Template talk:MoS-guideline/Archive 1

Image
I don't mean to offend Elvarg, but I don't care for the new image (which significantly increases the template's size). Does anyone else have an opinion? &mdash;Lifeisunfair 01:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Somewhat (un)related, does this template belong to the "should not be SUBST'ed" list? If yes replacing the icon globally could be easy. Omniplex 21:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I replaced the icon the day after I posted the above comment. &mdash;David Levy 21:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops, okay, I only added a link to the edit history here, I didn't read it... ;-) My other question was answered elsewhere, like Style this template is typically not substituted. Omniplex 07:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

self-referential links?
The instructions currently read. Why do we recommend that the shortcut be actually linked? When used in this template, it is only ever applied on the page to which the shortcut refers. That means we've created a circular link on the page.

That seems to me to be a bad thing. It would seem to me that all the reader really needs is the link name. It does not need to be an active link. What am I missing here? Rossami (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's how shortcuts have been for ages, and I didn't feel like breaking precedent. ;) æle ✆ 2006-03-29t23:43z


 * You can also just list the shortcut(s), but if you want to do something with it (disable, rename, test, whatever) a link allows for fast access: Click on it, typically taking you straight back from where you come, but now with a "redirect from shortcut" link, where you can go to the redirect page and do what you want. I've trimmed the docu a bit, see above. --&#160;Omniplex 01:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wording
I'm going to change the wording from "rules" to "guidelines", as the first sentence specifically says that this is a "guide", not a policy. Carcharoth 09:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I still think "guideposts" better than "guidelines", but David disagreed. Life is unfair! We could always say "them" . . . --Uncle Ed 01:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to add the text from guidelines about not being carved in stone; too many editors treat MOS as though it descended from Sinai — which it plainly did not. All too often, it enshrines one editor's prejudices; it is almost always advice (on the whole, good advice, but not always). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Outright barbarous" is a reference to George Orwell's Politics and the English Language; but I do not believe it requires quotation marks or sourcing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's funny, but I think you should remove it anyway because templates really aren't the place to be funny, and because it will confuse people.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * . Rewritten. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This "clumsy, inaccurate" wording is redundant. The simple "occasional exception" gets the point across clearly and in fewer words; it also maintains the professional wording of the template by avoiding self-insults. &mdash; Deckiller 16:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As I encountered it this afternoon, the template read (after markup stripping):
 * This page is part of the Manual of Style. This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this page's talk page.

Two observations:

First, this is to be stuck on pages about style. Perhaps my own ideas of style are screwed up, but prominent among them is the avoidance of cliché. I therefore removed the stony stuff.

Secondly, if the page merits existence, then let's present it, rather than point out its unimportance. First, the explanation of "guideline": though we certainly can't assume that all WP editors know what the word means -- just think of all those simple souls who proudly replace others' user pages with the earthshattering announcements that they're "faggots" or whatever -- we can assume that those WP editors who don't move their lips as they read and who actually click links to pages like this do know the words. (It's not as if it were ordinance, injunction or ukase.) Secondly, the link from "occasional exception" to WP:IAR was too much. When I last looked, WP:IAR was unambiguously titled "Ignore all rules". Its meaning is pretty obvious. If rules can be ignored, it's reasonable to expect that guidelines can be deleted or inverted. Did WP:IAR explain? Nope, it consisted of a single, rather cryptic sentence, plus little addenda, one of which linked to What "Ignore all rules" means, whose first item in the list of what IAR did mean read: ''You are not required to learn the rules before contributing. Yes, we already said that, but it is worth repeating.'' From which one might again reasonably infer that if rules needn't be learned, guidelines needn't be paid any attention whatever. I've therefore removed the link to IAR and made this part less verbose. -- Hoary 08:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Set in stone" may be a cliche, but some similar wording would be useful given that some editors take guideline pages way too seriously.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's get rid of the fluff and the subprofessional standard of writing. Let's start with the final sentence.
 * First, "this page's talk page" is a blooper for three reasons: "the" is a more appropriate deictic than "this" (which has already occurred in the sentence, and is too strong a back-reference); (2) the apostrophe on an inanimate noun, and (3) the repetition of "page".
 * When editing? Surely "Before editing".
 * When in doubt about what, exactly? Discuss what?

Now Radiant, you seem to have muscled in and taken over this template, if last night's unpleasantness is a guide. Fix it, then. Tony 09:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to discuss this with you if you would stop making personal attacks.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

So how about moving from
 *  When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this page's |talk page. 

to (first bash):
 *  Before making any substantive change to this page, please ensure that it reflects consensus. If in any doubt, do not make the change and instead propose it on the |talk page. 

? Though I'm sure that the latter could itself be improved. -- Hoary 09:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Substantive" is a good idea. I do prefer "when in doubt, discuss first"; WP:BRD applies to editing guidelines.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Radiant, rather than requesting a talk-fest with me, why don't you just fix it. The text is an embarrassment, and since you have muscled in and reverted my contributions, I'm understandably chary about doing anything. It's your job now. I'm not going to suffer the arrogance. Tony 10:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Shunned.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Who's shunning whom? Does that mean I've just been shown the yellow card? BTW, the page you linked has ... oh my gosh, a SINGULAR THEY. Tsk tsk. Tony 10:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps italics can be used to emphasize concepts without resorting to lengthy wording. &mdash; Deckiller 10:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. I'm not even convinced the part about "when editing" is all that necessary. The important parts are (1) this represents consensus, and (2) don't use it in kneejerk fashion everywhere.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that Tony is continuing to revert war; arguing, as far as I can tell, that the MOS does not have exceptions. Of course it does; he himself added one last week. It is not the last; this is a collection of rules of thumb. The only question is which exceptions are important enough to state explicitly and which are rolled into the disclaimer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You make statements that distort the truth to the extent that they are lies. You know very well that "he himself added one last week" misrepresents the fact that I shepherded through and gained consensus for the explicit exception over a period of nearly two weeks, the way you might consider doing for your more contentious proposals, rather than launching in without the support of more than Radiant. "A collection of rules of thumb" is your spin on it, and should be explicitly tagged as such. It takes two to revert war, since I last looked; so please don't try that one. If you want to further weaken the wording, and anyone objects, you'll need to gain consensus here. As Radiant says, consensus isn't just the say-so of one (or two) people. Tony 03:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't see why the text shouldn't go back to what is displayed above in the box. Tony 03:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A collection of rules of thumb is what it always has been, and always will be; it's what every style guide, including CMS and Fowler, which we set up as examples, must be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So you intone, but I, for one, disagree. And Fowler has its place, but not as the icon you seem to treat it as. Although useful in some respects, Fowler was an amateur, and wrote in what many now consider to be a fusty, pompous style. I'm sorry to see that you've taken it to heart to the extent that it's infected your writing (not all of it; but most) with the same qualities. Now, did you accuse me of edit-warring? That somehow doesn't apply to you? Hello? What hypocritical accusations. Tony 03:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fowler was a fusty, pompous man; but his book has survived, and has been often reprinted, because he understands the fundamental nature of writing English. Tony doesn't; and I doubt he ever will. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see the causality here; many mediocre books survive. Before you get too excited about Fowler, check out what he says about "adequate" versus "sufficient" (I think I remember correctly). You may wish to reword your post at FAC talk. I'm really not interested in spending much time at all in discourse with you, Manderson. Just the minimum. Tony 15:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be perfectly agreeable. I would appreciate it, however, if you would at some point actually look at my sig; it is not PManderson, nor was it meant to be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I should point out that Tony's quotes of me above are taken out of context, and despite his apparent assertion to the contrary, he most certainly does not speak for me.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Two versions: which do you like and why?
One version (let's call it "A") after markup stripping:

This page is part of the Manual of Style. This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and should normally be followed, but it has exceptions; use common sense when applying it. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this page's talk page.

Another version (let's call it "B") after markup stripping:

This page is part of the Manual of Style, and a guideline. Use common sense in applying it. Before editing this page, please ensure that your revision will reflect consensus: if in doubt, first propose the revision here.

Why I prefer (B):


 * No gratuitous explanation of the meaning of "guideline". The kind of people who look at pages like this know what this simple word means -- as I pointed out above, 08:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC). If they want to know its meaning in WP, the link's right there.
 * No gratuitous link to WP:IAR, which is a pretty silly page -- as I pointed out above, 08:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC). Other pages can lead people there.
 * No gratuitous duplication such as the grotesque should normally be followed, but it has exceptions.
 * Avoidance of the ghastly jingle this page's talk page, more fitting for a Manual of Stylistic Cluelessness.
 * Avoidance of tense confusion: you do the ensuring (funny, I thought you Americans spelled that insuring) before the editing, not during it.
 * Concision, which I had perhaps naively thought was an essential of style.

Now, I must confess that I haven't read all the "discussion" that followed my 08:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC) remarks. I tried, but quickly got bored. But a skimread showed up no substantive disagreement.

I've said why I prefer (B). Does anyone have any good reason for preferring (A)? If so, I look forward to a lucid exposition of that reason. -- Hoary 14:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that some people believe the MOS is mandatory and unbreakable policy. That is why it is desirable that, like every other guideline template, this one points out that it's not. I'm fine with e.g. changing "this page's talk page" to an actual link to the talk page, but I believe explicitly pointing out that it has exceptions is important.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There's also the text of guideline C: This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this page's talk page.


 * The greatest difference between this and B is the statement that the page is part of MOS, which is redundant with style; the second is the statement about "occasional exceptions", which would address Radiant's objection. How about a simple redirect? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I prefer to describe the place of discussion "on the talk page" (or "on the discussion page") over "here" per Accessibility. --Kusunose 06:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think PMA has a good idea; this template is redundant to wikipedia subcat guideline.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Back to "page's talk page"—it's illiterate. Tony 11:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Broken?
Recent changes seem to have broken this template in some places (see the use at external links) - I don't know how to fix it. Hopefully a more skilled editor can. Or tell me what we're doing wrong on that page now. Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 14:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed by JayHenry's revert. Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 15:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The template is still broken, see Manual of Style (writing about fiction); in that case there was only one parameter. In other cases it seem to ignore the first parameter, see WP:MOS. G.A.S 11:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * JayHenry didn't just revert the wording, but also parameter formatting -- WP:MOSBOLD, for example, was another page affected by it. I'm afraid that without named parameters, this is probably going to happen again.  --Stratadrake 11:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I reverted again. In addition to the formatting problems that are being caused, the rename is contentious.  Unfortunately this humble little template has been swept up in a tempest at WT:MOS and WT:WIAFA.  Some editors want the Manual of Style to be less proscriptive, and renaming this template is part of that campaign.  But there's no consensus for the change in wording.  Pages that are in the Manual of Style should continue to be identified as such. --JayHenry 13:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The break is unfortunate. But note that every Wikipedia guideline uses a different kind of header, and the difference has been confusing people. As with the many efforts at template standardization, consistency is good.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (from ) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AStyle-guideline&diff=158680160&oldid=158503454, I think illustrates your point. I would agree that consistency is better. --Kevin Murray 15:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Consistency is good." Aren't you anti-process-for-the-sake-of-it? Specificity is also good. On the style template, I fail to see how it aids the reader not to link to our manual of style. Marskell 10:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. It links there now.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you very sure the syntax is working? If not, I'd self-revert. The general idea of linking to both is OK. I don't know about linking to the category, though. Marskell 10:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The language is faulty in a number of places. Overal, it's a poorly written template and should be fixed. Tony   (talk)  10:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "...it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" is certainly weird. As for the first sentence: This page is part of the Manual of Style, a Wikipedia guideline.? Marskell 11:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The more I wonder about it (which isn't all that much, to be honest), the more the dead metaphor of "set in stone" puzzles me. "Carved in stone", "set in sans serif", yes; but "set in stone" sounds like one of the more lurid scenarios for the end of Jimmy Hoffa. -- Hoary 11:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And we still have "page's talk page"—good one, isnt' it. And there's a single "please" stuck onto only one statement: why not all? Or perhaps none might be preferable for a consistent tenor. And why "considered" at the top? Who's doing the considering? It's a shocker. Tony   (talk)  11:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't ask, Tony. The identity of the government agency that does the considering would come under the rubric of "classified information". Well, I thought I got round the verbiage with a streamlined version that, come to think of it, few people have commented on. -- Hoary 11:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The wording with "set in stone" and so forth is taken from guideline. I'd suggest discussing a change to the wording there, and propagating it to the related templates such as this one.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The principal problem is that the second and third sentences are a strawman (strawperson surely?!), particularly with the IAR link. Marskell 12:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, for the record, Hoary, I liked the short and pithy version very much. Seemed to say all that needs to be said, without the repetition or verbiage of the current version. It was what you'd expect of a professional website. Tony   (talk)  12:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, the wording is taken from guideline. I'd suggest discussing the changes there, and propagating them to the related templates.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't this an appeal to bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy? The point is that it's been discussed, not that we've followed process for the sake of process, I thought.  I honestly don't understand how we're supposed to move forward when any attempt of discussion is either labeled as bureaucracy or appealed to same bureaucracy.  This has become a complete Catch-22.--JayHenry 16:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried a version that conforms with but also links directly to the Manual of Style.  I hope this compromised version is satisfactory for now. --JayHenry 17:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is new wording not showing up?
I edited for brevity a while back but the old wording continues to transclude to pages. ? Marskell (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm all for brevity, Tim. The current text here could be further trimmed without loss of substantive meaning. And we still have the unfathomable "treated with occasional exception". Two paragraphs might be easier for the readers.

"As part of the Manual of Style, this page is a guideline on Wikipedia. It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page."

"As part of the Manual of Style, this page is a Wikipedia guideline and a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow. However, it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception made where supported by local consensus."

"When editing this page, ensure that your revision reflects consensus; please discuss major or contentious changes first on the talk page."

Tony  (talk)  10:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That could work. Perhaps "However, it should be treated with common sense and it allows for the occasional exception, where supported by consensus."
 * My concern, if it's not clear, is that changes aren't showing up on the actual articles. Wondering why. Marskell (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Which page isn't getting updated? Gimmetrow 18:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm crazy, every page I look at! Marskell (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I looked at the linkshere for the template, and the transclusions looked fine to me. I was guessing you might be looking at a page using a different template. Gimmetrow 21:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To add to my uninformative comment, this template states "It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow" based on an edit I made two months ago.
 * But when I look at LEAD, for example, it states "It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that users should follow." The old wording. Does someone need to click a refresh link somewhere? Marskell (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's transcluding correctly for me. Could it be that those little shortcut boxes are somehow messing up the formatting? --JayHenry (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Really Jay, when you look at WP:LEAD, it says, literally, that "It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow"? It doesn't for me, which is seriously weird. It shows the old wording. But I have wondered if it's some idiosyncratic thing on my own laptops. Hm. Marskell (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh uggh... There's duplicative templates for some reason. WP:LEAD is using  instead of . --JayHenry (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, maybe that's not an uh-oh, but a good thing because we've identified the problem(?)... I dunno; I just thought it weird that all the pages I edit didn't seem to take the change I made to this template (or to the main guideline template). I can give you other examples. So what to do having identified the problem? Marskell (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

(←) We could do two things, i suppose. Comb through the 200 pages that use and switch MOS pages to. Or, we could edit to use this particular language when the guideline parameter is "style guideline". The "uh-oh" is my fear that any changes, although they're purely housecleaning in this case, could be a magnet for rabble-rousers who like to take these moments to drag down the morale of everyone trying to actually accomplish anything... --JayHenry (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If we do want to shorten the first...
This guideline is a part of Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Pretty simple. Marskell (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, that's much better, and I wish I'd thought of it myself. Tony   (talk)  10:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My point is actually that this template is also used on pages that aren't part of the MOS. Perhaps some creative parametrizing can solve that.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not create another template, then? Tony   (talk)  14:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That would also work, yes. I'll see what I can come up with later this week, it's not a big deal really.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps just use, mentioned in the section above? It has a style-guideline parameter that could be used and this seems to be its intended purpose. --JayHenry (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What pages take this template now that aren't MoS? Marskell (talk) 09:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But all these pages won't necessarily be part of the MoS. WP:CITE, for example. Also, "advisory" reflects the policies and guidelines page and the other guideline template. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 12:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverts
Tony and Marskell have reverted my edits. The reason for them is to bring this page into line with the policies and guidelines page, which describes policy as "a standard all users should follow" and guidelines as "more advisory in nature." This has been the distinction ever since I started editing in 2004. To replace advisory with "should follow" is meaningless, because users "should follow" policy too. Also the "set in stone" thing is poor writing -- policies aren't set in stone either. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 12:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And as I said above, not all these pages will be part of the MoS. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 12:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that we need wording that distinguishes Ps from Gs. But I'm concerned that the present wording may amount to declaring the Gs irrelevant. How about: "It is a widely accepted standard that all users are advised to follow. It may admit to the occasional exception and should be approached with common sense." Marskell (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As for the non-MoS page problem, I think we need a third template, as suggested above. Marskell (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * First, could we create a special MoS template for the pages that are explicitly part of the MoS? That would solve that issue.


 * As for the wording, "it is a widely accepted standard that all users should follow" (or are expected to follow, I forget the exact words) is how policies are described. The usual way to describe guidelines is advisory. Can we simply say "are strongly advised to follow it, but it is not policy ..." SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 13:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've noted my objections to the "it is not policy" wording (which Tony1 appears to share) at Template talk:Guideline, and I await a response to my most recent comments there (which you ignored before bringing this template "in line" with your disputed change to that one).
 * Also note that while I agree with this reversion, labeling it "minor" was inappropriate. —David Levy 14:07/14:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure who these posts are directed to. You said the edits to the other version were an improvement and that "set in stone" was inappropriate.
 * The point is that all the templates should reflect the wording on the policies and guidelines page (which I think is policy), and should be consistent. Guidelines shouldn't be described as indistinguishable from policies. We have vast tracts of very badly written guidelines that no one pays attention to, unfortunately. Therefore the template has to make clear that they are not policy. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 14:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I did indicate that you made improvements to Template:Guideline's wording and that I agree with your rationale for removing the phrase "set in stone." I also explained why I feel that the "it is not policy" wording is unsuitable.  Of all of your changes to the template, that's the only one that I contest.  I strongly agree that it's important to convey the distinction between policies and guidelines (which your new wording helps with), but I believe that such a statement is not a good way to accomplish this.  Please re-examine my comments at Template talk:Guideline for an explanation of why.  —David Levy 14:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And yes, may admit to the occasional exception is much better. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 13:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, SV, creating a special MoS template would be just excellent—long overdue. I must say that the situation with templates partly mirrors the chaotic organisation of and relationship between styleguides, MoS pages, etc. I know people who are keen to overhaul it, but that will be a big project in itself. Newbies must despair at the moment. Tony   (talk)  14:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. The whole thing is a mess. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 14:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Do note my wording, Slim: "It is a widely accepted standard that all users are advised to follow." It keeps your word, without the subtle deprecation of the current.


 * I don't speak template. If I c/p everything here to a new page, what happens? Marskell (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's just that the "widely accepted standard" language is policy language. It would be good if we could tell them apart. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 14:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) We're agreed, at least, that a third template can be created. I suggest MOS-guideline. As a unique part of the guideline structure, it could have whole new wording. "This describes accepted standards of style and formatting that make articles consistent and easy to read" or some such thing. Who can do up a template? I don't want to screw something up. Maybe JayHenry up the page?

As for the wording on Template:Guideline, are you suggesting not having language to the effect of "widely accepted", Slim? I don't dispute that there are bad guidelines around. But there are also good ones. AGF is a guideline. It's not something we merely advise, but something we expect of users. LEAD, which we've just worked on, is also a widely cited standard. Marskell (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but not all are, and yet the templates are on all of them. That's why I'm trying to find consistent language that doesn't seem to upgrade guideline to policy, but also doesn't downgrade it to something that can easily be ignored. "Strongly advised to follow" seemed to fit the bill. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 15:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that we just rename this template MOS-guideline. For other style guidelines we can continue to use the style guideline field of .  That way all the guideline pages have standardized wording from a central location.  Whatever wording we decide upon for the somewhat unique creature that is our MOS, we can keep on this template at a new name. --JayHenry (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd support that. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 15:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I went with "strongly advised" on the main template. I won't edit this one, as larger changes are afoot.


 * What do we do exactly, Jay? Can you take care of the rename? Marskell (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I was bold and I moved it to MoS-guideline. I'm hoping that hasn't messed up anything else. The world of Wikipedia templates is largely unchartered territory for me. If anyone disagrees, feel free to move back, of course. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 16:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I like this edit of yours, Marskell. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 16:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, simply moving it is all that's needed. Templates still work through a single redirect.  (if you move it again you'd have to go fix all the pages that use the template to the new name.)  Might want to go through whatlinkshere of both this and  to make sure that the right template is on the right page. --JayHenry (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, will do. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, now the wording:


 * This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It describes accepted style and formatting that renders articles consistent and easy to read. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Rather than explicity directing people to do something, it lets the nature of the pages speak for themselves. Marskell (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would leave out the "renders articles ... easy to read." Not everything in the MoS does that. I would simply say: "This guideline is part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style, which describes accepted style and formatting. As with all guidelines, it may admit of the occasional exception and should be approached with common sense. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 17:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Drop "easy to read" but leave "consistent," maybe, as that's the name of the game. Marskell (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha, well, we're really down to nuts and bolts. "Admit of" sounds very odd to me; maybe a Brit/American thing. I think simply "admit" is fine. Marskell (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think "admit of" is correct in BE and AE. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked up in OED. It's not incorrect to say "admit of" but even OED lists the prepositional verb as optional.  Difference in meaning is negligible.  Merriam Webster lists "to allow scope for", transitive usage, as the primary definition.  Clear writing generally avoids prepositional verbs anyways, and Marskell's suggestion sounds more natural to my ears as well. --JayHenry (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, to some readers I suspect admit means little different than confess. I'd drop it as a triviality, but since it's on our MoS of all places we better get it right!  Maybe allow, which is less severe than permit, but not ambiguous?  Or maybe suffers the occasional exception, which is a more accurate summary of discussion around MoS disputes? --JayHenry (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So why not, as defined, "allows scope for"? That would be clear and plain for everyone. Tony   (talk)  05:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Any problem in removing "English Wikipedia's" from "the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style"? It's a given in this context, it's really the "English-language WMOS", and the ambit of "the" is unclear. Tony   (talk)  01:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have come in late, but I have read through the proposed changes and the reasons for them. I am concerned about the current wording:
 * "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors are advised to follow it, but it should be approached with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the |talk page."
 * It is infelicitous to say that it should be "approached with [...] the occasional exception", regardless of what stands in the middle here. The rest is mildly awkward too. Passive voice, and so on. I do think we need to retain mention of English Wikipedia, against wikilawyering at non-English Wikipedias. My proposed text:
 * "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional breach will improve an article. Edit this page in accord with consensus, checking on the |talk page first."
 * Well, I can confidently predict that not everyone will like that exact formulation! But it is short, direct, unambiguous, and suitably directive. Checking on the talk page is suitably indefinite, though: it can mean peruse the talk page (often this is enough), or raise the matter on the talk page (when a mere perusal is not enough).
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 02:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's much better, but I suggest this ending: "Edit this page through consensus, discussing proposed changes on the talk page first." How's that? Tony   (talk)  04:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes Tony, that may be good. For some uncontroversial alterations explicit discussion isn't needed; but we may want to err on the side of having editors discuss changes by default. So here, for clarity, is a version that you and I both endorse (retaining existing wikilinks):
 * "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional breach will improve an article. Edit this page through consensus, discussing proposed changes on the |talk page first."
 * What do others make of that?
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 12:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I take it that no one objects to the proposed wording, then?
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 22:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's quite good. Clear and concise.  I particularly like the emphasis of improvement. --JayHenry (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. Is SV around? Tony   (talk)  09:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with it. The "occasional breach" is somewhat non-colloquial.
 * Just to be clear, the MoS/non-MoS page problem is solved? The non-MoS pages will take subcat guideline? Do we need to go through and audit for that? Marskell (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the wording, though I'd prefer no link to IAR, as it suggests we're actively recommending that. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 01:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. What's wrong with recommending that users follow IAR?
 * 2. Do you object to the adoption of the same wording (or whatever variant we agree on below) for the other guideline templates? —David Levy 01:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I said above what was wrong with including IAR. As for the second question, the people who maintain the MoS should be allowed to decide on their template, so it needn't be the same as the other guideline ones. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. Your explanation is that "it suggests we're actively recommending" IAR. I'm asking why that's a problem.
 * 2. Do you actively oppose adopting this wording for the other guideline templates? You note that it needn't be the same, but is there a reason why it needs to differ?  You don't appear to believe so, given the fact that you recently edited both this template and Template:Subcat guideline specifically to harmonize their wording with that of Template:Guideline.  —David Levy 02:47/02:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have restored SV's exception. I see no actual objection to it; and I join in the deprecation of breach. MOS is not a moral law, which can be breached. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wording II
I'd be happy to discuss my changes (which I didn't realize would be controversial). What are the objections? —David Levy 22:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Article is more precise as the Manual of Style applies to articles. Deviation suggests that one who does it is a deviant.  The final sentence added a bit of unneeded verbiage.  I prefer the consensus version, that we agreed upon after several days of discussion in which participation was invited.  The link to IAR doesn't bother me one way or the other, but "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it" seems to be exactly the spirit of what we're saying here. --JayHenry (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. Some of the MoS, such as this part, applies to pages other than articles.
 * 2. Oddly enough, I switched from "breach" to "deviation" to remove what I perceived as a negative connotation. (To me, "breach" implies wrongdoing.)  The "deviant" connotation didn't occur to me.
 * How about "departure"?
 * 3. The current wording appears to indicate that people shouldn't perform any edit (including a minor one) to a guideline without first proposing it on the talk page. Would you (or Noetica) object to simply changing "proposed" to "major"?
 * 4. I would prefer that the IAR link be included, but I'd certainly be willing to entertain SlimVirgin's argument to the contrary. —David Levy 22:59/23:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for discussing here, David. In future please show your proposed changes here clearly, to save others having to jump around in search of the different versions. Here is the text as it stood:
 * "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional breach will improve an article. Edit this page through consensus, discussing proposed changes on the |talk page first."
 * And here is the text as you wanted it:
 * "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional deviation will improve a page. Edits to this guideline should reflect consensus, and any major changes should be proposed on the |talk page first."
 * First let me comment on Slim Virgin's removal of the link to Ignore all rules, which I have also reverted since it was not proposed and discussed here first. At the head of the IAR page is the following box:


 * It would therefore take some argument to support removing the link from the current template, as "not appropriate here".
 * As for your own points in reply to JayHenry, David:
 * 1. Some of the MoS, such as this part, applies to pages other than articles.
 * That is not settled. MOS is indisputably about articles; beyond that, more discussion is needed.
 * 2. Oddly enough, I switched from "breach" to "deviation" to remove what I perceived as a negative connotation. (To me, "breach" implies wrongdoing.)  The "deviant" connotation didn't occur to me.  Perhaps we can come up with a better term than either.
 * Breach is more neutral than deviaton. I still like breach. I might be happy with variation. No, I don't like departure. It's ambiguous and ill-focused.
 * 3. The current wording appears to indicate that people shouldn't perform any edit (including a minor one) to a guideline without first proposing it on the talk page. Would you (or Noetica) object to simply changing "proposed" to "major"?
 * Major is too major! See discussion above, arriving at the current compromise. Better to err in favour of discussion first. People will use common sense not to discuss truly minor changes, or changes that fit with a consensus that is already settled.
 * 4. I would prefer that the IAR link be included, but I'd certainly be willing to entertain SlimVirgin's argument to the contrary.
 * I agree on retaining the link to IAR. Let's see what others think.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 23:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. Ah, I wasn't aware that this was disputed. Where is the relevant discussion taking place?
 * 2. "Variation" seems fine to me.
 * 3. I agree that it's better to err in favor of discussion. Instead of "major," how about "non-minor"?
 * Okay, so here's what I currently propose:

"This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional variation will improve an article. Edit this page through consensus, discussing non-minor changes on the |talk page first."
 * I welcome alternative ideas, of course. :-)  —David Levy 00:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I prefer the current version as was agreed above. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. Could you please explain why?  —David Levy 02:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Automatic categorisation
I think that this template should automatically add pages to the Category:Wikipedia style guidelines.

The description at Category:Wikipedia style guidelines says that this template does auto categorise pages, but the current code in this template does not do that.

--David Göthberg (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the right category. I think I even managed to make it work.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)