Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 136

Looking for background on the reasons for the MOS, and why it is the way it is?
This has probably been answered many times before... so just point me to the discussions if it has been. I am not arguing that we should change the MOS in any way, but looking for background information on why we have the MOS in the first place, and why the MOS is the way it is.

Did we ever think about intentionally not having a house style? Did we ever discuss allowing different articles to have different styles? (for example, did anyone ever suggest saying something like: "There are many style guides out there, and they don't always agree with each other. It is not necessary for all articles in Wikipedia to follow the same style or the same style guide, but it is necessary for each article to be stylistically consistent within itself.  Editors at a given article should therefore choose an external style guide for that article, and then follow that style guide consistently".)  If so, why was this idea rejected?

Just curious. Blueboar (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There might be some clues in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 1. (When I saw the section heading Background information? in my watchlist, I thought of background information related to an article.  A clearer heading would be Reason(s) for MOS or Reason(s) for MOS and its present state.)
 * —Wavelength (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Nope... nothing along the lines of what I was talking about in archive 1. (as for your suggestion re the question header... thanks, I have amended). Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You'd have better luck digging up answers to more specific questions. I slogged through the archives looking for background on WP:LQ once, and I found a reference to it having been put in place as a compromise: Presumably American double quotation marks instead of single throughout Wikipedia and actually British comma and period placement throughout Wikipedia.  However, I didn't find the original debate itself, only two people talking about the debate.  So if you want to know why is this rule here why is that rule phrased like that, you might have some luck. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What I was looking for was some insight on why we decided to create a WP wide Manual of Style in the first place... and whether the need for an MOS was ever questioned. Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This might be a good place to start. I went into "page history" and hit "oldest." Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is essentially the same as Archive 1. Perhaps there is a discussion elsewhere, or at a later date?
 * Of course, it may be that the question of why we need an MOS has never actually been raised. I can understand if that is the case. Editors who care about style issues - ie those who would be likely to contribute to this page - would tend to assume that an in house manual should exist (ie they would take the need for an MOS for granted.) I was just wondering if anyone had actually challenged that assumption (and if so, how that challenge was responded to). Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hyphen vs. dash in "Vocational-technical school"
I think Vocational-technical school needs to be moved to Vocational–technical school by what MOS:DASH says. If not, the section needs to be clarified. I'd rather see such clarification, or consensus that we don't need clarification and why, before WP:RMing this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  01:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the article should not be moved, though I can appreciate the case for doing so. The relevant provision in WP:ENDASH:
 * "2. In compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between Here the relationship is thought of as parallel, symmetric, equal, oppositional, or at least involving separate or independent elements. The components may be nouns, adjectives, verbs, or any other independent part of speech. Often if the components are reversed there would be little change of meaning."
 * In this case the relation between the qualifiers "vocational" and "technical" can be expressed with and, though it is better expressed with or. That is, inclusive or: much that is technical is also vocational. Compare our example a singer-songwriter. The qualifiers could also be reversed, though with the risk of seeming to restrict coverage to "technical vocations".
 * That said, there is nothing oppositional, and nothing that involves separate or independent elements. The case is more like Blue-green algae and less like Red–green colorblindness.
 * There are several other articles near the borderline, just like "vocational-technical school". Passive-aggressive behavior, motivated differently from "vocational-technical school", was moved in 2009 without discussion to Passive–aggressive behavior, wrongly I think (the behavior in question does not contrast or oscillate between passivity and aggression; as the article says "it involves expressing aggression in non-assertive, subtle (i.e. passive or indirect) ways"). Contrast Manic-depressive, which redirects to Bipolar disorder. The word "bipolar" say it all: in this case there is no such thing as "manic depression", but an alternation between opposite and incompatible states: mania and depression. So the better redirect is Manic–depressive. The text of the article Bipolar disorder could do with fixing for the same reason. But few sources recognise the distinctions in those cases. There are sure to be indeterminate cases at the boundaries.
 * We cannot do anything about the problem of indeterminable cases; arguably, it is when we hit those that direct appeal to "reliable sources" begins to be warranted. There was much opposition to having many examples in WP:DASH, and also much support for various inclusions – sometimes from the same editor! I am not against adding more. What would people suggest?
 * N oetica Tea? 05:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I looked through a few hundred sources, and found it with hyphen, space, and slash – but no en dash, even though I agree with S that that would seem logical. I do not usually move pages, or propose them as examples, without some support from sources, so I'd leave this one alone.  Or use space.  Manic–depressive, on the other hand, is not hard to find with en dash, in journals such as Biological Psychiatry and Nature.  And apparently some do think there's such thing as Manic depression (and Manic depression (disambiguation)); seems silly.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But no, Dick: While the term "manic depression" is certainly used, it's just a loose and semantically unjustified phrase. No one actually thinks that the depressive states involved are well characterised as "manic"! The manic states and the depressive states alternate (as they must, being opposite by definition). Ill-considered talk, like "I could care less" when the opposite is meant. I can fabricate a justification, but I do not endorse it: The illness is dominated by depression almost to the extent that depression becomes a trait and not a state; and manic states are superimposed on that trait and temporarily nullify it. Nice try, but no cigar and no DPsychMed. N oetica Tea? 06:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was giddy, but now you make me feel like everything is a bummer. Dicklyon (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Generally when a slash could be used, a dash is more appropriate than a hyphen. And vocational/technical would certainly work. The meaning is not technical ed that's vocational (hyphen), but ed that ranges from tech to vocational (dash). I think a dash would be right, unless I misunderstand what a voc-tech school is. — kwami (talk) 06:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, I made a move request at talk:passive–aggressive behavior. — kwami (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (I will support that RM, Kwami.) That is just a rule of thumb about the slash, which is such an unstable mark that several guides severely limit its use. It is often used lazily; note especially these sources with "passive/aggressive", for which we here agree on a hyphen:, , , . CMOS16 says this:
 * "6.104 Slashes to signify alternatives A slash most commonly signifies alternatives. In certain contexts it is a convenient (if somewhat informal) shorthand for or. It is also used for alternative spellings or names. Where one or more of the terms separated by slashes is an open compound, a space before and after the slash can be helpful. &emsp;he/she &emsp;his/her &emsp;and/or &emsp;Hercules/Heracles &emsp;Margaret/Meg/Maggie &emsp;World War I / First World War Occasionally a slash can signify and—though still usually conveying a sense of alternatives. &emsp;an insertion/deletion mutation &emsp;an MD/PhD program &emsp;a Jekyll/Hyde personality"
 * CMOS is not strong on en dashes; MOS and NHR might want en dash in one or two of those, though it would depend on the exact meaning. If "an insertion/deletion mutation" means a transition between insertion and deletion, then "an insertion–deletion mutation"; if it means a transition that involves insertion or alternatively deletion, then "an insertion or deletion mutation". And "an MD/PhD program" could be one that shifts students from MD to PhD candidature, or one that yields both degrees on completion, or one that yields one or other degree on completion! Let's do better than CMOS, on this issue; its guideline is vague and ill-considered, like many others in its treatment of punctuation. Such confusion is ubiquitous. See a Google search on spring summer weather.
 * N oetica Tea? 08:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, confusion about slashes is ubiquitous. MOS: says "term/spelling", "southwest/south-west", and man/woman', 'waiter/waitress', 'chairman/chairwoman. There's more at MOSNUM for instance. None of those fit any of the exceptions at WP:SLASH. Even if that is consistent to you, it isn't consistent to 99% of our reading editors if it isn't consistent to me. A good guideline to ignore until it's fixed. Art LaPella (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * After the 2011 Dashfest several editors agreed that WP:HYPHEN should be next for scrutiny. I think I was the only one to nominate WP:SLASH in the same way. Neither has been attended to systematically, but in fact both are in good shape. SLASH begins like this (my underlining):
 * "Generally avoid joining two words by a slash, also known as a forward slash or solidus ( / ). It suggests that the two are related, but does not specify how. It is often also unclear how the construct would be read aloud. Replace with clearer wording."
 * Many editors – you prominent among them, Art – have called for a shorter MOS. Yet any fix to SLASH must make it longer! If you have contradictory wishes, don't find fault when others try to satisfy your wishes. Care to offer a revised draft yourself?
 * There is no contradiction in what I quote above, except perhaps a minor infelicity from this omission: "[In such cases] [r]eplace with clearer wording." And while MOS should conform to MOS, the examples of slash that you cite are pretty harmless. I didn't put them them there! But the meanings are obvious, and so is how to read them. Note especially: some guides explicitly call for a slash where a hyphen or an en dash is already in play, which does a lot to justify "southwest/south-west". But "term/spelling"? The wording could be improved from this:
 * "With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change."
 * To this:
 * "Do not make such a change: except to accord with strong national ties, or to remove ambiguity caused by a term or its spelling."
 * N oetica Tea? 01:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, should I make that edit then? Concerning "contradictory wishes": I can see where that could make sense to you. To me as a copyeditor, my "revised draft" would be to eliminate an entire guideline I don't use. Thus WP:SMOS doesn't say so much as "Avoid slashes MORE" or "Generally avoid slashes MORE". When I find slash examples, the words "generally" and "often" are emphasized to me, so I had better leave other slashes alone. And so should almost everyone else. Art LaPella (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Is "an HTTP" or "a HTTP" correct?
Is "an HTTP" ("an Hypertext Transfer Protocol") or "a HTTP" ("a Hypertext Transfer Protocol") correct?

As I understand it, with a true acronym such as SCUBA, NATO, or AIDS, you pronounce it as a word and you choose a/as to match the word. If it is an initialism that cannot be pronounced as a word but instead must be spelled out such as ATM, CPU, BBC or HTTP, you spell it out and choose a/as to match the expanded phrase rather than the initialism.

In many cases the answer is the same -- "An ATM" / "An Automated Teller Machine" or "A BBC production" / "A British Broadcasting Corporation production" -- but if the first letter is F,H,L,M,N,R,S, or X, it is not.

Related questions: Is the convention the same for US English, British English and Australian English? Is there a difference between "a/an HTTP status code" and "a/an HTTP-based protocol" because of the hyphenation?

(For more examples see Acronym and List of acronyms and initialisms) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The relevant Wikipedia article explains that "The form an is used before words starting with a vowel sound, regardless of whether the word begins with a vowel letter" and provides a source for that. According to the Chicago Manual of Style "when an abbreviation follows an indefinite article, the choice of a or an is determined by the way the abbreviation would be read aloud".  This is reflected by usage from organizations such as W3C which is the standards organization for the internet, and by technology companies such as Microsoft, Apple, and Google, who all use "an HTTP". - SudoGhost 22:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed: pronunciation of the acronym/initialism itself controls whether "a" or "an" should be used, not the pronunciation that would be employed if it were expanded. Therefore "an HTTP" is correct.  Additional reference: . —chaos5023 (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * IEEE and the British Psychological Society style guide both reflect this as well; I'm finding multiple style guides and manuals of style for both American and British English that all say "an HTTP" would be correct, but I'm not finding anything that supports "a HTTP". - SudoGhost 23:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See also -- My 76 Strat  (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

@ Guy, for the original question: it would be a Hypertext Transfer Protocol but an aitch-tee-tee-pee. I suspect that most people would have the latter. Some people might have a haitch-, I suppose, but that would not be standard for either US or UK English. — kwami (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I have self-reverted all the edits per WP:SNOWBALL. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

@Kwami, you are again making the bare assumption that everyone agrees with you, sounds out everything in their head, syllable-by-syllable, like you do as they read or write, would thus write "an HTTP", and would be unable to read aloud without their head exploding if they encountered "a HTTP". I repeat (from a previous discussion about this) that there is not actually a consensus on any of that. "An HTTP", just like "an FAQ", "an RFC", etc., looks wrong to some people, including me. MOS does not have a rule on this, for a reason. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  01:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with you about an FAQ, but not for your reason &mdash; I pronounce it "fack". Do people really say eff-eh-queue?  --Trovatore (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I mentally say eff-eh-queue, and it wouldn't have occurred to me to say anything else ("fack"? "facqua"?) Art LaPella (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just the fack. There's no u, so there's no wa. --Trovatore (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But you get the point. Even French loan words like "discotheque" have the u, so it's at least not obvious how to pronounce a "q" in English without the "u". Art LaPella (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is really getting off topic, but there are a fair number of words in English with a q but no u. Mostly Arabic loanwords like qat, I think.  In Arabic it's a distinct phoneme, but in English it's generally rendered with just the [k]. --Trovatore (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The on-topic point is that it's imaginable that I could pronounce "FAQ" like "Al Qaeda", or like a normal "qu" word. I think "eff-eh-queue". Art LaPella (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry SMcCandlish, the guides and common practice are with Kwami on this. Let me quote the major US guide and the major British guide.
 * "CMOS16, at 7.44: Before an abbreviation, a numeral, or a symbol, the use of a or an depends on (or, conversely, determines) how the term is pronounced. In the first example below, MS would be pronounced em ess; in the second, it would be pronounced manuscript. In the last two examples, 007 would be pronounced oh oh seven and double oh seven, respectively. an MS treatment (a treatment for multiple sclerosis) a MS in the National Library an NBC anchor a CBS anchor a URL an @ sign an 800 number an 007 field (in a library catalog) a 007-style agent"
 * "NHR, at 10.4: The choice between a and an before an abbreviation depends on pronunciation, not spelling. Use a before abbreviations beginning with a consonant sound, including an aspirated h and a vowel pronounced with the sound of w or y: &emsp;a BA degree; a KLM flight; a BBC bed; a YMCA bed; a U-boat captain; a UNICEF card Use an before abbreviations beginning with a vowel sound, including unaspirated h: &emsp;an MMC ruling; an FA cup match; an H-bomb; an IOU; an MP; an RAC badge; an SOS signal"
 * That is all well accepted. The matter is settled, I'd say.
 * N oetica Tea? 02:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. When every single style guideline and manual of style says an HTML would be the correct usage then that's pretty convincing evidence, especially when there's nothing provided supporting a HTML.  An English encyclopedia should follow modern English conventions, and proper usage is pretty clearly spelled out here across multiple reliable sources and in the case of the manuals of style I'd say they are the most reliable sources one can find on the matter, and they all say the same thing. - SudoGhost 03:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If the conflict is real, can you avoid that wording altogether; maybe say the HTTP or HTTP somethings instead? I came across this sort of issue with LED (as in light-emitting diode): some people spell it out, an el-ee-dee, but others just say a led (rhyming with red). Vadmium (talk, contribs) 06:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC).
 * No, because that would be lily-livered avoidance of a mere shadow of a problem. Or should I say: don't worry, the conflict is hardly ever problematic. Some people say "em oh ess" for "MOS" (and "in the MOS", "an MOS to be proud of"); but I think most just say "moss" for "MOS" (and "in MOS", "a MOS to be proud of"). Life is various. Meh. N oetica Tea? 08:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have to agree, despite the fact that [1] I was taught the opposite (but that was a long time ago) and [2] "an HTML" looks really, really wrong to me. Nonetheless, that's the way multiple style guides say to do it, and I can hardly ask other people to follow what is in reliable sources rather than their personal preferences if I am not willing to do so myself. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * See the quotation at Wikipedia Signpost/2013-01-14/Technology report (version of 13:53, 16 January 2013), with the expression "a 8-hour migration window". According to WP:MOS (version of 04:54, 13 January 2013), this perhaps could be displayed as "a[n] 8-hour migration window".
 * —Wavelength (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This issue was raised recently at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Abbreviations. I'd still like to see something explicit in the MOS. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Huh... I would have said that both are "correct"... and so the decision as to which to use in a given article should be decided by consensus. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If this had been covered by the MOS, I would have seen it when I checked prior to making my edits or when I checked again prior to asking this question. If the same issue has come up with HTML and RFC, it is likely to come up again with ATM, TLA, etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In the case of RFC it would always be an RFC, that's proper modern English across the board, there doesn't seem to be any disagreement on that point by any reliable sources, including style guidelines and manuals of style, and this specifically includes both the Oxford and Chicago manuals of style. In the case of acronyms that could be pronounced as a single word, such as FAQ, every style guideline I could find says something alone the lines of "it is assumed that abbreviations are pronounced as a series of letters rather than as the words they represent" so I would say that unless it can be shown that the acronym is generally pronounced as a word (such as NASA), that we treat the acronym as if it is pronounced by the letter, in line with how everyone else does it. - SudoGhost 02:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

White space and TOC left and right
I wanted to get rid of white space on the Donghak Peasant Revolution article by using TOC left or TOC right. Another editor disagreed. Who is, arhh, "right"? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is either side wrong? Since the default style is left, is there a reason to not keep the default for this article?  I have generally seen right used in lists, but not in articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't care where it is left or right, although TOC left looks better. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion. If that is really and truly the best layout, then that should be the default.  I'm sure the default location received a lot of discussion years ago, hence the current location.  However consensus can change.  Vegaswikian (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest filling the space with an image, which avoids taking, arhh, sides. Peter coxhead (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought of that but I think images might be hard to come by. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, neither is "wrong"... both are acceptable. The debate is simply disagreement as to which looks better... a debate which can be settled by consensus (if it's just you and the other editor debating, go to the Village Pump or the relevant WikiProject talk page, ask for some non-involved editors to swing by and take a look at both proposed formats... defer to their opinions.) Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Move request with "the"
Requesting Americas be moved to the Americas per our conventions in other articles and exceptions for 'the' at TITLE. — kwami (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Following WP:MOS means following it
If I understand Wikipedia's MOS correctly it calls for a spaced en dash or an unspaced em dash. How does this reconcile with using an unspaced en dash in article titles? -- My 76 Strat  (talk)  05:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you're thinking of — in a long sentence. We don't normally get those in titles. — kwami (talk) 06:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:DASH calls for a spaced en dash or an unspaced em dash when used like a comma. It calls for an unspaced en dash in titles like Harada–Ito procedure. Art LaPella (talk) 06:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I apologize, I needed to simply read further, to see that answer. -- My 76 Strat  (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

If the source quote uses an em dash with spaces, should it be corrected to unspaced use, or left in its faithful appearance? -- My 76 Strat  (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Additional question:
 * Quotes don't usually try to reproduce the typographical style of the original, though I have been known to copy the spaces before colons and semicolons in old works to make the quotes look more antiquey. A dash should be rendered in the normal style unless there's a special reason to emulate the look of the source, in which case am image might be a better way to do it.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I believe the quote was copy-pasted from the source. I wasn't sure if I should copy edit them to accord with our MOS—understanding that normally we would copy edit. -- My 76 Strat  (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's often impossible to reproduce the original text exactly, so normally people don't bother to copy meaningless detail like this. Similarly, they'll replace long s with modern s, fix obvious typos, etc., as long as they're faithful to the original words. — kwami (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * MOS:QUOTE: "Styling of dashes and hyphens: see Dashes, below. Use the style chosen for the article: unspaced em dash or spaced en dash." Art LaPella (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

If my last comment above was the source, is there any reason to precede a quote taken, with an ellipsis, as in " ... I believe the quote was copy-pasted from the source."? -- My 76 Strat  (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Indulging another


 * Not unless you wish to show that you left something out at the beginning. Sometimes it conveys the meaning better to do that, but it's not terribly common. — kwami (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In the (technical) book I'm writing, I have a quote that starts "... It outlines a mechanism that accounts for the". The ellipsis is to acknowledge that I left out the part that provides the antecedent for "It"; you have to go back into my own text to know what he's talking about.  Is there a better way to do that?  Dicklyon (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I find that beginning a quote with an ellipsis is not usually necessary. If the quote starts with a lowercase letter, it should be obvious that the quote is not of an entire sentence.  If the quote starts with a capital letter because it's the beginning of a sentence, then the ellipsis seems wholly unwarranted.  Even if the quote started with a capital letter because it's a proper noun, it doesn't seem like the ellipsis really conveys very much.   AgnosticAphid  talk 09:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * People often change the capitalization of the first word, so that's not a reliable cue. But your context should supply the missing info, so usually an ellipsis is not needed. — kwami (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Often the best way to deal with a quote that contains a pronoun with an antecedent not in the quote is to replace the pronoun with "[the antecedent]". So I would suggest: "[Whatever "it" is] outlines a mechanism that accounts for ..." Peter coxhead (talk) 09:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But why not just say: whatever it is "outlines a mechanism..."  I don't see the utility of the brackets.  I find that starting a quote with brackets is superfluous; couldn't the quote just begin with the next word?  AgnosticAphid  talk 00:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Usually, at least. I'm sure s.o. can come up with an exception. — kwami (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have the quote set off in a box, so if I add the subject instead of "it", I can't put it outside the box, so I'd use brackets inside. But I generally don't like bracketed stuff in quotes, so I might leave it as I have it, subject to whatever feedback I get from my editor.  I also have quotes with ellipses in the middle, where I've put together a few parts that weren't adjacent in the original; some frown on that, too.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Question on listing of references
While listing references (or bibliography) for an article, one should list alphabetically according to the name of the authors. However, what happens when author name is missing? Do we go by the title of the book/article? This question arised out of this section of an article, which is currently messed up. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you read WP:CITE you will see you should follow the style established in the article. But I see that the citations seem to follow no particular style. Check the article talk page and history to see if the article used to follow a particular style but editors ignorant of citation style messed it up. If you cannot figure out what style is followed, suggest a particular style guide to follow on the article's talk page and overhaul the citations in the article to follow the style decided upon on the talk page. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:NCCAPS → "shorter than five letters" rule
With regards to this and this, and in general, isn't this whole "shorter than five letters" notion leading to inconsistent, illogical results? And where does it come from? (like, what's the reference work for [English-language and otherwise] title capitalization out there? )

I mean, as is, when in mid-title, it produces things like this:

"than", "from", "till", "Until" – ... from ... Until... looks weird, does it not?

To conform to this, From Dusk Till Dawn had [rightly] just been changed to From Dusk till Dawn – problem is, it seems to be spelled From Dusk Till Dawn virtually everywhere else (a similar case would be Stranger than Fiction vs. IMDb's Stranger Than Fiction);

also, it's still Wait Until Dark, although "until" is just a one-letter-longer variant form of "till".

But if "till" were changed to "Till", we'd still have the lowercase "from", making for constructions like ... from ... Until... and ... from ... Till....

Changing "Until" to lowercase in turn would then be at variance with a whole host of other five-letters-or-longer prepositions and conjunctions.

Seriously, what the heck? I'm confused out of my mind... – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As a followup, more contradictory examples:
 * My Bonnie Lies over the Ocean
 * vs.
 * Someone to Watch Over Me
 * Somewhere Over the Rainbow
 * One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
 * Frost Over the World
 * Please, someone knowledgeable (What's the basis for the"shorter than five letters" rule? Where does it come from? Sources?) comment. While I do have a preference
 * – Honestly, don't the lowercased variations look downright weird to you, too? Like, did you ever see "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" given as "... over ..."? –,
 * I'm ready to put that aside if presented with logical and consistent guidelines. As is, it's confusing (I didn't change My Bonnie Lies over the Ocean to ... Over ... out of spite, but simply because I had its spelling elsewhere and entries like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest in mind) and handled inconsistently. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The correct approach is to defer to common usage, and spell things the way the rest of the world spells them. Anything else is original research and is prohibited in wikipedia. Apteva (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We've always imposed local capitalization rules, regardless of how they are capitalized in the original or other sources. That's what MOS:CT is about. I tend to agree wth this editor (whose name I can't type) that this particular rule is on shaky ground.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of styling the caps consistently, but yeah, I think the 5-letter rule needs to be improved. Either an explicit list of words (and usages, for words that might be prepositions sometimes and other parts of speech others), or an explicit list of exceptions to the 5-letter rule, if the first list is unwieldy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * House style guidelines are not original research. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I for one will not wilfully go directly against the MoS in its current form (though, I might again by mistake). However, if the powers that be are insisting on sticking to that rule, I think the uninformed readers and editors deserve an explanation as to why the Encyclopædia Britannica, IMDb, AllRovi, Rotten Tomatoes, blu-ray.com, IGN, NNDB, Amazon, cduniverse.com, The New York Times, the Washington Post, the L.A. Times, Time magazine, the marketing divisions of film studios and countless others supposedly have got it so wrong. – ὁ οἶστρος (or, romanized, "ho oistros") (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's possibly a British/American English thing. All those sources are American, but the British Film Institute opts for lower capitalisation: BFI. Betty Logan (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The correct approach is to defer to common usage, and spell things the way the rest of the world spells them. Anything else is original research and is prohibited in wikipedia. Apteva (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We've always imposed local capitalization rules, regardless of how they are capitalized in the original or other sources. That's what MOS:CT is about. I tend to agree wth this editor (whose name I can't type) that this particular rule is on shaky ground.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of styling the caps consistently, but yeah, I think the 5-letter rule needs to be improved. Either an explicit list of words (and usages, for words that might be prepositions sometimes and other parts of speech others), or an explicit list of exceptions to the 5-letter rule, if the first list is unwieldy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * House style guidelines are not original research. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I for one will not wilfully go directly against the MoS in its current form (though, I might again by mistake). However, if the powers that be are insisting on sticking to that rule, I think the uninformed readers and editors deserve an explanation as to why the Encyclopædia Britannica, IMDb, AllRovi, Rotten Tomatoes, blu-ray.com, IGN, NNDB, Amazon, cduniverse.com, The New York Times, the Washington Post, the L.A. Times, Time magazine, the marketing divisions of film studios and countless others supposedly have got it so wrong. – ὁ οἶστρος (or, romanized, "ho oistros") (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's possibly a British/American English thing. All those sources are American, but the British Film Institute opts for lower capitalisation: BFI. Betty Logan (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Variations in style need not be explained as errors. Dicklyon (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Styles vary. Among guides that resemble ours on this four-letter rule are this and this and this.  Dicklyon (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the links. However, two weren't searchable and within the excerpts of the third that were accessible I couldn't find any pertaining sections. There certainly must be a stronger case for that choice, right? How [and when] was it arrived at in the first place? Was it ever properly hashed out with broad participation? – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The first gives the rule "Capitalize the main words in a title and the first and last word, but do not capitalize a, the, to, or prepositions and conjunctions of fewer than five letters when they occur in the middle of the title."


 * It goes on to say that "The Moon is Down" is wrong because is, though a short word is an important word, and that "Travels With Charley" is wrong. I would hasten to add that the advice, though, is to Hemingway or Steinbeck and to the publisher - were they to have chosen a capital letter, we would be constrained to report that error, in my opinion, although we would not be constrained to use all capitals, as many books do for their titles.


 * The second uses the rule to "Capitalize significant words in titles", and here the advice given is to people like wikipedia editors, where the advise is not on how to construct a title, but how to report a title, although the advice on "importance" I would say is more easily determined by the creator of the work. It says "The classic system is to capitalize the initial letters of the first and last words of a title or subtitle, as well as all major (or "significant") words. Do not capitalize articles (a, an, the), conjunctions (and, but, if) or short prepositions (at, in, on, of) unless they begin the title."


 * The third gives the sage advice that "The use of capital, or uppercase, letters is determined by custom. They are used to call attention to certain words, such as proper nouns and the first word of a sentence."


 * and goes on to say "Capitalize the initial letters of the first and last words of the title of a book, an article, a play, or a film, as well as all major words in the title. Do not capitalize articles (a, an, the) or coordinating conjunctions (and, but, for, or, nor, yet, so), unless they bigin or end the title (The Lives of a Cell). Capitalize propositions within titles only when they contain more than four letters (Between, Within, Until, After), unless you are following a style that recommends otherwise."


 * This advice appears to apply both to originators and reports of works. Apteva (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Down in "The Moon is Down" is an adjective, not a preposition. I.e., down is serving the same function as red in the construction the moon is red. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  01:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Betty Logan, the BFI is an interesting find. On the other hand, a quick [and doubtlessly superficial] perusing of other British organs – such as The Daily Telegraph, Financial Times, The Guardian and The Independent – showed no support for the "shorter than five letters" rule. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Where the MOS can become OR is if no one writes "Somewhere over the Rainbow", and only Wikipedia writes it that way, that clearly is OR. Ditto if no one changes all caps in RUBBER SOUL to Rubber Soul, that is also OR. WP reports what the world does, and is, without making things up, which is what OR is. Apteva (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be best not to keep confusing the content policy WP:NOR with styling guidelines; and this song is an odd case, since its actual title is Over the Rainbow. And it does appear in some sources with lower case "over", not rarely.  And you're not seriously proposing that we use all caps in Rubber Soul, are you?  Dicklyon (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The thing to do when you find such inconsistencies is just to work on them. It is not surprising that WP still has lots of style inconsistencies.  The MOS provides the guidance for which way to go to make things better.  For example, Gerschwin's Someone to Watch over Me can be moved to lower-case over, which is not rare in reliable sources.  See the first sentence of MOS:CAPS, which is what distinguishes our style from some others.  Dicklyon (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There are two problems with that though - first does it appear to accurately represent the actual title, and second while some books use "over" instead of "Over", "Over" is the preferred choice. But that is misleading because Someone to Watch Over Me is a popular book title, used by perhaps dozens of authors. Click on the Ngram links at the bottom, and try to even find references to Gershwin in any of the more recent citations. Apteva (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Since Google Ngram Viewer is all about quantity (not quality), I don't see how this would be a suitable tool for establishing guidelines. Like, there are also significant instances of
 * "Neandertal" (treacherous, as the eponymous German valley [today] actually is spelled "Neandertal")
 * vs.
 * "Neanderthal" or
 * "miniscule"
 * vs.
 * "minuscule".
 * The BFI, the lonely major source brought up that seems to use lowercasing for prepositions such as "over", also is not consistent with Wikipedia's MoS; e.g.,
 * Wait until Dark
 * vs.
 * Wait Until Dark. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 12:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait until Dark
 * vs.
 * Wait Until Dark. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 12:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait Until Dark. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 12:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

What I find interesting about all these style guides is that the question isn't really what to do with four character prepositions, it's what to do with five-and-longer ones. I think all of them would have "over" be in lower case, but some of them simply say that prepositions should be in lower case, and give no different rule for longer ones.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The more important rule is to capitalize "significant words" in a title. As to NGRAMs, that is a title issue, not a MOS issue. Apteva (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

While I personally think we should just go the IMDb way (as ungainly as some of the titles there look) and style everything according to the guidelines used there, to take JHunterJ up on his proposal, how about modifying WP:NCCAPS to accommodate for these spelling versions?:

[proposed by ὁ οἶστρος:] [proposed by JHunterJ:]
 * From Dusk till Dawn (covered by current policy)
 * Wait until Dark (not covered by current policy)
 * Stranger than Fiction (covered by current policy)
 * My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean / One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (not covered by current policy)
 * 20000 Leagues Under the Sea (covered by current policy)
 * Once Upon a Time in America (not covered by current policy)
 * Girl Walks into a Bar (covered by current policy) – not sure it shouldn't be "Into", though (even if it looks as ugly as "Is")
 * The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain (not covered by current policy)
 * It Came from Outer Space (covered by current policy)
 * From Russia with Love (covered by current policy)
 * Blue Like Jazz (not covered by current policy)
 * Bridge Over Troubled Water (not covered by current policy)
 * Alternate From Dusk Till Dawn (not covered by current policy)
 * 33⅓ Revolutions Per Monkee (not covered by current policy)
 * Star Trek Into Darkness (not covered by current policy)
 * [add your own examples]

Would be a compromise / hybrid of "both worlds": even more lowercasing but at the same time allowing for some exceptions to avoid counter-intuitive "butt-ugliness". – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The proper title of the last is logically Star Trek: Into Darkness (regardless what IMDb says - it is not a reliable source), so the "into" would be capitalized regardless of this debate (first or last word of a title or subtitle). SMcCandlish'''   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib. 01:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Added an alternate result for From Dusk Till Dawn, and added Bridge Over Troubled Water, Blue Like Jazz, and 33⅓ Revolutions Per Monkee. We can sort the List of English prepositions into "capitalized (when used as a preposition, as long as it's not the first or last word in a title or subtitle)" and "uncapitalized (unless it's either not used as a preposition or the first or last word in a title or subtitle)" -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems to me you're advocating the IMDb model. I'd be all for that, the only constructions looking rather weird there that I can think of off the top of my head would be
 * ... from ... Until... and
 * ... from ... Till....
 * (as already mentioned in my very first post). Also, there's the question of "into" vs. "Into". Case for the former: it's just "in" and "to" put together; case for the latter: "Upon" and the like (but then, at IMDb, it's "Up" vs. "in"). Good idea about using that list. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't mean to advocate for deferring all of our titles to the IMDb's choice of caps. If we coincidentally land there, that's fine though. I don't think we should worry about which tiny words were assembled into which short words; the short words are now different enough and can't be simply replaced with their bits. Added one more: "Into Darkness" appears to be a subtitle in the new Star Trek film, even if they've made the weird call to omit a colon or hyphen or anything else. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (as already mentioned in my very first post). Also, there's the question of "into" vs. "Into". Case for the former: it's just "in" and "to" put together; case for the latter: "Upon" and the like (but then, at IMDb, it's "Up" vs. "in"). Good idea about using that list. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't mean to advocate for deferring all of our titles to the IMDb's choice of caps. If we coincidentally land there, that's fine though. I don't think we should worry about which tiny words were assembled into which short words; the short words are now different enough and can't be simply replaced with their bits. Added one more: "Into Darkness" appears to be a subtitle in the new Star Trek film, even if they've made the weird call to omit a colon or hyphen or anything else. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I would not prefer IMDb's capitalization because it's IMDb, but because that seems to be the standard used, well, almost everywhere (if someone has the answer, I'd still like to know where they have borrowed it from).
 * Under Getting Started > Submission Guides > Title Formats (section Capitalization and character sets), they merely state:
 * "English language words which must begin with a lower-case letter are: an and as at by for from in of on or the to with".
 * It doesn't get simpler than that. Granted, it's a bit nonchalantly / loosely worded, omitting clarifications such as "unless they begin or end a title" (although that's implicitly taken into account), but I'm sure there are some Wikipedians who could elegantly and comprehensively incorporate the principles behind it into the existing MoS, while keeping it clear and readily accessible for everybody.
 * I suggest either adopting that approach in whole (which would cover everything JHunterJ would like to see) or amending it by adding
 * till,
 * until,
 * into,
 * onto and
 * than (but not Then)
 * to their list and be done with it (good-bye, "shorter than five letters" rule).
 * (By the way, browsing the database, you will find that IMDb is not always applying their own compass consistently, either, but in virtually every case that's just a matter of erroneous submissions that are open for correction – in the few cases where it's deliberate, then that's because they also do respect how the creators want their work spelled.) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I see; I had misunderstood the IMDb suggestion, sorry! Yes, I'd be fine adopting their list, or adopting a similar list (such as your additions). I think I'd capitalize Till and Until and Than, but I've got no heartburn if WP decides to lowercase them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * onto and
 * than (but not Then)
 * to their list and be done with it (good-bye, "shorter than five letters" rule).
 * (By the way, browsing the database, you will find that IMDb is not always applying their own compass consistently, either, but in virtually every case that's just a matter of erroneous submissions that are open for correction – in the few cases where it's deliberate, then that's because they also do respect how the creators want their work spelled.) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I see; I had misunderstood the IMDb suggestion, sorry! Yes, I'd be fine adopting their list, or adopting a similar list (such as your additions). I think I'd capitalize Till and Until and Than, but I've got no heartburn if WP decides to lowercase them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (By the way, browsing the database, you will find that IMDb is not always applying their own compass consistently, either, but in virtually every case that's just a matter of erroneous submissions that are open for correction – in the few cases where it's deliberate, then that's because they also do respect how the creators want their work spelled.) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I see; I had misunderstood the IMDb suggestion, sorry! Yes, I'd be fine adopting their list, or adopting a similar list (such as your additions). I think I'd capitalize Till and Until and Than, but I've got no heartburn if WP decides to lowercase them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That's the way I saw it, too. Actually, that's the reason all this started, as I – unwitting of the "shorter than five letters" rule – wanted to move From Noon till Three to From Noon Till Three. Meanwhile (primarily because of the unsightliness of "... from ... Till/Until ...", as in Lora from Morning Till Evening), I'd lowercase those few words. But crossing a Bridge over Troubled Water? I don't see that. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Commment. This discussion seems to be quite film-centric, and maybe isn't taking fully into account the requirements of other projects that have prominent usage of composition titles, but surely we should be discussing any changes in terms of published style guides, and which we should take our lead from, rather than in terms of what other websites do. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But surely we are not restricted to published styles guides as the only input to this discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. Isn't there an element of making up our own rules for the English language if we just copy what others do (or seem to do), rather than following established guidelines for usage?  I guess it could be seen as WP:SYNTHESIS.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Establish guidelines contradict each other, so we'll have to "make up our rules" (or make up our minds) regardless, no one's suggesting we "just" copy what others seem to do, and style guidelines are not encyclopedia articles, so it can't be seen as WP:OR. Also, the problems above also include musical compositions/ -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we should be debating this in terms of the contradictions between the style guides and which established style we should adopt, not look to other websites to see what they do, without knowing their reasoning behind it (unless of course they have a published style guide). We don't know why the BFI or IMDB make the decisions they do.  For all we know they could use a completely arbitrary system, so we shouldn't be following them.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. We should be debating this in terms of what makes the most sense (or best improvement) for Wikipedia. If a hypothetically arbitrary system makes the most sense for WP or results in the most improvement, we should use it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's just anarchy! :)  Should we start using arbitrary systems of punctuation and spelling too?  We need to ensure our style guide has some basis in established usage.  Whether that proves to be slavishly following one manual, or cherrypicking between different manuals, that's fine by me, but we shouldn't be inventing our own rules without seeking a precedent.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt any system (capitalization, spelling, or punctuation) that makes sense for WP will be arbitrary, and none of the systems under discussion are arbitrary or without precedent. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there is a suggestion above to copy what IMDB do, but also to add a few four letter prepositions, but not all of them, and there is no mention of phrasal verbs (which is what brought me to this discussion!). This seems pretty arbitrary and doesn't seem to follow any of the accepted precedents for title capitalisation.  I wasn't party to earlier discussions regarding the current style guideline, but they seem to have been well considered, and to me, the proposed changes seem whimsical.  Any changes should be considered more widely, and we should seek broad input from other projects, particularly literature and language projects, rather than base the changes on what an internet movie database (that we don't even trust as a reliable source) use for their criteria of titling films, then adding a few arbitrarily chosen prepositions of our own.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No one's suggesting any change to the way we handle phrasal verbs (we continue to capitalize them in all cases). This discussion is just around prepositions, but without any arbitrariness (no one's suggesting we cast lots to see which prepositions are capitalized). -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

To respond to the original post, I have no idea where the "five letter" so-called rule came from, and disagree with it (and wonder who added it, with what supposed consensus), but it's a moot point. We don't change the titles of published works, last I looked, if they are consistently done a particular way. Now, if movie posters for From Dusk Till Dawn sometimes spelled it "till", we'd have a case for applying MOS's lower-casing rule, but otherwise we don't. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  02:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, we ignore the capitalization used in the work and all reliable sources in favor of our own MOS, and not doing so would be an even harder change to get through.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think SMcCandlish's point is that we typically do something like what MOS:TM makes explicit: editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones) and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English.  It makes as much sense for composition titles as for trademarks, perhaps. Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Read again. He's saying we wouldn't apply our MOS rule to write "Dusk till Dawn" unless the movie posters used it inconsistently. That's just not the case.&mdash;Kww(talk) 06:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I won't try to speak for him. But I'm unclear on what you're saying.  Are you stating your opinion of what we should do, or an interpretation of what we do do?  In terms of "styles already in use", "till" is certainly out there, though maybe not in movie posters, which isn't were MOS:TM would suggest we look.  If he really meant we should restrict to what we find on movie posters, I'd say, no, that's not what MOS suggests, nor what we do.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was using posters as an example (add in press releases, reviews, IMDb listing, DVD cover, etc., etc.) If the title of the work is consistently spelled/capitalized/punctuated one way, why would we change it? I haven't seen anyone move Inglourious Basterds to a "correctly spelled" article name. On this micro-issue, I can only speak to what I do personally, which is name a work according to how it is spelled, if that's consistent, but if it hasn't been consistent and thus there is no "official" name, change it to what MOS prefers.  I have not paid any attention to what others have been doing with such titles. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  01:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Spelling and styling are two different issues. Of course we shouldn't change a spelling, but as far as style goes we follow our own MOS for capitalisation of composition titles per MOS:CT, regardless of the published capitalisation.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not everyone entirely agrees that they are different issues. If you look at our most noisy and fractious perennial disputes here, you'll see that quite a few of them (most recently dashes vs. hyphens) come about because not everyone agrees they're distinguishable concerns in all cases. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  22:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, as shown at the very beginning of this section, Wikipedians, such as many of those assessing RMs, for example, clearly do not follow what you put forward, but instead point out that the MoS was "quite clear about this" – and why should they not?, as the MoS is clear on that point, only that it advocates, well, [at the very least] questionable rules for that point to begin with, in my opinion. (and, yeah, I won't contest the fine by the style police for the æsthetically challenged overuse in close succession of words deriving from the same root, and will instead only point at myself)

(Incidentally, I don't see a need for opening the can of worms – as I don't think it's as clear-cut as some seem convinced – of where the line between style and substance, the formal and the material, is to be drawn.)

There seems to be agreement (among the few participants in this discussion) that the current title capitalization rules are insufficient / subpar. So, where to go from here? What formal steps are there to be taken? While I don't know my way around the procedural parts of Wikipedia, what I can do is repeat, sum up and juxtapose the three options currently on the discoursive table, so that it can be presented in a bit less unwieldy and more neatly fashion for further consideration (although it's certainly not meant to replace the much more detailed and comprehensive debate proper).

But first, let me object to the claim that what's proposed here were film-centric approaches. I dont see that at all. To me – and I've yet to hear a cogent argument contradicting this –, work titles are work titles are work titles (yeah, we style TV series titles differently from episode titles, but you get the gist), and the rules suggested can be applied (and are widely applied) unreservedly to songs, sheet music, books, articles, video games, what have you (again, see the [short, unrepresentative and unsystematic] laundry list of publications I give a few posts above this one) – and for all, there are some quirky specimens that elude easy classification, that therefore can be controversial and for which there has to be made a case-by-case decision on how to represent them. (Like, is it "Se7en" or "Seven"?) Sure, I mostly (but not exclusively, as correctly indicated by JHunterJ) use[d] film titles for illustrative purposes here, but I might just as well have chosen song or poem or declaration or manifesto titles.

Oh, and, please, no more accusations of me wanting "whimsical" solutions:

For one, adding to JHunterJ's voice, it's been declared here numerous times before that the MoS is its very own, independent entity that draws non-exclusive inspiration heavily from a multitude of renowned – and sometimes conflicting – normative guides without following, adopting and adapting everything from all or any particular one of them (whether that's right / appropriate / wise or not is another matter to be examined separately).

Apart from that, it's obvious to anyone who really read what I wrote that I amply, over and over, many, many [many, many, ...] times repeatedly expressly declared that I would like to see authoritative sources on the matter and certainly wouldn't mind the MoS to be grounded on such.

There has been some chiming in, but I'm still mostly left in the dark as to what (singular or plural) both Wikipedia's MoS and the breadth of respected publications I enumerated base their capitalization on – and since the former goes against virtually all of the latter (and at times even against the BFI, the sole "contrarian" in the mix), if anything, it seems to me, it's the current practice at Wikipedia that might be termed "whimsical"...

IMDb serves as just one widely recognized and vastly influential (irrespective of what one personally might think of them) exponent that uses a way of displaying titles that (assuming – and conceivably incorrectly so – that it's everywhere identical down to the minutiæ) seems to be the predominant one the world over (it also makes sense to look at what IMDb does in light of the fact that they surely must obsess over spelling, as it's a, no, the vital part of their business, on which hinges quite everything for them).

Anyway, here are the three main types of capitalization rules weighed so far (NB: what follows is not worded in a manner fit for inclusion into the MoS; it's still about gauging the what? before taking on the how?, though shots at drafting something usable are naturally always welcome):


 * 1) what's current in Wikipedia's MoS (whencever it came)
 * 2) *includes the mysterious "shorter than five letters" rule
 * 3) *renders ... from ... till... and ... from ... Until...
 * as, for instance, seen at IMDb, but actually used (perhaps in variations) by a whole host of on- and offline publications (see the "few" examples I've given)
 * 1) *save for their position at the beginning or end of a title, these English-language words must begin with a lower-case letter: a, an, and, as, at, by, for, from, in, of, on, or, the, to, with
 * 2) *renders ... from ... Till... and ... from ... Until...
 * 3) "third way" (And maybe there is an established published guide advocating this style, too, who knows? – I, for one, don't know.)
 * 4) *save for their position at the beginning or end of a title, these English-language words must begin with a lower-case letter: a, an, and, as, at, by, for, from, in, into, of, on, onto, or, than, the, till, to, until, with
 * 5) *renders ... from ... till... and ... from ... until...

Or, by way of examples:


 * 1) *It's a Wonderful Life
 * 2) *I Was an Adventuress
 * 3) *The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp
 * 4) *As Good as It Gets
 * 5) *Right at Your Door
 * 6) *City by the Sea
 * 7) *Thank You for Smoking
 * 8) *It Came from Outer Space
 * 9) *Singin' in the Rain
 * 10) *Girl Walks into a Bar
 * 11) *Lawrence of Arabia
 * 12) *Strangers on a Train
 * 13) *They're onto Us
 * 14) *Live Free or Die Hard
 * 15) *Stranger than Fiction
 * 16) *Lonely Are the Brave
 * 17) *Lora from Morning till Evening
 * 18) *Last Train to Freo
 * 19) *Wait Until Dark
 * 20) *From Russia with Love
 * 21) *One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest
 * 22) *20000 Leagues Under the Sea
 * 23) *The Englishman Who Went up a Hill But Came down a Mountain
 * 24) *Once upon a Time in America
 * 25) *(And Then There Were None)
 * 26) *It's a Wonderful Life
 * 27) *I Was an Adventuress
 * 28) *The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp
 * 29) *As Good as It Gets
 * 30) *Right at Your Door
 * 31) *City by the Sea
 * 32) *Thank You for Smoking
 * 33) *It Came from Outer Space
 * 34) *Singin' in the Rain
 * 35) *Girl Walks Into a Bar
 * 36) *Lawrence of Arabia
 * 37) *Strangers on a Train
 * 38) *They're Onto Us
 * 39) *Live Free or Die Hard
 * 40) *Stranger Than Fiction
 * 41) *Lonely Are the Brave
 * 42) *Lora from Morning Till Evening
 * 43) *Last Train to Freo
 * 44) *Wait Until Dark
 * 45) *From Russia with Love
 * 46) *One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
 * 47) *20000 Leagues Under the Sea
 * 48) *The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain
 * 49) *Once Upon a Time in America
 * 50) *(And Then There Were None)
 * 51) *It's a Wonderful Life
 * 52) *I Was an Adventuress
 * 53) *The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp
 * 54) *As Good as It Gets
 * 55) *Right at Your Door
 * 56) *City by the Sea
 * 57) *Thank You for Smoking
 * 58) *It Came from Outer Space
 * 59) *Singin' in the Rain
 * 60) *Girl Walks into a Bar
 * 61) *Lawrence of Arabia
 * 62) *Strangers on a Train
 * 63) *They're onto Us
 * 64) *Live Free or Die Hard
 * 65) *Stranger than Fiction
 * 66) *Lonely Are the Brave
 * 67) *Lora from Morning till Evening
 * 68) *Last Train to Freo
 * 69) *Wait until Dark
 * 70) *From Russia with Love
 * 71) *One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
 * 72) *20000 Leagues Under the Sea
 * 73) *The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain
 * 74) *Once Upon a Time in America
 * 75) *(And Then There Were None)
 * 1) *The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain
 * 2) *Once Upon a Time in America
 * 3) *(And Then There Were None)

Still open (well, for the person adding it, anyway): [added by ὁ οἶστρος:] [add what else comes to mind] – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * unto, as in Night unto Night / Night Unto Night
 * vs / vs. / versus, as in Tucker and Dale vs Evil


 * Comment - The rule about lowercasing prepositions in composition titles originally came from The Chicago Manual of Style. Its rule states that all prepositions are lowercased unless the first or last word of the title/heading, or if part of a phrasal verb. However, The Associated Press modifies this rule and lowercases only those words that have less than five letters. Wikipedia currently follows that modification. I don't have a CMoS subscription, but I learned about these rules here. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As I mention above, "We need to ensure our style guide has some basis in established usage". Therefore if it seems we are following the style of The Associated Press then this is fine by me.  If we decide to change this and follow another style guide then this is fine by me also.  However, we should not be arbitrarily inventing our own style guide without following an established precedent.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think the easiest and simplest way to deal with this issue is to, for films, books, musical comps - in short any piece of creative work produced by a person or company, simply follow the choice of the creator (with possible exception for the likes of TH13TEEN, where stylised as should be used). As an encyclopedia, surely our ultimate aim is to be as accurate as possible to reflect, firstly, official and verifiable sources, and secondly, real world usage. douts (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, that's a terrible idea. Manuals of style exist for a very good reason. How many times, for example, have you seen the track listing on an album cover be in all uppercase? Or all lowercase, for that matter? We need a guide and we need to stick to it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, maybe I should have made it clearer. I was suggesting using the creators choice for article titles only. Also, with regard to song titles - listings on album covers may indeed sometimes be in all caps (often a marketing choice made by the production company, not the artists themselves), however on the official websites of the artists, they are normally (no doubt with a few exceptions) listed in lowercase. see and . Also, I'm by no means suggesting throwing out the MOS completely, however, this particular 5 letter or less rule seems to be causing much more trouble than its worth. douts (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, we are talking about the same thing. All composition titles, basically. Anything that can end up as an article title should be subject to MOS guidelines, or there will end up being article move wars all the time. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair point - but also as such, the MOS needs to, and must allow us to achieve our goal here. To be as accurate as feasibly possible. At present, this rule is preventing us from doing that. The Into Darkness issue is a perfect example of that failing - official sources and real world usage uses an uppercase I, yet this guideline is saying we should use a lowercase i. Therefore we are failing in our aim of being accurate, and as such, the guideline must be changed. douts (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The point of the MoS is to achieve consistency. Inconsistencies arise because different countries, publications, individuals may use a different style to each other, or no style at all, intentionally or not intentionally.  In order to achieve clarity, we should be applying a consistent style, regardless of how others may report it.  We're not being inaccurate by doing this, as Wikipedia is our publication, so we apply our style, just like a newspaper or other publication will apply theirs.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The trouble is, using Into Darkness as an example again, applying our style as it is now suggests an entirely different meaning than the one suggested by the official title. There needs to be a way that we can apply our style without creating this issue. douts (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not the case. Only some people think the meaning is changed. Many do not agree with you. Even Paramount uses the title as part of a sentence. Clearly it is meant to be read as a complete title with no pauses. And there is absolutely no way we are going to change MOS just because some people at one article think the guideline is wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This whole section is not about just one article. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Star Trek issue is best left at the correct talk page. It has already been discussed at length there, and we shouldn't be WP:POINTY here just to accommodate the one article.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Some quick thoughts. Scjessey, thanks for the link. However, according to your source, "[...], The Associated Press would have you capitalize prepositions and conjunctions if they are four or more letters long." [bolding by me] – or in other words, the AP propagates (again, according to dailywritingtips.com) a "shorter than four letters rule" (which is not what WP:MoS currently prescribes), resulting in ... Into ..., ... Over ... and ... Upon ... (just like as seen at IMDb etc.), but also in ... From ... and ... With ... (unlike what's at IMDb etc.); but then again, maybe those rules are more intricate and dailywritingtips.com simply conveys them wrongly. This wouldn't surprise me, as they also feature this:

"Sentence case, or down style, is one method, preferred by many print and online publications and recommended by the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. The only two rules are the two rules mentioned above: Capitalize the first word and all proper nouns. Everything else is in lowercase. For example: Why it’s never too late to learn grammar (all words lowercased except “Why”—first word in title)"

This seems to be misrepresenting APA in general or is at the very least confusing, as it doesn't mention APA's approach to titles. While I couldn't find much of anything useful concerning major style guides with unrestricted access online, I did stumble upon this (see p. 48). Recommending for titles what they call "Headline-Style Capitalization", the APA actually seems to say (what follows is out of the 2011 edition of the Pocket Guide to APA Style, an inofficial sorta "Reader's Digest" version of the real thing),

"[...]; capitalize all other words except articles, to (as part of an infinitive phrase), and conjunctions or prepositions of three or fewer letters." [again, bolding by me]

This again gives [among others] the weird ... From ... and ... With ... constructs (again, if represented accurately by that source).

Robsinden wrote, "we should not be arbitrarily inventing our own style guide". To basically repeat what I wrote several times before: If we already are following an amalgamation of several style guides (it does not seem to be "CMoS + AP", though), I don't see any methodological difference between that and my "proposition 3" (whether I would actually prefer that to what IMDb and others do, I'm not yet sure myself). – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think "shorter than 4 words" would be an ideal solution to resolve these problems - I can't think of many cases where there would be much contention over uppercase or lowercase for 2 or 3 letter words. douts (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: The way I learned it, length is never a factor. All prepositions are always lowercase unless not being used as prepositions (as “onto” in “They’re Onto Us”). —Frungi (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think this ("to be onto sb/sth", that is) qualifies. See here for an illustrative discussion on the matter. Therein contained is also a funny and memorable example helping to make clear the distinction (those easily offended may stop reading now):
 * Come On Eileen vs. Come on Eileen (the former should technically sport a comma after "On", but often, "title givers" are rather sloppy with punctuation)
 * Thusly, the capitalization of a single letter serves to convey two different meanings for an otherwise identical title (also something for the "capitalization is purley a style issue, and the way something is styled is always independent of its content, wherefore talk of 'right' and 'wrong' shall not be tolerated in this context" crowd to ponder on). – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, this is how the folks at MusicBrainz profess to handle things (which seems to be in between "proposition 2" – or "preposition proposition [2]", if one wants to emphasize the focus on prepositions – and "[prep] prop 3"), though, while they somewhat explain their rationale, they don't provide any sources. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the Chicago Manual of Style method of simply lowercasing all prepositions that aren't the first or last in a title/heading (or a phrasal verb) would seem to be the easiest system to adopt. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with that - it's an established and respected style guide. As long as we follow one of them...  (And if fewer than four is also in wide usage by an established style guide, that would be acceptable too - my comments were related to when people seemed to be in favour of following the IMDB system without considering whether they were following an established guide).  But yes, maybe we should seek consistency with ONE style guide, rather than cherrypicking from a variety of different guides. --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The IMDB system is a non-starter anyway, because we are talking about all composition titles. Books, films, plays, albums, songs, pamphlets, magazines, bits of legislation, whatever. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "[The CMoS] would seem to be the easiest system to adopt" (Scjessey) ... and would be at variance with how most titles (save for a few academic papers, maybe) are spelled in the overwhelming majority of "publishing-level" instances. (Rob Sinden: "[...] my comments were related to when people seemed to be in favour of following the IMDB system without considering whether they were following an established guide" – who are these people?) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Scjessey, how would the system behind IMDb be a "non-starter"? If IMDb used CMoS, would CMoS then become a non-starter, only because a film site uses it?
 * (I'm sure you don't mean ill, but what you are doing is putting up and tearing down straw men, instead of addressing what I actually wrote.
 * It's not about IMDb only, it's not about IMDb per se, it's not about a film-centric approach – a plethora of on- and offline publishers use that way of capitalizing, they certainly do not base it on IMDb, their output comprises the widest imaginable range of work titles.
 * Not only did I spell out all of that in a clear and nuanced way the very first time around, no, I also explicitly repeated those points that were already worded rather unambiguously to begin with several times.) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I support amending the rule to cover all prepositions. The idea of capitalizing long prepositions is just a carry-over of the old convention of capitalizing all important words in all texts. It's a silly rule, as having X letters does not make a prep important, and we no longer cap anything else because it's important. — kwami (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd go for that, too. It's definitely a more sensible, and less arbitrary sounding rule.  Being in the CMOS is enough to make it at least a candidate.  Dicklyon (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It sure is a valid candidate, but while the CMoS is held in high regard and of great import to many areas, I just can't see that its influence extends significantly to capitalization of titles. Before another of those unfounded "you want a film-only solution" charges is hurled, take a look at the table of contents of this (Hal Leonard Corporation) or this (Music Sales Group). There's a myriad of real-world examples such as these where IMDb-like capitalization is applied (I'd of course still would like to know what all those are based on). Can you point to a smiliar breadth (many publications) and depth (quality publications) with regards to CMoS capitalization? (Also, are you guys / gals positive that the CMoS really says what you think it says? That's an honest question, as I personally don't have access to a copy and therefore have to rely on second-hand sources – and, as shown farther up, those can be wrong.)
 * Yes, it does. CMoS 16th ed.: "8.155: Capitalization of titles of works—general principles. Titles mentioned or cited in text or notes are usually capitalized headline-style (...) 8.157: Principles of headline-style capitalization (...) 3. Lowercase prepositions, regardless of length [except phrasal verbs and Latin expressions like De Facto, In Vitro, etc.] (...) 4. Lowercase the conjunctions and, but, for, or, and nor. 5. Lowercase to [always] and lowercase as in any grammatical function." --Enric Naval (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, Enric Naval. I can't support choosing CMoS for title capitalization, then. In addition to many titles among the kind listed above, countless others, containing prepositions such as ... about ..., ... against ..., ... beneath ..., ... between ..., ... beyond ..., ... past ... and so forth, would look weird and be out of sync with common usage as well. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME has nothing to do with the style of a page title. I think using CMoS is a great idea, and I would throw my full support behind that. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You can go around framing your opinions as apodictically as you want, that doesn't mean the matter is as clear-cut as you think it is. Also, being actually used certainly doesn't disqualify any styles nor any guides advocating them. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there is an attempt to explicitly remove that confusion, via the RFC now open at WP:AT. A majority of respondents agree that we should explicitly state in TITLE that the MOS is the guideline for article title styling, which is how we have always done it, and is the implicit point underlying most of this discussion.  Some users don't think it's put clearly enough, and a few want to be able to let majority of sources determine title styling, but that is a very marginal idea, as it conflict with the whole idea of WP having any kind of consistent styling.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're not saying I am arguing against consistency, are you? No matter what one thinks of [the exact location of] the substance–style divide, why should "consistency" and "wide distribution" necessarily be mutually exclusive, why should the former not have preceded the latter? Ever thought about the possibility that there actually might be a reason for the apparent prevalence of the style used by IMDb and many, many others, that there might be a system behind that practice? I'm still waiting for the style experts here to tell me where that style was adopted from (then we could finally use the proper name, as many people seem to find it difficult to distinguish between "do as IMDb does because it's IMDb" and "let's find out what style guide IMDb follows and examine said style guide further") – a style that's been around way before IMDb even came into existence. Instead of just saying "I don't care if it's popular, we don't do popular around here!" (and thereby dismissing a view that isn't even held in this debate – at least not by me), one could be asking "Why is it popular? Might there be an authoritative style guide behind it?" You can have a style that's popular and systematic and therefore consistent, if it's well founded, ya know? – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So, what do we have so far? Current MoS (capitalization rules of unclear origin), AP, APA and CMoS? What does the MLA say? What's the style guide governing "my" above "proposition 2"? What's the respective stance of other style guides? – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Since determining the look of work titles throughout Wikipedia shouldn't be decided upon easily, does anybody know how to bring this to the attention of actual publishers, database operators, archivists, ... in all kinds of fields? – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sentence style for headings that start with dates
WP:MOSHEAD currently states that headline style should generally be used for headings:


 * " The provisions in Article titles (above) generally apply to section headings as well (for example, headings are in sentence case, not title case). "

Is this intended to apply to headings in history articles that start with a date range, followed by text? I stumbled upon this problem at History of the European Union, where–at some point in the past and to conform with WP:MOSHEAD–all headings were changed from the form to the form I assume the reason for starting with the date range is that the heading text refers to the most salient event(s) of the period but the body contains other information as well. Whichever way, should WP:MOSHEAD state the rule specifically? The current interpretation of the rule in the cited article looks decidedly odd to me, but I would not like to change the headings without asking, especially since there might be bots out there that will change it back. I see that History of Israel uses the same format, but the problem does not arise because the date range is followed by a proper name. --Boson (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Pre-1945: Idea of Europe
 * 1973–1993: Enlargement to Delors
 * '''1993–2004: Creation
 * Pre-1945: idea of Europe
 * 1973–1993: enlargement to Delors
 * '''1993–2004: creation


 * The question is not about dates, but about whether to capitalize the first word after a colon. I'm not sure what the WP:MOS says about this, but if it says something, we should follow it.  If it's silent, then sentence-like would be my presumption of what it means.  Dicklyon (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem, as I see it, is that the normal rules about colons apply to sentences, and this type of usage does not occur in normal sentences. I don't know if I would really talk of a grammatical relationship between the two parts of the heading. It is somewhat similar to the use of a colon to introduce a subtitle (especially one that is understood almost as an alternative title) in book titles. The MOS section on colons has: "Sometimes, more in American than British usage, the word following a colon is capitalized, if that word effectively begins a new grammatical sentence, [. . .]". I'm not sure if the comma preceding if is important.--Boson (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: I agree with not normally capitalizing following a colon, in normal sentences; and I agree with using down style for headings. However, this seems a special case, in that neither the whole heading nor the part following the colon is a sentence. I found this in CMoS (14th ed.16.60):
 * "Sentence style capitalization, sometimes referred to as down style, means that only the first word of the main title, the first word of the subtitle [my emphasis], all proper nouns and proper adjectives, and the personal pronoun I are capitalized."
 * The CMoS section is talking about the titles of books, chapters, and articles, rather than sections, but it is talking about sentence style. --Boson (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * [A related discussion is archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 133 (November 2012).
 * —Wavelength (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)]
 * Having now read that discussion, it looks to me as if we need to distinguish clearly between
 * capitalization following a colon in running prose
 * capitalization following a colon in a heading or title (preceding a subtitle or the like)
 * I think attributive use in phrases like "1945 bombing raids" is a different issue that does not apply here. --Boson (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Good, Boson. And that is a useful link, Wavelength.
 * Yes, there are two distinct issues here:
 * Capitalisation for the first word (in normal use) occurring after an initial number (or numerical range, etc.), in an article title or a heading, no colon intervening.
 * I say that these cases are clear:
 * 1066, the most memorable date in British history
 * 1066 as the most memorable date in British history
 * 1939–1945 in Poland
 * 10 pm – midnight, on radio and television
 * Capitalisation after a colon functioning relevantly like sentential punctuation, as before the subtitle of a book (or similar production).
 * By convention in bibliography, a subtitle is introduced by a colon. The convention is so strong and convenient that it is normal to add a colon at that point (or to replace other punctuation, such as the full stop used in some non-English bibliography), and always to capitalise a word that occurs immediately after the colon. Examples that accord with, for example, APA style:
 * Virtue, liberty, and toleration: Political ideas of European women, 1400–1800
 * [Despite there being no punctuation just before the subtitle on the title page or the cover, nor anywhere else in the book.]
 * The bluebook: A uniform system of citation
 * [Actual example taken from APA5.]
 * The system is not universal, and in fact it is less used in library cataloguing. But it is very prevalent. It is stipulated in Citing_sources/example_style (dreadfully expressed and inaccurate, but relevant for our purposes):
 * "Do not capitalize every word of the article title—only the first word, proper names, and the first word after a colon/period/dash."
 * So these would be correct form for a journal article:
 * "Newton and Leibniz: Co-inventors of the calculus"
 * "1973–1993: Enlargement to Delors"
 * "1939: The world at war again"
 * And I would have no problem extending the principle to article titles (if the colon were permitted, but see WP:TITLE; and if these were good titles anyway) or section headings:
 * Newton and Leibniz: Co-inventors of the calculus
 * 1973–1993: Enlargement to Delors
 * 1939: The world at war again
 * The matter is not settled by any WP guidelines that I have surveyed; but this is my own recommendation, till I see better.
 * N oetica Tea? 02:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be OK with that recommendation if it were in the MOS; I will support it if you want to add it. But until it's there, I'd stick with the sentence-like as opposed to subtitle-like way of doing it.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Section titles are titles, and subtitles after a colon are capitalized. We don't have subtitles in article names on WP, but the convention of doing this is the norm. — kwami (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I would support that recommendation. As I see it, that would be a change to Manual of Style, and possibly a change to Manual of Style to include something like the following:
 * For colons in headings, see Manual of Style, above.
 * For colons in titles of works (not only in footnotes), see Citing sources/example style.
 * --Boson (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is already covered, isn't it? SECTION refers back to TITLE, and TITLE says, "capital letters are used only where they would be used in a normal sentence". Although colons, like question marks, sometimes occur within a sentence, they typically function as a sentence break. — kwami (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's currently unclear because (although not stated explicitly) the section on the colon talks only about the use of a colon in running prose, i.e. within a sentence or to introduce a grammatical sentence with a meaning similar to "namely". In a title or heading, however, the colon is used more like a sentence break, although titles and headings are seldom grammatical sentences in the normal sense. --Boson (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Macrons in titles
Macrons in titles are being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan (version of 12:39, 19 January 2013). —Wavelength (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

When should we set the MOS to one side?
Given the recent debates on this page, I would like to explore a somewhat philosophical question: Are there ever situations where we should set the MOS to one side... situations where we should make an exception to the MOS? Blueboar (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * From the top of the page: "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's . Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." --JFHutson (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So when does that kick in? Have there actually ever been any situations where the MOS has been set aside or X has been accepted as a common sense exception? Blueboar (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:EXCEPTIONS for more details on exceptions in general. The MOS is routinely "set aside" depending on how literally you interpret it. MOS: doesn't say it's OK to capitalize a generic title if it's in the title of a book, as in The Prince and the Pauper, but of course you would. Beyond things like that, I will often ignore a rule that is being debated (that is, make no edit either way). Or if nobody else is taking the rule seriously, even when I bring up that inconsistency. But in general, if you do the opposite of a MoS guideline in every situation where it can occur, without even making any attempt to change the rule, then you are in the way, even if nobody objects. Art LaPella (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation... I raised the question because the concept that occasional exceptions can be made is definitely not coming across clearly in the discussions. There is an appearance that people are taking an  "We must always follow the MOS - no exceptions" attitude.  I realize that appearances can be deceiving, but they do influence how people react. Food for thought. Blueboar (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hyphenating Hale-Bopp isn't an exception to the WP:ENDASH guideline that explicitly calls for a dash in Hale–Bopp. It's negating that guideline altogether. If someone advocated hyphenating Hale-Bopp only in a specific situation, such as when using the phrase as an adjective, then they would be arguing for an exception. Only then would it be like capitalizing "Prince" in The Prince and the Pauper. Art LaPella (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Three questions when this issue comes up: How would ignoring MOS affect the stylistic cohesion of the encyclopedia? Would it be an advantage for the readers? If it's so important, should I propose changes to the guidelines? Tony   (talk)  01:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, a short answer would be to use my Prince and Pauper example. 1. The prince and the Pauper is of course ridiculous; for one thing, it contradicts another guideline, so my common-sense ignoring promotes cohesion in that case. 2. Would it be an advantage to the reader? Oh maybe a little, to the extent any of the things we think are important are an advantage to the reader. 3. Should you propose a change? No. Trying to account for every exception of that kind would make our already unreadable document several times longer. Art LaPella (talk) 05:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't follow the MoS, in the sense that I have styles and formatting that I almost always use whether MoS-consistent or not, but I check the MoS for anything I'm not sure of, and I'm always insanely grateful to find an answer. I wish that's what the MoS would let itself be – a much-loved repository of things we should know but don't, or once knew but forgot, or thought we knew but actually never did – rather than something people feel forced to follow. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never seen any indication of anyone being forced to follow MOS. Rather, the problems that sometimes come up are when an editor wants to improve an article by making it follow the guidelines of the MOS more closely, and some other editor objects, preferring to make the article follow their own personal style preference.  Do you agree?  Dicklyon (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think people feel forced at FAC and perhaps GAN if it happens there too. Some reviewers ask that MoS styles be imposed, and nominators give in rather than argue, fearing for the nomination. So yes, no one is actually forced (they could say no and the article would pass so long as the styles weren't too weird), but they feel forced. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes... that's a good word... people feel forced to follow the MOS. Its a perception issue more than anything else.  Blueboar (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I stay away from the featured article process because I don't like the concept, but if that's your thing, it's hard to argue that Wikipedia thinks the MoS is a guideline but that our best articles don't need to follow it. And even if it isn't a featured article, I don't think we should be making a point of ignoring a guideline (in every situation, not just arguing exceptions), especially if we don't feel compelled to try to change the guideline. User:Art LaPella/Because the guideline says so Art LaPella (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I recall a situation that I was caught up in, I forget the article now but I had tried to avoid the use of the term "billion" (I had used 1,000 million or something) but was compelled to follow WP:NUMERAL. It was a british subject, and the British government and media have adopted the short-scale terminology, but the long scale definition is still commonly accepted among the general population. The problem here, is the terminology is ambiguous to a British reader (and any other second-language reader who uses the long scale in their country)—even the London stock exchange avoids using the word because of the confusion it can cause. I was even willing to compromise and link the billion to its short scale definition so it would be clarified for the reader, but that was also forbidden. In my view the MOS should clear confusion not create it, and we can't expect readers to be familiar with the MOS. Betty Logan (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The guideline {more exactly, at the end of MOS:NUM) says "billion" is short scale. But it doesn't forbid "1,000 million" and it certainly doesn't forbid linking billion; even the guideline itself links the word to the disambiguation page. If you were told that, your problem isn't with the Manual of Style. Your problem is with people making up their own rules and attributing them to the Manual of Style. And that's the same attitude behind the issue that inspired this section. If you don't like a Manual of Style guideline, then get a consensus to fix it. Instead, some people are bypassing that process by saying the title policy overrules any guideline they don't like, just because the regulated phrase can be used as a title. But that isn't how the title policy is ordinarily used. (This is part of Art LaPella's comment, interrupted and signed below)
 * BettyLogan, methinks that British readers who confuse new and old definitions of billion can't conceptualise either in relation to anything ... it's just a word for a huge amount. They are exposed to the word in its current meaning, unglossed, many times a week in newspapers and on television, too. One of my relatives, unfortunately, is a very good example of this. Tony   (talk)  05:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I also agree we can't expect readers to be familiar with the MOS. You might try Simplified Manual of Style. Art LaPella (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Blueboar is right to acknowledge that people out in the articles treat the MoS as a set of hard rules, regardless of the disclaimer. (Frankly, I'm cool with that.) That is why we have to be very careful whenever we add any new rules or change existing rules. They'd have to be worth thousands of people following them as if they were gospel.
 * Dicklyon, actually that happened to me once. I got brought up on AN/I for using American punctuation in American English articles a couple of years ago.  That's as close to forcing as we get on Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My perception over the years is that most editors want rules to follow; I certainly did, and learned a lot from the MOS, even in its relatively disorganised state six or seven years ago. No one is ever going to pilloried for "breaching" MOS, although it would be considered a nuisance if an editor—after a polite request—persistently made a lot of work for others to fix, in a multitude of articles, concerning a simple issue that could easily be accommodated by that editor. And that's the point: in this collegial, cooperative social environment, MOS plays an important role in setting out what gnomes and other editors might "correct" in the text they survey—it's not everyone's grandmother, as I saw someone resentfully claiming the other day. Tony   (talk)  05:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "No one is ever going to pilloried for 'breaching' MOS" --Tony1. *ahem!* Tony, you've taken part in such events. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Rebuttal to claim that no one is pilloried (of questionable civility)
Since a good deal of the preceding section was taken up with personal attacks on me, I think it's best to sequester them. Tony  (talk)  05:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My goodness, I have seen editors pilloried by you for daring to undo your copy-editing. Twice in the last 30 days:
 * "Don't presume to undo professional copy-editing, Avani. I've never seen anything like it. And don't kick a gift horse in the mouth." followed by "No" (in reply to a polite request)
 * passive-aggresive attitude when your copyedit breaks a wikilink and it gets reverted
 * This is the sort of attitude that makes me wary of giving more strength to the MOS.... --Enric Naval (talk) 06:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * First, why is the MOS associated with me, personally? That's weird. Second, to contextualise your diffs, Tilman and I enjoy a good bicker occasionally—it's a long-standing and complex ritual. And the reversion of my copious copy-editing of the Indian Sound Project page was very silly; no, I don't give my time for nothing, fixing up basic English to make a project look better, just to have someone block revert without explanation. I'm flattered that you follow my activities on en.WP; or perhaps you've been compiling what you consider to be a dirt file on me. Let me save you time: before his year-long site-block, User:PMAnderson had such a dirt file. Why not use that as a foundation? Let me know on my talk page if you want a link to it. I'm sorry you feel you need to insult me and publicly diagnose me as having a psychiatric condition. I don't mind on a personal level—but do beware of breaking the civility policy against other editors, most of whom are likely to be offended and take action against you. Tony   (talk)  06:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I remembered seeing it days ago, and it took 10 minutes to find it and stumble in that other edit along the way. You are normally calm, but you have some worrying outbursts when people revert your copyedits for reasons you disagree with.


 * Now, I still remember certain issue from August 2011, and I took +20 minutes to locate it. Fortunately, I had saved an early draft of the message where I warned you about it, and I could find the editor's name quickly. Female editor User_talk:Jk2q3jrklse reverted one of your edits, and you called her edits "ignorant" and basically questioned her expertise about dog breeds and her level of literacy and you claimed that editors in the dog wikiprojects edited in a secret corner, etc. and then she left wikipedia after that last message in her talk page. There was no reason visible for her leaving other than your messages. I confronted you about this, but you refused to acknowledge any responsability . Ironically, at that time the community was discussing how to attract more female editors.... Maybe I should have brought you to Arbcom that time..... As I said in that message " This makes me think that you will just continue this trend of making comments that other editors find highly offensive and dismissing, possibly causing other editors to leave wikipedia.". You ehave very well when people agree with you. But behold any editor that dares revert your copyedits because he doesn't agree with them! I'm not sure if your behaviour has improved, or if you simply haven't run into any editor that dared reverting you (because they know that you will snap at them). --Enric Naval (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Enric, I looked at those diffs and I see no reference to MOS provisions in them, nor any commentary on the role of MOS. Why have you made this personal against Tony (a highly regarded professional editor)? He may be unruffled by your attack, but I am not happy to see such irrelevant attacks on the MOS talkpage. Will you consider removing those gratuitously offensive elements in your post, which have no bearing on the role of MOS? We are under scrutiny here, remember. I post robustly and directly here with the best of them; but you have crossed a line. N oetica Tea? 07:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "No one is ever going to pilloried for 'breaching' MOS" --Tony1. *ahem!* Tony, you've taken part in such events.
 * However, Tony, nobody said you had a psychiatric condition. Noetica, nobody made this personal.  Tony claimed that people don't get pilloried for disobeying the MoS and Enric provided links that he believes contradict that claim.  If that's an attack, then so is every discussion we've ever had. Okay, Enric referred to Tony as passive aggressive but that's not the same as attempting to psychoanalyze someone. Let's not take that and blow it up into something bigger than it was.  The valid part is that Tony said X and Enric provided evidence that Tony's statement was wrong and Tony responded to that.
 * The MoS is associated with all of the people on this talk page because we're the ones who determine what goes into it. I see no reason why Tony wouldn't be top of that list.  He even wrote his own version of the MoS once. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Passive-aggressive" is classified as a personality disorder by the DMS3R. The passive-aggressive individual feigns compliance then exerts control by manipulation and obstruction. Difficult individuals to deal with, both in the workplace and in the psych unit, as they will not directly express even legitimate needs. Accusing someone of having psychiatric disorders is not appropriate here. If there is some legitimate concern, it needs to be expressed in neutral language. —Neotarf (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it far more likely that Enric was using "passive aggressive" in the colloquial sense than in the DSM-IV sense, but to be 100% sure about what he meant, you'd have to ask him. What I meant was 1. Enric made a valid response to Tony's comment and 2. that fact is getting lost in all the accusations of who's accusing whom of accusing who else of what.  The fact that Enric provided a rebuttal to Tony's statement is more important than the fact that he called Tony passive-aggressive.  The fact that Tony responded with an explanation&mdash;which I would like to read more of&mdash;is more important than the fact that he called Enric on the name-calling.
 * To sum up, 1. yes people have been pilloried for going against the MoS and 2. however, Tony probably has a different definition of "pilloried" than Enric does, a higher pillorification threshold, if you will. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem that I see is a cultural issue more than a substance issue. There is a growing perception out there in Article space that there exists a cabal of "MOS zealots" (my term... others are not as generous.  I have heard the term "Style Nazis" used)... zealots who are not willing to even consider the possibility that X might be an exception to "the rules".  And there is a perception that if someone dares to suggest the possibility of an exception, these zealots will descend upon the article in question to "enforce" the MOS and hound out the dissenter ("Splitter!).  That may well be an unfair perception... but it IS out there, it is growing, and those of you who regularly work on the MOS need to be aware of it (because, rightly or wrongly, it will splash back on everyone who regularly works on style... you will all get tarred with the same "zealot" brush whether you are part of the perceived cabal or not).  The shear volume of ongoing debate at this page (not to mention the various other policy/guideline pages with active MOS related discussions) is symptomatic of this perception... people are getting tired of feeling "pushed around" over style, and more people are beginning to want to push back.  That is going to continue to cause problems for the MOS (and its editors) unless something can be done to change the perception that there is a "culture of blind enforcement" here.  I don't have the answer to what has to be done... I don't even know if anything can be done.  But I do hope the attempt is made.  Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen that. Where differences do come up and sometimes get intense is when the very principles can't be agreed on; seldom about hard "rules".  For example, in hyphenation questions, MOS:HYPHEN doesn't have rules (just summarizing what the main uses are), but the broader principle—that we should write in the way the gives the general reader the best clues to the meaning, so they don't have to puzzle it out (like in the duck-tolling retriever case linked above)—is sometimes itself in dispute.  Perhaps I am seen by some as a style nazi when I try to  make things that way and someone else prefers a more-ambiguous less-hyphenated style, and we argue, but in most cases such clarifications go unremarked.  We had a protracted, but civil, discussion, which we all lost in a bizarre close, at Talk:Ultra_high_definition_television, in which I did mention the MOS, but in response to someone claiming that we should style per WP:COMMONNAME, which makes no sense and has little or no precedent.  Dicklyon (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think Blueboar is raising a valid issue here, though I personally would couch it in broader terms: how does the MOS (and its contributors) present itself to general editors and the wider article space? In these respects I believe the MOS could have better PR.
 * I cannot claim to speak on behalf of other editors, but I do not feel my own example of relating to the MOS is unique. Although I received the standard Wikipedia welcome (including a link to the MOS) shortly after starting editing, it wasn't something I paid much attention to, as it was too much too soon and I didn't know where to begin. Hence I learned to edit by trial and error, by copying the formatting etc. performed by other editors, and it wasn't until later that I discovered the MOS. Since then I have kept the page on my watchlist and have followed some of the discussions. I have also sought advice, which has subsequently been given. I ventured to join in the discussions at least once, but unfortunately chose capitalisation of common names as one of my first discussion forays, and I decided subsequently not to engage further. My points are as follows:
 * 1) Editors in general are perhaps not as aware of the MOS as they could/should be, which is unfortunate, as it can be a very useful resource across the whole encyclopedia.
 * 2) Following that, I would be in favour of the MOS sending out messages, say quarterly, to all registered editors, informing them of the existence of the MOS, what it can be used for, how best to navigate it, and encouraging editors to approach this page if further assistance is required. The message could also remind all editors that the MOS exists to support them in their editing, and that if it seems to fail in this regard, then this talk page is open for queries and discussion from all editors just as much as any other page.
 * 3) As the MOS serves an important function on Wikipedia, it is vital that all editors do not feel intimidated by it. Hence please make sure that discussions here do not become a battleground, since when that occurs, general editors will be dissuaded from joining in, and accusations of the existence of a 'cabal' or 'style police' will be more likely to occur. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am more concerned with what I see at the article level. It does no good for this page to contain a caveat saying "occasional exceptions can be made" if - out there - at the article level, no one ever sees an exception actually made. That's why I asked if there were any situations that were "exceptions"  in the first place.  Blueboar (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * But in my view such questions are only an issue in the first place if there is a "them versus us" atmosphere, which is what I was trying (am trying) to address. As I see it, the issue is one of inclusion versus exclusion, not whether "the rules" are always followed. If editors feel they can have input into "the rules", then there is an accompanying sense of ownership and belonging, rather than the resistance and distrust which you have alluded to. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, did not mean to imply that I disagree... I think what you suggest is an excellent idea... no reason not to have a multi-pronged approach. Make people feel more welcome to contribute, and reduce resistance and distrust by being more willing to consider the occasional exceptions when they are suggested. Blueboar (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm, if the point is to have people trust the MoS more and reject the idea that it's policed by a cabal, then making sure that each rule in the MoS is backed up by or at least not directly contradicted by reliable sources would be a good move. The content of regular articles has to be verifiable; the MoS should not be held to a lower standard.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone proposing an exception to the MOS will find exceptions to the MOS are never allowed, ever. Someone tried to preserve the capitalization of Chief Mechanical Engineer. The first RM failed so MOS editors started several consecutive threads attacking the decision in the article's talk page and in WT:MOS. One MOS regular proposed to make an exception but many MOS regulars rejected it (thet probably came from the discussions at WT:MOS). Some indicated that exceptions couldn't be made at article level, they had to be made with consensus discussion in the MOS page (aka, you need explicit permission from MOS editors to make an exception). In the second RM, 4 of 5 editors were MOS regulars, with the other editors giving up in exhaustion. And this is how compulsory MOS compliance is pushed into articles: keep hammering on oppossers until they give up. Exceptions to MOS are not allowed in practice, that's why you won't find any. And, if you find one, it will quickly be changed to adapt to MOS. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, where you say "One MOS regular proposed to make an exception", I don't know if he's some kind of regular, but his survey was not a proposal to change it, but rather to assess the opinions on the various options; he was against the exceptional capitalization options. Not many editors were in favor; just a few railroad buffs (people typically like to capitalize their own important stuff, even though MOS:CAPS says that's not the community's preference for WP).  So you're saying the consensus should be ignored even though the railroad buffs were given plenty of space to make their case, and the wider community thought it better to style according to the MOS rather than endorse the exception they wanted?  Dicklyon (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * At lot of editors arrived from WT:MOS to oppose the capitalization, after Tony1 posted alarmist messages in a MOS page: "WikiProject UK Railways people have descended en masse to !vote against an RM to downcase" . And two days later: "Now, the railways editors really care about the notion of chief mechanical engineers—in good faith, like the wider phenomenon of corporate and professional upping of importance via capitalisation—but where will it all end? They descended on the RM and !voted en masse against downcasing." in the main MOS and [|in the Capital letters sub-page] and in the naming convention for capitalization and in in WT:AT. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to be suggesting that when people want local exceptions to the MOS, it would be best to not inform people who care about style and consistency in WP. I agree that exceptions would be easier to pass under such circumstances.  Dicklyon (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Quite simply, an exception to following the MOS (or any other rule) - aka invoking WP:IAR - needs to be justified to the satisfaction of your fellow editors. It is acceptable whenever an editor can convince others that the deviation from the norm is the right thing to do - see WP:Consensus. Roger (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree in theory... yet when no one ever sees a proposed exception actually satisfying the editors at MOS - when there is a perception that no justifications are ever accepted... that's when the reputation of the MOS (and its editors) suffers. Perhaps one solution would be to mention a few situations where exceptions have been made (and why they were made)... then editors would have something to compare a proposed exception against... and say "OK... we made an exception in that case... is this case similar?"  Blueboar (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not mean that an editor must submit a formal proposal to create a deiation from MOS to the editors of the MOS - which is subsequently "carved into wiki-stone". I simply meant that in the course of editing an article if an editor choses to deliberatly deviate from the MOS he/she should be able to convince his/her fellow editors of that particular article that the deviation is justified. In other words there needs to be "local" consensus about the deviation - not a whole "official deviation from the MOS committee of investigation followed by a scoping study then an environmental impact assessment and a judicial commission of enquiry leading to a senate hearring and finally a huge fight that leads to Arbcom taking three years to come up with a final ruling" three-ring circus. Roger (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * So, maybe the core questions here are "Are there any reliable rules of thumb that can be used to tell when an exception to the MoS is justified?" or "Are there any known examples of good exceptions to the MoS?" Answers: No and no. The closest thing to an exception is the controversy over the capitalizing of the common names of bird species, and many/most of the MoS regulars consider them to be wrong.  Next question: "Do we want to work out any rules of thumb that could be used to determine when an exception to the MoS is justified?" (For all our bickering, when we see something that we think people should be allowed to do, we usually just change the MoS to allow it.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah... so we do have one example of an exception (the bird species issue). That is a good start.  Any others? Any situations where an exception was made at one single article (as opposed to all articles in a specific group)?  Blueboar (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well .. today's picture of the day features the Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever. Not only does this individual dog breed get capitalised (I guess this is a similar issue to birds), but some have argued that it needs a hyphen under the MOS. However, a brief spat over this more than a year ago ended up with the hyphen still not there and the capitalisation retained, although no formal exemption/exception was offered or confirmed. This section on the talk page and this diff/thread on one of the involved editor's talk pages offers some clarity and detail on the issue – as well as another example of when ordinary editors are indeed "pilloried" for alleged MOS infractions.  N-HH   talk / edits  23:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What view one takes of the MoS will depend on one's view of WP in general. I don't see it as one monolithic publication. I see it as a group of articles written by different people with no editorial oversight, bound by a number of threads: respect for free information and neutrality, and an understanding that most material has to be sourced, and that care is needed when dealing with living people. Otherwise, editors are pretty much free to write as they see fit. If an article is reasonably sourced and written, and has an internally consistent style that isn't too wacky (so that it's not a bar to editing for others in future), then it's fine. So we shouldn't be talking about when exceptions to MoS are allowed, because they're always allowed; what we hope for is simply that the style used isn't one that the writer has just made up. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you ever get published, your editor is going to revamp your style and punctuation to conform to their conventions. The result may strike you as horrible, but it's expected that a publication have a consistent style. The real problem is when the editor makes mistakes because they don't understand your conventions – the question of whether any particular instance of the date 2011-07-06 is actually July 06 comes to mind. A lot of these are converted by bot, and the mistake gets buried. If your style causes people to misunderstand you, then it's a problem. Otherwise style editing is just part of normal article cleanup. — kwami (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But there are important differences: we don't have a house style, or professional writers or editors (at least, not in the sense of having writers and editor who are paid to do this), and parts of the MoS are quite idiosyncratic. In addition it's often misinterpreted and/or it changes too often. So we can't compare what happens here to what happens in a publishing house. If someone wants to pay me to follow the MoS, I'll consider doing it, but otherwise I'd prefer to make my own decisions, within reason. I do mostly take its advice, especially when it's something I'm not sure about, but I don't want to be forced to. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We do have a house style, and many of us are professional, though we volunteer here. You should feel free, or course, to continue to style as you like in your contributions, as long as you don't fight other volunteers who try to make articles conform better to WP's house style. Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree that we have a house style; that's what this discussion is about. Some editors think we ought to and do; others think we ought not to and don't. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Call it what you will. We have a manual of style, a guideline that functions by describing our preferred style.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether it's a house style or not, the key point is that it is optional. People shouldn't be parachuting in to well-written, internally consistent articles solely to make them comply with the MoS. Editors who choose not to use the MoS as their preferred style guide should be left in peace. 87.114.114.148 (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree. If an article is well-written and consistently uses a style that does not comply with MOS, there is nothing wrong with editing it to make it comply with MOS - provided that:
 * It explicitly did not comply with MOS. (Changing from one MOS-allowed style to another MOS-allowed style - for those scenarios where MOS offers options - is bad, as stated in the 3rd paragraph of WP:MOS.)
 * The result is a well-written article with an internally consistent styles that does comply with MOS. For large articles, this may require a lot of work, so may be difficult or impossible to do in a short time. In that case, half-doing the job (leaving an inconsistent article) is bad. However for shorter articles it is possible and feasible.
 * Example: if I see an article that consistently has spaces before or between ref tags, or ref tags before punctuation, I will update the entire article to remove the spaces and/or put the tags after the punctuation, so that the article complies with MOS:REFPUNCT. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And provided further that you aren't dueling to the death over something like a single dash. Art LaPella (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed - WP:AVOIDEDITWAR takes precedence over WP:MOS. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Correcting mistakes is fine... but sometimes what might appear to be a mistake isn't actually a "mistake" at all... it is an intentional usage that happens to not conform to the MOS. Correcting an intentional usage is another kettle of fish entirely. An author who intentionally uses a non-standard style an part of his work is going to be mighty pissed off at his editor should the editor try to "correct" that intentional usage.  He is going to insist that the editor return what he intentionally wrote.  Blueboar (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Example might be helpful here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What Tony says below, except that the only logical date format is YYYY MMM DD (2012 Jan 11). That's how I'm going to format all my prose. It's not a mistake, and I'm going to get pissed off at any MOS Nazi who tries to change it. — kwami (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, so I doggedly like my personal format for dates, which is 01 December, 2005, and no one's gonna change it over my dead body. Is that what you mean? Tony   (talk)  04:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Let us all be more willing to help remove rules for others, than to ignore them for ourselves. Art LaPella (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh? Tony   (talk)  06:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, just confirming that: Huh?
 * Well, Yes... in the real world, if a writer intentionally uses "2012 Jan 11" throughout his work, and his editor changes it to something else ... the writer will look at the galley proofs and say "no, no, no... I intentionally did this differently". The Writer will go back to his editor and insist that the style be changed back.  To relate this to Wikipedia... if that strange date styling appears (consistently) in some work, and we are writing an article or section about that work, I think there is a very good argument that we should adopt the style of the source, that we should make an exception to the MOS, and use the strange (non-MOS) styling in that specific article or section (perhaps with a footnote explaining that the date format is that of the author, so our readers understand why we are doing so).  That said, I was not really talking about Wikipedia article writers using their own personal quirky styles... I was thinking of Wikipedia editors who intentionally use the styles of their sources (styles that might conflict with the MOS).  And I was especially thinking in terms of how names are styled. If a name is consistently styled in a given way in our sources, it is a bit presumptuous of us to call that styling a "mistake" and "correct" it. Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A difference is style is not a mistake, it's just a difference in style.
 * If a source uses a particular style, how do you determine that that was the choice of the author, and not changed by the editor to match their house style? And how does it matter? If we use two sources for a section of the article on feminism, and those sources agree on the spelling "womyn", should we really spell it "womyn" too, but only for that one section of the article? If those sources use different conventions for capitalization, or italics, or commas, should those all be changed too, but only for that section? What's the point? — kwami (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The capitalization of birds' names is a better example of the problem. I don't know how it was resolved in the end, but I recall that some editors wanted to impose MoS "no caps" advice on a group of bird experts in bird articles that were using other bird experts as sources, and would most likely only be read by bird experts – all of whom capitalize certain names. I prefer to avoid caps wherever possible myself, but it surely isn't reasonable to expect the bird experts not to do it because people who aren't bird experts say their views must prevail, particularly when those people have no interest in contributing to the articles. That is the thing that causes most distress when wikignomes want to impose the MoS; they don't otherwise contribute to the article, yet they say their style choices must prevail now and for all future editors. People leave because of it, or stop improving those articles (I've taken several articles I was working on off my watchlist when those types of posts appear on the talk page). It makes people dislike the MoS, which is a pity because it has become extremely helpful over the years thanks to the work of Tony1 and others on this page. So it's in every sense a lose-lose situation to be rigid about imposing it, and it makes WP look bad when the experts read about their areas of expertise, and see that we appear not to be familiar with the styles used by the professional or academic literature. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The rebuttal to what SlimV has said is that Wikipedia is a general-audience publication and should be written using general-audience conventions. To continue with the bird species capitalization example, there is no question that the ornithology books and journal articles are excellent sources for facts about birds, but style guides are better sources for how those facts should be presented (and most of the worthwhile parts of the MoS are copied from said style guides).  The reason why the bird journals capitalize common names is because they use it as shorthand: "White-throated Sparrow" is a specific species of sparrow and "white-throated sparrow" is any sparrow with a white throat.  That isn't an issue that comes up often on Wikipedia, and it can be worked out in other ways if it does.  For another example, in many scientific contexts, the number of digits past the decimal point is shorthand for the accuracy of the tool with which the number was measured: .5, .50 and .500 all refer to the same quantity, but the .500 value was produced using a system that is one hundred times more accurate than the .5 value.  It's a handy shortcut, but we don't use it on Wikipedia because 1. it's not relevant to most articles and 2. most of the readers wouldn't be familiar enough with it to receive the extra information that it conveys.
 * The biggest and most important rule, so obvious that we didn't bother putting it in the MoS, is "write for your audience." Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Darkfrog, until a few years ago it was mostly true that WP was written for a general audience, but that's no longer the case. Increasingly, specialist articles are written by specialists (even if only students) for other specialists. Look at the medical articles as an example; they are used by physicians as quick reference points, and for the most part are written by editors with at least some specialist knowledge. So it just isn't appropriate to think in terms of one house style for one gigantic publication. We have to write for the readers of each particular page, while trying not to stray so far from ordinary language that the general reader is completely lost. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You know this or you only suppose it? It seems more likely that specialists write articles in the way that seems most natural to them and leave it to others to render the presentation suitable to the intended audience.  Many specialists simply don't realize how much of their content isn't accessible to non-specialists.  It might only look like they're trying to write for fellow professionals.
 * Even so, it makes no sense to implement a solution to a problem that Wikipedia does not have. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That isn't how Wikipedia defines guidelines, so is that a vote for making the MoS an essay? Art LaPella (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've avoided uncapitalizing common names of species altogether, since I couldn't get anyone excited about uncapitalizing a list of pine trees. But once again, if the MoS is just a suggestion, there are hundreds of other grammar suggestion websites on the Internet, and if this is just one more then it doesn't matter. Art LaPella (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It hinders communication if we don't follow the same rules. Usually the hinderence is small, but not always. Yes, you can decide to use non-standard fleemishes and the reader can still gloork the meaning from the context, but there ix a limit; If too many ot the vleeps are changed, it becomes harder and qixer to fllf what the wethcz is blorping, and evenually izs is bkb longer possible to ghilred frok at wifx. Dnighth? Ngfipht yk ur!  Uvq the hhvd or hnnngh.  Blorgk?  Blorgk!  Blorgkity-blorgk!!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Although even the second sentence above, with its misspelling, is more non-standard than the nits the Manual of Style is concerned with. The first sentence, with its contraction, might be against WP:CONTRACTION, but nobody can be sure, because nobody can be sure if that guideline's "mechanically" clause is intended for him. And if you spend more than a split-second pondering that issue, that is longer than it would have taken you to understand "hinderence". Art LaPella (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Examples of exceptions to the MoS (sort of)
I'm not sure that any kind of proper noun could be considered an exception, but if a proper noun contains something that would otherwise be considered incorrect English, we allow it: "iPhone," for example. It makes no sense to call it an Iphone. Then there's the example with the Duck Tolling Receiver (which ought to be duck-tolling receiver). If something that is not quite a proper noun is so overwhelmingly well known by an incorrectly written name that it would be unrecognizable or pretentious to convert it to an MoS-compliant form, then an exception to the MoS may be justified. However, this might not be an exception per se. The MoS does say "use plain English." I'd also be very cautious about codifying this in any way. The purpose of the MoS is to prevent fights, and a rule this subjective might cause more fights than it prevents. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In the case of the Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever, it's not that unusual to find various combinations of hyphenated and lowercase stylings in sources, including the "Nova Scotia duck-tolling retriever" that the MOS would suggest. It has been elevated by the breeder organizations to a capitalized trademark-like term, and that's how our dog fanciers style their breed article titles.  Yes, it is an exception to the usual MOS advice.  On the other hand, iPhone is specifically provided for in MOS:TM (examples iPod and eBay); not an exception.  Halley's Comet would be an exception to MOS:CAPS, too, but the astronomers got it written into the MOS, so it's not.  I'm not sure what you mean by an incorrectly written name; styles differ, that's all.  And your suggested rule wouldn't justify the dog breeds and comet caps exceptions.  Dicklyon (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If, under standard-English rules (subject to regional variation), the hyphen in "duck-tolling" is required, then leaving it out is incorrect. That is what I mean by "incorrectly written."
 * The dog breed is just an example. There might be something out there that would actually need to be written incorrectly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, in my own writing, I treat it as an error when a hyphen suggested by "standard-English rules" is omitted. But others omit them, and style guides that discuss their use and omission don't necessarily call these style differences errors.  On the contrary, as a hyphenated compound adjective becomes so common that the ambiguity the hyphen is supposed to prevent is no longer conceivable, they tend to disappear.  Hence the AMA style guide changed in recent years from suggesting a hyphen in small-cell carcinoma to suggesting to omit it.  We still use it in WP, because in our general audience the phrase is not so familiar and well understood as to be just as clear without the hyphen.  Anyway, style variations include the extent to which "standard" rules are violated.  This notion of "incorrectly" is probably not useful in discussing style variations. Dicklyon (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If the hyphen may either be included or omitted, then "include it or omit it" is the standard rule. If a style has more than one correct variation, then, by definition, neither are incorrect.  For example, standard-English rules do not either require or forbid the serial comma.  Rather, authors have their options.  This is not the same as regional variation.  For example, in England "harbour" is correct and "harbor" is incorrect, while the reverse is true in the U.S. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If only it were that simple. I think "preferred" and "less preferred", which vary with location and style and sometimes other factors, are more useful than "correct" and "incorrect".  The MOS tries to say what is preferred in WP, but doesn't usually tell people that their contributions are "incorrect".   Dicklyon (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The MOS may not say someone's contribution is "incorrect"... but editors applying the MOS to articles do say that. They think of the MOS as a set of inflexible "rules" ... and not as a statement of "preferences".  This leads to that "culture of enforcement" that I mentioned earlier.    Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sugarcoating things will only confuse people, Dicklyon. If someone wants to spell "cat" "q-e-s" then that person isn't using a dispreferred spelling; that person is wrong.  People say that capitalizing the letter t in a mid-sentence "the" is incorrect because it is incorrect.  That's not the MoS.  That's English.
 * The words "preferred" and "dispreferred" only really apply to cases when the MoS requires one of two or more correct options. For example, if the MoS required the serial comma throughout Wikipedia, then the serial comma would be "preferred."
 * The MoS is a set of inflexible rules. Whether or not it should be is another matter.  Whether or not this caused the culture of enforcement, and whether that culture of enforcement is good or bad are also separate issues.
 * People have tried for years to get others to view the MoS as a set of guidelines and it never works. If you ask me, the solution is not to dumb down the MoS and not to pat poor writers on the head and tell them their mistakes are just fine.  The solution is to make sure the MoS only contains rules that are worth enforcing.  That means sources.  Have the MoS reflect real, professional-quality English and not people's whims. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not the first time you suggested the MoS to be sourced, but nobody took you up on it (save for questioning the MoS in toto / its very existence). I think it's a good idea – and would've helped a lot in the above discussion. In my view, there should be annotations for both what style guides, as well as why certain rules thereout were used (i.e., referencing the necessary consensuses leading to their adoptions). – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @Darkfrog24 Actually the MOS isn't a set of inflexible rules. For example, the MOS allows varieties of English and even sub-varieties of English, like my preferred Oxford spelling British English. It allows some style choices associated with varieties of English (e.g. unspaced em-dash vs. spaced en-dash; "Dr." vs. "Dr"). There are variations allowed in styling references and citations; what print publication would tolerate them?
 * The MOS also has inconsistencies: compare MOS:CAPS and MOS:LIFE. Where past battles have resulted in the acceptance of style exceptions not fitting general rules, the MOS has accommodated them (e.g. "k.d. lang" instead of "K.D. Lang"), so that they become "according to the MOS".
 * What causes irritation (as SlimVirgin has set out clearly above) and leads to long-lasting disputes is when the flexibility which is allowed in many areas is arbitrarily denied in others.
 * The standard response to support for flexibility in styling is the "slippery slope" one; almost always a bogus argument. "If we allow this variation then there will be complete anarchy." No, there won't. There are two common styles for breed names. Allowing either "border collie" or "Border Collie" to be used consistently in an article will not allow "border Collie" and will not cause the collapse of civilization (or even Wikipedia). It will make content editors happier and will reduce time-wasting arguments. It will not confuse readers capable of understanding both the National Geographic, which does not capitalize breed names, and Dogs Monthly which does. This is the internet: users have to cope with all kinds of style differences. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm talking about, Peter. "Choose one spelling system but stick to it consistently within an article" and "You're allowed to pick out a national variety from this list using these criteria" are the rules. They are arguably permissive, but they are also inflexible.  If someone wants to have an introduction in American spelling and a subsequent paragraph in British Oxford spelling, that's no good.  If someone wants to invent his or her own spelling system, that's no good.  When people do things that are not specifically allowed in the MoS, they tend to get wikibludgeoned.  That's why Blueboar started this thread, to find out if there are any circumstances under which that does not happen.
 * By "flexible," I mean "May the user decide whether to follow the rule or not depending on the circumstances and his or her own judgment or must the user follow the MoS under all circumstances?" The answer is "No the user may not and yes the user must." That's what I mean by inflexible. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Flexibility would be a good thing. People would be a lot less annoyed at the MOS if we allowed articles to follow any (standard) style rather than one mandated style. I could see something similar in concept to ENGVAR being extended to all style issues... the rule could be: Choose an appropriate style format (AP... Chicago... Oxford... etc.) and consistently follow it within your article.  Articles could contain hat notes saying "This article follows the Chicago Manual of Style" or "This article follows AP Style", etc.  There would be a LOT fewer arguments, (or rather the only argument would be over which standard guide to follow in a specific article... once that was chosen, however, all subsequent arguments would be settled by referring to the chosen guide). Blueboar (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that not all users own copies of AP, Chicago, AMA, Oxford, etc., let alone all of them, let alone necessarily have them handy while editing Wikipedia. Having an a single, on-site MoS is far more convenient.  As we've seen from the bird capitalization debate, style guides tailored for a specific profession might not be appropriate to general-audience articles.  Now if every rule in the MoS were tagged so that users could see that it came from a real style guide and not from anyone's assorted orifices...
 * ENGVAR has worked out pretty well; it treats all varieties of English with equal respect (or it would if WP:LQ were removed from the MoS), so I there is evidence showing that expanding something like that to matters other than national variety might work, but what specific benefit do you think that would convey? This is not a rhetorical question. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The importance of the MOS is grossly over-inflated by some. This is just a guideline, it is not policy at all and it is unlikely it ever will be.

The fact is that most users treat the MOS as advice, not rules, if they are even aware of it at all. The vast majority of users are not terribly concerned about the minutiae that is commonly discussed here as if it were a matter of life and death. It would be better for everyone if all those who are concerned about such issues were able to acknowledge that the purpose of Wikipedia is to share knowledge not to show off how perfectly we punctuate our articles. It's really not that big of a deal and is largely ignored by most people who actually write articles as they do not see it as a vital component of WPs mission. A little perspective can go a long way. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have often pointed out that Wikipedia's definition of a guideline is better summarized as rules than as advice. Other than that, I agree. Art LaPella (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you're getting "most users treat the MoS as advice" (by which I assume you mean "as optional"), Beeblebrox. Every time I've seen someone put a toe out of line, that person gets slammed.  The MoS gets treated as rules, not as advice.  Whether the MoS should be treated as rules or as a guideline (ordinary definition) is a separate question.
 * Frankly, I find your dismissal of punctuation insulting. Professional-quality presentation gives Wikipedia a good chunk of its credibility.  I doubt it would be the first Google result as often as it is if every article were written even as poorly as a typical email. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Beeblebrox is correct in saying that most editors treat the MOS as advice. However, a very active (and opinionated) minority treat it as "the rules" ... rules that must be "enforced".  It is that attitude of enforcement that is a large part of why the MOS has such a poor reputation. Blueboar (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * When I tell people about my Wikipedia hobby, including the fact that pages of rules on something called "dashes" instead of hyphens are among Wikipedia's hottest arguments that can get people banned, the reactions don't reflect "a good chunk of [Wikipedia's] credibility". Instead I get open laughter, enough to literally make my son's cheeks hurt. Art LaPella (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not what I was talking about, Art. I mean that when someone reads a Wikipedia article and it is correctly formatted, punctuated and written, that creates a good impression.  If the articles were all "washngton was born a good english citizen he was at the battle of Frt. necessity," people would be less likely to consider Wikipedia respectable and trustworthy, even if all the facts were correct.  Don't knock the gnomes. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe the subject we were talking about refers back to "the minutiae that is commonly discussed here as if it were a matter of life and death", like dash wars for instance, and unlike any of the errors in the "washngton" sentence, which aren't mentioned in the MoS at all. Art LaPella (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Correction: MOS:CAPS does call for capitalizing proper names, but capitalizing "washngton" still isn't what the "life and death" sentence was about. Art LaPella (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it's still good advice to not knock the gnomes who fix the inevitable horrible writing and horribly styled text that you get in an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. And nobody ever got banned for arguing about dashes, I'm pretty sure.  Look at the length Apteva had to go to to be banned from pushing his dash theories.  I don't see this "attitude of enforcement" that Blueboar refers to, either; just an attitude of trying to make WP professional looking.  Dicklyon (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If I knocked gnomes, I suppose I would have to knock several edits like this one that I made yesterday. The "length Apteva had to go to be banned" is surely an example of "the minutiae that is commonly discussed here as if it were a matter of life and death", or as I put it, "Wikipedia's hottest arguments that can get people banned", and I think the same could be said of Pmanderson. Art LaPella (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Manual of Style
A line in this section states: But contractions should not be expanded mechanically.

Does that mean that we should not take away the contractions by simply typing out the full form? If so, what is the alternative? Flyer22 (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I misread "mechanically" as "manually." But it might still be best to clarify what "mechanically" means in Wikipedia terms on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Previous long discussion. Note Septentrionalis has since been banned. Art LaPella (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I recently came across the fact that Pmanderson (Septentrionalis) is blocked for one year. Flyer22 (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Correction, Flyer: PMAnderson is blocked for one year, and that expires on 9 February 2013. But he is also topic-banned indefinitely. See these ArbCom remedies. (☺) N oetica Tea? 07:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. I thought Art LaPella was using the word "banned" in place of "blocked," like some Wikipedians do, even though the two things are different. Flyer22 (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should lines be used between a template and text above it?
This is an RfC to establish wider community input on whether this formatting should apply to all articles. This issue was discussed in the past: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 129.

The Manual of Style states: "Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, for example by introducing white space in read mode." (WP:COMMENT)

Does this mean that the above formatting should be used? That is, '''Should white space be introduced between the last line of text and the top of a footer-(navigational) template? User:DoNotArchiveUntil 22:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC) '''Curb Chain (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
I don't think that Hidden Comments should be used to introduce white space because the simple enter-key will suffice. Secondly, using the enter-key to make lines to make white space is arbitrary and is not used. Specifically, the vast majority of pages do not have the formatting as I presented.Curb Chain (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Manual of Style/Layout says "Between sections (and paragraphs), there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article." which is saying that hidden comments are not to be used to create white space, and not to create white space.
 * Curb Chain has been on about this for quite a while now, to the extent of following me around and reverting my edits. He really needs to chill out and realize that the Manual of Style is not policy, it is not something that has to be followed slavishly, and it is certainly not a straightjacket preventing any of us from improving the encyclopedia.  Indeed, it cannot be that, because that would, in itself, emasculate the entire purpose of WP:IAR. I've explained to Curb Chain many, many times, the purpose of the edits he objects to, and I'll do so once again for the benefit of othere. Please bear in mind that Curb Chain has brought this to AN/I on several occasions, and has been told by numerous editors there that his complaint is among the lamest thinsg anyone has ever come across.  Also, please consider that his compaign of harrassment and annoyance is all about a single blank line. OK, here's the explanatuon.  If you take a look at any decent-sized article, you'll note that the system, when it renders the page, provides a bit of spacing before every section header.  This is to help the header stand out and be separated from the section above it.  Unfortunately, the system does not do this at the bottom of the page, where any navboxes follow the External links section. Because of this, it's visually unpleasant that the new section (the navboxes) is so close to the text of the external links section, so I've been inserting a blank line to seperate them, to make it easier on the eye tosee the end of the external links and the beginning of the navboxes. That's it, that the sum total of what Curb Chain objects to, that he's started two RfCs to try to eliminate, that's he's brought to AN/I on at least two occasions, and that he's followed me around with no other purpose than to delete ,y edits.  (Bear in mind, I don't travel around Wikipedia inserting this single blank line of space, it's part of my normal editing of articles, which is often quite extensive.) That he's fixated on this is, to say the least, rather bizarre.  That his campaign is getting rather disruptive is a matter of opinion - but I think he's gone off the rails a bit.  In any event, my purpose in making this edits is solely and entirely to make our articles just a little bit easier to use for our readers. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * While I can't say that I find this a compelling disagreement or one to get worked up over, I am kind of inclined to agree with the person in the other discussion who said it'd make more sense to figure out if the extra space is something the whole site needs rather than to go around making impromptu additions of blank space to single articles on a haphazard and case-by-case basis.  AgnosticAphid  talk 08:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be more than happy if the system could be adjusted to provide the necessary spacing, but no one has ever indicated that this was possible to do. Since that's the case, this is the next best thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a technical issue and you can ask the developers to do this. You will probably need to get consensus for it.Curb Chain (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I would recommend against making additional space before a template at the end of the article, but it is not something that should be added to the MOS. The correct way to fix that sort of thing is to edit the template. Apteva (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled. I think I know what the question is asking, but I'm wondering about an exact offending edit. What is the problem, precisely? Where is a diff that I could use to judge? Is this one? If so, I would oppose the mass addition of spacing. The spacing (or lack of it) between template and text currently is, from what I can remember, deliberate, and if this is the kind of edit that that is offensive, I would oppose both the edit itself and the addition of text describing it to the MOS. --Izno (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it adds an extra space. We are talking about whitespace, so lines without a hidden comment would be included in the RfC question.  And I see that the editor who added the line has just reverted you.Curb Chain (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And now removed by a bot.Curb Chain (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This isn't really something MOS needs to address. There may be particular reasons in a particular article to do this (with HTML comments, with, etc.), e.g. to work around misbehaving templates, or because of image spacing or whatever. We generally let editorial discretion reign when it comes to things like that.  See also WP:CREEP. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  02:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that the "blank line" for navboxes is supposed to be inserted by some clever CSS, which was added a good few years back. We tried to get the same thing done for stub tmeplates, but I don't think it ever happened. Rich Farmbrough, 04:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC).


 * Why was it removed?Curb Chain (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The question here, as far as one can fathom, is whether the bottom of the page looks better like this (with space between the bottom of the text and the navbox) or like this (without that space). My vote would be marginally for the former (i.e. with space), since the navboxes are not part of the External Links (or References, or whatever) section, and the space makes that clear. Victor Yus (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Such spaces are regularly removed by bots, per WP:BODY: "Between sections (and paragraphs), there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article.". "With space" would require a new policy which I have not seen consensus for.Curb Chain (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the reason for this discussion? I don't think whoever wrote WP:BODY was considering this particular situation - especially since in this position, unlike between regular sections, the WP software doesn't put in any whitespace when there's a single blank line (that's what I'm seeing at least, I know sometimes these things are browser-dependent). Bots are even less renowned for their aesthetic judgement. All that matters is whether we think it's better with the space or without. I'm gathering your vote is for "without" - do you have any reasons? Victor Yus (talk) 08:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if a space (how big the space is (height) will need to be determined) is advantageous, then this is a technical issue so that navboxes can be programmed to give a little extra space after the last ==External links== entry. And yes, this discussion is also to determine if this is needed to that effect, but to manually use  or just 2 extra lines clogs up the edit history and is unnecessary when this can be instituted projectwide with a technical change.  Otherwise doing this by one editor on only some articles seems haphazard.Curb Chain (talk) 12:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course if it can be done with tech wizardry that would be good, but if it can't (or if the tech wizards have got more important things to do) then I don't see any problem with one or several editors doing it ad hoc. Reverting such edits, and thus escalating this tiny matter into a dispute, seems more disruptive. Unless there are substantial reasons for preferring the layout without the space, in which case it would be nice to hear them. Anyway I've given my view, for as much as it may be worth. Victor Yus (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Then that requires the determination of articles that ACTUALLY DO need that space. Which articles need it? I see no compelling reason on the other hand that certain articles need the formatting when all the rest of the articles don't have it.
 * If the articles do need the space, shouldn't we wait for the developers to add it? And that would require community consensus to do so.Curb Chain (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The other problem is that bots remove the extra line reason being it creates white space. Wouldn't it defeat the purpose to add a space with a bot removing it?Curb Chain (talk) 07:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

COMMONSTYLE proposal
See Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles ("the RfC")

The RfC is still open so I have reverted this edit with this edit Because I think that the edit by Kwamikagami is premature. When the RfC is closed and it is decided what should be done at AT then we can look again at the wording here. -- PBS (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * |02:48, 18 January 2013‎ Kwamikagami (→‎Article titles: c.e./clarify)
 * 08:03, 21 January 2013‎ PBS (Undid revision 533629974 by Kwamikagami Given that there is an ongoing RfC and that there appears to be no consensus for the wording in this guideline, I suggest that it is not altered until the RfC is closed.)


 * PBS, I think you mean "with this edit: diff", and with this edit summary: "Undid revision 533629974 by Kwamikagami ...". And do you mean this, rather than what you wrote: "I suggest that it not be altered until the RfC is closed"? Best to express ourselves comprehensibly. ☺ N oetica Tea? 08:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what was unclear to you. I said: I reverted edit A with edit B. That I did not put in a link to edit B was intentional as it was a revert of edit A to which I had provided a link. The wording you quote is from the edit history and was included in the bullet point of the reversal. -- PBS (talk) 10:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * But it still says the same thing, just in an ambiguous and unclear manner. I don't see how the revert is an improvement.   AgnosticAphid  talk 03:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * question: will I be blocked for violating the 1RR if I revert this revision?  I don't think any function is served by deliberately restoring awkward and unclear text.  AgnosticAphid  talk 04:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We could delete the sentence as there is may be no consensus for it, but I think it is better to delay that conversation until after the RFC is closed. Most people have presumably not found the wording "ambiguous and unclear" or it would have been changed months ago, so waiting a few days until the RfC is ended and coming to a consensus here based on the result of that RfC would seem to me to be the least time consuming option. -- PBS (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Kwami's edit didn't change the meaning, it just clarified what the MOS already said. You reverted the edit, and now the result is a sentemce that is more ambiguous and less clear than it should be.  The RFC is about adding a sentence to the article title policy to make what the rules already are more clear and easy for everyone to understand so that we don't have to explain every time there's a requested move about punctuation that the COMMONNAME policy doesn't concern punctuation.  The RFC is not about changing the manual of style; whether there is a consensus to  something to WP:AT is a completely separate issue from whether there is a consensus to  what is already part of the MOS.  If you wish to start a separate RFC about whether this part of the MOS should be removed, be my guest.  Until that happens, I stand by my statement that there is no function in making the MOS less clear than it could be.  I would also submit that the fact that you seem to think this part of the MOS is somehow connected to RFC reflects the fact that you seem not to understand that the RFC actually doesn't involve a change in policy.  So, I'll ask again, to those more experienced in this sort of thing:  Would I be blocked if I reverted PBS' edit?   AgnosticAphid  talk 09:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I refer you to the first remedy in the arb case, particularly the bit about getting consensus before making changes. Kwami's change clearly doesn't have consensus, so edit-warring it back in would be a very bad idea.  Kanguole 11:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Kwami's edit DID change the meaning. It used to say that the article title "should be based on the 'Article titles' policy." After the change, it says that only the wording of the article title is governed by the "Article titles" policy, implying that some other aspects (perhaps punctuation) could be based on something else (perhaps the MOS). The RFC at the "Article titles" talk page proposes to defer to MOS for article title style (whatever that means). So this change could easily lead to the titles of some articles being changed, thus, there is a change in meaning. Also, Kwami's edit clearly anticipates the article title RFC will be successful. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * if you continue reading 9 lines after where it says WP:AT determines the title, you'll discover that the MOS already says that the punctuation of title is determined by the MOS, not WP:AT, whether this change is made or not. And honestly, I fail to see how changing "MoS applies to all parts of an article, including the title. See especially punctuation, below. (The policy page Article titles does not determine punctuation.)" to "...The policy page Wikipedia:Article titles does not address punctuation " constitutes a change in meaning.  Surely we can all agree that punctuation is an "issue of style"?  I still think certain editors prefer to choose to believe wrongly that the current (pre-Kwami) text I just quoted either needs to be changed, which there is clearly no consensus for, or doesn't exist, which is false.  But I have no interest in getting blocked over something so trivial, and I lack experience with things subject to a 1RR, so while I don't think a single revert on my end constitutes any more of an edit war than PBS' reversion, I guess I'll just leave things be.  AgnosticAphid  talk 15:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * RE: "the MOS already says that the punctuation of title is determined by the MOS, not WP:AT" It should be noted that many editors over at WP:AT disagree with this statement.  My personal take is this:  WP:AT states that there are five basic principles to choosing a title:  Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency.  We strive to have titles that meet all of these principles at the same time... but that is not always possible.  WP:AT recognizes this, and allows for the fact that, in any specific title determination, one of these principles might outweigh the others.  Now, the MOS is a function of the principle of Consistency (it sets a consistency of style for Wikipedia).  So... since we desire consistency in our titles, we should normally follow the MOS... unless one of the other provisions of WP:AT indicates that an exception should be made.  Such exceptions will be rare, but the can and do exist. Blueboar (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My take, of course, is that WT:AT and MOS are thoroughly inconsistent, unless we assume that the principles for choosing a title don't apply in practice to the style of the title. Otherwise, assuming that the title matches the article, most of the MOS is meaningless. Exceptions are for special situations that a rule wasn't intended to cover, not for deciding that a clearcut instruction like "Mexican–American War" doesn't count, no matter how much consensus it represents.


 * However, we have argued this almost as long as we have debated Apteva before, and the rest of Wikipedia seems determined to prevent us from finding a simple way to settle style disputes. Should we give up and try something else? Like maybe just unwatch the whole page or something? Does it really settle more disputes than it incites? Art LaPella (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, my point was just that the MOS already says title punctuation is determined here, not at AT, and since that's the case can't we go ahead and allow Kwami to make the place where it says that here as clear as possible? Instead it's like, people either can't accept or don't realize that that's what the policy currently is, regardless of the success or failure of the RFC.  As a result, that part of the MOS is sort of written in stone, dispute its less-than-ideal clarity.  I don't think that serves any purpose.  I find the deliberate intransigence displayed by some but all of not those opposed here to be frustrating and dispiriting.  Maybe that's the point.  Many editors use the fact that they personally don't like having a manual of style to stonewall any and all improvements to it without bothering to educate themselves about the purpose of the MOS (or even what the MOS says, as Jc3s5h's comment illustrates).  What is the point of having the article title be determined by some different stylistic principle than the article body?  Those who oppose the RFC for substantive and not wording reasons haven't even  to say at the RFC.  They all seem to think that the proposed clarifying sentence at WP:AT is a new principle, which it isn't, and that if the clarifying sentence were rejected in lieu of some "use the most common reliable source style in the title" rule then the rest of the MOS – which  applies to the  – would follow suit, which it wouldn't.  At what point will those who are knowledgable and care about having a consistent and professional style say, "screw it, WP is determined to go back to having an impromptu mishmash of styles," like it did when I was in college and everyone thought the idea you might reference WP for something scholarly was laughable?  I'm pretty new around here and I've nearly reached that point myself in just a few months. More placidly, I tend to agree with you that there could be a situation where under WP:IAR the styling of the title should be determined by something other than the MOS – although what would prompt that isn't immediately apparent to me because then what about the body, should that be exempt from the MOS too, at least when it mentions the title? – but I don't think it's necessary to say that IAR applies to this like everything else.  AgnosticAphid  talk 01:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Re: "the proposed clarifying sentence at WP:AT is a new principle," As far as WP:AT is concerned, it is a new principle.  It may not be a new idea here... but it is a new idea there.  Hence the resistance to it.  If the proposal there was rephrased in the way I outlined above (with MOS being presented a function of the principle of Consistency) it would probably be better received. Blueboar (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be better received at WT:TITLE; it also would make the MoS mean something completely unlike what it says, especially if articles are to be kept consistent with inconsistent titles. If words not meaning what they say doesn't bother you, then your previous post actually means you are announcing your candidacy for Miss America, so what are your measurements? Art LaPella (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Remember the purpose of the WT:TITLE edit was to prevent Wikilawyers from arguing that any MOS guideline they don't like, doesn't count because it has to match the title which is chosen by the most common name (even though style isn't chosen that way in practice). If rendering the MOS meaningless is desirable, we should state that explicitly, not hide it behind WT:TITLE. The so-called rephrasing doesn't solve that problem; it puts the opposite into policy. To argue that would make it better received, is like arguing that the operation is a success but the patient died. Art LaPella (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No one wants to "render the MOS meaningless", the point that is being made on the talk page of WP:AT is that there are a number of factors that are considered when choosing an article title of which the MOS style is but one facet. -- PBS (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Which amounts to a distinction without a difference. If I might choose A or B, then isn't it meaningless to have a rule that I must choose B? Like saying nobody wants to render the civility policy meaningless; there are a number of factors of which civility is but one facet, you [obscenity] [personal insult]. Art LaPella (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * A better analogy would be two hospitals that are being merged... Hospital A (MOS) has long mandated a certain procedure be used when curing a certain ailment. Hospital B (AT) has long allowed its doctors to choose the procedure they think best.  The two hospitals are now trying to decide whether to follow the rules of Hospital A or Hospital B... and both sides have strong opinions on the matter.  Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought Hospital A treats cancer patients, which Hospital B traditionally refers to Hospital A. Now the issue is whether to treat cancer patients with antibiotics instead of chemotherapy. We might as well close Hospital A if that happens. Art LaPella (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope... At least that's not how the doctors at "Hospital AT" see it. "Hospital AT" has happily had its own cancer ward, and has traditionally not referred its cancer patients to "Hospital MOS".  The doctors at "Hospital MOS" are now proposing to hang a sign in the lobby of Hospital AT saying "If you have cancer, go to Hospital MOS".  This proposed sign upsets the doctors at "Hospital AT" and they are resisting. Blueboar (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that there are no examples that I know of. The title is styled the same way as the article. Lapses from MOS occur, but never on the grounds that the title and article shouldn't match, or that the article shouldn't match the MOS. Art LaPella (talk)
 * AgnosticAphid: What has styling to do with the reliability of content? Wikipedia explicitly allows a "mishmash" of referencing styles, for example. Does this mean that the content of a articles with references is unreliable? If a well written, well referenced article consistently uses in its text a style "forbidden" by the MOS does that make it unreliable? Are the many articles on the genus Pinus (see Category:Pinus) unreliable because most consistently capitalize the common name of the species? Would they suddenly become more reliable because someone went through and changed the case in accordance with the MOS? An article which consistently follows the predominant styling found in its sources is likely to appear more authoritative to anyone knowledgeable about the topic area than one which slavishly follows the preferences of the MOS and so may appear oddly styled. (At least in the area in which I mostly edit, plants, my experience is that the best articles follow the styling of their sources.)
 * This is the key argument on which the disagreement is founded. On the one side are those who want to allow the least styling flexibility they can get away with. On the other side are those who want to allow reasoned use of different styles commonly used in the subject area and its sources (as the MOS already does in some areas, e.g. English variants, referencing) – an anarchy of styles as opponents are wont to claim. I don't see that there can be a consensus between such different positions. The situation is, I believe, that a majority of those who edit the MOS naturally favour the first position, whereas the majority of those who create content naturally act in accordance with the second position. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to stick this out of order, but with the outdent this seemed like the best location. First, to get this off my chest, I think it's offensive that by saying "those who edit the MOS" believe one thing but "those who create content" think another you are  implying that people who edit the MOS   That's a disagreeable thing to imply and it's not true.  Second, I think the point of having a manual of style is for Wikipedia to be a professional encyclopedia.  I don't think it's true that the encyclopedia would be improved if people could choose whatever style predominates in their particular field.  Some people in some specialized fields presumably either little attention to the stylistic details discussed here or make their stylistic decisions for reasons that do not apply to a general-purpose encyclopedia.  I am not familiar with the purpose of the MOS' rules about the capitalization of common scientific names, so I can't directly address your example, unfortunately. But I don't think the encyclopedia would be improved if, for instance, one group of articles used spaced m dashes or unspaced n dashes just because that's the way those specialists do things.  People who know the English rules about dashes would just think that Wikipedia doesn't know what it's talking about.  Similarly, in my professional work (reading legal opinions and writing legal briefs) I would say the overwhelming majority of people do kinda stuffy things like  use two spaces after a period at the end of a sentence.  Would wikipedia be improved if all of the US Supreme Court articles did the same thing?  I don't think so.  We're a general-reference encyclopedia, not a source for specialists. There is a whole essay on this topic that I think conveys my point better than I can here; see WP:SSF.  AgnosticAphid  talk 02:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So to bring this back to the topic at hand, if the MOS were changed to what you believe is the reasonable level of flexibility, would you then support making article titles comply with the MOS? Tdslk (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If the MOS took the same approach as AT, i.e. setting out principles and then requiring editors to reach consensus within those principles, yes, of course. Who could then rationally dissent? So in problematic cases, styling consistency across Wikipedia, which is of course desirable, would be balanced against styling consistency with topic-relevant reliable sources, styling which works in an online as opposed to a printed work, etc., just as AT requires a balance to be sought between its principles. This is how WP works best: by consensus at the article level which is then copied across similar articles and so on upwards. The MOS can then say "this is what editors are generally doing, so you will probably want to copy them". It's messier than "the community" deciding a set of rules and then saying "obey and don't argue any more" (see below) but this isn't an encyclopedia with an editorial committee, it's an encyclopedia which anyone can edit. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Assuming there were a consensus for that, as evidenced by an unreverted new section in the MoS, I think that means: 1. AWB and similar editing for MOS compliance would stop, either as an explicit guideline, or because achieving consensus on each article, or even each article someone might complain about, is impractical. 2. That leaves the style of each article to its main editors, who presumably know its subject but not style. I have often demonstrated that even MOS regulars don't know the MOS, so average editors probably couldn't comply with more than a couple of its sub-rules if they wanted to. 3. They won't want to; it's normal to consider MOS rules to be intended for people less important than oneself. Thus 4. The MOS could pretty much be marked as historical. Which is not to say that would be a bad thing. Just be careful what you wish for. If a copyeditor applying a MOS rule gets reverted on the grounds that the rule is overruled by WP:TITLE or something, no possible consensus might be enough to persuade him to endure that abuse again. Art LaPella (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

As to the sentences under discussion see: There are probably other discussions that took place I have not checked the archives thoroughly. -- PBS (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 123 (July 2011)
 * The introduction to the line we are discussing was introduced here by user:Noetica on 6 August 2011 -- It seems Noetica was bold as there was no discussion initiated by Noetica on that date in the archives of the MOS, or more importantly on the talk pages of Article Titles which I would have thought was needed to see if there was consensus for this change as back in April 2011 there was not
 * first discussion (24 August 2011), about the change on 6th starting with an example of "Finnegan's Wake" and "Finnegans Wake"
 * I raised this issue hear back in April 2012.


 * PBS, thanks for those links. They include my clearly marked edit from 6 August 2011 ("Revise: match current provisions at WP:TITLE; clarify the structure; note the role of MOS in settling punctuation for all parts of an article, including title (confirmed by consensus outcome, ArbCom dash poll)"). Please do not characterise that as bold, or undiscussed. We had more than eight weeks of unprecedented discussion under ArbCom direction, to settle disputes over punctuation in titles. Sixty editors participated; the consultation began here on WT:MOS, and then moved to two huge subpages of WT:MOS. On 24 July 2011 the result was accepted and endorsed by arbitrator Casliber (see Archive 123, Dashes: a completed consensual draft for inclusion in WP:MOS). Some did not accept that a matter involving style was settled by adjustments in Wikipedia's manual of style! Most prominent was PMAnderson, whose political intervention over Mexican–American War dragged on and on, implicating a few others who have consistently opposed any harmony between MOS and WP:TITLE. PMAnderson has been under multiple sanctions for refusing to accept such consensus; he is now under a one-year block, and an indefinite topic ban for sockpuppetry. He posted as JCScaliger in an ArbCom case, vigorously attacking me because he could not accept the community consensus that I took a leading role in discovering, from sixty editors' contributions. Continuing on a personal note: I spent literally weeks of full-time work on those efforts toward accord and resolution in 2011; others dedicated huge amounts of time also, of course.
 * The background issues in what PBS links were all discussed and settled long ago. Good to have them noted; but few will appreciate attempts to re-start old wars. The community resents that; it saps everyone's patience and resources. Best to focus on further development of both MOS and TITLE, and their dependent pages. Striking again and again at the core mechanisms for improving Wikipedian titles and styling is unhelpful. They run smoothly together if we let them; let's keep them in good order to meet new challenges, not artificially revived old ones.
 * N oetica Tea? 21:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "implicating a few others who have consistently opposed any harmony between MOS and WP:TITLE" I am sorry but do you consider your position opposing harmony between MOS and WP:TITLE or that of those who hold a different point of view to you? It seem to me that there are two different ways to harmonize the two, and the only issue here is which is the better method.
 * "Please do not characterise that as bold". As I said above "There are probably other discussions that took place I have not checked the archives thoroughly" so where on the AT talk page is the notification of the main discussion (the "ArbCom dash poll")? If it was not a bold edit where on this talk page did you discuss this specific change before you made it? Where on the talk page of AT was this change discussed before you made it? -- PBS (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What I mean is perfectly clear in my post, and it fits with what you surely know about my position. I think you are not seriously asking for clarification, but disagreeing with that position. "It seem to me that there are two different ways to harmonize the two, and the only issue here is which is the better method." Funny then that I am the only one to make threads emphasising the harmony of the two, don't you think? I say they are already in harmony, and that is accepted by many other editors as a matter of course. Then there is a minority of which you are a member: in the main, not style specialists, and having little to do with manuals of style in real life. (Inevitable of course, on a volunteer project.) But those of us whose daily life involves guides to style have a clear understanding of how style and content are separate issues; and that is the way TITLE and MOS differ and are in harmony, not by one being subjugated to the other. Neither content nor style is subordinate to the other; same with MOS and TITLE.
 * "... so where on the AT talk page is the notification of the main discussion (the "ArbCom dash poll")?" As I explained above, with a full quote, my edit summary of 6 August 2011 referred to the "ArbCom dash poll". At the time people who frequented this talkpage knew exactly what was meant, as you certainly do also even now. There was no dissent on the talkpage, and the edit has long entered into consensus by being well grounded, correctly documented, and uncontested for well over a year. By usual standards, that was not especially bold! I am conservative and consultative when I make substantive edits, and I always explain what they are about. But if it was a bold edit, it was justified and accepted.
 * N oetica Tea? 03:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Noetica, although I don't always agree with you, I appreciate your normally very carefully constructed arguments. So it's disappointing to see you employ the "I'm an expert, you're not, so I know best" line. It's patronizing and counter-productive. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Peter. I did compose my response to PBS with care. My exact words, now with underlining: "Then there is a minority of which you are a member: in the main, not style specialists, and having little to do with manuals of style in real life. I deliberately did not exclude PBS as a style specialist, or as someone who has to do with manuals of style every day. (After all, I don't know that PBS does.) But that is indeed what characterises the minority as a whole – those who have a lot to say on style matters without really understanding them. If this were a page about quantum physics, those who are unqualified might be regarded as a nuisance. They would be excluded if they intruded sheer opinion for too long. Here everyone is welcome! I explicitly and repeatedly say it: let's get as many as we can from the community into discussion here. On the other hand, let's all keep an open mind and be persuaded by sound, well-informed submissions. And that includes non-specialists! Especially, perhaps.
 * Interestingly, many in the minority I speak of (which refuses to accept a plain demarcation between content and style) are computer experts. I suggest that this does not automatically make them experts in written communication, let alone the making of style guidelines to improve written communication.
 * Only rarely is an editor topic-banned here, and then because almost everyone's patience is exhausted.
 * N oetica Tea? 10:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As it happens, I had already explained at Wikipedia_talk:Article titles why I believe that there is not a "plain demarcation" between content and style, before I read this comment. I look forward to your reasoned response there. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Peter. It has been explained on WP:AT recently several times by several editors that there is already harmony between the two, because the decision process AT is based on the content of reliable sources, and if the sources have nothing to say on style -- which is the usual state of affairs -- then the MOS style is followed. A classic example is the use of "UPPERCASE LETTERS IN BOOK TITLES" those are nearly always placed in lower case and the capitalization follows MOS guidelines. However if the sources are specifically selective on style then that style may be followed, and the MOS recommendation may be disregarded. If they are disregarded then the MOS should follow the lead of AT because it falls under "Style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole." Blueboar has explained that this rule has to be taken with some flexibility and the example he gave is "Saint" in the title but "St." in the prose. The example I gave on the AT talk page was the use of "Melee" as an article and usage in other articles. There no disharmony in interpreting the MOS and AT that way. I consider your solution to be inelegant because it involves mechanical rules, that takes not account of what reliable sources state. This method used to be used in some of the naming conventions that started out with simple algorithms, to mimic reliable sources (because at the time all sources were surveyed not just reliable ones), but they ballooned in complexity to cope with exceptions. Once the main AT page incorporated only surveying reliable sources, the need for complexity in the naming conventions disappeared, because the main AT guidance then handled those exceptions automatically.
 * I do not usually lurk on this talk page (I am only here now because of the spill over from RfC on talk AT) -- I dislike the vitriol that frequently accompanies discussions here. I only know about the Arbcom poll because of what I have read since the latest RfC on talk AT (for example it was not mentioned during my visit to this page back in April 2012). I asked whether the editors who monitor the AT talk page was notified of the Arbcom debate, you wrote did any of them publish the fact that on the AT talk pages that there was a suggestion to include in the MOS "The policy page Article titles does not determine punctuation."? As I said before I have not done an extortive search of the archives so it may well be ther, but if it was mentioned and your were extensively engaged in the debate at that time, then I presume you will be able to find it more easily than I can. I would appreciate you finding it because if I could read the notification in the archives of the AT talk page, as it would help explain the dynamics of the current AT talk page RfC. -- PBS (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)