Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (Poll: always use "U.S." and Oxford commas?)

Policy proposals (usage and spelling): Poll ends 20:00 on 8 Nov
The Manual says: 'For the English Wikipedia, there is no preference among the major national varieties of English.'

I agree with this rule. But there are two exceptions to this rule in the manual. I propose removing these exceptions. Poll to run until 20:00 UTC on 8 November.

POLL CLOSED - SEE BELOW FOR RESULTS

Objection to poll
I object to this poll. The person who started it didn&#8217;t even sign the proposal. This proposed change in policy has had no previous discussion, let alone a serious effort at consensus.

See How to create policy, which includes changing current policy. It includes the following:
 * Consult widely.
 * Do not rush.

Policies and guidelines says: "Wikipedia policy is formulated for the most part by consensus. This consensus may be reached through open debate over difficult questions, or it may simply develop as a result of established practice."

Survey guidelines says: "Wikipedia is not a democracy. In general decisions are made by consensus (see consensus decision making) rather than a strict majority rule. However, on occasion it is useful to take a survey of opinions on some issue, as an aid to achieving consensus and an indication of which options have the most support. ... Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process." Maurreen 06:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Another point, though possibly academic, is that the poll is based on a fallacy (that both "U.S." vs "US" and the use vs non-use of the Oxford/Harvard comma are based on American vs. British English differences). The latter certainly is not, and the former probably is not. - Nunh-huh 07:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I know that both the abbreviation and the comma have broad variance in American English, but am not knowledgeble about British English. I think the archives at least suggest variance in the comma issue in both countries. Maurreen 07:40, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * As regards "both countries", do not forget that the rest of the world may conform to the British standard (or not). Even definitive "British English" differences do not mean a clearcut US vs. UK issue.
 * Adding a little bit of extra comment as regards the trailing comma on the second-to-last clause; to me it looks rather strange where disambiguation is unnecessary. Certainly my teaching in Irish primary school grammar was to omit the comma before "and" in a list.
 * For this reason I like the second proposal (not the omission one). zoney &#09827; talk 19:20, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Both styles (U.S. and US) and having, or not having, an Oxford comma are in standard usage in both America and Britain. More Americans use U.S. than use US, more Bris use US rather than U.S.. The Oxford comma is more popular in the U.S. than in the UK, though probably more people use the Oxford comma in the UK than don't (though the non-Oxford comma approach has been gaining popularity in the UK for as long as I can remember). jguk 07:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposal 1
Proposal 1 is to delete the following:

''When referring to the United States, please use "U.S."; that is the more common style in that country, is easier to search for automatically, and we want one uniform style on this. When referring to the United States in a long abbreviation (USA, USN, USAF), periods should not be used.''

Rationale for:


 * UK and International English tends not to use stops/periods in abbreviations, preferring US over U.S.
 * Creates inconsistency in UK and International English articles that refer to the US, unless the US style of stops/periods in all abbreviations is adopted (which is against the principle of showing no preference among the major varieties of English).
 * It is a rule which is largely ignored: why have a policy that is largely ignored.
 * Searching under "U.S." is likely to come up with all sorts of subjects unconnected with America, and won't find all the articles anyway because of the large number that ignore the rule.

Support Proposal 1

 * jguk 18:55, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * violet/riga (t) 19:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Gadykozma 20:01, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Niteowlneils 20:37, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC). I violate it routinely, and I'm in a US ;) native.
 * Sinuhe 20:48, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Improv 22:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Dieter Simon 00:10, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC). It does seem to come more easily to me as a Brit to use US, however, no disrespect intended.
 * Arwel 01:43, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Mintguy (T) 01:50, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Chris 73 Talk 02:04, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * zoney &#09827; talk 17:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Dainamo 20:29, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) I emphasise, however that I disagree with some of the logic against U.S. and probably would prefer the latter in US/U.S. specific articles. Nevertheless, both forms work in context and, provided consistency is applied throughout a single article, there should not be any rule on one form or the other except when refering to titles such as U.S. Navy as opposed to The US (or U.S.) economy.  One can use both cases in searches
 * --NeilTarrant 14:08, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) Seems to me that deleting the policy will allow appropriate regionalism.
 * --Chris Q 15:29, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) Seems natural to me as a Brit.
 * --Rednblu | Talk 18:31, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) In my opinion, deleting this exception to the general rule allows appropriate NPOV on how English is written.
 * Sietse 21:10, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC), I agree with Rednblu.
 * Ortolan88 01:12, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) This is one of those cases where "right or wrong" simply doesn't apply. The question is "clean or cluttered".  Eliminate the periods for a cleaner, easier-to-read look.  This is similar to capitalizing only the first word in a header, which we do because it looks better, not because it is "right".

POLL CLOSED

Oppose Proposal 1

 * RickK 20:46, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC). Brit-centric.  RickK 20:46, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Jmabel | Talk 21:30, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:26, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) Shouldn't we use the local form? See the third point under Manual of Style.
 * Violations of the policy could be fixed across all articles with a SQL query and a single dedicated editor. Use of "US" seriously damages the ability of a case-insensitive search engine (as most are) to locate the word, as well as not meeting the general convention used in the U.S. itself. To use the same form for UK and US also implies some strong analogy or relationship between them which does not exist. Deco 00:16, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Nunh-huh 01:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC). Use of U.S. is a standard style guide recommendation in style guides for publications other than those for newspapers, where every character that can reasonably be omitted, will be omitted.
 * Factitious 07:07, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC). "U.S." is clearer and more useful for searching.  This rule should definitely be followed in all articles, which would eliminate three of the four rationales above.  To help our style be consistent, I'll make an effort to watch for the "US" mistake when browsing, and correct any instances of it.
 * PhilHibbs 09:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Grammatically incorrect. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 17:02, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * It has been suggested that the form "U.S." is grammatically incorrect, but I am afraid that this assertion only holds true in American English, not in International English. And, if this proposal is "Brit-centric," as one user asserts, the current policy is Americo-centril. Nevertheless, I must oppose this proposal, which seeks to entirely delete the item of policy instead of providing a suitable replacement. I think that it would be more appropriate to require that "U.S." be used if the article is in American English, and that "US" be used if the article is in International English. Any bias toward either American or International English would thereby be eliminated. -- Emsworth 21:40, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 20:39, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) We need to respect regional differences.
 * PedanticallySpeaking 22:00, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * JohnyDog 22:17, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Jallan 01:04, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) Inconsistant usage, but would need much cleanup as the policy as also been much followed as well as much disregarded. I would rather not take any action in the direction of changing this policy without more information, even though seeing "U.S." and "UK" in the same sentence does rather scream for correction of one form or the other. Would a policy of inserting periods in two-letter intitialisms but not in longer intitialisms be too idiosyncratic. Probably not any more than only putting periods in the initialism "U.S." Jallan 01:04, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Use either but link to United States so people can use what links here to find it rather than relying on search. Angela. 03:07, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * The current system is fine, and is a great compromise. Keep it. -- Mattworld 05:22, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Jeff Q 22:24, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC). There is no perfect solution, and the current policy merely suggests rather than demands. As I've pointed out elsewhere, the U.S. Government itself is not consistent in its use of "U.S." or "US", although it tends to prefer the former, which is recommended by Wikipedia. The various key U.S. style manuals are divided on the subject.
 * Why change? The policy does say: Please use... No demand is made and both work for me. -Vsmith 00:52, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POLL CLOSED

Proposal 2 (A)
Replace the policy:

8.3 Commas

''As stated by Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, the Chicago Manual of Style, Strunk and White, and other authoritative sources, when a conjunction joins the last two elements in a series of three or more elements, a comma is used before the conjunction: "The wires were brown, blue, and green." The reason for the final serial comma is to prevent the last two elements from being confused as a unit. Consider its utility in this sentence: "The author would like to thank her parents, Sinéad O'Connor and Pope John-Paul II."''

With:

''Take care to avoid ambiguity when using lists as part of a sentence. Ambiguity can arise when it is unclear whether words are or are not in apposition. Consider the following sentences:''

"The author would like to thank her parents, Sinéad and Bob."

"Joe Bloggs was congratulated by John Smith, the Chairman of the committee, and Jane Doe."

Is the author thanking two people (her parents), or three?

Did two or three people congratulate Joe Bloggs?

Disambiguate by rephrasing or using semicolons:

"The author would like to thank Sinéad and Bob, her parents"

"Joe Bloggs was congratulated by John Smith, the Chairman of the committee; and Jane Doe."

Rationale for:


 * There are two styles for lists that are in common English usage: A, B, and C and A, B and C. Wikipedia should not favour one over the other. The requirement should be to disambiguate.
 * People who use the formula A, B and C tend to use a comma after B when there is a real need to disambiguate. There's no need to require them to use the comma all the time.
 * It is a policy that is frequently ignored. And where there is a real need to disambiguate, the phrase will be edited out sooner or later.

Support proposal 2 (A)

 * jguk 18:55, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * violet/riga (t) 19:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Gadykozma 20:01, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC), on the condition that Sinéad O'Connor and Pope John-Paul II's daughter stays in one of the examples.
 * Sinuhe 20:48, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) (though in the above example explanation, the text should read 'two people or three', not 'two people, or three' (ie, without a comma), notwithstanding the text in brackets)
 * Chris 73 Talk 02:02, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC) Less complicated that way
 * Filiocht 08:47, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC) Much less complicated
 * zoney &#09827; talk 17:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Dainamo 20:55, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) From the Minster Guide to English Usage (c. 1979 reprinted 1983, 1992) The chief function of a comma is to separate or set off different parts of a sentence. It should be used to avoid ambiguity, to achieve clarity and to prevent a sentence becoming unwieldy, but should always be used sparingly.  Too many commas hold up the flow of thought and are irritating to the reader........In modern practice the comma is often ommitted before the conjunction connecting the last two items The guide does not say the use of A, B, and C in this specific case is incorrect but infers a preference for conservative use of the mark where it is not improving clarity. Hence: A, B and C.
 * I believe you mean implies, not infers. &mdash; Jeff Q 22:14, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 23:18, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Arwel 00:14, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * A serial comma should be used in cases of ambiguity, but there's no need to force people to use it when it isn't needed. Angela. 03:11, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * --NeilTarrant 14:12, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * --Chris Q 15:30, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Rednblu | Talk 18:40, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Sietse 21:15, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POLL CLOSED

Oppose proposal 2 (A)

 * Niteowlneils 20:29, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC). a) General writing manuals such as Strunk and White are more likely to favor a, b, and c, while the a, b and c form is more likely to appear in more limited manuals, such as journalism guides. b) I believe the majority of Wikipedia articles follow the current standard. c) I believe consistency seems more professional/authoritative. d) I can not think of a case where the final comma before 'and' or 'or' doesn't enhance the clarity of the text. e) Makes the copious Wikipedia MoS even larger.
 * Joe Bloggs was congratulated by John Smith, the Chairman of the committee; and Jane Doe. is just wrong usage of the semicolon. Proper English would be Joe Bloggs was congratulated by John Smith, the Chairman of the committee, and by Jane Doe.RickK 20:43, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * OK - but what about if the proposal was reworded along the lines you suggest? Of course rewording entirely ....Jane Doe and John Smith, who is the Chairman...' is, of course, even better. jguk 20:49, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Of course, but people don't tend to write that way. :) RickK 22:59, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Improv 22:18, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The policy cannot kindly suggest ambiguity be avoided. It must demand it. Otherwise, there is no strong rationale for making a change that eliminates ambiguity introduced by commas. I favour this proposal's attempt to be less simple-minded, in dealing with the more semantic problem of ambiguity instead of a purely syntactic heuristic. I'll move my vote if there is a change in wording. Deco 00:23, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Nunh-huh 01:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC). Use of the Oxford comma is a perfectly reasonable style guide recommendation.
 * James F. (talk) 01:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) Indeed, Oxford commas are very much a better style of list.
 * Factitious 07:07, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC). Wikipedia needs to either always use the serial comma or never use it.  Allowing both list styles creates far more ambiguity than either one can on its own.  Of the two options, the serial comma is much more logical.  Hardly all style guides that I know of are unreservedly in favor of leaving it out &mdash; even the AP Stylebook actually takes something of an intermediate position on the issue.
 * PhilHibbs 09:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Very Verily 18:38, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Long live the serial comma!  PedanticallySpeaking 22:01, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Jallan 03:03, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) The choices given misrepresent the issue. See my comments below. Serial comma preceding a final and is recommended by almost all current literary and scientic style guides. I don't care much personally, but we do try to follow the most prestigious style guides and there should be a particular reason to depart from something that almost all of them agree on. Jallan 03:03, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Jonathunder 03:26, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC) Using the serial comma does the reader a courtesy by helping avoid even momentary doubt about whether the final two elements are meant to be grouped.
 * Oppose. The current system is clearer. -- Mattworld 05:24, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * I like the serial comma. And this seems to be an end run way to get rid of it. john k 21:27, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Jeff Q 23:15, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) Oppose. How often do we need to vote on this? (See Comments for my rebuttal to the cited reasons for changing policy.)
 * Keep it like it is.-Vsmith 01:02, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POLL CLOSED

Comments

 * I would support allowing authors to choose whichever style sounds better if clarity is not an issue, but as the serial comma has actual utility and the alternate style is just some people's preference, I'd rather see our policy favor the serial comma a little more strongly than this proposal does. Perhaps it could say that the serial comma is the "default" style, or the one that should be used when there is any doubt. I think a style guide should say something definite that people can refer to in an argument.  &mdash;Triskaideka 21:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I have no problem saying that the serial comma (or Oxford comma, to give it its technical term) should be used when there is any doubt. The proposal is about dropping the obligation to use the Oxford comma and (possibly) replacing it with a more general requirement to make sure lists are unambiguous. (The replacement wording clearly needs some work, and proposed amendments of it are welcome.) jguk 21:22, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Some people have voted for 2A saying that it's less complicated. I'm not sure I understand that.  The current policy is "Use serial commas."  The proposed new policy is "Use your choice of list style, except when apposition may be ambiguous, in which case rephrase or use semicolons."  Is there a hidden complication in the current policy that I'm not seeing?  On the other hand, proposal 2B is obviously less complicated (well, less complicated when writing, anyway), though that's about all it has going for it. Factitious 17:56, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * Before voting people should read the fuller discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style--Archive (U.S. vs. U.K. 2). See also Serial comma and talk:Serial comma. Practically all current style guides except newspaper style guides support regular use of "A, B, and C". The discusion of usage that leads this poll is misleading. I do not think I have ever read any full style guide or grammar which recommended "A, B and C" (as many once did) which did not also have a general rule about adding a comma into a sentence when necessary to avoid ambiguity when other rules fail. Grammars and style guides still have such a rule. The Wikipedia Style Manual does not pretend to be a full style guide or grammar. (Nor do some other style guides.) A recommendation of invariant usage "A, B and C" has never been seriously presented. The two competing usages are "A, B and C" in which the parenthesized comma represents a comma occasionally necessary to avoid misinterpreation and "A, B, and C" in which the second comma is always present. There are three positions:"1). Leave it up to individual editors to choose between 'A, B and C' or 'A, B, and C'. 2). Mandate 'A, B, and C' as is currently done and which follows almost all current publically accessible style guides except those for newspapers. 3). Mandate 'A, B and C' which used to be the common recommendation in many litterary and academic style guides."Choosing any of these involves taking a position. Not mentioning the issue at all here would have meant going with #2 since that is the current position of recommended style guides. Jallan 02:51, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy agrees with every notable style manual except the New York Times (which apparently only started printing its manual a few years ago, unlike many others who've been at it for decades or even centuries). Many newspapers, weeklies, and online news sources do follow the NYT, but anything other than casual reading will reveal an untoward increase of bad grammar, spelling, and even occasional outright incomprehensibility in such sources (especially those online feeds) that I suspect reflects significant budget cuts in the print media's proofreading departments and a general "don't-care" approach to proofing online and in AP and other newsfeeds. This is not a model by which to build an encyclopedia. In contrast, not a single book that I've read in the past two weeks omits serial commas, and I have failed to find any ambiguities caused by this practice.

I will address separately the cited reasons for changing policy above, and why they are spurious:
 * 1) There are two styles for lists that are in common English usage: A, B, and C and A, B and C. Wikipedia should not favour one over the other. The requirement should be to disambiguate.
 * I agree that disambiguation is essential, but that doesn't require abandoning the standard rule. It merely requires some small attention to the infrequent occurrences of the cited ("John Smith") case above. Such a parenthetical-comma use can almost always be rephrased to avoid the ambiguity. In the above example, a better and more concise rephrasing would be: Jane Doe and committee chairman John Smith congratulated Joe Bloggs. One can argue about the order of the two congratulators, and about active vs. passive voice, but the essential difference is using the phrase "committee chairman John Smith" rather than "John Smith, committee chairman" (which introduces the ambiguity of parenthetical commas) or "John Smith, who is committee chairman" (which removes the ambiguity, but is needlessly verbose).
 * 1) People who use the formula A, B and C tend to use a comma after B when there is a real need to disambiguate. There's no need to require them to use the comma all the time.
 * I doubt anyone can make the above claim authoritatively. If anything, I've found that "people" tend to write sloppily and don't pay much attention to how their text sounds to someone who didn't write it (i.e., everyone else). I certainly wouldn't count on such awareness. That's a major reason we have grammar rules.
 * 1) It is a policy that is frequently ignored. And where there is a real need to disambiguate, the phrase will be edited out sooner or later.
 * This is a common but foolish objection to policy. "It's" is frequently confused with "its", but there's no reason to abandon the extremely simple rule just because so many people get so easily confused. (For the record, if you can logically separate "its" into "it is", use "it's"; otherwise, use "its". End of confusion.) And excusing illiteracy by pointing out correctly that someone will eventually come along and fix it is bad editorial policy.

What this whole problem boils down to is that 90% of the time (and that's just a SWAG, admittedly), presence or absence of serial commas doesn't materially affect the meaning of the text. Likewise, correct meaning can often be gleaned from run-on sentences and incomplete sentences. But we have grammar and punctuation rules to help format text into properly-digestible components and to significantly reduce the effort in tracking down and correcting the infrequent ambiguities. Modern apathy is no reason to abandon these rules wholesale. &mdash; Jeff Q 23:23, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * For the record, rather than relying on vague assertions of who says what, here's what I found when I recently researched serial commas (which itself is a correct technical term and removes the implication of national usage inherent in calling them "Oxford commas" or "Harvard commas"):
 * Always use serial commas:
 * Chicago Manual of Style, 15th Edition, 2003
 * Elements of Style, 4th Edition, by Strunk & White, 1972 (reprinted 1999)
 * Merriam-Webster Manual for Writers and Editors, 1998
 * Prentice-Hall Style Manual, 1992
 * U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual, 2000
 * Omit serial commas when not needed:
 * New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, 1st Edition, 1999
 * Presumably whatever style guides Oxford and Harvard recommend also support serial commas. Note that the only supporter is also the only newspaper-based guide. All others are either from university presses, scholarly researchers, or general publishers, all of whom cover a wider range of English language usage than that of an institution that regularly practices excessive brevity for the sake of reducing printing costs.


 * As far as the Minster Guide to English Usage cited above in support of omitting serial commas, I've never heard of it. I found exactly two Google references to it, one of which is this page, the other of which mentions it's out of print. I also couldn't find it even listed, let alone available or out-of-print, on Amazon's U.S. or UK sites. (I did find all the others I checked on, plus style manuals from Oxford and Harvard, on the UK site, which I checked more thoroughly because I suspect this guide is British.) This Minster Guide hardly seems to be an authoritative reference.


 * Regardless of scope, none of the sources says serial commas should be universally excluded. One or two of the supporters (I forgot to note which) do call attention to the potential for ambiguity, but suggest rephrasing rather than omission of serial commas. Given the simplicity of adding a tiny punctuation mark to avoid potential confusion, the availability of concise and elegant rephrasing to avoid the rare serial/parenthetical comma confusion, and the recommendations of nearly every authoritative source (and every one that deals with book-like media like encyclopedias), there is really no excuse to leave out serial commas, let alone change the policy just to support lazy punctuation practice. &mdash; Jeff Q 04:36, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Here's an interesting case to add to the list: the AP Stylebook bans serial commas in general, but requires them for some cases, such as when the last item in a list contains a conjunction. Of course, that's geared toward newspapers as well, and thus isn't very applicable here.  It's worth noting that none of the style guides cited so far recommend the policy proposed by 2A, with the possible exception of the obscure Minster Guide to English Usage.  The majority of them recommend our current policy. Factitious 11:14, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (B)
As per proposal 2 (A), but do not replace the deleted text with anything.

Rationale for:


 * There are two styles for lists that are in common English usage: A, B, and C and A, B and C. Wikipedia should not favour one over the other.
 * People who use the formula A, B and C tend to use a comma after B when there is a real need to disambiguate. There's no need to require them to use the comma all the time.
 * It is a policy that is frequently ignored. And where there is a real need to disambiguate, the phrase will be edited out sooner or later.
 * Reduces the relentless tide of instruction creep.

Support proposal 2 (B)

 * jguk 18:55, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * RickK 20:44, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ortolan88 01:12, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) This is absolutely right. The rest of you folks should be writing an article about the evils and goods of the serial Oxford compulsive neurotic comma conspiracy. (humorous remark not intended to offend).

POLL CLOSED

Oppose proposal 2 (B)

 * violet/riga (t) 19:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) – the house style will be asked by new people that join, may as well have it here
 * Niteowlneils 20:36, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC). Same reasons I oppose 2A, plus what Violet said.
 * Wikipedia takes a very laid-back attitude to style: articles should be made to conform, eventually, but people need not: that is, if you don't want to take care of it, someone else will. In light of this, I don't think the fact that some people may be ignorant of policy or bothered by instruction creep should stop us from setting a useful policy for the benefit of those who do want one.   &mdash;Triskaideka 21:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I, for one, have come across many, many ambiguous missing serial commas in my editing. The claim that people use serial commas in ambiguous situations is simply incorrect. A final word on the subject is absolutely necessary. Deco 00:27, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Nunh-huh 01:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC). Use of the Oxford comma is a perfectly reasonable style guide recommendation.
 * James F. (talk) 01:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) Indeed, Oxford commas are very much a better style of list.
 * Factitious 07:07, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC). Even worse than 2A.  This is one of the areas where consistency is necessary.
 * PhilHibbs 09:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I favor the serial comma and we need to explain clearly what the policy is.  PedanticallySpeaking 22:02, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Jallan 03:09, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) I presume the reason why this appeared is that it is a point on which opinions of prestigeous style guides have changed over the years. What was taught to many in school as right, following some of those same guides, is now wrong. If anything this needs better explanation.
 * Removing the section without explanation will just lead to confusion. Angela. 03:13, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Rednblu | Talk 18:41, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) I vote for what Angela said.
 * Sietse 21:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) Ambiguity problems in lists are an issue that should be addressed by policy, so I think 2(a) is better.
 * john k 21:28, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) We have to have some sort of advice on what to do, don't we? john k 21:28, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POLL CLOSED

Poll results
First, the obvious bit: Proposal 2B is defeated. Wikipedia policy is determined by consensus: something that has no consensus should not be policy. Neither Proposal 1 nor current policy has consensus. And neither Proposal 2A nor current policy has consensus. We now need to see how we can build consensus. Maybe this would be by developing non-binding guidelines alongside policy and including references to the conflicting views in that guidance. Maybe not.

Proposal 1
The proposal was the direct opposite of the policy. I'm confused by the arguments about searches. Doesn't a search on a page like this find every article that includes either U.S. or US?

Apart from replacing the policy with non-binding guidance noting that some recommend using U.S. rather than US, but that guideline is disputed by many, I'm not sure how else to square the circle.

Proposal 2
Again, I'm not sure where to go to square this circle. Maybe replace the current policy with one requiring the writer to write clearly and unambiguously and noting that lists, in particular, can give rise to inadvertent ambiguity. Then contain a link to non-binding guidance that includes reference to how the Oxford comma disambiguates, along with other ways of disambiguating lists. jguk 20:00, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * One advantage of the current policy over 2A, in my opinion, is that the current policy is the same as that stated by most style guides, while the policy of 2A is shared by no style guides. There's no need to go from having a clear standard to having "non-binding guidance". Factitious 04:21, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Summary
There was no consensus to change anything. There was not even a majority view that there is a problem with the style guide as it is now.
 * Poll results summary (support - opposition)


 * Proposal 1: 17-17
 * Proposal 2A: 15-16
 * Proposal 2B: 3-14
 * Maurreen 05:34, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Though, as noted above, policy has to have consensus. Clearly the current policy does not have consensus. We need to square the circle. jguk 07:57, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * No majority to change anything - so leave as is. Round circles are the best kind. -Vsmith 12:43, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Policy that enjoys consensus is the best kind. jguk 12:54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but you didn't get any consensus, other than not deleting the existing policy. We therefore have no compelling reason to overturn policy that is based on widespread practice and the recommendations of nearly every authority that exists. Give it a rest. &mdash; Jeff Q 23:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If there's this much contention over the proposals, I think that's evidence that a better proposal is needed that strives towards unanimity. The status quo should always be preserved when there is no consensus, because every change has a cost in updating articles and editors having to relearn the policy. Deco 00:07, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

English versions
In Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style--Draft Trim discussion archive, Jguk said: &#8220;Where we can, we should avoid using language that marks it out as being US/UK or as preferring one particular style of writing words over another.&#8221; He has made similar statements elsewhere.

I believe that his view in this regard is at least part of the basis for the poll above. If so, probably that is what should be discussed, at least initially to see if anyone shares his view. Maurreen 12:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)