem to make things any easier. I have left a message in the talk page; if nobody responds, I'll try my lack in busier venues.

Unfortunately, I seem to have less time on holidays than I expected; family outings, chores, and other engagements take up a lot of my time. And then there are the various community discussions with their long-winded arguments, taking up more. I shall attempt to pick up my pace, because this needs to be done and I feel badly about having made so little progress. These days are not very kind with me, and I shall soon have to start studying for my exams; I hope we'll have put things in order until then. Waltham, The Duke of 12:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]