Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Manual of Style/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

WikiProject structure

I'd like to get some ideas discussed on how we need to structure the project. I'm thinking this talk should be about the project, and not about the particular MOS issues. I don't think we need another talk page to break up the discussion, we need to centralize and organize the discussion. In this effort, I think we should create a separate sub-article specifically for addressing the issues. I'm thinking it could utilize {{subarticle}} links from sub-articles (like what is done at WP:FAC and numerous other review areas) or just create sections like normal. It would be nice to have some template in each page (or section) that highlights what MOS articles are affected and a description of the issue before the general discussion. I'm also thinking we should create a sub-article that outlines our MOS dependencies. List each MOS article describing what articles depend on the article, what the article depends on, or a duplication that should be addressed. It seems we need to create something to better understand the interdependence, so we can move forward with addressing the goals of the project. Thoughts Morphh ^(talk) 19:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed policy

I like Morphh's suggestion above and maybe what follows should be moved to such a page in due course. Here is a starter. Please note that my view is that a "meta-guideline" is still a guideline and that I believe what is needed is a policy. Its deficiencies include the name, which I don't like at all, but its the best I can do at 9am Yoo-kay time. Ben Mac Dui 08:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The Meta-Style policy sets out Wikipedia's policy on how to amend the Manual of Style and its associated Subsidiary Pages.

The reason for its existence is the growth in the scope of the Style Guidelines and the resultant contradictions and inconsistencies within it. The policy also aims to increase the stability of the style guidelines and ensure that significant changes are only made after due discussion and consensus.

Definitions

Style guidelines – All guideline pages associated with the clarification of presentational styles on Wikipedia.

Manual of Style – The "main page" of the style guidelines, which sets out the core issues. Abbreviation - WP:MOS.

Subsidiary pages – Pages other than the Manual of Style that form part of the style guidelines.

Guidelines – Specific guidelines within a style guideline.

Principles

The principles on which this policy is based are:

New guidelines and subsidiary pages

1. There must be a clear need for a new proposed style guideline or subsidiary page: without this, the quality of the encyclopaedia is being compromised.

2. A proposed subsidiary page is not wholly or partially covered by an existing guideline or policy and cannot easily be incorporated into an existing one.

3. A proposed subsidiary page or guideline does not conflict with existing style guidelines and policies.

4. Proposed new subsidiary pages and amendments to guidelines of a substantive nature should be notified in advance to:

Village Pump (WP:VPP?)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Manual of Style
Template:Announcements/Community bulletin board (?)
WikiProjects that are likely to be specifically affected by the proposal.

The notifications should indicate a single identified talk page where the discussion will take place.

Manual of Style

1. Substantive changes to WP:MOS may be made only after considered discussion on the talk page and the reaching of consensus on the matter.

All style guidelines

1. Style guidelines shall use American English unless, consistent with Manual of Style#National varieties of English, a guideline has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, in which case it should use the appropriate variety of English for that nation.

Examples?

Comments on above draft

It started off in title case for the defns - I was probably confusing them with bird species, and the changes look fine to me.

I've added back "or guideline" to "New guidelines #3" and removed the bracket around "style".

I've added "New guidelines #4" per Tony1's suggestion. I have not included "that consensus be reached here (meaning the WikiProject?) as a prerequisite" as at first sight it seems unnecessary to have two separate discussions.

I've removed old "MOS#1" as redundant per Tony1's comment.

Re new "MOS#1" Tony asks "what's wrong with the current system?" I'd say:

a) Wiki rules work pretty well for articles, but MOS is not an article. It seems to me absurd that any passing editor can make tens of thousands of articles in breach of MOS on a whim, even if it is only for an hour or two.

b) Watching MOS is hard work and it's easy for things to slip thru' e.g. the UK metric/imperial business and possibly this diff from today. If undiscussed changes are going to be reverted, it might as well be explicit in my view. This need not apply to typos, corrections to syntax and improved wording etc. but it should apply to anything that changes the underlying meaning. Alternatively, it could be a "guideline within the policy". Ben Mac Dui 12:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from SG

1) There have, surprisingly, been past arguments that WP:MOS is not the "main" MoS page (sigh). Establishing this as a basic starting place may help.

2) Total nitpick dumb question, but I think most of MoS is written in US English? Stay consistent?

Yes, although there are presumably subsidiary pages where ENGVAR applies. It would be weird to have (say) style guidelines for Indian literature written in US English.

3) Another, nitpik, change the hyphens in "Definitions" to endashes to conform with MoS.

Surely "nitpick" or is that English English? By all means.

4) "A proposed subsidiary page is not wholly or partially covered by an existing one ... " to " ... is not wholly or partially coverd by an existing guideline or policy ... "

Fine by me (save the typo) (oh no, now I'm nitpiking too).

5) "New guidelines and subsidiary pages" needs to also require posting to Village Pump, MoS main page, MOSCO (this page) and Community portal. Get broad coverage.

Surely.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Replies by Ben Mac Dui 18:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer that the minimum requirement for substantive changes be an explicit edit summary and notification on the talk page. For example, I've made two additions in the past month (ampersand subsection and the recommendation to reword triple hyphenated adjectives (bottom of "hyphens") in this way. Tony (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - l suggest leaving suggestions of this nature for 24 hrs. If there is no disagreement they go in. By all means tweak away as well. Ben Mac Dui 08:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't like this idea of having necessarily to notify in advance. People usually do this for changes that are likely to be contentious, but the two examples I gave above were unlikely to be contentious, and no one even commented when I left notes after I made the changes.Tony (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well the weasel in the woodshed is "of a substantive nature". Nobody commented, presumably because they thought the changes were sensible clarifications and/or too minor to mention. This may be very hard to pin down, but for example:

you made this change re species names. There was no objection from me or anyone else because it changed the presentation but did not change the meaning.
there were objections to this change about imperial measures, because it was deemed to involve a change in the meaning rather than a clarification of the existing meaning.

Personally I'd much rather someone raised an issue and asked for comments than made a "substantive" change first and waited for objections afterwards - but then I am British and ever-so-polite. Yours sincerely, Ben Mac Dui 07:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

How to coordinate something that happens in five places at once?

The changes to the proposal to require multiple notifications, while well intentioned, will kill off this WikiProject and the hope of using it to coordinate the MoS just as it is coming back to life. How can one coordinate a discussion of a proposed guideline when it takes place on four or more different pages? Is such an approach likely to gain the support of consensus? Will editors do it or will they ignore the rules per WP:BURO?

What is required here, in the case of new style guidelines at least, is not multiple notifications, but a discussion and approval process. That process should take place here. Anyone who cares about organising the MoS should watchlist this page. It should not be necessary for proposers to make multiple posts, unless a WikiProject or MoS page is specifically affected by the proposal, in which case a post should be made to direct interested editors to the discussion here. If the purpose of this WikiProject is diluted across multiple pages, then it will become an unwatched, disregarded backwater again. Geometry guy 08:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree somewhat (see next section, where conversation is prematurely fragmented IMO), but disagree somewhat (widespread notification is needed on proposed new pages). What about my idea for a central noticeboard? Is that dead in the water or a possibility? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for a central noticeboard. In fact we already have central noticeboards, so the ideal solution would be to abolish all but one of the central noticeboards, so that we end up with a real central noticeboard.--Kotniski (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we can usefully distinguish between multiple notifications, indicating where a central discussion is taking place, and multiple discussions. I agree the latter would be a disaster, but it is the former that is intended. Ben Mac Dui 17:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added "The notifications should indicate a single identified talk page where the discussion will take place" to make this explicit. Ben Mac Dui 07:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is this supreme central noticeboard? There are things to post already. I suppose the sections need to include the following.

(1) Proposed changes to the status of pages

(a) Merging/splitting
(b) Promotion to / removal of MoS/guideline status
(c) Deletion

(2) Notification of issues between pages

(a) Duplication/overlap
(b) Contradiction/disharmony

(3) Identification of issues within a page:

(a) Need for copy-editing
(b) Need for structural renovation

(4) Notification of substantive changes within a page:

[Can't think of useful categories]

This process would need to be flagged and linked to in the template posted at the top of every guideline talk page. We'd need to determine the kind of action/process required for each of these. Thoughts? Tony (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

We need to create it. Before my brain explodes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe in tabular form? Separate tables for each? Columns for (1) might be:

Page(s)|Action proposed|Comments|Link to talk-section at the page|Signature

An editor here would then create a talk-page section on each entry for (1) on the talk page of the WikiProject MOS, and insert a link to it from the talk page(s) of the page(s) in question. Then we need to follow an established sequence of actions/decisions, which will have to be formulated soon. Tony (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I had in mind joining the ranks of the existing noticeboards for a centralized discussion point. Tables are hard to edit and discourage participation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Existing noticeboards? Can you give an example? Won't our stuff be submerged if placed somewhere general? If tables are difficult (yes, I see your point), I'd go simple and provide a line-by-line headings for each entrant to fill in, like a form. Here's an example for category 1 above. First the blank, then filled in.

Notification 3

Style guide(s) concerned:
Action proposed:
Brief reasons for proposal (link to any relevant discussions, if helpful):
Link to any relevant discussion:
Signature:

Notification 3

Style guide(s) concerned: WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSLINK
Action proposed: Merge CONTEXT into MOSLINK.
Brief reasons for proposal (link to any relevant discussions, if helpful): They overlap substantially and deserve to be rationalised; merging them would do a favour to our readers, so they can find everything they need about linking in the one guide. Here, the merging of the whole of CONTEXT has support, and needs to be thought through and discussed in a more centralised place.
Signature: Tony (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Notification

Style guide(s) concerned: WP:EMBED and WP:MOSBOLD
Action proposed: MOSBOLD has already been proposed for a merge; that would solve this.
Brief reasons for proposal (link to any relevant discussions, if helpful): MOSBOLD says that there are very few good reasons for bolding below the lead section, which we all agree with, but EMBED shows the initial terms in the list all bolded (and linked!) I see this pretty often, perhaps because EMBED is one of the WIAGA criteria, perhaps because it just seems right to a lot of people. I'm concerned that if we support the current wording in MOSBOLD, which suggests you can't use any bolding in a list unless it's a "definition list", and if people comply with that, then they'll just do something worse to emphasize the items in a list if they think emphasis is needed, such as turning it into (shudder) a glossary, or giving each item its own subsection heading. Bottom line: bolding the first word or few words in embedded lists is pretty common, not just for "definition lists", but in any list where the rest of the text supports or describes the concepts listed; even if we wanted to, I don't think we could successfully squash the practice. See for instance Robot#Increased productivity, accuracy, and endurance. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge two proposals?

It seems that the proposing and making of changes to MOS is just a special case of the proposing and making of changes to policies and guidelines generally. A proposal for this has been made by User:WhatamIdoing - I've just moved it to WP:Policy/Procedure for convenience. I think we should try to combine discussion on the two proposals (the general one and the one above relating to MOS) into a single discussion - it may turn out that there is no need to have different rules for MOS than for other guidelines.--Kotniski (talk) 09:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, having looked over the two proposals, that would be my position. I.e. we don't need a separate proposal for MoS as set out above, but we can try to amend the general proposal at WP:Policy/Procedure to ensure that it catches issues of importance to MoS (in fact it already contains specific statements about where MoS-related proposals should be announced).--Kotniski (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled to have yet another page to watchlist, further fragmenting discussion, when we're still trying to build steam and consensus here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well yeah, that's rather my point. Both proposals are open, they cover similar ground, so let's merge the two discussions into one (even though that discussion is still at an embryonic stage). Since that one is more general (applying to all guidelines, not just MoS), it makes more sense to have the discussion over there. Anything that's been agreed here that isn't covered by that proposal can be addressed by amending that proposal suitably.--Kotniski (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

They certainly cover some similar ground. WP:Policy/Procedure would appear to be primarily aimed at new pages - its hard to imagine that such complication is needed to cover small but substantive changes to existing guidelines. If implemented it would certainly be a method by which the above policy proposal would emerge into mainspace. However, its my sense that this project probably needs to be somewhat more clear about its own aims before any kind of merger would be useful. This might not take long but at this point it seems a fraction premature. Speaking personally, I too need fewer pages to watch, not more and realistically I can't see how it would make any sense to stop watching this one and start watching Policy/Procedure instead. Ben Mac Dui 19:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's (deliberately) aimed at new pages, in an effort to reduce proliferation through the "anyone can slap {{guideline}} on a page" process. It will not solve all of MoS's problems, and it is not specific to style guidelines (although style guidelines are used as an example, because I thought that publicizing the existence of this project might be useful).

The question is fundamentally whether anyone here has any objections to this proposal for managing the creation of new guidelines/policies. Is there anything there that you think should not be done, or should be done differently, or that directly interferes with your much larger plans? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need to separate the procedure for "new" pages from the procedure for making substantial changes to existing pages. Both have the same consequences (changes in policy that the community needs to know about and for which consensus needs to be unambiguously established). As far as I can see the procedure needs to be basically the same in both cases, but with a suitable definition of what consitutes a minor change that doesn't need to go through the full procedure. And I also don't see why the rules for MoS should be different from those for other policies and guidelines. MoS doesn't exist in isolation, and preventing inconsistencies between MoS and other rules is just as important as preventing inconsistencies within MoS. --Kotniski (talk) 07:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that incremental change is more likely to be successful (in the real world). It takes time for people to adapt, and I'd rather grow the advice in the direction of announcing major changes instead of imposing a potentially burdensome process on everything while we're still working out the kinks.

Also, "just" slowing down the promotion of inadequately reviewed guidelines seems like a way to stop the bleeding here at MOSCO. Reconciling "only" 91 style guidelines should be simpler than reconciling (91+recent promotions). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kotniski. Tony (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we're in a position yet to resolve conflicts over how important the style guidelines are, and by extension, how hard it should be to invent new style guidelines; we haven't yet built enough support among the wikiprojects. I completely support the fantastic work that many people, and Sandy and Tony in particular, have been doing removing contradictions from the style guidelines. (With a caveat: Tony, on rare occasions, you have been known to make a change to the style guidelines because you think it will make pages look better, even when you know you don't have consensus. Please don't do that; we have to maintain trust that we're not biasing the process; also, there's an infobox at the top of every style guidelines page that says not to do that.) We're almost home; let's keeping moving. Also, IMO 0.7 is a perfect opportunity to be nice to the wikiprojects, so keep an eye on WT:1C. I like Sandy's idea of a noticeboard, but I think it would be easier to sell WT:MOS as a noticeboard (it's got the 120 archives to prove it) than a new noticeboard. One last thing, and then I really need to get back to 0.7. Take all this as half-assed guesses rather than The Word. I remember a talk by Jimmy Carter (see Jimmy Carter#The Carter Center) where he mentioned that it was often surprisingly easy to get autocrats to agree to elections, because they assumed everyone loved them ... they tended to be told what they wanted to hear ... but it usually turned out that they lost. The process at FAC and on style guidelines pages is about 90% great IMO, and we need to sell that, and I don't see any autocrats around here. But the process that I first suggested at the top of this page involved lots of community input, and that request isn't a part of what most of you are talking about. I suggest not going forward with most of the ideas on this page, for now; you don't have the votes at WP:VPP to win, yet. I'm optimistic that we can get there, after a while. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh. No, I didn't mean Sandy and Tony are autocratic. The analogy was that all humans have this weird failing of selective listening; even dictators who hold all the cards are regularly deposed by elections that they themselves called. Moral: don't call an election on the importance and handling of style guidelines unless you know how it's going to turn out. Things are basically fine the way they are. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Confused.com

Perhaps everyone is up-to-speed here except me, but what I think might be helpful is a "To-do" list or box of some kind identifying useful tasks to be undertaken. This could get complicated because it is more than likely that some tasks cannot begin until certain key steps are undertaken or agreed first. The "policy strategy" issue (which I like to think I understand) seems to be stalled pending a resolution of the merger issue. Much of the rest of the discussion passes me by however. I am willing to be helpful but unless someone can provide some straightforward tasks to be getting on with I shall be on stand-by. Ben Mac Dui 11:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we're agreed that finding places where the style guidelines contradict, and things that seem clearly out of line with what people are expecting, is the top priority. We differ on what to do after that; I recommend that we pursue "buy-in", getting a wider set of people to go along with the idea that the style guidelines are a net positive, and there are several ways to do that. Some people want to go in other directions. For now, let's keep filling in the blanks until we've found and fixed all the problems. If we have a quick answer, great, and if not, post at WT:MOS.

Notification

Style guide(s) concerned:
Action proposed:
Brief reasons for proposal (link to any relevant discussions, if helpful):

- Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

So, a tentative "to do" list we might create to assist potentially helpful editors and some associated questions might include the following. They are deliberately phrased as an attempt to assist someone who has not already spent 3 years working with the issues.

Find places where the style guidelines contradict one another and post the problem at WT:MOS.
- Q. Why post at WT:MOS and not here? Is there a list I can add this too? Is it OK to just add this to the list or are you expecting me to take an active part in fixing the problem?
  - A. My suggestion was "If we have a quick answer, great, and if not, post at WT:MOS." This still seems right to me. My last "notification" involved an apparent contradiction between WP:EMBED and WP:MOSBOLD; but since MOSBOLD has already been marked for a merge, this problem may go away on its own if we do nothing (but I'll keep an eye on it to make sure). Whenever "doing nothing" has a good shot of working, I'm in favor. For problems where there's no obvious answer, I don't see how it could hurt to ask at WT:MOS, even if we also talk about it here. That's what we've always done. Regarding "active part", posting any concerns either here, or at WT:MOS, would be helpful. Of course, we will also regularly look at the individual talk pages reasonably often; at least once week before the end of the month and around the end of the month.
Fix the problems.
- Q. Where - the issue is by definition one that affects two different pages - which one should I start with? If the problems can be fixed without the need for an agreed policy first, why do we need a policy?
  - A. It will vary depending on the question, and we don't need a policy to fix pages.
Participate in discussions about a proposed policy (above).
- Q: The key questions are: Is the proposed policy phrased suitably? Does it make sense to merge the discussion with WP:Policy/Procedure?
  - A. If it's desirable to change policy, I'd suggest we first pursue a wider "buy-in".
Pursue a wider "buy-in".
- Q. How? Where? How can I be sure I will not be accused of canvassing or vote-stacking or breaching other guidelines/policies I may not have heard of?
  - A: The thing that we're doing a fabulous job with and that everyone agrees needs to be done first is, wherever possible, to edit the style guidelines so that they don't contradict each other and don't have stuff that seems odd. Doing that will automatically untie some other knots, and it's impossible to predict how many or which ones, so let's do that first and see what we've got. Also, there's disagreement on what to do next; let's focus on where we agree. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Other (please add). Ben Mac Dui 13:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh, you seem to be taking too much for granted. :-) First of all, what is a style guideline? I've just read all the comments above since 10 September—I do regret my failure to participate more actively—and I'd say we need to do the following:

Provide a definition of a style guideline. That will help us define inclusion criteria, and thus remove irrelevant pages from the corps. It will also help with #4. It can be part of a so-called "meta-guideline" or not; I'm not sure we need that in order to make clear that contradictions are unacceptable (it's common sense and one of this project's missions).
Document the pages we agree belong to the Manual of Style. My idea, as I've said, is to create an index along the lines of WP:EIW, but for style matters. It will initially help us easily spot overlaps and redundancies, and it will be useful in the long term to editors looking for specific guidelines. I don't have hopes of drastic reduction of the manual, so we should improve navigation instead. (If you have a big city with traffic problems, you don't tear down houses to make it smaller; you improve transport.)
Then we can start fixing the problems and contradictions (as several messages above describe).
We should also devise a system of evaluating prospective style guidelines. A good example is Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals, where WikiProjects-to-be are proposed and evaluated (most of those that manage to come into being actually do so as task forces). It is officially an optional process, but few projects are created outside it. Here we could tighten things a bit, and even apply it retroactively to local guidelines that haven't passed the hooks MEDMOS seems to have.
I like the idea of a central venue for changes to guidelines and approval of new ones, and I also like the idea of using notification templates at the top of every style guideline's talk page. This would provide information to more people than would bother watching the central venue (whatever that would be), who would only visit for discussions interesting them.

By no means are all these my ideas; I am both summarising and suggesting here. Waltham, The Duke of 01:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:NCLL overhaul

I've completely overhauled WP:NCLL. I would appreciate both critical review, and extra eyes watching out for reflexive reversion without substantive justification (a common problem at NC pages). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's well-written and easy to follow, even for someone like me who knows little about the topic. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Having discovered the joys of the confusingly named "set index" articles I added this to Category:Wikipedia style guidelines as it is mentioned at both WP:MOSDAB and WP:SETINDEX as providing suitable guidance on this worthy subject. Ben Mac Dui 12:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I did read through the page as soon as it was marked, and I liked it except for the recommendation to use {{'}} as an apostrophe after italics. My position is that this apostrophe should be either italicized or not depending on what looks good to most Wikipedians, the devs should respect that preference, and once we've got rough consensus, asking people interested in ships to type all those extra characters is counterproductive; it makes an otherwise good style manual look fussy. Reputation is everything. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles) is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The Links page cluster

It does not affect us directly, but it is linked (pun intended) to our cause: Mr.Z-man has pointed out that there are too many link-related pages, and suggests a reduction of their number. Details here. Waltham, The Duke of 12:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Flags in navigation templates of elections

I'd like to notify you about Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#Template:Slovenian elections. This discussion has been going on without consensus for too long now (with the User:Number 57 constantly reverting people who see the flags as a distraction). I'd really appreciate your input. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (law enforcement agency categories) has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (law enforcement agency categories) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Facial hair is required for administratorship has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Facial hair is required for administratorship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The MOS cat was removed from this article. Morphh ^(talk) 19:53, 09 October 2008 (UTC)

Another classic

... spotted on Raul's talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed; if things are as represented, a classic abuse by a small group of editors, insisting that a trivial detail be done Their Way, against local consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Image use and privacy rights

Although it's not directly about the MoS, the newly begun discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy#Privacy.2Fpersonality_rights might interest some of you. The question is whether the English Wikipedia needs a policy about posting potentially embarrassing pictures of your friends. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed naming convention for articles on mills

I've proposed a naming convention for articles about windmills, watermills etc. Your comments/questions would be appreciated at Proposed_naming_convention_for_articles_on_mills. Mjroots (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference library category

In order to help facilitate easier location of potential sources of offline information to help verify the notability of article subjects and contents, I have created Category:WikiProject reference libraries and placed into it all of the reference library pages of which I am aware. Please add more project reference libraries to this category if you know of more. Additionally, feel free to create new reference library pages for any particular project as well. They can be very useful. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization of therapeutic systems

I hope this is a good place to post this. I asked on the psychology WikiProject about the correct way to write psychotherapeutic systems, capitalized or not; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology#Capitalization for therapeutic systems and similar. One suggestion was that broad categories of therapy were not to be capitalized ("cognitive behavioral therapy", "psychodynamic therapy") but that specific systems should be ("Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy", "Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing"). I see a tendency though on many pages to not capitalize anything. I would love to get a style guru's input on this! Please reply here so discussion is at one place. /skagedal^talk 07:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Only boosters of a particular system would capitalize it; this is a WP:NPOV and WP:COI problem, obviously. And, yes, I'll comment over there about it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Location of section "Footnotes" is in question

Please join to discussion Wikipedia talk:Layout#Change location of section "Notes, Footnotes, or References".--Namazu-tron (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

New "Naming conventions (sportspeople)" drafted

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) (WP:NCSP) has been drafted. Hopefully it will provide a more cohesive and less divisive place to resolve the remaining disputes, and more importantly will cover the sometimes thorny issues of sportsperson article disambiguation more clearly. This should reduce the load on WT:NCP and the sports-related verbiage in WP:NCP. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of racial or ethnic prefix to nationality of subject biography: African-American, etc. vs American

The use of race and ethnicity prefix descriptors seems arbitrary. If the intent is to give nationality, then racial or ethnic prefix is inappropriate. For example, below is an extract from 1940, Births:

snip: October 23 - Pelé, Brazilian footballer
October 25 - Bobby Knight, American basketball coach
October 27 - John Gotti, American gangster (d. 2002)
November 1 - Ramesh Chandra Lahoti, Chief Justice of India
November 12 - Glenn Stetson, Canadian singer ("The Diamonds")
November 15 - Sam Waterston, American actor (Law and Order)
November 15 - Roberto Cavalli, Italian designer
November 17 - Luke Kelly, Irish ballad singer (The Dubliners)
November 21 - Richard Marcinko, U.S. Navy SEAL team member and author
November 25 - Joe Gibbs, American football coach
November 27 - Bruce Lee, Chinese-American martial artist and actor (The Green Hornet) (d. 1973)
November 29 - Chuck Mangione, famous American flugelhorn player
December 1 - Richard Pryor, African-American actor and comedian (d. 2005)
end snip:

Pele not listed as African-Brazilian
Knight not listed as White-American
Gotti not listed as Italian-American
Stetson not listed as Scottish-Canadian or Ulster-Scottish-Canadian

On the other hand:
Lee listed as Chinese-American (he was born in the San Francisco.)
Mangione listed as "famous" as opposed to the many obscure American flugelhorn players catalogued in Wikipedia?
Pryor listed as African-American.

Is there any policy that can explain the various distinctions? I suggest all non-nationality qualifiers be saved for the subjects biography page.

Ebesch1 (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.245.150 (talk)

RfC for WP:BOOSTER

There is a request for comment about whether or not WP:BOOSTER documents a standard consensus and good practice that all editors and school/college/university articles should follow as an official policy or guideline. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Puerto Rico

We are developing a MoS, but would like the community's approval for claim this topic area. Basically the model is copied from WP:MILMOS.--Cerejota (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Formatting websites in lede infoboxes

Hi, I'm hoping to add some helpful language to MOS regarding the formatting of web addresses in lede infoboxes. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Proposal to standardize official websites in lede infoboxes although I'm not sure where and what the next steps might be. I have no idea where the ultimate language should go but any insight appreciated. -- Banjeboi 13:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Style guidelines to article guidelines

There is a request to move Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Article guidelines. Since the style guidelines are under this WikiProject, I invite knowledgeable editors to discussion here. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

General naming of guidelines

Further to the above, a quick tour of Category:Wikipedia guidelines and its subcategory tree will show that the naming of guideline pages is all over the place. In fact there seems to be little way of knowing whether any given WikiProject page of guidelines is active or not - some are marked as guidelines, some as proposals, some as historical, some not at all. Can we at least try and adopt a standard way of naming pages that give advice about a articles on a particular topic? Rather than have unnecessary arguments (like the above one) about whether a page is mainly about style, content, naming, notability or whatever, we could aim to have one unified page for each topic, called something like (please indicate preference or other options):

X-related guidelines (e.g. "Film-related guidelines")
X-related article guidelines
Article guidelines (X)
Editing guidelines (X)
X guidelines
X articles
X-related articles

or something else similar; my point is that the naming for current guidelines should be uniform.--Kotniski (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a long-overdue idea. Is the next move to get in a few representatives of prominent, active WikiProjects to provide feedback, generate agreement? Tony (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the "Naming conventions (X)" approach, because it lets you start in the same place (by searching for Naming conv*). Also, as NC is the single biggest set of pages with subtopics, and changing all of those names to match a new standard would be disruptive, then I think it makes sense to adopt its standard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Use of ambiguous terms

I have started on RfC regarding adopting a policy on the definition and use of ambiguous terms.

Any comments are extremely welcome.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Move to undo the rationalisation of our linking guidelines

Please see my entry here. Tony (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Navbox MoS?

This sprang out of an ongoing discussion concerning template cleanup at the Animanga project's cleanup department - navboxes are one of the most widely used, standardized (in terms of the metatemplate used) templates on Wikipedia, and yet there are no MoS recommendations for their layout or function. Has anyone previously considered attempting to write a navbox MoS? (BTW, if anyone's interested, I'd also like some fresh input at the previously linked discussion ;) ) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:Consensus

WP:CONSENSUS is being re-written in a way that I think elevates it inappropriately above all other policies. It now contains language like "It is often sufficient to simply treat the policy pages as a guide, and to simply act within the spirit of wikipedia]] (Ignore all rules)" and "take them with a grain of salt". If you're interested in the relationship between policies, please consider adding your voice. (I've left a message at WP:POLICY about this issue; I'm not sure who else might be interested.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll

The above link leads to a community poll regarding date linking on Wikipedia. The poll has not yet opened, but the community is invited to review the format and make suggestions/comments on the talk page. We need as many neutral comments as we can get so the poll run as smoothly as possible and is able to give a good idea of the communities expectations regarding date linking on the project—from User:Ryan Postlethwaite. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Note The first phase of this poll will start on 30 March. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll now open

The date linking and formatting poll is now open. All users are invited to participate. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Music date task force

I've set up a Music date task force, as there are lots of music articles which still use "present" rather than "onward" etc. Dark Prime (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Alert: "What's wrong with MOS"

I have some bad news: the possible demise of WP:MOS. You can find out more at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#What's wrong with MOS (permanent link). This reminds me of Talk:Lists of environmental topics#New criteria for the lists of environmental topics and Talk:Lists of environmental topics#Reply to above section. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Limits to style?

Do we have a "guide to style guides" kind of page? I'm not suggesting that we create one, but if such a page exists, I'd like to make sure that it says something like "do not sacrifice functionality just to make a page look pretty in your personal opinion." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Date unlinking bot proposal

The community RFC about a proposal for a bot to unlink dates is now open. Please see Wikipedia:Full-date unlinking bot and comment here. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Combine two projects

This WikiProject and one other, Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines, seem to have stalled somewhat. Would it make sense for the two projects to be combined? That might at least mean we have enough people around to make some progress on various things. (I've left a similar suggestion at that project's talk page.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Call for eyes

It's not exactly an MoS page, but it's a similar guideline in dire need of making coherent, and there is currently disagreement about some of the style aspects of how to do it - please share your thoughts at WT:Naming conventions (categories)#Concrete proposal.--Kotniski (talk) 11:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Issues

I have two issues right now, one concerning Wikipedia:Manual of Style (glossaries), which were are trying to interpret over at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Glossary of trucking industry terms in the United States/archive1.

The other also relates to FAs, sourcing in summary style articles, found at Wikipedia talk:Summary style#Sourcing summary style articles.

If anybody has any opinion on these issues please comment. Glossaries seem to be a controversial issue, some believe glossaries belong in Wikitionary, but obviously I believe the opposite, as the Featured List was authored and nominated by me. The second issue seems to come up from time to time, with some editors relying upon other WP articles for their information in "summary style" articles. I think the current guideline contradicts current consensus and needs to be updated. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 16:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (France & French-related) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

As I've said at WT:MOS and the suddenly elevated Fr. styleguide, there appears to be no consensus for this. Can someone point me to it? Tony (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't even like the title. The ampersand is discouraged by the MoS, except for where it's already used in company names and the like. Why is it "France and French-related" when the analogous pages are, for example, "Japan-related articles"? Tony (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation)/IPA vs. other pronunciation symbols has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation)/IPA vs. other pronunciation symbols (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

MOS links

I noticed that unlike most pages outside of articlespace (beginning with WP) that shortforms for MoS pages can just begin with MOS, so is it okay to do that with any MOS page or just the ones which currently hold the abbreviations? Tyciol (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Comics MoS?

See this post, please. Tony (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOSCO in its proper role

Dear colleagues, I am writing to all participants listed overleaf to alert them to what I believe is the urgent need for this WikiProject to become the place at which applications to add new pages to MoS status (via the Style guide category page are expected to apply, be scrutinised for compliance with community expectations of a style guide, and to gain consensus or advice concerning their promotion to MoS status. Tony (talk) 08:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion re whether to permit use of all-numeric YYYY-MM-DD format in footnotes

FYI -- there is a discussion at [1] as to whether or not to allow the use of the all-numeric YYYY-MM-DD format in footnotes/references.

I'm raising the point here in the event that you would like to follow it or join in. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: The discussion has now moved to here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Not directly related I know, but people may be interested in the proposal to merge several naming conventions pages into the main one: see the discussion at WT:Naming conventions#Merge.-

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotniski (talk • contribs) 09:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Audio sample rationale query

I wasn't sure whether posting this query at Wikipedia talk:Music samples was appropriate or not, but given that it is a part of this Wikiproject I thought that this would be as good a place as any. It's a simple thing really. I'm ready to take No Line on the Horizon to FAC but just wanted to make sure that the rationales for the audio samples File:U2whiteassnow.ogg and File:U2nloth.ogg were appropriate for their use in the article. I'm not well versed in this aspect of Wikipedia, so I just wanted to make certain before taking it FAC by asking more experienced editors. Please let me know if I have posted this in the wrong area. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's the rationale for each article usage that counts in this respect. Separate text required, I think. Does the surrounding article text refer explicitly to the sound? I presume they're WP:NFCC files. Tony (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the text discusses the files as close to adjacently as possible. Both are NFCC I believe. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 05:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thx. What matters is not adjacency as much as the pointing out of features in the sound file somewhere in the main text. Usually such explanation is adjacent, but it doesn't have to be. Tony (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, great! So would you say that the rationales for the usage of these clips is okay? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Related is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Taxobox usage is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Status of style guidelines of WikiProjects

I've been looking at the categories under Category:Wikipedia guidelines, trying to ensure that everything that appears under it (i.e. in it or in its subcategories or in their subcategories etc.) is actually (marked as) a guideline. But there's this category called Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects, which seems to contain mostly pages that are not marked as guidelines. Do we consider these to be part of the MoS? Should we move that category so it's no longer a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia style guidelines? (We could still link to it from the latter category page.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

URLs in infoboxes

Project members may wish to contribute to this discussion. Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography page guideline proposal

Your input about a guideline proposal is requested here. Any constructive contributions would be welcome. Neelix (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Music terminology has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:WikiProject Music terminology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii/Manual of Style has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii/Manual of Style (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

How do we know what these pages are like?

I see a cascade of pages being declared part of the MoS. Has anyone looked at them, or is it open season? Tony (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Music terminology was accidentally tagged (via a mistaken transclusion), it is now correctly marked 'historic', and not a problem.
Hawaii looks like it was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hawaii/Manual_of_Style#Can we move this style guideline from "proposed"?
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/MUSTARD doesn't have an immediately apparent discussion (except this brief section: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/MUSTARD#Category_of_MUSTARD_page), but is prominently linked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music. The discussion might be elsewhere. I'd suggest researching. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Colours is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

It was partially merged to WP:ACCESS#Color, and the rest was pagemoved to WP:Using colours, per talkpage consensus. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC at NCP

There is a request for comments active at WP:NCP's talk page, which is likely to be of interest to regular participants here. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 04:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed MoS for Thailand-related articles

A new Manual of Style for Thailand-related articles has been proposed. Please take a look and comment on the proposal at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles)/Draft#January 2010. Thank you. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 11:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Needs some work (edited and commented over there). However, I am beginning to wonder if all of these things cannot be merged into one Wikipedia:Manual of Style (regional) or something, as they all repeat a lot of the same things (e.g., don't italicize stuff in the non-Roman script, use the most common spelling in English not the native name, if a common English version exists like it does with Bangkok, and so on). The special stuff like human name order can just be handled in an embedded list:

Thai: Article text: Given-name Surname (Thai: <va>Thai script version, Given-name Surname exacting transliteration), and Given-name on subsequent occurrences; {{DEFAULTSORT:Surname, Given-name}}; [[:Category:Thai category|Given-name Surname
Japanese: Article text: Given-name Surname (Japanese: Kanji version, Surname Given-name exacting transliteration), and Surname on subsequent occurrences; {{DEFAULTSORT:Surname, Given-name}} always
Chinese: Article text: Givenname-Middlename Surname (Chinese: Chinese version, Surname Givenname-Middlename exacting transliterations in Wade-Giles and others, labeled), and Surname on subsequent occurrences; {{DEFAULTSORT:Surname, Givenname-Middlename}} always
Vietnamese: Article text: Surname Middlename Givenname (Vietnamese: Vietnamese diacritics version), and Givenname on subsequent occurrences; {{DEFAULTSORT:Surname, Middlename Givenname}} always
(etc.)

(That's from memory; I'm probably forgetting or misremembering some details in those examples, but the point should be clear). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 13:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Merging to reduce pointless duplication/redundancy is always a good thing. Less overwhelming, and less chance of conflicting details. For the sake of overview, here's a list of what we have currently. (Copied from {{Style}} with non-regional elements removed. Proposals taken from Category:Wikipedia proposals.) (Trim/add to list at will) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You have a very valid point on redundancy. As a matter of fact, most of the guidelines in the Thai proposal were essentially duplicated and paraphrased from existing guidelines, in the hope that having the relevant material listed together would make it easier for editors to refer to. With a general guideline, though, some details will likely be difficult to provide and it would limit the use of relevant examples. The focus for the Thai proposal, actually, is rather the naming conventions and I think there is still a need for culture/country-specific guidelines on these (e.g. for non-western royalty and nobility, who aren't covered in the general conventions). Of course, it should be possible to dedicate a few paragraphs for each culture in a general guideline, but those would tend to clutter.

All in all, I don't think country-specific guidelines constitute "pointless duplication/redundancy". They are indeed redundant, but they serve the purpose of highlighting relevant existing guidelines for editors dealing with specific cultures, saving them the hassle of having to read through irrelevant portions, and also give the opportunity to provide specific details and examples. This, however, raises the need for regular synchronisation and updating to keep the guidelines in accordance with each other. If a general guideline that serves these purposes could be devised, all the better. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 10:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Corrections required.

"This page attempts to provide guidelines on ...". Cringy opening. Please remove "attempts to". Either it provides the guidelines or it shouldn't be admitted as part of the MoS.
Try: "Thailand has no national ties ...".
There are more varieties than AmEng and BrEng, and many people will object to the assumption that the language is merely binary. "So any standard variety may be used consistently ...".
"noted", then "explicitly noted". Two levesl of urgency?
MOSHYPHEN: no hyphen after "-ly". No hyphen in "most-recent".
Other than as described above. Actually, that bit is a mess, so I've done it myself.
Not telegram language, please: "The capitalization of ...".
MOS: avoid "Note that ...". Just remove it.

This is generally written to a high standard. Well done. If these points and other advice here are implemented, I see no reason the page cannot become part of the MoS. Tony (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I've implemented your suggestions, and taken the liberty to copy your comments to the proposal's talk page. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 10:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like an addition to the list of nation (etc) guidelines above, then WP:MoS (Iceland-related articles). -- Hoary (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ireland-related articles needs a copy-edit

I've placed a copyedit tag on it. Examples of issues, at random, are:

"Please follow" repeated; "Please" three times in the first few sentences. "See" at the start of every bullet at the top. No punctuation after leading "Note", which goes against MoS advice not to tell readers to note things, and jars with "Note ... see".
Explicit "Example:" is clutter, and could be removed and replaced in-line with the example in parentheses.
"The exception ..." stub para. Tony (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Rationalising and merging country-, culture- and nation-related MoSes

Thanks for your action, Paul (see section above). Now that I've read SMcCandlish's comments at the top of that section, I can see that—say—a "Manual of Style (East Asian cultures) could work well and be an important contribution to rationalising and coordinating our sprawling MoS. Do you think a page of that scope would work? How large would it be, and just how substantial are the possibilities for rationalising redudant material? Would there be cultural/linguistic objections to the housing of such admittedly diverse topics under one umbrella? Tony (talk) 10:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

PS So we'd probably need one for East Asia (Chinese language, China, Japan, Korea, Philippines, Singapore, Tibetan, Vietnamese, Indonesia), one for Europe (Greek, Poland, Portuguese, Germany), and one for English-speaking countries (Ireland, Australia). The rest could remain separate for the time being, until other proposals are accepted and suggest the creation of more larger-scope MoSes.

Thoughts? Tony (talk) 10:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we've seen from the standard MoS that a page can be very large so long as it is well organized and has a clear table of contents. I am of the opinion that new users would be less intimidated by a few very large pages than by many small pages that take months to find and hardly seem worth the trouble of reading once found. The merge seems like an idea worth trying. The pages can always be split again if it doesn't help. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

External links including the official band site on musician articles

There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musicians#External_links_to_official_band_sites regarding the inclusion of official band sites in the external links section of musician articles. If you chime in over there it would be nice to let them know where you learned of the discussion as usually it is just music project editors discussing on that page. I'm bringing the link to the discussion here to avoid conflict within the various projects. - Steve3849 15:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Marked as part of the Manual of Style

were recently edited to mark - and then unmark - them as part of the Manual of Style. This is a tweaked notice of the changes. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Register has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Register (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Register has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Register (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Space and ref

There is an issue within the scope of the project: Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#User:Stemonitis and space in front of ref tag. --Snek01 (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion Changes

Input is apparent requested at [2].

Decision on changes here requested also.174.3.98.236 (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is the consensus for the promotion of this page to a MoS? I have complained about the US-centric focus of this wrongly named page, and have posted a copy-edit tag on the page.

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities/Guideline#US-centric_focus_is_a_problem. Tony (talk) 05:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tables has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:When to use tables is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:When to use tables (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

EngVar templates have been nominated for deletion at TfD

FYI,

have been nomiated for deletion. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (exit lists)/Sandbox has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (exit lists)/Sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This should not be listed as part of the MoS. I'm not sure why the automated notice did that, since it is not tagged as such. This was the revision that was substantially approved as the new road junction lists guide. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (road junction lists) has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (road junction lists) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (exit lists) is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (exit lists) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Alternative text for images is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Alternative text for images (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Raft of new MoSes: it's shonky and unprofessional to allow this

I checked out one, the road junction lists "MoS". It doesn't appear ready for elevation to MoS status. Why is there no formal procedure for consensus to be gathered?

For example:

The opening sentence: "In hopes of standardizing the appearance of road junction lists across Wikipedia articles involving roads,"
"standardized colors with standardized meanings".
The "Standard columns" has inconsistent opening grammar for the sections.

No reason is given for why the UK is currently excluded. We are mystified.

A copy-edit is required. There is bloated, puffy, redundant text. Tony (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a reason why the UK is excluded. Long story made short, this is a renamed version of the Exit List Guide (ELG), which had its name changed to reflect a consensus decision to incorporate non-freeway articles into the guide. The UK format used is divergent from the rest of the formats in use that comply with this, so for now, they were excluded at their request, and the issue will be revisted later. If a copy edit is needed, please make suggestions on the talk page. ELG has been part of the MoS since 2007. It was recently revised in a long drawn out discussion on the talk page, resulting in this text. Suggestions for improvement are appreciated. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

As for 'no formal procedure', are you familiar with WP:PGLIFE and WP:PROPOSAL? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (visual arts) has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (visual arts) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Blazon has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dermatology-related articles) is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dermatology-related articles) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blazon is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Blazon is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Blazon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Record charts/Billboard charts guide has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Record charts/Billboard charts guide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Explain jargon is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Draft MoS for Wikipedia-Books (Located at WP:MOSBOOKS)

I wrote this so Wikipedia books can become a bit more streamlined and have a more standardized feel. It's probably a bit drafty, but the core elements should be there. Feedback would be welcome and appreciated.

If you never heard of Wikipedia books, here's some basic details:

Wikipedia books (simply "books" from now on) are collections of article which can be downloaded electronically for free (in PDF or ODT formats, which can then be read offline, or printed by the user), or ordered in print. For examples, see Book:Hydrogen, Book:Canada, Book:Prostate, Book:Invincible class battlecruisers, (more can be found here). If you are still confused, I suggest clicking on "PDF" to see what exactly a book looks like when in PDF (ODT format is similar, printed books look better since they are printed on smaller pages, but the general idea is the same). The exact format of books can be varied: simpler books are just a bunch of links (Book:Invincible class battlecruisers), more complex books are usually structured in chapters such as Book:Hadronic Matter.
For more informations, you can check these Signpost articles

Books extension enabled

New Book-Class released, WikiProject Wikipedia-Books looking for volunteers

New Book namespace created

Proposed deletion process extended to books, cleanup efforts

As well as

Wikipedia:Books

Help:Books

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books

If you want to create a book, simply click on the "Create a book" link in the "print/export" toolbar on the left. (Or click here if you can't find it).

If you read all that and checked a few books in PDF, you should now be pretty familiar with what books are. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (U.S. state and territory highways) is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (U.S. state and territory highways) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Per discussions on the talk page, this was not really a style guide and it was more of a naming convention, so the page was edited and subsequently moved to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways). Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Record charts/Billboard charts guide is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Record charts/Billboard charts guide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Embedded lists has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Embedded list is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Pro and con lists is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Pro and con lists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 38 has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 38 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Words to watch has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation)/IPA vs. other pronunciation symbols is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation)/IPA vs. other pronunciation symbols (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Writing better articles is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Writing better articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Words to watch is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Words to avoid is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Template:Smallref

FYI, {{Smallref}} has been nominated for deletion.

As this template affects the display format of inline referencing (as opposed to the format of the references themselves), you might want to know.

70.29.210.155 (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (television)

What should our policy be on articles that contain lists related to television? You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists (television). Taric25 (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Dispute on linking

Resolved

– Just an FYI.

I've opened a serious inter-guideline dispute at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (linking)#Dispute, about changes to WP:MOSLINK that conflict with WP:MOSNUM, WP:BIAS, etc., and also conflict with WP:POLICY by attempting to prescribe and proscribe user linking behavior instead of describe consensus-accepted, current, observable best practice. That guideline is not nearly closely watched enough by MOS regulars, and has been subject to an anti-linking PoV push. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion about Further reading sections

A new page, WP:Further reading, is under construction. Its purpose is to expand on the WP:FURTHER section of MOS:LAYOUT.

The MOS guideline currently says that ==Further reading== is "A bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of editor-recommended publications that do not appear elsewhere in the article and were not used to verify article content."

Rjensen (talk · contribs) would like to ditch the long-standing (2006?) rule about not normally listing sources in both the ==References== and ==Further reading== section of the same article. Obviously, none of us want to end up with one page saying "This is not permitted" and another saying "This is recommended". If you have an opinion or want to comment about how the community uses/should use this section, please join the current discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject structure

Proposed policy

Definitions

Principles

New guidelines and subsidiary pages

Manual of Style

All style guidelines

Comments on above draft

How to coordinate something that happens in five places at once?

Merge two proposals?

Confused.com

WP:NCLL overhaul

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles) is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

The Links page cluster

Flags in navigation templates of elections

Wikipedia:External links is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (law enforcement agency categories) has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Facial hair is required for administratorship has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Another classic

Image use and privacy rights

Proposed naming convention for articles on mills

Reference library category

Capitalization of therapeutic systems

Location of section "Footnotes" is in question

New "Naming conventions (sportspeople)" drafted

Use of racial or ethnic prefix to nationality of subject biography: African-American, etc. vs American

RfC for WP:BOOSTER

WP:WikiProject Puerto Rico

Formatting websites in lede infoboxes

Style guidelines to article guidelines

General naming of guidelines

Use of ambiguous terms

Move to undo the rationalisation of our linking guidelines

Navbox MoS?

WP:Consensus

Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll

Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll now open

Music date task force

Alert: "What's wrong with MOS"

Limits to style?

Date unlinking bot proposal

Combine two projects

Call for eyes

Issues

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (France & French-related) has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation)/IPA vs. other pronunciation symbols has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

MOS links

Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Comics MoS?

WP:MOSCO in its proper role

Discussion re whether to permit use of all-numeric YYYY-MM-DD format in footnotes

Naming conventions

Audio sample rationale query

Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Related is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Taxobox usage is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Status of style guidelines of WikiProjects

Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

URLs in infoboxes

Bibliography page guideline proposal

Wikipedia:WikiProject Music terminology has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii/Manual of Style has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

How do we know what these pages are like?

Wikipedia:Colours is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

RFC at NCP

Proposed MoS for Thailand-related articles

Ireland-related articles needs a copy-edit

Rationalising and merging country-, culture- and nation-related MoSes

External links including the official band site on musician articles

Marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Register has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Register has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Space and ref

Discussion Changes

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Tables has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:When to use tables is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style