Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Manual of Style/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

MOS:DAB

I started a discussion that editor's here might be interested in: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Contradiction in people section.Cptnono (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete improper "MOS:" pseudo-namespace redirects, or adopt (some of) their targets into MoS?

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 3#MOS:

The nom is certainly right that these redirects should not exist if the pages are not in the MOS. Some of those listed in this group deletion nomination (of the redirects, not the pages they redirect to - mostly essays) should definitely not be in the MoS. I say, however, that some definitely should, especially the target of MOS:BETTER, which is used as a guideline, and is the product of a lot of consensus-building editing over many years by many 'Pedians, and is no longer simply an essay, in my view. There are some other candidates for elevation to MoS status, I would think, but I'll let others chime in. The one I feel most strongly about is MOS:BETTER. It's very much a WP style guideline at this point. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 06:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC) NB: No naming conventions pages are part of the MoS, so all of the MOS redirs to them should be removed. That accounts for about half of the entries in the nomination. It can be argued that all of the NC pages should be part of MoS. I'm neutral-ish on the matter. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 06:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to standardize citation style across all articles

Editors here may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/example style#why_not_standardize_on_one_format.3F, an effort to impose a one-size-fits-all citation style on every article. My overall impression is that the goals are to ban general references, to require the use of <ref> tags (banning WP:PAREN and all other forms of WP:Inline citations), and to require the use of citation templates.

I'm leaving this note because the discussion is taking place on a fairly obscure talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikiproject guides moving to MOS space

FYI, a large number of WikiProject local guides are being renamed to MOS names, without any indication that those guides have any support other than local wikiproject support. See WP:RM contributions by user:Bernolákovčina

65.93.14.196 (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Editors here may want to see User talk:WhatamIdoing#I_Am_Trying_To_Cleanup_The_Category, where Bernolákovčina (a "new" user with extensive knowledge) has explains that s/he "needs to" tag {{Wikiproject style advice}} pages as community-wide {{MoS-guideline}} pages, and possibly delete Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation of TV show titles

An issue has arisen regarding the Canadian adaptation of the UK TV Series Being Human.

I have just moved Being Human (Canadian TV series) to Being Human (2011 TV series) as WP:MOSTV states "If a television article already exists with the name of the show that you are trying to create an article for, use (YEAR TV series) in the title: Show Title (YEAR TV series) (e.g. The Incredible Hulk (1982 animated TV series) and The Incredible Hulk (1996 animated TV series))."

However, WP:NC-TV#Additional disambiguation isn't so sure. It states "Prefix the country of broadcast" first, then follows with "Prefix the year of release or series debut"

Any opinions on this?

Rob Sinden (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree the conflict is a bloody mess. I mean the policy conflict. I moved it from Being Human (U.S. TV series) to Being Human (2011 TV series) and i had to prove that it is made in Montreal by a company based in Montreal and that Montreal is not part of the United States of America. If one goes with the country then there is the massive fight, of which it might be me against everyone else, over whether to put in US or Canadian TV series. It has become somewhat of a theme from me to come along and say, "Sorry folks but this 'American' show is actually made in Canada by a company based in Montreal/Toronto/Victoria/Calgary/etc for THIS Canadian channel and has simply been imported to the US so we can have Canadian or YEAR or North American if disambiguation is needed." People i am finding more often than not really, really, really, really hate being told that a tv show is not American. An obvious British import is ok. Sneaking a Canadian show into a schedule is not so ok. I moved Being Human from US to 2011 because it seemed a good way to avoid a fight. Someone came along and moved it to Canadian because the original version is still ongoing and then there was objection to such overt labelling of it as Canadian (moreso in comments on many external sites than here on WP). The remake of Skins is in the same situation but there is a fight/discussion regarding Skins. Both of these shows are made in Canada by Canadian companies for Canadian cable channels but due to their also being shown in the US they are de facto labelled as American when the articles are written because American press is more prominent. Queer As Folk existed for many years on WP being called an American series despite it being made in Toronto by a Toronto-based production company for a Toronto-based Canadian cable channel just because it was shown on Showtime in the US and Showtime tossed in a little bit of money to get co-production credit. Now we have a rather long title that of late noöne is fighting over, Queer as Folk (North American TV series). Since all of these shows require disambiguation in the article names due to being remakes of British TV this presents quite the problem. Personally i prefer labelling bi-national remakes of British shows by year of premiere because "North American TV series" is just really long and uncommon and to avoid the intense fighting over nationality of the shows mostly because rarely is a discussion not dominated by Americans and the plethora of American reliable sources they can site to show i am wrong or in the minority for saying the company making a show and its principal channel are Canadian. What mention there was of Skins being made in Toronto and starring many Canadians has been almost entirely removed from the article so as to solidify its Americanised status. Haven (TV series) presently requires no disambiguation for tv remakes but it is another bi-national production between Shaw Media and NBC Universal. Shattered (2010 TV series) is set in Canada but bought for international broadcast by NBC Universal. Rookie Blue is made by Canadian companies for domestic broadcast and is set in Toronto but bought by ABC for US broadcast and by NBC Universal for international broadcast. For a year the article on Rookie Blue called it a forthcoming American TV series. Then there is The Listener (TV series); i have heard rumour of there being remakes elsewhere which if they materialise would necessitate disambiguating those. This might not all be so on-topic for here but the policies and guidelines are reflective of the editing and the editing can in places be extremely anti-non-American and it is very frustrating to be a (relatively) lone voice. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 00:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I moved Being Human (2011 TV series) to Being Human (Canadian TV series) yesterday because the original show is still airing with a new season out this year. The example of Shattered (2010 TV series) that you gave is not really valid in this case because the original show only existed in 2004 and is not being produced at the same time. Hopefully we can get some consensus from some other members regarding this. Themeparkgc  Talk  08:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Shattered is an example of a word common enough that it is possible a third show of that name could come along 2 years from now. Problems now and potential future issues with the naming was what i was showing. The issues are not all the same but i was trying to show the variety of issues connected to disambiguating shows of same name or of a single common word that may be from the same or different countries and might be overlapping or not and multinational or of one country. With the increase in popularity of importing Canadian shows to the US or co-producing shows with Canadian companies the national disambiguation gets very tricky, especially if the show is really popular. There is a precedent for use of "North American" but it is both long and uncommon to search for so national redirects ought to exist. "North American" very easily gets shortened to "American" and then MOS corrected to "U.S." and it is right back to where it started. :P delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 08:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the credits of the Canadian/North American/2011 version include "U.S. casting by Deedee Bradley" and "Developed for North American television by Jeremy Carver & Anna Fricke". This shows that a) although it's made in Canada by a Canadian company, the casting at least had US production involvement, and b) the phrase "North American TV" is supported by the production itself. Since the year is ambiguous and "North American TV series" is both unambiguous and supported by the source, I say we should go with that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
In order to avoid all this U.S./Canadian/North American confusion, wouldn't it be best to disambiguate by year, using nationality only as a secondary disambiguation if necessary, much like with films, and then have hatnotes in the case where both shows are still in production? The conflicting guidelines should be updated also. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that if two shows with the same name are made during the same year, then using the year as a disambiguation doesn't actually, y'know, disambiguate. The purpose of disambiguation is to distinguish articles which would otherwise have the same title, but "Being Human (2011 series)" could refer to either the North American series or the third series/season of the UK programme. (The fact that British television uses "series" where North American TV uses "season" adds to the confusion: UK media will refer to "the third series of Being Human", or even "the 2011 series of Being Human" to refer to the run of episodes starting next Sunday.)
If we go back to the purpose of disambiguation, in this particular case we need to use a geographical disambiguator. And "North American" makes the most sense, since it's used in the source material. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I support the "North American" disambiguation. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I've moved it to Being Human (North American TV series). The point of disambiguation is to disambiguate, and if one show with this name is still being made in 2011 then using "2011" as a disambiguator for the other doesn't disambiguate at all. Added to which, as Josiah Rowe says, "series" in British English also means "season" in American English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

So, anyone have thoughts on the remake of Skins and what i can do? I had moved it to Skins (North American TV series) about a week ago and it was moved back. Among many other things I have been told not to make up stories that Canada and the US are in North America and there are somewhat not-veiled threats to block people who add any bit of Canada to the article and that Canada should get its own version - the discussion there is going nowhere. I am not sure if those objecting understand the disambiguating of article titles. If you are able to see the end credits of the premiere then you can see the info that says it is produced in association with the two Canadian cable networks that show the series and other stuff that actually has it more Canadian than American. The problem in that is that mtv.com cut the end credits from their stream and maybe from their broadcast of the ep too; you can see the credits on the stream from the Canadian broadcaster. I wrote a lot there but it is mostly trying to find a way to explain how a show could possibly be made by companies from more than one country with more than one intended market. I just don't know what to do about Skins and i don't want it to be another QAF where the article existed for years full of nationally skewed info purely for being set in a US city. And yes, a few days ago i thought North American TV series ought to be used on Being Human too but i thought everyone had heard enough from me. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 22:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You guys have over complicated this. Lets base the name the way that other popular shows do.... (e.g. X Factor and American Idol) Being Human (TV series) is what the British (original) version of the show is called. So the Canadian version should be called Being Human (Canadian TV series). If subsequent versions are made then yes Being Human (TV series) would need to become a dab page. But for now this should suffice. A hate note about the canadian version would suffice at the current page. All other na,e deviations are non-standard. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 01:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point, Lil-unique1. Nobody's talking about moving the articles for the British originals; we're talking about what the best disambiguator for the remakes is. There is a legitimate ambiguity about whether these shows are best described as US or Canadian productions; they're filmed in Canada, by Canadian production companies, but they're set in US cities, made primarily for the US television market, with cast from both countries. In the case of Being Human, the show's own credits describe it as "developed for North American television", so it would seem that "North American" is supported by the source material over either "US" or "Canadian". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Procedural note I have move-protected the page for now. Once a consensus has become clear here I'd be happy to do the move myself or remove the protection. If I am not available any other admin is free to use their own judgement. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the title Being Human (North American TV series) because it's a Canadian-American co-production. As it would be ridiculous and overly long to disambiguate it as Being Human (Canadian-American TV series, just "North American" makes sense. WoundedWolfgirl (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that the title Being Human (North American TV Series) would be appropriate since broadcast and production are not country specific. However discussion regarding the disambiguation of the name of the article also brings up the issue of country of origin for this article. At current the article states that the country(ies) of origin are the United Kingdom and the United States. If referencing the concept or idea for the show then the United Kingdom would be correct, but I don't believe this is the intended "origin" to which the heading in the info box refers. If country of origin refers to the filming of the show, would Canada not be appropriate? Or Canada and the United States? Could this perhaps be an issue with other TV show articles? Sorry to throw another issue into the mix. Generic1487 (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Generic1487 et al., I am the one was so mean, and nasty, and disruptive in pointing out all of these shows premiering this month that are all made in Canada by Canadian companies for Canadian broadcasters that have been labelled as American due to their also being shown in the US. It has annoyed some people to no end. The fall out has not been so pleasant for myself either. Still, in light of Rookie Blue having been called an American show for a year before it premiered despite being made by, in, and for Canada with US broadcast rights later sold to ABC and Queer As Folk being called American for some 4+ years despite it being made in Canada by a Canadian company and intentionally bi-national from its inception i could not just sit by and edit the articles without saying booo about this application that if it is on American TV it is American unless it is obviously British. Oddly enough i then get called POV-obsessed for saying shows are Canadian despite what all of the American press calls them. Americans citing American sources to call shows made in Canada to be American shows is just so offensive to myself and is basically usurping Canadian entertainment industry through perpetual ignorance and misinformation. Nikita is one of many American shows made in Canada. Reliable sources can be wrong. The critic for the Wall Street Journal called the version of 18 to Life that was picked up by The CW "adapted from a Canadian hit".[1] It wasn't a remake but the "Canadian hit" itself. So much for accuracy of a reliable source. So i removed England from the country of origin for the Being Human remake but i left US in because i am just not in a mood right now for that much of a fight. Country of origin is well the country of origin. It shouldn't be that hard. Unless the US has invaded Montreal then the country of origin is simply Canada.
Being one of few Canadians who edits Canadian tv shows that are also popular in the US i see this same stuff on many shows' articles. When it is myself against 3 or 7 people and their pile of American sources they can simply bury me with consensus despite them and their sources not really being accurate but they are from generally reliable American publications that i might use in some circumstances. It is a most futile experience. No American show that gets picked up by a UK channel suddenly is a British show by virtue of being transmitted there. Even with House's titular character being portrayed by a British actor and Sky1 acquiring rights to the show it is still an American show. So why do the American editors here and the American press in general essentially steal all of the Canadian shows that are "good enough" for American viewers? Will they do the same should an Australian show make it to NBC at some time in the future? Why does noöne claim Doctor Who is American because it is on BBC America or Merlin to be American because it is on Syfy and was on NBC? Anyone who says it is the target market being US that makes it American is claiming that Shaw (a Canadian TV network-cable channel-cable company-isp-mobilephone-satellite tv-radio-tv production company) is making shows for the US rather than their own distribution system. Sure, many of the shows currently being made by Shaw are of such quality that someone bough US broadcast rights to most of them. Not one of them is actually being co-produced by a US company. As an example: Rookie Blue is an American tv police procedural drama set in Toronto that is filmed on location in Toronto and at production company Shaw Media (formerly CanWest)'s studios in Toronto which stars American actors Missy Peregrym and Gregory Smith and debuted on ABC on June 24, 2010. If you see nothing wrong with that sentence other than its poor structure then :( I think it best i watch some tv rather than write about it. Laters. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 07:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of MOS

What is the purpose of editors attempting to write these guidelines when they are completely ignored on pages with the usual cry that it is only a guideline. The consensus reached on the numerous MOS all by different editors should carry some weight. Mo ainm~Talk 21:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Compliance with the MOS pages is required for featured articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Flag icons at Variants of English templates

A number of parallel discussions are currently underway at three of these template talk pages namely

Other templates that would potentially be affected include Template:Australian English and Template:Canadian English, among others.

If there is a legitimate issue with a flag on a particular template (which appears to be the case with Hiberno-English), then replace it with something else (i.e. the outline of Ireland or something). Otherwise, I'm not sure there is a wider problem. I don't see any issues with the Australian and Canadian flags on those respective templates. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
It was strongly suggested at Template talk:British English that a centralised discussion take place. This seems the logical place for it to happen. If a consensus is to emerge it may affect all these similar templates. RashersTierney (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think I disagree with having a centralized discussion. I just don't think a specific problem requires an across the board solution. The Australian and Canadian flags are the visual aids that are most likely to be recognized as symbols of those two variants. Much better than any of the other solutions suggested in those discussions mentioned above, all of which seemed more concerned with political issues than what visuals are likely to be of most assistance to the reader/editor. If people think there are more appropriate/less offensive alternatives for the British and Irish templates, power to them. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ther ar two main arguments for the removal of the flags

  • "British English" spelling isn't only used in the UK. Other states wher it is widely used include the Republic of Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India and Pakistan. Therfore, it's inaccurat to use the UK flag to represent it. The same applies to "American English" and the US flag.
  • Some editors deem it provocativ and/or offensiv to show these flags on certain articles.

(UTC) ~Asarlaí 19:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Not true that it's inaccurate to use the Union Jack. The flag indicates that the version of the language originates in the UK, and that is useful information (same for the US flag on the AmE template).
They are not shown on articles they are shown on Talk pages. Some editors also find it offensive that flags should be removed to placate what might be seen as a nationalist POV. LevenBoy (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2011
@Skeezix1000 The issue was first raised as far back as March on the 'American English' page. RashersTierney (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
So? You seem peeved somehow that I don't take it as it an accepted fact that we must absolutely come up with a solution that affects all the templates. If there is a problem with a flag on a specific template, fix it. If there isn't, leave it. I'm not sure why I am not allowed to have that opinion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not peeved. I made a proposal as suggested by another ed. elsewhere. RashersTierney (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
So then why are you posting these responses? I'm still wondering what the start date of the U.S. discussion has anything to do with what I said. I probably wouldn't have contributed aything to this discussion other than my initial comment, but you keep responding as though I have missed something or I am not getting something. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Put simply, I don't see how the flag icons could be replaced at the first three templates without a logic emerging that also affected similar templates. I have no wish to antagonise, but how else can I address your doubts other than by responding as best I can? RashersTierney (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. I suspect that's a widely held opinion. I'm not sure I agree, though. Why is there any need for them to be consistent? By their very nature, none of these templates will ever appear on the same talk page. We don't have standardized visuals for Wikiproject tags, why would we need them here? Personally, I think the goal of using the most recognizable/helpful visual aid trumps standardization. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me try to summarise the main points that we need to consider:

  1. When these templates are used correctly, the flags correspond very well to the political entities representing the region where a language variant is spoken.
  2. The flags are easily recognisable, much clearer than almost everything that could replace them, except that we could consider adding a symbol that makes it clear it's about the language. (Otherwise the template looks a bit like a project template for the state in question.)
  3. The flags may occasionally appear on the talk pages of articles with no intrinsic relation to the state or the variant of English, because a speaker of that variant was the first significant contributor to the article. This should not normally be a problem.
  4. For various reasons, variants of English that are not American English are likely to be (incorrectly) classified as British English, even if they are not British English but some other variant such as Hibernian English, Australian English, New Zealand English or Canadian English.
  5. This can lead to the Union Jack appearing on the talk pages of articles where it should not appear; in the worst case on the talk pages of articles related to Ireland, but more likely (and with similar disruptive potential) of articles created by Irish editors.

In my opinion item 4 is the real problem. Ideally editors would not abuse the "British English" template for "not American English", but I don't think we can change this. This is a pity, because it means that many articles are tagged incorrectly and we can't really do anything about it.

Here is one idea: We could give {{British English}} an optional parameter "reallynotsomethingelse". So long as this parameter is not set, the template will display an alternative icon (not a flag, though maybe a collage of flags), and it will say: "This article is written in British English or possibly a similar variant of English, but not in American English. According to the relevant style guide, the article's variant of English should not be changed without broad consensus. (If this article is written in British English proper, you can add 'reallynotsomethingelse=true'. Otherwise you should replace the template by the template of the correct variant of English." Hans Adler 20:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

We don't need an icon - we have very gifted graphics people who make great templates with great icons - but we don't need them - certainly not this one. Possibly some of those objecting to the flag have "agendas" which they shouldn't be exercising on templates for talk pages, possibly some of those resisting do too. Really this is second order trivia, though possibly "broadly British spelling" might be more accurate, we all know what the template means it means "colour, honour, armour, defence, offence, popinjay" and so forth. Fragmenting the ENGVAR too much is counter productive - "North Yorkshire English" - "Eastern Enfield English" we could reduce it to code-switched-idiolects and then WP:OWN can be consigned to the bit-bucket. Alternative icons are likely to be as fraught - a big en-gb for example. So either everyone has to grow up and not take offence at a flag, or we dump the flags. Whichever is fine. Rich Farmbrough, 21:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC).
Rich, you started out great here, and better in the middle, but you end up going off the rails at the end. Not only do you take a slap at one side, you offer no solution other than a cynical false choice whereby you are somehow to be viewed as above it all, "whichever is fine". Can't anyone make a comment without belittling someone else? You give good arguments, but then unnecessarily and unsolicited you proclaim that this discussion is being propelled by people who need to "grow up". That is really not helpful at all.
As someone who has been dealing with images and graphics since the late seventies, I can tell you that there is a short period of time when the eye meets the page that causes multiple reactions in the brain. The largest words and most recognizable symbols take precedence when there is an over-abundance of information presented. On some of these talk pages, there is an incredible amount of information. A grown-up octogenarian is just as likely as a teenager to focus initially on the prominent, and placed near the top, flag of a sovereign nation when viewing a talk page for the first time. Then, they will read some of the text, and "get it". But at first, they will see, and make assumptions right or wrong due to, the flag. If there is a lot more visual information, their minds may be making decisions about the situation at hand in a less than logical way. Flags are based on military semiotics, right or wrong their display evokes emotions ranging from fear to pride. The designs of the tags, their use, the page structure and the talk page system are all much more at fault than talk page visitors, and that should be addressed. The flags are unnecessary, avoidable and in some cases unwelcome. It is not a valid argument that people who are not comfortable with the tagging of talk pages with flag icons, on a worldwide website, are somehow immature and not "grown up". At times it is about things other than sovereignty or geography. Adding flags to indicate spelling differences is a small and unfortunate symbol of article ownership and should be ended. Stopped. Eliminated. It is a bad editorial practice. Hans, parameters which turn the flag on or off would be even worse than the current situation if that is possible. It just sweeps the lack of need under the carpet by allowing yet another arbitrary decision by a fallible human to determine which type of clutter to add! My suggestion is that hidden categories, based on some approval process for good and feature articles where the spelling is truly a significant and unavoidable concern, should be allowed. A bot monitoring articles in the cats can autorevert spelling changes and notify editors who mistakenly make changes based on their own ENGVAR. Only very few articles where strong community consensus has determined that having "color" or "colour" appear in text is something worth enforcing should even have this category added. Message: stop putting national flags on internationally edited articles. It is really, really not about just one group. Ever. Veteran editors, please do not assume that you are somehow more mature than those who find a reason to not have these flags plastered all over. Age means jack shit when it comes to wisdom, and there is no wisdom to be found in keeping the flags, or even the ownership-tinged templates in general, on these pages, in spite of the convoluted reasons given here and elsewhere. Sswonk (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Nice essay. Unfortunately many of the points you make are dressed up as fact when actually they are just your opinion. I agree with the "grow up" sentiment. Editors who object to the use of flags as being discussed here should grow up! You've tried to introduce science to explain away POV, and it doesn't work I'm afraid. 212.183.128.36 (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I have told the truth. That is not what you describe as explaining away POV. The use of flags and the placement of these templates is done purely to satisfy the self-conscious needs of the parties who place them, in a vain attempt to establish some sort of rule over other editors. It is a particularly false and pretentious assertion of authority and ownership that should not exist in a mature international website that seeks to welcome a variety of points of view rather than verify only one, that of the flag waving template placer. The flags are unnecessary, small-minded stains of nationalistic hubris and ownership and their use can not be explained away, as you are seeking to do, as being something grown-ups practice. I object to being told to grow up, get a life, get real or any other short rude comment that is nothing but dismissive. This is not a discussion that is being held in any form of a cooperative nature and should be closed. It is obviously the wrong venue, MOS is a place where vocabulary muscles get flexed and nothing gets done. Someone should do the work to place all of the templates in the Category:Varieties of English templates up for WP:TfD and get rid of the entire lot. Last statement on this. Sswonk (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
There should be a template called {{Commonwealth English}} Commonwealth English, which is what is usually meant by "non-American"; 184.144.163.181 (talk) 05:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, some Brits seem to mean {{North American English}} North American English, when talking about Canadian and American, tagging articles that should use Canadian English, or either Canadian or American with the American English banner. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • How about no icons? Then there's no more hurt feelings, no more ruffled feathers, and no more mkindbogglingly dumb MOS wankery. Who's with me? → ROUX ₪ 03:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I guess I don't see a problem with most of the templates, and any problems with the Br-en template seem to be nicely addressed with Hans' optional parameter solution. The flags are a good visual aid, and removing them is overkill. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Suggestion for AmE have an image of "O+Z+e", for BrE have "OU+S+æ+œ", for CanE have "OU+Z+e"; seemingly the major differences in spelling are Americans don't use the U, Brits have stopped using Z but retain the encyclopædia and fœtus spellings, Canadians use both OU and Z but have dropped "ae" and "oe". 184.144.163.181 (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


I strongly oppose any politically motivated attempts to remove the British flag from a template about British English. There is no justification for such a change. I also see no problem at all with the American-English template using the American flag. This is blatant political correctness and i find it offensive. How about we go the whole way and stop calling it British-English / American-English incase it offends someone? Perhaps... British-Republic of Ireland-Australia-New Zealand-South Africa-India-Pakistan English? Where will it all end. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 09:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: I'm not sure if there is a "standard" dictionary for American English, but would it be possible to perhaps remove the flag and have it replaced with a stylised rendering of OED for Oxford English Dictionary for the British English template? And an accompanying one for American English? ‣Mac Tíre Cowag 13:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Interesting idea. The obvious choice would be Webster because Noah Webster caused the split by introducing a number of key reform spellings that were never followed in Europe. Hans Adler 13:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The official dictionary idea looks promising. Australian English also has the Macquarie Dictionary and Canadian English the Canadian Oxford Dictionary. RashersTierney (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
It would also be possible to perhaps delete the {{Hiberno-English}} template as Hiberno-English really only refers to the spoken dialect of English in Ireland. At the end of the day Irish speakers of English may speak Hiberno-English but they write in British English. ‣Mac Tíre Cowag 14:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
How many of those templates actually need to exist? British and American do, and then I suppose Canadian and Australian/New Zealand templates. Is there actually any difference for the others? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree. This needs to be about something that can be referenced back to some authoritative written standard of the English variant in question. RashersTierney (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
This all sounds to me like one big excuse to remove those flags whatever. Of course there's alternatives, but I subscrinbe to the "if it aint broke don't fix it" view, and this aint broke. The flags are fine and if everyone spent a little more time bothering about content that about a symbol on a talk page then more progress might be made. I actually find it all sickening that so many editors come in here with what, I have to say, appears to be a nationalistic dislike of certain flags. LevenBoy (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
While I have no doubt that we could all come up with a bunch of alternative icon schemes, the real question should be: what are the best visual aids for these templates, that easily allow readers of all backgrounds and English-speaking abilities to quickly understand what variant of English is involved? To me, the flags most readily accomplish that goal. I don't see a stylized icon representing the OED as being nearly as effective (the fact that the person who proposed the idea wasn't sure if there was an American equivalent of the OED suggests Webster's is an equally poor icon for the American template, and I had never even heard of the Macquarie Dictionary before today). I am also not sure that it is the job of these templates to establish the authoritative written standard. We are losing track of what is needed here -- a quick visual clue as to what English variant should be used in the article. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Before you go about doing OED, remember OED spelling uses "z", whereas Brits seem to use "s". There's a template for Oxford spelling, that is different from the British English template... {{British English Oxford spelling}} . 65.95.13.213 (talk) 04:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason this stuff is always controversial is false nationalism

A major part of the problem here is that there really is no such thing as "national varieties of English". This is a common myth, but anyone who's had any kind of linguistics or anthropology or even acting training knows it's a myth. Dialects are typically regional, but they don't know political boundaries. There are dozens of varieties of British English, many of them more distinct from some others in GB than any given Australian or NZ dialect may be from South African.

And using flags on these templates at all is a bad idea for reasons that have been pored over to death at WT:MOSICON and many other places.

The more and the longer we think and talk about WP article writing style in terms of nationality and flags the more and longer the pointless disputes will be, because of "us vs. them" nationalistic pride, much of it subconscious. The principles are really, really simple: If the article isn't in your dialect, don't rewrite it to be in your dialect; WP is not about your personal peeves. If the article is written in a dialect that doesn't broadly make sense for the subject, then it should be changed to make sense, regardless what your personal dialect is. If you aren't very familiar with the dialect that it is in, or needs to be in, then just do your best, and defer to the judg[e]ment of others sometimes, though you may also actually be in a very good position to note on the talk page that something is too colloquial and is not clearly understandable by people from your dialect, when this is the case. And that's about all there is to it. Please drive through, and have a nice day.

If this isn't clear, I'll rephrase: It's very easy to get riled up about "American" versus "British" English, despite this being absurd and linguistically ignorant, because we've all grown up in societies and Western meta-culture that reinforces patriotism and jingoism. The cure for its effects here is to remember that you don't write in any such imaginary language as "British English" or "American English"; those are artificially political aggregate "buckets" in which to put a wide variety of actual dialects that differ sharply amongst themselves. In reality, you write in Londonite or Dallasese or Torontonian or Jamaican or whatever, influenced by larger-scale trends like Received Pronunciation and "prestige" vocabulary in the UK, or the dominance of a hybridized "Midwest" accent and vocabulary in U.S. based TV commentary, and so on. Still feel all riled up? "Hey, this article's written in Alabaman, dammnit, not Dublinese!" Didn't think so. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 12:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not someone who has had any of the training you refer to and I am not in a position to confidently dispute the larger point you are making. Nonetheless, can you point to any parts of the world where "Scottish English" is commonly spoken (by a significant number of people) that are not in Scotland - or any parts of Scotland (excluding the University of St Andrews and the offices of the British Broadcasting Corporation) where some form of Scottish English is not commonly spoken? It seems to me that in this case at least the linguistic and national boundaries are very similar. This is not to suggest that many of the disputes you refer to are other than pointless and unhelpful, but I am curious. (And yes, I am aware that there are numerous regional accents within Scotland, but they are still all essentially variants on a theme and recognisably Scottish.) Ben MacDui 13:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Units of measurement for horses

Disputes over the use of hands as a unit of measurement for horses has resulted in an RfC over WP:EQUINE#RFC: what units should be used for horse and pony heights. I feel that this might have some pretty serious implication on articles that happen to mention horses, and I believe it's gotten to be too narrowly focused on the needs of WP:EQUINE-editors and readers that happen to be horse fans. Some outside comments would be very useful.

Peter Isotalo 20:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This is part of a much larger and much more problematic trend, of "geeks" for some particular topic - the cat fancy, anime, whatever - wanting a large variety of [oh so] special exceptions and exemptions from Wikipedia guidelines and policy, at general great detriment to Wikipedia's usability as an encyclopedia for everyone. Animal and plant specialists and editors focusing on a few particular sports are among the most common sources of problems of this sort, like confusing and unhelpful disambiguations in article titles, capitalization of things that are not proper names, and extreme reliance on jargon that is impenetrable to everyone else. NB: I say this as a sports and animal article editor. Some of these problem are just stalemates. Certain entrenched editors in certain sports will fight to the death to keep their article naming "conventions" that do not match anything else on the encyclopedia. This will probably not change until those editors retire. In other cases, like weird units, the problem can be fixed by always converting it whenever it is used. I don't know if {{convert}} can handle hands as a unit, but if not, it can be upgraded to do so. On the other hand, the whole dispute about capitalization of dog breeds and plant hybrids may never resolve itself, despite the fact that not even all specialists in such fields support the practice and no one outside of them does at all. Yet, seemingly intractable problems can resolve themselves when editors look for solutions instead of saying "no!" and denying any problem: The genuine pain in the neck of early billiards articles being either laden with impenetrable jargon or so blathery and explanatory that no one would want to read them, was to retain the precise, concise jargon but develop a comprehensive Glossary of cue sports terms and consistently and conscientiously use a {{cuegloss}} template to link all such terms to their definitions in every relevant article. <shrug> Basically, special interests on Wikipedia are getting out of hand. There are two ways to fix this and both are needed: One is WP-wide referenda, such as WP:RFCs, and tightening of WP-wide guidelines, to short-circuit excessively "precious" WikiProject "guidelines" that go off into left field; and the other is editors from projects being criticized for such faults working to listen and to correct them or at least work around them, instead of defending against all criticism as evil bad attacks. The more of the latter happens, the less of the former is necessary. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 12:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject English

Wikipedia:WikiProject English has been nominated for deletion. As this project was proposed for maintaining national varieties of English on how articles are written/formatted/spelled, you may be interested. (essentially, maintaing WP:ENGVAR compliance on articles) 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It was actually a massive POV-pushing exercise, deleted with good reason. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 00:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:CUEMOS / WP:MOSCUE / MOS:CUE

I've promoted, after years of "not getting around to it", Wikipedia:WikiProject Cue sports/Spelling conventions to MOS guideline sub-page status as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (cue sports). About time. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (snooker) has already been there for ages (and should probably remain separate, despite snooker being a subset of cue sports; it has it's own sporting culture, with a lot of particular WP article editing peccadilloes). The guideline now at WP:MOSCUE has been around for ages with pretty much zero controversy in the last 5 or so years, about anything. All of the cue sports articles are actually written in conformance with it, aside from occasional noob edits made without knowledge of its advice. I.e., it has actually been an active and effective style guideline for a long time. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 11:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hs and Ts and MOS:BOLD

Is the bespoke use of bolding acceptable in the linked article? I don't believe that it is recommended by MOS:BOLD, that I can make out; but, then again, it does seem to be useful (IAR and all that). It Is Me Here t / c 14:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

If you mean the second capital "T" in "Tablets or Toxins" then no; it wrongly implies a proper name. The article had other issues, like using hyphens as if they were en dashes, when colons were the right punctuation anyway. It still has major linking problems, such as lots of redlinks to stuff for which there probably is an article or article section under some other name, and about 90% of the article is jargon with no (blue) links. Basically, only someone with at least a degree in nursing is even going to understand the article. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 22:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I really meant the practice of emboldening the first letter of words more generally – I didn't find that use of bolding advocated on the MOS page. It Is Me Here t / c 00:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposing MOS:GLOSS as an actual guideline

I propose that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries have its proposal tag changed to {{MoS-guideline}}. Its advice is already being used as if it were "officially" a guideline. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 11:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Signature colour argument

There is an argument about the use of colours in editors' signatures. Pleas comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Manual of Style/Category pages

Some of us are working on a Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Category pages proposal. It would be good to get wider input over there. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hughes (surname)

I noticed that this is transcluding disambiguation pages for generating its content. Is this acceptable? A few days ago, lots of extraneous material was being transcluded (such as "see also" sections, etc) so it seems that this method of having content involves quite a bit of maintenance, since disambiguation pages aren't templates, and people edit them to add what is needed, without regard to what transcludes them -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for comments: Establish standards for version history tables in software articles

I'd like to introduce the Template:Version template to Wikipedia with the goal to establish one standard for version history tables (or lists). It simplifies creation of release histories, standardizes release stages and makes the content more accessible.

Please comment on the template talk page (there already is some discussion). Thanks for your contribution. --Jesus Presley (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC notice: Photo credits

Hello, everybody. Editors interested in copyright, images or both may want to participate in a RfC about whether the authors of copyrighted images should be credited in a footnote in the article where the image is used.  Sandstein  10:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Please, offer feedback regarding a proposed edit.

Hello, a dialog which started here... 2013_April_21#New_template ...and led to... Template talk:Quantity/sandbox ...seems to be leading to editing "MOS:NUM". Input before doing so would be appreciated.

Are there existing options which already well & directly address the lack of defined measurement instances we were discussing? If not, is there somewhere other than MOS:NUM to consider editing and linking a... {number(s) needed} ...— or similar —template to? General feedback would be appreciated as well. I'm somewhat new to active editing. --Kevjonesin (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Wikipedia

There is an Rfc at Talk:Wikipedia#RfC: Wikipedia in italics? that may interest you. Please come and read the summary, then include your !vote if you would like to do so. Thank you in advance for your consideration. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 19:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Italicistion of book series title The Flashman Papers

Anyone have anything to add here? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It and its

Would someone take a look at this diff and decide whether this is wrong, correct, or just a choice of style? It's not how I'd write the sentence, but I'm not sure that it's actually wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Instead of "Due to it(s) being spread..." how about "Because it was spread"? That seems to convey the same intended meaning in a simpler fashion. Imzadi 1979 → 02:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC Bangladesh

Opinions are requested at WT:Bangladesh about the best style of introductory material for a page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Self reference to Wikipedia at Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage

I have removed the section on Wikipedia per WP:SUBJECT, but editors keep adding it back again. Would appreciate input at Talk:Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage#Wikipedia?. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox discussion

A proposal regarding infoboxes is underway at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Infobox guidance ambiguity regarding summarization. – S. Rich (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

{{MOSIndex}}

Template:MOSIndex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.50.148.105 (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Shall

I hope the external link to some legal person's opinion of how to use modal items like must, should, etc doesn't encourage the use of shall. That word is now inappropriate; someone give me an instance where will won't do. Tony (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

{{Brunei English}}

Template:Brunei English (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

{{Malaysian English}}

Template:Malaysian English (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

{{DYK topicon}}

FYI Template:DYK topicon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Closing this dead-end wikiproject

Why don't we just MfD this project? The entire idea of splitting attention from WT:MOS itself to various sub-guidelines' barely-watchlisted talk pages and then this wikiproject page has proven, well, divisive and forking. Wikiprojects are increasingly turning into balkanized anti-MOS WP:FACTIONs, and the nonsense criticism that MOS is itself just some WP:LOCALCONSENSUS not a real consensus is probably being at least in part generated and bolstered by the existence of this page, which implies that the MOS is the product of this moribund wikiproject.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Why not redirect this Talk page to WT:MOS? Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
SMcCandlish's point is well taken. Given that we've had 12 days with no response shows the project is dead. Time to bury it. An MfD is not the preferred course of action. Easiest COA is to mark as defunct with {{WikiProject status/Defunct}} – S. Rich (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Disability: style guide

Editors are invited to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disability#Developing a style guide (version of 09:48, 20 May 2014).
—Wavelength (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:PRON should defer to WP:MOS "easier and more intuitive"

Editors contributing their esoteric knowledge to WP:PRON have suggested a guideline that makes it impossible for most users to use Wikipedia at the very outset of an article. MOS says, "It helps editors write articles with... clear... , and precise language... The goal is to make using Wikipedia easier and more intuitive". There is a (perhaps unexpected) tension between "clear and precise" and "easier and more intuitive". Please discuss here. FloraWilde (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists to be moved to Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Please see a discussion

You are invited to comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Colour. BethNaught (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links has long been tagged by this project. The tag produces a warning about discretionary sanctions for edit warring over the Manual of Style, which is probably inappropriate for a {{content guideline}} like WP:EL. Since this group doesn't seem to be very active, I'm going to remove the banner from WT:EL. If someone objects, then please {{ping}} me or leave a note on my talk page. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

A Village Pump thread has opened (link) to determine how the Manual of Style should guide editors to refer to transgender people in articles about those people. Concurrently, a thread has opened (link) to determine how to guide editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Pursuant to discussion on WT:MOS, I am notifying the two WikiProjects which are directly concerned with this topic: this one and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. -sche (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Scottish English

{{Scottish English}} has been nominated for deletion; this is a MOS template -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC pointer

You are invited to comment at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Canada-related_articles#Redundancy_model. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Section merges

FYI
 – Pointers to relevant discussion elsewhere

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Composition titles detailia for proposed section merge of WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Composition titles into WP:Manual of Style/Titles#Capitalization, and related cleanup. First step in a lot of other cleanup that needs to be done to centralize the titles-related material, presently scattered across at least 4 guidelines for no reason.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#Section merge proposed, for proposed section merge of Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects#Where to place links (which confusingly has the WP:MOSSIS shortcut) into Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Links to sister projects.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Notification of proposal to make Help:Hidden text a guideline

The RfC is at Help talk:Hidden text #RfC on status of this page. --RexxS (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

MoS's cleanup tag nominated for deletion

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 October 27#Template:MOS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for Indonesian spelling and naming conventions

An RfC regarding the promotion of an Indonesian spelling/naming convention proposal can be found at WT:WikiProject Indonesia#Proposal. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

RFC on formatting change

There is a formatting change being proposed to {{link language}} which could impact the visual style of a page. Your input is requested here. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Inactive?

Why is this listed as inactive? Is it merely settled, or has there been some big discussion I overlooked? -- ke4roh (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

No idea. The project is still active, just that the discussions happens on MOS pages, rather than here. I'll remove the inactive thing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Capitalization project?

Would there be any appetite for something like a Wikiproject Capitalization, to work on bringing WP articles into better conformance with MOS:CAPS? The problem is mostly, but not exclusively, over-capitalization; sometimes I have to cap proper names that have been put in lowercase, but more often I'm downcasing, partly because most editors don't know that we use sentence case for titles, and partly because people just tend to cap what's important to them. The amazing thing, to me, is the extent to which editors in some topic areas will resist the suggestion to conform with the guidelines of MOS:CAPS, in the face of clear source-based evidence, and then how hard it is to get the WP processes to do anything sensible in such situations. Here's an example from way back: Talk:New York City Subway/Archive 3#Requested move – where the evidence was not much disputed, but people were either afraid of facing the amount of work needed to fix the problem, or just asserted that a title for a specific thing needed to be a proper name, even if sources disagree. If we had a project, maybe more people willing to do the work would be notified and would volunteer to help overcome at least one of the objections? Dicklyon (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd support such a project. Another problem we face is the all-too-common practice of initial-capping items that are abbreviated (with caps); e.g. He applied for an Apprehended Violence Order (AVO). Tony (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and MOS:JOBTITLES is another big area of over-capitalization. Just noticed this diff in that space by @Chris the speller:. Dicklyon (talk) 04:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
As Dicklyon pointed out, I'm already on board, so you have my full support on all of the above. Also, don't overlook MOS:INSTITUTIONS and things like "... was elected to its Board of Directors." If we had about 50 editors with AWB we could make a real dent in the problem. Chris the speller yack 04:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Other possibilities: (1) a task force instead of a project (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Identify_the_best_structure). or (2) a WikiProject Style Fixers or something broader than WikiProject Capitalization (but narrower than WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors and orthogonal to WP:WikiProject Manual of Style). Opinions? Dicklyon (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I was about to ask what the value-add is beyond individual editors' efforts to tame over-capping. To recruit more to the fray? (That would be good.) To remind editors who overcap about our guidelines? Bear in mind that a lot of overcapping comes from second-language sources. Like overlinking. en.WP has different standards, let us say. Tony (talk) 07:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Surnames for drag queens

Further input is requested at Category talk:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants#Sorting --woodensuperman 15:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Further to above, editors have blanketly removed defaultsort keys from all of the articles, so some further input is desperately needed. --woodensuperman 09:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to RfC

Hi all. I invite you to participate an RfC on English variety and date format. Szqecs (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move - (defunct) disambiguator for radio and TV station articles

Hi, here to notify you of a requested move concerning radio and television station articles with the (defunct) disambiguator in the title. You can find it at Talk:KCLA (defunct). Raymie (t • c) 04:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Wikipedia:Manual of Style to be moved to Wikipedia:Manual_of_style. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 00:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Feedback requested for tricky WORDSASWORDS case

The article LGBT is about the term LGBT and where it came from. The article mentions over a dozen other related terms, most of which are also redirects, some of which are synonymous with LGBT, but most of which are not. Your feedback would be welcome at Talk:LGBT#Words as words in lead. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

How to write a good article

Please pardon the newcomer, but I left a question under Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#How_to_write_a_good_article :-) CarlJohanSveningsson (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Foreign language capitalisation conventions

Hello. I am not sure this is the right place to ask this, so in case it isn't please suggest the correct place for my question. İtalyan, rum casusu çikti and Elio samaga hukapan kariyana turu are two albums by Italian band Elio e le Storie Tese. They are respectively in Turkish and Sinhalese, so they should follow the capitalization rules for those languages. I believe each work should be capitalised, but I want to be sure before moving the articles. I looked around in the MoS page and subpages to no avail. Is there a resource around reporting on the capitalisation rule for languages other than English? Thanks for your help. --Tanonero (msg) 17:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Titles of works in foreign languages generally follow the capitalisation in the original (MOS:FOREIGNTITLE). It's a bit difficult to intuit the right capitalisation of these originals (the album covers appear to be styled in all caps, but we aren't doing that here) and I don't know the capitalisation rules of Italian, but its wikipedia has both articles in title case (it:Elio Samaga Hukapan Kariyana Turu and it:İtalyan, rum casusu çikti). I take it for granted that it's Italian capitalisation that we're after, rather than Turkish (or Sinhalese, whose writing doesn't have letter case), as the albums are works in Italian, even if they entirely consist in a phrase in another language. – Uanfala (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
If we are to follow Italian capitalisation rule, the titles are properly capitalised as they are. Thanks. --Tanonero (msg) 13:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on referring to the leader of China in the Manual of Style

Please see this Manual of Style RfC on whether Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, and Xi Jinping should be referred to as "leader ___", "Paramount leader ___", "General Secretary ____", or "President ____". — MarkH21talk 03:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Cleavage (breasts)

Can someone take a look at the aticle? I need guidance and advise, and, if possible, some participation to craft and fix the article. One point - is there a shortcut to fixing citations (i.e. format etc.)? Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

INFOBOXFLAG

A discussion (not a formal RfC, yet) regarding the "military conflicts" exception of the above is under way at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Coats_of_arms_in_infoboxes. Input of further editors would be welcome. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Should we redirect this page to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style?

I think it'd be good for centralization. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb, maybe? This group was primarily created for a particular project about the MoS (to improve consistency), and I think that wrapped up some years ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion on MOS:MIL

There is an ongoing MOS:MIL discussion about where or not dot (bullet) points are allowed in the infobox. Feel free to discuss the issue here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Military history#Dot (Bullet) Points - Proposal to allow. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I reverted this talk page post and archived it, because the thread being pointed to is a confused trainwreck that really has nothing to do with lists and bullets in front of list items, but is a content dispute about how much detail to provide, and that belongs at the article's talk page. It's not an MoS issue at all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Manual_of_Style/Archive_3&oldid=1189031237"