Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Manual of Style/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Shall we begin?

WikiProject Japan began operation with fewer than 10 participants, so should we remove the "proposed" tag? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing to hold us back - I'm ready to get this show on the road. I'm sure more editors will join soon; if they have nothing to do they may get bored and leave. --Eruhildo (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The Four Principles

Perhaps this is too early to start a serious discussion on the way to manage the general situation in the Manual of Style, but I have a proposition to make. I have posted my Four Principles in my talk page so that everyone interested in reading them can do so freely; posting them here might be interpreted as an attempt to impose an agenda upon the fledgling WikiProject, something which I should not like to see my honourable name associated with. Waltham, The Duke of 14:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I wanted to propose, but in much better words. I say we put those four principles on the project page. Does anyone else feel the same way? --Eruhildo (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Think they are good, and I don't see a problem with posting them here (on the talk page) so they can be discussed and refined here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Very nice, Duke! - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the four principles too, but caution against doing anything in a rush! Lets wait for more comments. I don't completely agree with the paragraph immediately after the four principles, because this talk page could be a useful neutral ground for discussing and resolving conflicts between different parts of MoS. Geometry guy 09:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the gist of the "four principles", but one concept is missing still. It should be possible that the main MOS defines a general rule, but states that exceptions are defined in a specific MOS. There is no need to make explicit in the main MOS, what exactly those exceptions are. Without such a provision, the main MOS would grow too big and detailed. On the other hand, it slightly breaks the hierarchy of MOSes. If no exception is announced in the main MOS, it should not be allowed in a specific MOS to have one. I do not have a good term for this fifth principle. −Woodstone (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent, for copy-pasting ease) First of all, I am pasting my talk page message here, so that it can be more easily commented on:

Having reviewed the discussion about the relations between the Manual of Style and its satellites, seeing that there is no consensus amongst editors in creating a hierarchy where the main MoS will have precedence over its subpages even on a provisional basis, and believing that we as Wikipedians must find ways to ensure that there will be no discrepancies between the individual parts of the Greater Manual of Style, but there will be a unified, cohesive, and consistent style aid useful to all the esteemed editors of this noble encyclopaedia, I hereby submit to thee:

The following four principles, which I have written in an attempt to establish a framework upon which, in my not-so-humble opinion, the relations between the various pages of MoS ought to be defined. In other words, they are intended to provide a foundation where the process of guideline revising can be built with the least possible controversy and disagreement. These principles are based on a viewpoint of the Manual of Style as a bi-level structure, comprising a main page and a number of specialised "subpages" with parenthetical designations. This proposition only concerns the Manual of Style and does not at all take into consideration the relations between the MoS and other guides, like layout- and categorisation-related pages.

• Principle of equality: The main page and the subpages are of equal importance and have the same degree of authority; no Manual of Style page has precedence over any other. The hierarchy of the pages only applies to the level of analysis and presentation.
• Principle of consistency: Every change in the main page should be reflected in the relevant subpages, and vice versa; no Manual of Style pages should under any circumstance conflict each other to any extent. The existence of exceptions to guidelines should be made clear in both levels, and should not be construed as conflict.
• Principle of redundancy: One guideline should be covered in depth in as few pages as possible (preferably one), so that conflicts are kept to a minimum, and changes can be made, and kept track of, more easily. Other mentions of the guideline should refer to this main entry, either summarising it briefly (in the case of the main page) or only stating the part relevant to the other guidelines of that page (in the case of a related subpage).
• Principle of delegation: As specialised matters are given their own space in subpages, discussions about specialised matters should similarly be delegated to the relevant subpages, so that the main talk page is not cluttered. On the other hand, more overarching discussions affecting multiple areas of the Manual ought to be discussed in the main talk page. In any event, the main page and all affected subpages must be notified of such discussions without any delay.

All in all, I believe that every change to style guidelines ought to be discussed, agreed upon, and then applied to both the main page and the relevant subpages, or not be applied at all. Discussion should take place in the most appropriate venue with the participation of all interested parties ensured. All discrepancies should be ironed out with discussion in the proper venues after a careful mapping of the guidelines and in how many places each is encountered. It will be hard work in the beginning, but I have high hopes for its effectiveness and long-term benefits. The role of a WikiProject overseeing this process would ideally be one of organisation and advise: it would organise the guideline structure, monitor the MoS-related discussions, and answer the questions of editors (serving as a style help desk of sorts). It would not discuss changing the guidelines, but the way in which guidelines shall change.

I am fully aware of the fact that there is too much disagreement in this area for this proposal to go far, but I am confident that a full-fledged plan like this one will be taken more seriously than any half-measures (and leave much less room for misunderstandings); if it isn't this one, it will certainly be another. I now require your feedback, and hope for the best. I shall, of course, answer any questions which may arise. Waltham, The Duke of 14:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: I wrote this (for WT:MOS) before seeing the new project's page, and only edited it slightly afterwards. I more or less agree with the WikiProject's goals as they are outlined at the moment; although I am far from an expert in style matters, I have joined because I consider myself useful for the organising effort that will definitely be needed by the project. Waltham, The Duke of

And now the answers to the questions:

• Geometry Guy,
  • I am fully with you on the "wait" part. I do not like doing things in a hurry myself, although one might think the opposite because I am often frustrated by complete inactivity in some areas. Comments are useful, so that no great changes need take place later.
  • The paragraph that follows the principles, written before the WikiProject was created (some adjustments will need to be made), solely discusses the process of changing guidelines. In other words, I consider the process of removing all conflicts and ambiguities distinct from proposing changes to guidelines, and potentially applying them, in an already "clean" MoS. This Project is for making sure that the Manual of Style is helpful and consistent; discussion for changing the guidelines themselves is a matter of the community at large, and although it can be organised by WPMoS, it cannot be held on its grounds. Isn't this the logic of the WikiProject in the first place?
• Woodstone,
  • I have deliberately kept the principles general so that they can be embraced by as many people as possible. As I said, I intended them as a framework of relations, so that sufficient flexibility can exist, as the community see fit. What you say about exceptions is covered, although it could perhaps be clearer: the principle of redundancy suggests that guidelines should be fully covered in one place (including the various exceptions); the principle of consistency proposes that "the existence of exceptions to guidelines should be made clear in both levels". With the latter I meant that it should be obvious in both levels that there are exceptions (not that they should be analysed in both levels)—a later addition, as it was an idea that occurred to me afterwards. The principles are supposed to work and be fully understood as a group, but they can also work individually.
  • I didn't really mention the "general main page – specialised subpages" rule in the principle of delegation because I took it for granted; these principles were drafted as unofficial advice for the Manual of Style talk page. I should certainly like them to evolve into a Manual of Style compass of sorts for this WikiProject, but some further work will be required.

I intend to post a revised version presently, which will be more complete and stand-alone. Waltham, The Duke of 12:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we basically agree and that it is largely a matter of language and emphasis. Of course community consensus is required to change guidelines, the community being those interested in the guideline affected. Nevertheless, I think it may be helpful to discuss changes which affect several guidelines here and then, if there is a consensus here, take the proposed changes to the talk pages of the guidelines affected to ensure that there is wider consensus support. This project will succeed if the editors interested in the individual guidelines have already contributed to the discussion here, so that taking the proposals back to individual guidelines is straightforward. Geometry guy 22:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The Five Principles

In order to make this set self-contained, and to avoid having people make arbitrary assumptions in order to interpret them, I have added a fifth (or, rather, first) principle, describing the basic character of the bi-level structure. I have also re-written the last principle to be of a more complementary nature to the first one. Modifications were made to the rest of them as well.

• Principle of specialisation: The Manual of Style comprises a main page and a large set of other pages, referred to as "subpages". As the purpose of the main page is to provide general style guidelines, all special cases and exceptions should be treated in detail in the subpages.
• Principle of equality: The main page and the subpages are of equal importance and have the same degree of authority; no Manual of Style page has precedence over any other. The hierarchy of the pages only applies to the level of analysis offered and to the presentation of the guidelines.
• Principle of consistency: Every change in the main page should be reflected in the relevant subpages, and vice versa; no Manual of Style pages should under any circumstance conflict each other to any extent. The existence of exceptions, which do not constitute conflicts, should be made clear in the main page even though not necessarily elaborated there.
• Principle of redundancy: One guideline should be covered in depth in as few pages as possible (preferably one), so that conflicts are kept to a minimum, and changes can be made, and kept track of, more easily. Other mentions of the guideline should refer to this main entry, either summarising it briefly (in the case of the main page) or only stating the part relevant to the other guidelines of that page (in the case of a related subpage).
• Principle of delegation: Each guideline should be discussed in the page it is best covered. Thus, a narrower guideline ought to be discussed in the subpage where it is most thoroughly analysed, while the main talk page should be reserved for more overarching discussions affecting multiple areas of the Manual of Style. For any discussion, the main page and all affected subpages must be notified without any delay.

As I said, these are not to be interpreted as the basis for the working of this WikiProject, but as the basis of the interpretation of the Manual of Style structure, and are intended to help in improving the general discussion process within the confines of the greater MoS, assisted by said WikiProject wherever possible. Guideline conflicts should, of course, be resolved here, after notifying all interested parties.

If you have a better link for a list of the MoS pages, by all means say so. Apart from that... Feedback! Waltham, The Duke of 14:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks good. I don't like the term "subpages", which has crept into the Manual of Style fairly recently. They aren't subpages in a technical sense, and referring to them as such conflicts slightly with the principle of equality. Any suggestions for a better term? Geometry guy 22:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly encourage we heed Geometry guy's "slow down" message above, as I'm acutely aware of the failure of the Extra-Long Article Committee, which tried to "police" too much, too fast, and ruffled too many feathers. And I'm not sure why we would exclude a page like WP:LAYOUT. My suggestion is that before we do anything else, we focus on some basic assessment, since we don't really have a handle on how bad (or not) the problems are. Which and how many pages contain inconsistencies? Which overlap (unnecessarily or not, leading to the same text in multiple places)? Which contain redundant text? For example, since discussion first started at WT:MOS, I've become aware of another consistency not raised there (MEDMOS naming differs from overall naming on articles, for medical reasons). Before we decide "what" to do, shouldn't we define the scope of the issues with some basic assessment ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Geometry Guy, I agree that we ought to be more careful in our terminology. I was thinking of "appendices", but it presents the same problems. "Specialised pages" is a more politically correct term, but is too long and awkward; "branches" is another idea, but is similarly bad-sounding one. I'll try to find something better and come back to you when I do.

SandyGeorgia, this proposition is intended to outline the basic relations between the various pages of the Manual of Style. It is reasonable that we should first determine which pages exactly these would be. After that, we could chart the various guidelines and in how many places each has been written; inconsistencies can be then located and worked on. This will, of course, require a lot of effort, and take time, but that's what we're here for anyway. I could even say that I have made my first assessment: I have recently read the Layout page (which I think should be included in the Greater MoS, as I call the whole Manual of Style, not just the main page), and have found it excellent. If possible, no changes should take place in it, but redundancies ought to be removed from other pages (unless they are more specialised; I shouldn't know for I have yet to start any serious study of the Greater Manual of Style). But this, of course, is not the place for such a discussion (I am referring to the thread, not the page). In any case, we must evaluate the situation first. Waltham, The Duke of 22:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Idea! How about calling them "satellites"? The subpages, that is. That way, we could say that the MoS comprises a main page and its satellites, a terminology which would convey the image of "central" and "peripheral" as opposed to that of a strictly hierarchical "top" and "bottom". Well, the hierarchy will still exist, but it will be mostly presentational, just like we want it (or at least how I know I want it). Waltham, The Duke of 11:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't work for me either: "peripheral" is not good, and "satellite" gives the impression of revolving around the centre. Historically the specialised pages were called "supplementary", but I think the real solution is not to make a big deal about the distinction. After all, the goal of this project is to help to resolve inconsistencies between Manual of Style pages, not just between the main page and its supplementary pages. Okay, it is likely that most ot the time it will be about main page vs specialised page, but there's no need for the principles to make that assumption. Geometry guy 13:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What about calling them the general MOS page and the topical MOS pages? Maybe that might be clearer? --Eruhildo (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

These principles are excellent in theory; I don't see how they will work in practice. For example: Principle of specialisation: ... As the purpose of the main page is to provide general style guidelines, all special cases and exceptions should be treated in detail in the subpages. Perhaps I'm not understanding, but this places a burden on the reader to read every subpage to figure out every exception, rather than summarizing the exceptions back to a central place. We need to know what the exceptions are, or there's no utility to a main page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the main page would still cover everything that's not an exception (that should be a lot, right?); the specialized pages only deal with certain kinds of articles. One would only need to read a specialized MOS page if one was working on an article within that scope. All we need is for the main MOS page to say: this part applies to all articles except the ones in [[specialized MOS page|this scope]]. --Eruhildo (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) People, the principle of specialisation is the latest addition to the set, so please be patient. I flatter myself that I am pretty good in these things, so I trust that, in time, we could reach a compromise acceptable by all parties.

Geometry Guy, you are correct again; although most of the conflicts are limited to the relations between the main page and the supplementary pages, they are not exclusively met there, and the principles probably ought to avoid attracting attention to such distinctions. This spells changes for the principles of equality and consistency, but does not mean that the principle of specialisation should go, as it outlines a basic element of the MoS system.

And moving on to SandyGeorgia... Say whatever you want, but I knew the principle of specialisation was crudely phrased from the beginning—why did I write it this way, you might ask; I suppose I was not sufficiently inspired... (My agreeing with everybody has started becoming boring, hasn't it? Believe me, I am hard to satisfy when it comes to precision.) You are right in what you say—although I should note that the principle of redundancy makes a mention of exceptions—and I intend to fix the problem forthwith.

As adjustments will continue being made in order to address the existing concerns, others might arise. In other words, my not replying to your comments does not mean that you should stop posting them, Eruhildo; one of my changes might actually move the principles away from the version you (or anyone else) were content with. Continuous feedback is an integral part of the formation process (or, rather, "process").

So: the Five Principles, version two...

• Principle of specialisation: The Manual of Style comprises a main page and a large set of supplementary pages. As the purpose of the main page is to provide general style guidelines applying to the majority of articles, all but the most important special cases and exceptions should be only introduced in the main page and treated in detail in the appropriate supplementary pages.
• Principle of equality: All pages in the Manual of Style are of equal importance and have the same degree of authority; no Manual of Style page has precedence over any other. The distinction between a main page and supplementary pages only applies to the level of analysis offered and to the presentation of the guidelines.
• Principle of consistency: Every change in a page should be reflected in all affected pages; no Manual of Style pages should under any circumstance conflict each other to any extent. The existence of exceptions to guidelines, which do not constitute conflicts, should be made clear in the main page even though not necessarily elaborated there.
• Principle of redundancy: One guideline should be covered in depth in as few pages as possible (preferably one), so that conflicts are kept to a minimum, and changes can be made, and kept track of, more easily. Other mentions of the guideline should refer to this main entry, either summarising it briefly (in the case of the main page) or only stating the part relevant to the other guidelines of that page (in the case of a related supplementary page).
• Principle of delegation: Each guideline should be discussed in the page it is best covered. Thus, a narrower guideline ought to be discussed in the supplementary page where it is most thoroughly analysed, while the main talk page should be reserved for more overarching discussions affecting multiple areas of the Manual of Style. For any discussion, the main page and all affected supplementary pages must be notified without any delay.

I hope they haven't grown too big by now; I am trying to strike a balance between accuracy and length. Waltham, The Duke of 23:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we need a sixth principle? Some people think that there are times when people explode consensus and go their own way, doubling and tripling the number of applicable rules when it appears we were already past a workable limit. Others believe that multiplication of workload is caused when ordinary editors react badly to rules, making it harder to get everyone to buy into MoS ... which indirectly has exactly the same effect, just by a different group of people. Both positions seem correct almost by definition ... in fact, they're almost the same position. It's necessary to keep the number of rules and amount of discord down, if you can devote the time and find a way to do it successfully, and it's necessary to explore, describe and sell ideas instead of just baldly stating them, if you can devote the time and find a way to do it successfully. [Unhelpful reflective stuff removed.]- Dan Dank55 (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As always, it all boils down to striking the correct balance between the two extremes: instruction creep and anarchy. That can only happen through discussion and consensus. Yet, I do not believe that we should include it in the principles, or at least if we are to retain the character which I have attributed to them when writing them. You see, I intended to outline the relations between the various pages of the MoS family. Based on these, we could work our way towards solving any inconsistencies. I did not intend to have them dictate what we should do, however; that is for us to decide at any point in time. Besides, this is supposed to be one side of Wikipedia spirit, already ingrained in the policies, guidelines, and practices of the community; I see no reason to repeat this here. Waltham, The Duke of 01:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

A difficult problem

Steven Pinker (The language instinct) points out that humans come complete with instincts that we acquired back when we lived in groups of roughly 50 to 150. Back then, language probably wasn't that hard, so we may instinctively feel hurt when challenged on language issues in a way that is completely out of proportion to the tremendous difficulty of the challenge of getting the language right on Wikipedia. On the other hand, the people who have had egos big enough to take on hundreds of MoS issues are obviously very smart people, and MoS pages have been some of my favorite reading, so I look forward to this wikiproject. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have that book! Interesting reading. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There's an idea: divide Wikipedians into groups of 150 people, and have them elect a style representative. We then take all these and do the same thing. Repeat the process until the ultimate authority on the Manual of Style is revealed and properly enthroned, to restore order in Wikipedia and be worshipped more fanatically than Jimbo himself.

No? I didn't think so. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 14:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

But we have so many candidates, all voting for themselves...;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Mutual support

I didn't want to post this yet because I think G-Guy and Sandy are right when they say, "Go slow, let's take some problems and see how it goes, don't try to solve everything at once." Nevertheless, I've been encouraged by some admin friends and by one of the people in this very room to go ahead and share my thoughts on mutual support, and here they are: User:Dank55/Essays. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 23:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Please feel free to only pull those ideas onto this page when you're ready to talk about them, that's why I put them in my userspace. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think its important to remember that MOS is a guideline and does require the common sense and cooperation of indivisual users to form a community consensus of what is the right way of writing an article. I think, to as large an extent as possible, the views of as many users as possible should be encompassed in the MoS of an article type although inevitably compromise would be necessary in some areas. In my opinion bureaucracy such as the one you mentioned is not a good idea. Although I am an admin, I see adminship as an extra tool rather than any status as mentioned on your essay. I think WikiProjects are a good way to establish consensus and to implement the relevant MOS in articles within their scope. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 22:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. To clarify, I was against an extra level of bureaucracy. If no one here will be championing that idea, then I can go ahead and delete those sentences. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not strongly opposed to it; but I do not think it will be generally acceptable. Extra levels beyond adminship have been proposed a number of times, for several purposes, and the only ones that have come into existence are things like checkuser status and the FA Director: things which are strictly limited to one or three people, and which have a strong case that they cannot be entrusted either to editors at large, or admins at large. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Just out of interest, why do so mnay users see adminship as a level of bureaucracy. Admins really just are ordinary users with delete, block, protect and rollback functions. Any user, whether they are an admin or not, may act as enforcers of policies. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 11:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it is. If it were nothing special, it would be easier to take away. (And, while the best admins do not act like bureaucrats, the worst do.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Time for a fact check

1. There is increasing criticism of Wikipedia and of Wikipedians, from both inside and outside Wikipedia. An obvious source of outside criticism is from all the people whose prestige or job security has been eroded by the enormous success of Wikipedia, so I don't pay too much attention to that. The inside criticism, whatever the cause or source, tends to be directed at people who represent themselves as carrying some sort of authority to say what goes or stays, such as admins and article reviewers (in some general sense of the phrase).
2. Everyone here except me (so far) has been not just WP:BOLD, but WP:BRAVE, in devoting so much time to constructive criticism of articles, criticism which is guaranteed to create problems from time to time. Anyone who gives such a brave person grief without careful consideration is hurting Wikipedia. (But bravery doesn't give anyone carte blanche for anything, of course.)
3. It is hugely counterproductive to give the griefers ready-made arguments to disrespect any of us in a very public place like WT:MoS.

Instead of being aggressive with (or aggressively ignoring) each other, let's agree to a truce. [Unhelpful reflective stuff removed.] - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry for the delay in commenting, I only got to read this now...)

What you are speaking of sounds like some sort of kindness pact, a gentlemen's agreement of mutual honour. I am not exactly thrilled with the idea; wouldn't a simple "behave yourselves" suffice? There are conventions and guidelines in Wikipedia tackling the issues of etiquette and consensus, and we all know perfectly well how the community treats people whose demeanour creates problems (I shall not use labels like "troll" and "forum shopper" here, they create more confusion than they are worth). I don't like having to work here with a threat hanging over my head, and it does not promote the right spirit. Waltham, The Duke of 23:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and I already said above below the "sixth principle" that I was being irrational [removed] ... not that I don't see wishful thinking from time to time from other people. I was clearly pushing hard when a light touch was called for. I'm participating in the current drive to conform different style guidelines with each other, for instance at WP:LAYOUT, and hopefully, over time, people will come to the conclusion that my judgment has improved. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so you have a judgement? (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

Seriously, now, we should wait and see. Patience and a cool head are all that we need for this trial-and-error process. Sooner or later we shall manage to hit just the right note. My being at the crossroads between inclusionism, eventualism, and incrementalism (and I am as complex in other aspects of my WikiPhilosophy), I am rather confident about this. If we could adopt "No need to panic" as our motto, this would be a great step forwards already. Waltham, The Duke of 02:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Scope

I would prefer that Wikipedia adopt a consistent style, but I think that is impossible. First, the number of articles makes it impractical to make them consistent. Second, the MOS keeps changing faster than it would be possible to revise articles to match the MOS-of-the-day. Third, there is no consensus for the concept of imposing a consistent style; too many editors reject the notion of consistency for consistency's sake for it to work.

Therefore, I propose the MOS and its subpages should just list some acceptable external style manuals, and confine it self to one of the following two sets of issues:

1. Issues unique to the software used in Wikipedia and its sister projects, & prohibition against unilateral changes in style due to national variety of English or the like.

OR

2. Number 1 plus issues related to the electronic presentation of information, with the possiblilty of hyperlinks, which are typically ignored by paper and ink style manuals. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a striking suggestion, Gerry, and I have a feeling it's in for a rough ride from people who might feel that you're saying their contributions are worthless and we might as well trash them. I do not take your statement that way...it feels more like an admission that the current plan isn't working so it's time to try Plan B and see what happens. But perhaps we don't need an all-or-nothing approach to MoS guidelines (beyond your 2 points), maybe "less" would be better than "none".

The French have had their Académie française standardizing language for centuries, Germans have always had a tendency to use simple words and not be too inventive, but English-speakers have rebelled against attempts at standardization and simplification for centuries, opting instead to diversify language whenever we could get away with it, to communicate subtext about...well, everything, including who we are and who we're talking to. To make it worse, people from all over the world are now pulling English off in their own directions, and they're bringing their understanding of English to Wikipedia as readers and writers. Standardization would be wonderful, it would make things so much better for everyone, but it's so not going to happen (except where we can enforce it with brute force...which often feels, unsurprisingly, like brute force). So, how do we cope, how do we achieve the goal of having language in Wikipedia that is clear and understandable to the maximum number of readers, while causing the minimum discomfort to editors when they're corrected? And...I can't help but notice all the discomfort on the MoS pages...and if we, with our large and healthy egos (I am definitely including myself), are uncomfortable with MoS rules, what are the odds that other Wikipedian editors are not? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Should MoS guidelines be different, or enforced more stringently, in a printed version (the Version 0.7 bots go into action next month) than in the online Wikipedia? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. Another way to view Gerry's proposal: if English is so hard and our readers and writers are so diverse that they are guaranteed to be grouchy about MoS issues, why not remove ourselves from the line of fire, as much as possible and practical, and let the pre-existing manual and guide writers take the heat? There's merit in that idea, although I'm sure that many people will, nevertheless, want to make a bigger contribution than your two points allow.

We could probably, without undue dissension, expand to MOS #1 in my typology below. An objective account of the advantages and disadvantages of available alternatives within English, in the spirit of NPOV, would be quite helpful; it would also mean treating our editors as adults, instead of ungrateful schoolchildren. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Rich, I found your MOS #1-#4 helpful. But on the subject of "voting for themselves" and "ungrateful schoolchildren", here's my newbish take on where we are. There has been a lot of unpleasantness in WT:MoS recently, including from me, and I'm not "shocked, shocked" to see discord. But if you have a minute, read my short essay at User:Dank55/Essays for why it seems important to me that we all be as supportive of each other as possible (without of course straining that to the point where we violate WP:SPADE). I plead complete ignorance...I don't know if anyone has been treating editors like ungrateful schoolchildren, and frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if some Wikipedian has. But if true, maybe that could be fixed, and maybe that's not the most accurate description of where their head is at. If you feel strongly that that's a key problem, and that it really should be tackled first, then don't let me or anyone else stop you...describe and document the problem, and ask for resolution. But please don't hint, that makes the accusation hard to deal with. And, G-Guy, Sandy, the Duke and myself (at least) have all supported the idea of "going slow", which I think means trying not to step in multiple cowpies at the same time...does that sound good? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 06:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, I should clarify. I don't mean the attitude of editors of MOS to each other, although that is bad enough; I mean the attitude towards editors who merely write articles and submit them to FAC or GAC, and endemic in the wording of MOS: most editors are children, and we must drill them in what we have deemed to be correct usage; eventually they'll learn. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[Unhelpful reflective comments removed] - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Septentrionalis's #1 seems to me to largely duplicate the effort of writing a general purpose style manual (that is, one that is not tightly connected to any particular publication). If we feel such a manual is necessary, for the benefit of those who can't afford to buy a style manual, shouldn't it go on Wikibooks rather than Wikipedia? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

In large part true, and a general style manual at Wikibooks is a good idea; but several of our existing recommendations in this class discuss the tone suitable to an encyclopedia, and those may be worth keeping.

But this was largely a classification of what is possible, not what I propose. MOS #1 is being squeezed into #2 and #3, and thus disappearing; MOS #4 I oppose where it exists. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose MOS #5 comes under issues unique to WP; I doubt many print editing houses have our persistent discussions of civility. But it should certainly be included; it's also one main raason to oppose MOS #4, which usually results in massive style changes without any discussion at all - because MOS says so Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Five layers of MOS

The problem is that editors are attempting to make MOS serve four different functions, listed below. These produce efforts to say different things.

I will example which actually came up was the proposal to ban "one fourth" in favor of "one quarter"; the examples below are possible statements based on that (hopefully uncontroversial) divergence.

1. Discuss the possibilities
   • North American English tends to use fourth; other Commonwealth English tends to use quarter.
   • There are exceptions to this rule of thumb in both directions.
   • Quarter can be used of a division into more than four pieces
2. Advise editors
   • In general, use fourth in articles written in American English; quarter in articles in Commonwealth English.
3. Establish a rule for Featured Articles
   • Featured Articles must use fourth in articles written in American English; quarter in articles in Commonwealth English.
4. A new improved, modern English
   • Always use fourth, because it's logical
   • Always use quarter. This was the original proposal.
5. Don't edit just to change one style to another
   • If an article has quarter as an established stylistic choice, don't change to fourth without discussion and consensus.

I think this example makes clear why MoS #2 and MoS #3 should not be the same; we can reasonably suggest that American articles use "fourth", but we should not deprive an article of FA because someone has used "quarter" instead; American English can, as Ursula K. Le Guin did.

Only MOS #3 and MOS #4 require consistency between one MOS page and another. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• There's a fifth, of which WP:ENGVAR and No Date Warring are the most prominent examples; added in this edit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A concrete example

Put a space on each side of an ellipsis, except at the very start or end of a quotation. from WP:MOS#Ellipses This has just come up at MOS, and so is being treated as MOS #3.

Should we do so? Should we treat it as MOS #2?

Note, for comparison, that while we acknowledge the existence of three formats for ellipses, and recommend between them, we do not use the imperative or make a command. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

MOSpage auditing program: template for ACTION!

Dear fellow project members:

Let's get to work on an obvious task for this project, for which this group has plenty of expertise. Let's audit the state of all the MOSpages, and report back here. It's a big job, given the sheer number of pages; so establishing priority targets and calling for volunteers to conduct the audits seems appropriate.

I suggest that individual MOSpages be identified, and each volunteer report back here on the following issues:

1. Status: Is the MOSpage listed in the MOS template box or the Style template box, and does the appropriate template appear on the MOSpage itself?
2. Level of activity: How active is the MOSpage, on the basis of its edit history and that of its talk page? How stable is the MOSpage?
3. Structure and prose: Are the structure and prose of professional standard?
4. Content: Is the content rational, well researched, and consensual?
5. Relationship with the central MOSpage and with other MOSpages: Is the topic appropriate for MOS? Is the scope of the topic well delineated, and are the boundaries between related MOSpages and the central MOSpage the most useful and logical? (Also, preliminary report on these questions: Is there duplication between the MOSpage and other MOSpages? Are there inconsistencies between the MOSpage and other MOSpages?)
6. Recommendations for discussion here: As determined by the auditor.

The posting of the report should be notified on the talk pages of the MOSpages involved, and the report opened for comment and discussion over the following few weeks, which should determine what action should be taken, if any.

To kick it off, I've nominated a few pages and groups of related pages below. Please add more to the list—you may find it helpful to consult these pages:

• Pages using the Manual of Style template
• Pages marked as Manual of Style guidelines
• Wikipedia style guidelines

Volunteers are needed to audit each one (or perhaps duos of volunteers if they want to share the task of auditing large pages/groups). Please sign your name to the right of an entry. Tony (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

All the pages I've looked at so far seem to take different approaches to denoting status as style pages. For example:

• WP:WTUT: {{style-guideline|WP:WTUT}}
  • end of page: [[Category:Wikipedia style guidelines|When to use tables]]
• WP:BETTER: {{style}}
  • end of page: {{Writing guides}}, [[Category:Wikipedia style guidelines|{{PAGENAME}}]]
• WP:LAYOUT: {{Style}}, and also {{Subcat guideline|style guideline|WP:GTL|WP:GTL|WP:LAY}}
  • end of page: {{Writing guides}}, [[Category:Wikipedia style guidelines|{{PAGENAME}}]]
• WP:CITE: {{subcat guideline|style guideline|Citing sources|[[WP:CITE]]<br />[[WP:REF]]}}
  • also in the text (not from a template) "This page is a [[style guide]]"
  • lower on the page: {{style}}. end of page: nothing relevant to style

Note that the subcat template automatically adds the "Wikipedia style guidelines" category. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I was asked what conclusion I drew from this; I guess it would be that it might also be useful to look at w:Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Style-guideline, which is a long list. Since there are 3 different templates used for more or less the same thing, perhaps one or two of them should go. Also, I'm suggesting that writing out "This page is a style guide" probably would make more sense on either all the style pages or none of them. (It seems clear from the templates to me.) Also, it might be a good idea to delete the "Writing guides" template from the few style pages that use it, because there are around 35 other pages, mostly user pages, that use it, so it must mean something different from "Wikipedia style guideline" to a lot of people:

1. Wikipedia:Article development
2. Wikipedia:The perfect article
3. Wikipedia:Manual of Style
4. Wikipedia:Layout
5. Wikipedia:How to copy-edit (Note: the other pages all have the style guidelines cat, this one doesn't)
6. Wikipedia:Writing better articles

- Dan Dank55 (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Again, I'm embarrassed about mistakes I've made in the last couple of months, and I'd appreciate it if people would read my reply to Tony on my talk page, and reply there if you like. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A little more information. In the Template:Subcat_guideline documentation (top of the talk page), it says: "This template presently does not work for style guidelines. Category name: Wikipedia style guidelines. Guideline page: Manual of Style. So, for style guidelines, use template:Style-guideline instead!". Nevertheless, some pages in [[Category:Wikipedia style guidelines]] use the subcat_guideline template, which automatically assigns the cat. Also, even though w:Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Style-guideline has 105 pages, the template page redirects to the MoS-guideline template. A reasonable first question is "Which pages are we talking about working on?"; perhaps [[Category:Wikipedia style guidelines]] is the common denominator. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Auditing list

• Wikipedia:Timeline_standards
• Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms and Wikipedia:Words to avoid
• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(music) and Wikipedia:Music_samples

Changes to MoS never go unnoticed?

We've got a long argument going over at WT:Layout, but I'm optimistic that progress is being made. One bit brought up yesterday by Christopher Parham doesn't seem like something that should be argued there, so I said that and alerted them that I'm posting the question here for comments, here's the relevant bits:

... my understanding from the above discussion was that MoS has always had the current language saying See also first, External links last, and that the change in Layout to "vary the order" was made sometime within the last 12 months. MoS is not more important than Layout, but given that the two guidelines have said opposite things for less than a year, it's more likely that no one caught the discrepancy because people weren't paying close enough attention to Layout than that people weren't paying close enough attention to MoS. Changes to MoS never go unnoticed; Layout, not so much (up til recently ... obviously this has to change, changes to any style guideline have to be discussed before they wind up causing these kinds of problems. Perhaps we need a Style Guidelines Version 1.0 before Wikipedia 1.0). ... - Dan
I disagree with that for the most part; the MoS isn't subject to any exceptional scrutiny and people regularly complain about changes that passed without comment weeks and months earlier. When guidelines disagree, it is usually because there is no real consensus about what to do, not because one guideline is simply out of date. -Christopher Parham
Christopher disagreed with "Changes to MoS never go unnoticed" ... I didn't think that was controversial, but now that you mention it, I remember that someone recently said at WT:MoS that something had gone unnoticed for a while, but I don't remember who or about what. I don't want to get into the "supremacy of MoS", that's a hot-button issue, but it would be helpful in the future to be able to figure out when we need to go through some big hairy process of consensus-gathering and when we don't, so I'll take this over to WT:WPMoS (where all viewpoints are pretty well represented) and see if there's consensus. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So, my question is, when MoS differs from another style guideline page, because of a change that was made on the other page within the last 12 months, is it reasonable to conclude that part of the problem was that people were paying more attention to MoS than to the other page? Or do changes regularly go unnoticed and undiscussed at MoS?

It depends on whether it is being inserted by one of the editors who claims ownership of MOS. One or two of them can change things radically with no protest at all; because most of us have better things to do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Should we put questions about possible guideline conflicts in a level-two heading?

Too late, I just did. This one is a puzzle to me, I'm hoping someone can shed some light and comment over at WT:V#Isn't it policy that WP can't be used as a source at all?. Bottom line: "This is from WP:SPS ... and therefore policy: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources". But if you look at the left on any article page, you'll see a tool called "cite this page". So...we're supposed to cite an article, and then say, "but whatever you do, don't believe us, because Wikipedia can't be used as a source"? And if the tool isn't helpful enough, we have an entire page devoted to teaching you how to cite Wikipedia as a source, WP:Citing Wikipedia." Neither page is, strictly speaking, a guideline, but the second page is guideline-ish. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia articles. People can use whatever sources they want, including Wikipedia, elsewhere. In context I don't think this is at all confusing. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably not helpful to argue this on several pages at once, and since it properly belongs on WP:V, I've copied and responded there. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Heads up concerning what I hope is a narrow proposal...

...to discuss wide-consensus issues (issues with such wide consensus that people wouldn't mind having bots patrol to catch irregularities) of look-and-feel or formatting, with particular relevance to Version 1.0: WP:VPP#Throwing several consensus-gathering projects into one basket. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

There was support at WP:VPP from Version 1.0 for creating a project page, so they got it: WT:STYLE1.0. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

WT:CITE#Removal of Policylist template

I could use a little help from anyone who wants to read that link, and feels very comfortable looking at the first few paragraphs of WP:CITE and saying "this sounds like policy, this was once discussed as policy, this is definitely not policy" etc. Since WP:CITE pulls in and talks about WP:V, which is policy, it's a little vague where one starts and the other stops, and I think there's consensus that not knowing the difference is a Bad Thing. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for input

Not sure if this is a good place to mention this. But, there a discussion about the use of italics in parenthetical disambiguating phrases at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (titles). The issue is something of gray area in the intersection between Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Input from editors familiar with stylistic issues is welcome. older ≠ wiser 14:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: The debate ended several days ago, in favour of the use of italics. Waltham, The Duke of 10:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WT:GAU

I'm putting some major time into WP:GANs, and I'll be thinking mostly about criterion #1, how "well-written" they are, and the relationship to the goals of this project. I want to start getting a sense of, and describing, how language and style are actually used in Good Articles, which are of course not as stringent as Featured Articles. I would really appreciate participation and comments at WT:Good article usage. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:General style guidelines

Category:General style guidelines has been nominated for deletion to allow for additional categorization. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page. Bebestbe (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography vs. References

• WP:CITE#Use_of_terms says, "The terms Further Reading, External links or Bibliography are used as section headings in Wikipedia articles for lists of additional general texts on a topic for those interested, rather than for citations supporting the article."
• WP:MOS#Section_management equates Bibliography with Further reading.
• WP:LAYOUT#Standard_appendices_and_descriptions agrees with both of these long-standing statements.

This week, two editors seem to want to change the style guidelines to promote the title Bibliography to list citations that support the article instead of References (currently used in ~99% of articles with such a section). A third editor is pushing for a more complex version, currently involving the use of References as a level 2 heading under which several level 3 headings are placed, including Bibliography for the list of citations and External links.

The discussion began at WT:LAYOUT and may (finally) be in the process of moving to WT:CITE, due to my firm conviction that while all study guidelines are equal, some are more equal than others when it comes to rules for citing sources. As this could potentially affect several style guidelines and all 2,500,000+ Wikipedia articles, views from more than six editors are wanted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography should be used as a subsection or as a section used in conjunction with References, not as a replacement of such. Its purpose is to contain non-inline citation in which the section References is already used. I'm sorry if this confused you WhatamIdoing. ChyranandChloe (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

An experiment

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Lead section TT text and post any comments on its talk page. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Cite task force

I am proposing a task force to work on the Wikipedia citation system. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Citation Task Force --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a laudable aim that I encourage contributors to support. I'm willing to assist, but consider myself not very knowledgeable in these matters. What I do care about is that the current rag-tag chaos of citation templates be rationalised, and that editors be given the power to render dates without autoformatting when they use a template. Thank you. Tony (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Go add your name to the proposal. I had been mulling this over for quite a while, but the date issues are starting to be a burr in everyone's saddle. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Tracking MOS pages with VeblenBot

I have been asked to track MOS pages with VeblenBot, the same way that policy and guideline pages are tracked. Please comment at Wikipedia:VPP#Updating_VeblenBot. Thanks, — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Draft MOS subpage on glossaries

Resolved

 – Just an FYI; further discussion at WT:MOSGLOSS.

I'm glad the glossary thread at WT:MOS came up, because I'd actually already been giving this a lot of thought. I wrote it all up at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (glossaries) (which is tagged and categorized as a proposal, not as a style guideline).

Please have a look at it. I believe that it covers all the bases that it needs to, and is both guiding in general and flexible where it needs to be. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Images

Resolved

 – Discussion centralized at WT:MOS.

• Link to any relevant discussion: None that I know of. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Similar discussion occurring at WT:MOS. May I suggest that we keep the discussion in one place? Either here or there; I'm not fussed about which. Also, DanK55, preventing 'drop down' (image stack) is a trivial thing, so doesn't need to be a worry. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 21:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, WT:MOS is fine, I'll move it. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move and merge

Resolved

 – Just a pointer to another discussion; merge proposal discussions are centralized at merge target's talk page.

I propose moving Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists), WP:NCLL, to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (lists), WP:NCLIST, and merging in the naming-related material from WP:SAL, since that is a style guideline. There is already a section at WP:NCLL on lists in general, so that is where this material would go. WP:NCLL and its longer name would redirect to the new name. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's start

I think, I hope, this is going to work, so let's begin. See for instance WP:RfA Review/Reflect, which was enthusiastically attended; this is a recent project designed to get people to weigh in on RfA issues. The problem that led to the project was that a wide range of people were not buying in to the goals and methods at RfA. Lots of people were willing to complain, but few people were willing to help out by carefully considering their thoughts and participating in debate, for various reasons: they thought they were "out of the power structure" and wouldn't be listened to, and they were afraid that they wouldn't sound very smart if they tried to weigh in, because there were plenty of people who were fast to criticize, and the issues were complicated. Sound familiar?

Let's do something similar in some ways and not similar in others. Our job is easier in the sense that we already have a long record of questions and answers, so we know what people want to talk about; our job is harder because there are a huge number of talk archives that have various bits of relevant information. So we don't really have less work to do than the folks at WP:RfA Review; we probably have more. It's taking them several months just to collate the answers. [Removed stuff that was more relevant to 0.7; that's being dealt with now.] - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I see two projects, here, both intriguing; The first is a detailed copyedit and "certification" of the 30,000 articles of WP Version 1.0. The second is what might be termed a "MOS Review", as that would take the form of the questions and answers you mention. I can think of a methodology for the first (I'm thinking Milhist's tag & assess drive as a template), but I'm nowhere near familiar enough with MOS to begin to contemplate the second. For the RfA review, we drafted questions about the subject - in this case, you'd probably break the MOS into Images, Citations & References, Links, Infoboxes, Section Headings, See Also:, Naming conventions, and other sections, then get impressions on each - what works, what doesn't. RfA review was very specifically as open as possible, and you'd want the same here - but the key is that you don't bias the results by actually asking questions, just asking for opinions and letting editors throw them against the wall. Then, whatever sentiments seem to be the most widespread are used to guide thinking on the next phase, where you have editors offer suggestions on how to fix those problems - which is where we are with RfA Review right now. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Just a personal note: taking on a big project that is inherently about conflict makes me uneasy; I'd appreciate participation, and people checking my work, and expressions of support, and especially, co-workers!

One difference between RfA Review and style guidelines is that we already have the pages, and many discussions have already taken place; this isn't necessarily a difference in how we proceed, just where we proceed. Trying to do the same thing on two different pages generally doesn't work well, so the discussions about WP:CITE should probably be at WT:CITE. What we can do here is to talk about what has worked and what hasn't, about how to make it work. Here (or somewhere around here), we'll ask people who don't think things are working well at WP:CITE to say why. Was the talk page too argumentative? Were the issues too complex? Were you concerned that, no matter what you said, you'd lose anyway, so why bother? If we want WP 1.0 to succeed, we have to do whatever it takes to get more people participating and gaining confidence that the result of the process reflects professional and encyclopedic English, as perceived by a reasonable cross-section of Wikipedians.

Let me just quote myself from WT:Avoid_weasel_words#Demotion to essay:

• How do we adjust our Wikipedian instincts to the reality that no two wikiprojects will ever agree on all style guidelines? The only tool we have is consensus, and that tool is guaranteed not to work well; professional English is hard and it varies among countries and even from one section of a newspaper to the next. That's why no one knows all the style guidelines, even though it's a matter of policy that guidelines can't be ignored, and why WP:V0.7 is about to go on sale at Walmart largely un-copyedited.
• How do we overcome the known downsides of working in a nonprofit environment? The fun stuff gets done, the boring stuff doesn't. Working on your own articles is fun, copyediting articles you don't have a connection to is boring. Promoting style guidelines you feel passionately about is fun; reviewing existing guidelines you don't care about to see if they've been superceded by later work is boring ... and also thankless, since every page will have at least a few champions. There's around 99% agreement with the statement that current style guidelines are not likely to be read and absorbed even by all the very active editors; there's an impression that they are too difficult and extensive and not sufficiently reflective of consensus. How much pruning do we have to do to get a much higher rate of "buy-in"? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed a bit at WT:FAC, and I thought I'd throw my two cents in here too. As mentioned above, you've described two very large projects: streamlining the MOS and bringing articles into compliance for a future Wikipedia release. I think it will be impossible to run both of these initiatives from the same wikiproject - they are each incredibly large and will need a great deal of attention. In my opinion, this has to start with a streamline of the MOS. That will benefit a great number of editors and may make it a lot easier to recruit people for the second job (fixing the existing articles). Karanacs (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Solving the copyediting issue by October seems out of reach, so lets focus on the longer term and discuss MoS streamlining first. Hopefully, we will then have style guidelines that can be applied in time for version 1.0. Geometry guy 22:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Overlap

Thanks Karanacs, and Sandy also expressed the view that if we don't do things in the right order ... if we try to pull in a bunch of perspectives first, and then work on avoiding overlap and contradictions in the guidelines second ... then all we're doing is making a hard job harder. [I had an idea about asking people to demote style guidelines to essays, but I don't think it will work.] - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Dan, my friend, please work on the WP:TLDR factor :-) As soon as I hit "let's propose on at least 50 of those style guidelines talk pages that they take a voluntary demotion to an essay", you lost me. That won't fly. Again, first catalogue the issues, the redundancy, overlap and contradictions. From that will flow the rest. A whole ton of those pages are probably redundant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I cogitated. I have no problem with working on CAT:GEN and doing that before trying to pull in more support ... in fact, you may have noticed that no one from WP:VPP and only G-Guy from WT:GAN has shown up here; so really, there's nothing to do, yet. But we've got a problem on the horizon; I'm going to start working on the 30K articles to edit, and someone's going to revert me, I'm going to say "per MOS", they're going to say "so what", and then we land at maybe WP:3RR. Then what? What do I say? "It's a style guideline"? How far does that get me, when almost no one knows what the 90 style guidelines are, or has read them, or knows the difference between style guidelines, wikiproject style guidelines, essays, etc? Isn't this a problem that needs fixing, at some point? This isn't FAC or GAN we're talking about, where there's a great deal of contentment and buy-in; this is hostile (grin) territory. I've got some ideas for how to tackle the problem, but I'd like to hear how other people are going to approach this first, to get an idea of what's feasible. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Dan, when I do MoS cleanup, I *only* do the straightforward and uncontroversial, and as far as I know, I'm almost never reverted. If you focus on basics, you should be fine (WP:ACCESS, WP:LAYOUT, WP:DASH, WP:MOS#Ellipses, WP:PUNC, WP:ALLCAPS, WP:MSH, WP:MOS#Images and probably a few I've missed ... I think User:Epbr123 has a list on his user page). Generally, editors are appreciative, as they just weren't aware. I can't imagine, though, why anyone would attempt editing of 30,000 articles. It seems to me that a more effective way to raise awareness about the basic MoS issues is to get FAs in line first, and then maybe GAs. For example, WP:LEAD and WP:LAYOUT are part of WP:WIAGA, but as far as I can tell, those items are rarely checked, and I catch them when they show up at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I like Sandy's suggestion. My proposed steps for the overall project:

• I think we should begin by cataloging what documents exist as part of the MOS and where they overlap.
• After we know the scope of the issue we can initiate a discussion on which can be streamlined or combined.
• Once we have a (slightly) more concise list of discrete guidelines we can determine the best method to proceed on cleanup. We may want to have a large RfC or something to let people discuss which guidelines they feel are actually valuable. Or, to speed up the process, we might propose several versions ourselves of which guidance we think can/should be eliminated. The approach will probably need to be decided after we know the breadth of the problem. This step will likely take a long time.
• After we have a new list of guidelines for inclusion, then we need to dialogue with the GA team and ask them to reconsider which ones they consider appropriate standards for their process. The new and improved MOS will also need to be widely advertised.
• Once we have the guidelines themselves ironed out, a new project should focus on copyediting existing articles to get them up to standard. We may be able to host training sessions with wikiprojects to help interested editors see how the guidelines apply to their pet subject.

Karanacs (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• This would be a very good thing to do. If a whole-MoS audit isn't conducted (it's a big big job), the alternative is for people to pick of groups of subpages that are highly likely to overlap etc., and to name them here as under audit. I tried to start such a process at the start of this Wikiproject, but no one responded. I'm willing to pick off a few easy ones. Tony (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC) PS Where are the archives? This is MOSCO, isn't it? Tony (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I didn't delete anything; all the old stuff is in the one archive page. You can pull any of it back in, but I wanted to make sure people saw that we've got deadlines with WP 0.7 and WP 1.0; I was hoping we'd attract some new workers, but it's not working, yet. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
    • P.S. Progress is being made; current consensus at WP:WEASEL is "demote to essay". - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Doesn't look like consensus to me; but I prefer, and wish you would consider, dealing with such cases by changing to {{guideline}}. They still are widely agreed on, but they're out of MOS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I'll back away from saying what looks like consensus, and focus on trying to present all the relevant arguments and let others decide. See that page for discussion. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Another big picture item is that there needs to be a process by which a pages is added to style guidelines. I've told this story before, but when WP:MEDMOS was added to MoS, we were forced to jump through hoops. We were told we had to get broad consensus, we posted at the Village Pump, MoS and at over 20 WikiProjects. As far as I know, no other MoS page has had to go through that, and it's not clear what kind of consensus is needed before a page is added to MoS. Guidelines about the guidelines are needed, and they should include a discussion about not repeating text that is already covered in another guideline or policy page, which pages cover what, and by what process is a guideline added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Part of a broader problem: what do a page need to have done to become a guideline (or, for that matter, a policy) at all? I suspect that there are people checking the policy tag, and any page that just decides to be one will get reverted; but that may be wishful thinking. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

VeblenBot reports policy promotions and demotions at WP:VPP; I think it covers all policy categories, but I'm not sure. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe it failed to cover a few guideline categories, and this error was brought up in the Pump and rectified; that's how the discussion started to initiate reports for style guidelines here, after all.

Now, let's identify, succinctly, which are the exact problems with the Manual of Style. It is:

1. Sprawling – It's so large that people just don't bother follow it or try and understand it.
2. Vague – No one really knows where it starts and where it ends, and there are many borderline guidelines.
3. Disorganised – There is no clear structure, and people get easily lost.
4. Repeating – There is significant overlap, causing inconsistencies and confusion.

I think I've got the basic ones. One can see that they are interconnected: if one of these is improved, they all do. Now, solutions:

1. We need to clip and merge where we can. This is a slow process and will rely a lot on the other steps, as good mergers are dependent on better organisation. However, I don't think we can cut so much as some people have suggested; if you consider the great variety of areas the Manual covers, and that there are quite plausibly topics it isn't covering yet and will have to in the future, you will see that a large MoS is inevitable. So, I say just trim the fat and pay more attention to the other points that follow.
2. We need to delineate the Manual and specify certain criteria and consensus thresholds for inclusion into the corps. The current anarchy, especially as far as WikiProject guidelines are concerned, is the cause of much confusion in the application of style guidelines, as well as the organisation of the Manual itself. Some progress has already started being made here; I find that proper management of the categories is crucial on this front.
3. We need to adopt a form of organisation that will make each individual guidelines easily accessible and the whole more coherent and less intimidating. Taking for granted that, even in a reduced form, the Manual will have many pages, and that a number of them includes several clearly defined parts, I have started thinking that we need attractive methods of navigation distinguishing not so much between pages as between important sections within them. A nice navbox, for example, with collapsible groups of relevant links (like the grouping example in UltraExactZZ's message in the previous section) would be most helpful. An index, as suggested in various forms and places, would also help; I have in mind a full index of MoS concepts along the lines of WP:EIW. It would also help with...
4. ...eliminating overlap, as it would make it immediately obvious where a concept refers to multiple locations. We must also define the relations between the main page and the rest; overlap between the supplementary pages is undesirable, but between them and the main page it is often needed.

I hope this is a good summary. Waltham, The Duke of 08:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a great summary; the only thing you left out is that, as UltraExactZZ will tell you, some editors will not buy the final result if their opinions on the matter are not tabulated and presented to the community for their approval. It's a big job, but I don't think that part of the job can be skipped. Gazimoff and UltraExactZZ did a great job with that, and Ultra has offered to help here.

On a personal note, this is exactly the kind of thing I thought I would be doing, but the Version 0.7 deadlines are going to be brutal, and apparently I'm some kind of minor functionary in charge of copyediting for that. I'll be back after the close date for Version 0.7. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:15, 10 September 2008 (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) 18:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

An example of a serious conflict

I present here an example of a serious conflict that flew under the radar: Wikipedia:Sister projects, being elevated to a guideline, while in conflict with WP:EL and WP:LAYOUT. This is exactly the sort of thing a WikiProject needs to identify, putting guidelines in place so that our pages will be in sync. See my posts at the two pages, here and here. By what process did Wikipedia:Sister projects become a guideline, and why was it allowed to become a guideline when it was in conflict with other guidelines, and how can we identify and catalog the conflicts, contradictions and redundancies that exist across all guideline pages? We need a process to manage the process by which pages become guidelines. This page elevates non-reliable content that we wouldn't even allow in most cases as External links to a place within the body of our articles, against WP:EL and WP:LAYOUT (not to mention reliable sources), and opens the door for editors to get content into our articles that our policies would normally disallow (see the Stuttering FAR for an example of advert, COI, non-RS text that simply moved to WikiBooks so it could try to be linked in our Stuttering article). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been a guideline since before 2007. You make a very good point about having to keep an eye on links to sister projects; I've never known how to handle this. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Even worse, that an obscure page has been out of sync with pages widely quoted and accessed (WP:EL and WP:LAYOUT) for over a year. These are the problems that MOSCO should be addressing. In this case, it's not about commas, dashes, and date links. It affects our content, as it allows non-reliable, inaccurate information into Wiki articles, against policy. The sister projects are a back door for POV, advert, spam and COI content that is excluded from Wiki articles (see the example on the Stuttering FAR, where the author simply moved his content to WikiBooks). I know that dashes and dates and commas and ellipses matter a lot; this matters a lot more. It is about our fundamental accuracy and reliability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I started a conversation on this subject started last week at WT:POLICY#Proposing_guidelines. I posted a proposed process ~12 hours ago; please feel free to add your thoughts. (It's in a sandbox in my userspace, but I'm happy to have any experienced editor make changes.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

WhatamI, go back in MEDMOS archives and see the hoops we were forced to jump though before adding MEDMOS as a guideline; for some reason, we were the only ones. We posted to MOS, to the Village Pump, and to at least 20 other Projects. We can't have these turf wars, where a couple of editors come in and change a long-standing, oft-quoted, oft-referenced page because a few of them developed a contradictory guideline at another page. And, I've been trying to call attention to this forever: until we catalog and index all of the contradictions and redundancies, we are spinning our wheels. This contradictory guideline at an obscure Sister projects page just happened to surface, and as I've always warned, we have no means of solving it, but we do have one editor willing to edit war to change a long-standing page to his preferred version of another obsure page. We need a much bigger picture than what is on your page, although it's a start. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The generic problem is well-known. The question is - "what is the appropriate solution"? Expecting a vast number of editors with varied backgrounds and knowledge of Wikipedia, few of whom will have more than a general understanding of the history and scope of MOS, and with whom there is no easy way to communicate, to start lining up to support across-the-board consistency, coherence and integrity is a pipe-dream. It may have worked when MOS was in its infancy, but it's not gong to happen now. What then are the options? They would include:

1) An Arb-com type solution. A small cadre of trusted editors elected on a regular basis to bring coherence to the beast that is MOS. An change to any MOS related page requires their agreement. Advantage - maximum chance of achieving the goal. Disadvantage - minimum chance of getting community agreement. All editors of good standing want fairness and justice for all. Only a proportion of editors (mostly GA and FA writers and reviewers I suspect) care that much about MOS and will not relish more beauracracy and interference in their right to edit anything and everything and/or their pet project's new style guidelines.

2) A sysop type solution. As for the above but trusted editors are admitted to a cabal via an RfA style process. An advantage over (1) is that anyone with a serious interest might hope to join up one day rather than just the rich and famous. Disadvantages include as per (1) above (although maybe a little less so), and a perceived danger that the style police will rum amok.

3) Harden up MOS into a policy that subsidiary page guidelines have to conform to. I am not sure how this would work, but it might encourage more editors to watch the main MOS page? Likely to be controversial.

4) Leave MOS as a guideline, but create a new policy. This policy would state something along the lines that whilst MOS itself is a guideline, in order to promote consistency and the good name of all things Wikipedia all related/subsidiary pages that deal with style issues must conform to the 'main page'. In my view it should also say that no change of substance should be made to MOS without it being discussed on the talk page first, but that's another issue. Advantage - may be the simplest to create. Disadvantage - may be hard to enforce, but whilst few people may wish to engage in an edit war with WikiProject X whose new 'proposed policy' is to allow ampersands in page titles (or whatever), it might be quite different if reverting such changes were backed up by policy and a group of folks committed to making it work.

I'm a little out of my depth here - some of these may have been tried, some may be unworkable. I'm just trying to come up with a shopping list. Ben MacDui 08:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

All of this points to a need for a meta-guideline and some accompanying process to regulate how style guidelines are added and removed from the Manual of Style. However this is done, it will ultimately only be enforceable, like anything on Wikipedia, if it is backed by the weight of consensus. The arbcom/sysop type solutions will only work if the need for such policing is widely recognised and the principles widely supported, in which case, there is perhaps not much need for an elite group anyway: we can all help to control the proliferation and inconsistencies of style guidelines as long as we have an agreed set of ground rules and principles.

This meta-guideline can't be part of MoS main, because it is not part of the Manual of Style – it is about the Manual of Style, and "hardening" MoS main is unlikely to gain consensus support.

Fortunately, such process coordination of style guidelines is precisely the raison d'etre of MOSCO (this WikiProject). So this is the place to define what we mean by the Manual of Style and a style guideline, to agree a process for regulating guidelines, and to build consensus for action when style guidelines violate these principles.

In particular, I suggest that proposals for new style guidelines should be made here. Here are some suggested principles for such proposals.

1. There must be a clear need for proposed style guideline: the quality of the encyclopedia is being compromised by its absence.
2. The proposal is not covered by an existing guideline and cannot be incorporated into an existing guideline.
3. The proposed guideline does not conflict with pre-existing (style) guidelines and policies.

Once a few people agree a provisional process, they can start reverting additions to the Manual of Style which have not been approved (using the tracking provided by VeblenBot) with an edit summary linking to MOSCO. Interested editors will soon come here complaining, and we can then start to build the consensus that such an approval process is necessary. Geometry guy 11:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

See also the parallel thread at Wikipedia_talk:Policy#Proposing guidelines and the recent discussion at WP:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_54#How many editors have actually read the Manual of Style?. G-Guy, I'm very happy to see your participation here. It's not a secret that work on style guidelines is hampered by factionalization. No one here is at fault for this, but people here might help fix it. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a faction of one :-) Geometry guy 16:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent start, G guy's ideas will be helpful going forward, but what about resolving current guideline pages that are redundant and contradictory? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance, but what is a "meta-guideline"? Ben MacDui 18:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I made the word up to refer to a guideline about guidelines, as opposed to (say) article content or user conduct. WP:POLICY is an example of a meta-guideline (or even a meta-policy!). A meta-meta-guideline would be a guideline about meta-guidelines ("Anything you can do, I can do meta"), but lets hope we don't need those! :-) Geometry guy 18:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

So in the spirit of not calling a spade an "agricultural implement for moving earth", I think we are agreed that per my No. 4 above, what is needed is a proposal to create an overarching policy to govern style guidelines. I can't see any value in avoiding use of the second of these 'p' words myself. If that be the case then by all means let us move on to the next stage. Ben MacDui 20:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> light at the end of the tunnel, hope it's not a freight train. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we create a sub-page for defining the guideline. Here is a place that could be used to monitor overall MOS changes Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Wikipedia_style_guidelines. Morphh ^(talk) 20:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The only sister project that could agree with at this point regarding embedding sister project links in the context is Wiktionary. I've used this when there was insufficient information to create an article on a term, but still wanted some link to better inform the reader and a dictionary was sufficient. I also don't see Wiktionary as a large issue with backdooring Wikipedia policy. I'm not firm on this though... and could go either way. All the others should go into External links. We should rewrite the sister project guideline to reflect the long standing Layout guideline. Morphh ^(talk) 14:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be fixed, but for the purposes of this page, it serves as an example of multiple pages that were out of sync and no one knew it (WP:LAYOUT, WP:EL, Wikipedia:Sister projects and numerous others that are contradicted by the Sibling project page); I continue to implore that we need to prioritize two goals: 1) develop a meta-guideline for guidelnes and 2) catalogue the redundancies and inconsistencies to see how bad the problem is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Another conflict, LEAD and MOS

What happened to alternate names in the lead, bolded ?

At WP:MOS, we have:

Wikipedia:MOS#First_sentences

But at WP:LEAD, we have nothing: another contradiction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I inserted "Equivalent names may follow, and may or may not be in boldface" at WP:LEAD. One editor was arguing for less bolding on the talk page; I'm going to start by talking with that editor privately and then report to the group. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Where does Wikipedia:Writing better articles#First sentence fit into this discussion? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a never ending black hole :-) My aim with these examples is to show that we must get a method to get a handle on the beast. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Noticeboard suggestion

Because of my post above, and Dank55's subsequent post to the talk page of WP:LEAD, I realized I had missed a thread there started by Tony1. If an editor who follows MoS and stalks Tony misses a thread, that gives us an idea of how bad the problem is. Suggestion:

We need a MoS noticeboard, similar to WP:RSN, WP:FTN, etc. All talk pages of all style guidelines could include a notice at the top about centralized discussions there: it could be a place for 1) centralizing questions, 2) centralizing changes to guideline pages, and 3) centralizing approval of new guideline pages. I can't keep up with all the damn MoS pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to this idea at all, but I'd like 24 hours before I respond; I've asked for opinions from 2 people who are not regular contributors to style guidelines to get their take. Also, somewhere early on in the process, we need to post at WT:CONSENSUS and WP:VPP on this, because those folks have had a fairly negative reaction in the past to any and all guidelines along the lines of "before you make edit X, you must first do Y". I do believe that we have a valid need and that we won't break the wiki, but there are some people we need to get on board if we don't want to derail. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject talk banner

Would anyone object to me creating a talk page WikiProject template that alerted interested editors to the project. I didn't even know this project existed until someone told me. It would be helpful to apply this to some of the MOS talk pages so other editors can get involved. Morphh ^(talk) 13:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great, everyone is welcome. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here it is... Morphh ^(talk) 14:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's very good. My only suggestion is that it allude to language as well as the measurement, mathematical side. But it's no big deal. Thanks. Tony (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Added "improve language" to the description. Morphh ^(talk) 14:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This was a very good idea! Geometry guy 16:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, Morphh; hopefully it will bring in more members. Maybe if someone has time they can drop notes to the original signers on this Project that attempts are underway to invigorate the page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Morph, I was referring to the graphic, not the accompanying text. The MoSes are mostly about language, but I see only mathamatical references in the icon. But again, no bid deal. However, I suggest a slightly tweaked text:

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines.

Tony (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Tony, thanks for clarifying. I've reworded it as you suggested and added a new icon. I'm not sure what would be the best icon but here are some others I thought might fit. Morphh ^(talk) 14:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8

Thanks, Morph. I feel like I've made a storm in a teacup. To me, the new one is too cluttered. If the fountain-pen one (No. 3 with the blue background) isn't yet taken, why not pounce on it. It's simple and distinctive, and in an ironic way (outmoded tool) encapsulates the ambit of MOS over the linguistic and the numerical/mathematical. Tony (talk) 03:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Transclude text has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Transclude text (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, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Copied from WT:MOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have any idea what this Bot message is about? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The category 'Wikipedia style guidelines' was added to Wikipedia:Transclude text, which means that page is now part of the Manual of Style. The messages are to let people know when pages are added to, or removed from, the manual of style. If there is any way I can improve the 'more information' page, please let me know. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

ah, thanks, now I get it. Maybe you should add User talk:Tony1/Monthly updates of styleguide and policy changes to the notification list? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be very easy to do. Tony, when you read this - how do you feel about that? — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, are you notifying WP:MOSCO? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, now the issue (and thanks for the notice). I don't agree that page is ready for guideline status nor that it should have been added. By what process was it added and by what process do we remove it? While the goal is indeed worthy, until redundancies and contradictions across existing MoS pages are catalogued and resolved, we can't be transcluding text from one (possibly disputed, as in the current case of Sister projects) page to another. This isn't ready for primetime yet; first things first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The page itself is labeled an experiment. Is there any reason why it shouldn't, with that limitation, be included on a list of style guide articles? Better to give it the light of day (to live or die on its merits) rather than hide it away in a corner to fester in darkness. (In response to Sandy's concern: There isn't a Sister project transclude text page in part because it is disputed.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, used only as an example of work we need to do as a Project, it highlights the issues: by what process did it become a guideline? A couple of editors tagged it? There was some discussion and posting across a wide number of pages first? We have to stop this business of anything gets elevated to guideline status without broad consensus, no matter how worthy the page. This particular page is an experiment, hence obviously shouldn't be designated guideline and isn't ready. I'm not picking on this page rather the fact that we have no process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)