Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 4


 * September 14, 2004 – November 5, 2004.

Should we cite serial comma opposition?
Tired of the incessant omission of serial commas in many Wikipedia articles, bolstered no doubt by the odious standards set by nearly all print and online news sources that I've recently read, I finally went to my local library and reviewed every major work on writing style that they had in the Reference section. The only one that disagreed with the consensus described in this article under Commas was The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, 1st edition, 1999. Yet everyone seems to be following it! Are we so lazy that we can't be troubled to add a single comma, just because some upstart authority (compared to the Oxford, Harvard, and even Chicago University Presses) decided it needed the fractional character space taken by a punctuation mark that sometimes isn't necessary for clarity? (Excuse me while I take a few deep breaths. &#9786;) Anyway, since omitting the serial comma is so prevalent in popular writing, I wonder if we should cite in the main article the solitary exception to this consensus, pointing out that its motives are likely not based on clarity but rather ink and paper conservation. Comments? &mdash; Jeff Q 23:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * From Comma before "and":
 * "Although grammar gurus abandoned that comma rule for a while in the twentieth century, we have since realized that using the serial comma (as it is called) is a good idea ..."
 * For years omission of the serial comma was the recommendation of many prestigeous style sheets and was taught in many schools. It is not unsensible. If we write "Tom and Jerry", should we not write "Bob, Tom and Jerry" rather than "Bob, Tom, and Jerry"? If you don't need a blob of punctuation then why not get rid of it except when it is really necessary for sense. That being said, though style guides have moved back to supporting serial commas for other reasons, it does take time for people to catch up, to learn that what they were taught in school as correct (that is what the supposed experts recommended) and which was common enough in many books is suddenly wrong (that what supposed experts recommend against). And even if they realize that rules have changed, there are old habits to unlearn. I'm not sure of when the swing one way started and when the swing back occurred, a swing obviously still not complete or people would not so often omit the serial comma here. What one would like to read is the whole story: where the omission started, and how it spread, and when the pendulum began swinging the other way. I don't know the story. And in another twenty years many style sheets may be again recommending that one not use serial comma except when needed for sense. Who knows?
 * Jallan 00:26, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, my problem with "Bob, Tom and Jerry" is that it makes Tom and Jerry seem more closely associated with one another than either is with Bob... john k 01:40, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just an observation. The serial comma is not normally used in Ireland, or, I believe in Britain or Australia. Filiocht 12:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The "serial" comma is not, no; here (UK) it's called the "Oxford" comma, and is both very widely used and supported.
 * James F. (talk) 12:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It's also known as the "Harvard" comma, in case anyone is wondering. I suspect "serial" comma is used to avoid implications of primarily British or American usage. &mdash; Jeff Q 07:26, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This has no weight really, but I just think the serial comma looks messy; why add unnecessary punctuation? If its an ambiguous case, then use I use it, if not, I don't. I was tought in grade school to use it, but I always hated that (: &mdash; siro  &chi;  o


 * I don't buy the "unnecessary punctuation" argument. One doesn't lose any sense by omitting commas before quotations, as in:
 * ''She said "I don't believe it."
 * but that doesn't give one license to omit such punctuation willy-nilly. Sense itself is usually clear when citing the list in isolation, out of context, although I agree with john that omission can imply greater association between the last two items. But context makes all the difference. There are cases where a serial comma introduces ambiguity, just as there are cases where omitting it does. There is no simple way to avoid this, because the comma has many distinct uses which may overlap in a single sentence or even phrase.
 * HOWEVER, this is beside my original point. I'm not looking to challenge the existing policy. I'm just asking for opinions on whether we should cite the New York Times exception, and, if so, whether any explanation can or should be given, since many people may wonder why we (and every modern authority except NYT) don't follow a common practice. &mdash; Jeff Q 07:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I would rather see a listing of style guides that do support it. I suspect a number of newspapers besides the New York Times have similar style rules about not using serial comma. Not using serial comma is a common practice and has been a common practice as my first post here indicated. The problem is not the New York Times guidelines especially, which most people don't know, but that stylistic conventions and practice of a number of publication style sheets have changed during the past thirty years (and people don't know that either). They do know, often, that some print sources use serial comma and some don't, and therefore, in a general way, either is an acceptable practice and so choose to follow whichever practice they want in their own writing, if not under compulsion to follow a particular style. They may not realize that Wikipedia does request editors to use serial comma style or they may forget to do so out of habit. Anyone who does know the the standards laid down here and who is purposely going against them, making more work for otthers, should be told, politely to stop. If the editor doesn't, then, I suppose there is nothing for it but harsher measures. It sounds stupid to make a fuss over something so trivial. But why should others have to clean up after someone who is purposely making a mess. Jallan 17:33, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Oooh, yes, let's punish them horribly! Make them change all "--" to "&amp;mdash;" and vice versa in all articles! I don't think we need to justify the use of serial commas or even necessarily point out that some people use it only sometimes. Most style guides don't justify it; they just say do it. So do we. It's nice to feel authoritative.  Karen Elizabeth Gordon, in The New Well-Tempered Sentence, says, "When the last two elements in a series are joined by a conjunction, a comma comes before the conjunction&mdash;unless you're a journalist."  So maybe we should just punish all journalists ahead of time on general principle?


 * Just for entertainment: Lyn Dupre in Bugs in Writing says, "In Great Britain, writers use open punctation, in which ...for example, the series comma is omitted. In the United states, it is correct to use closed punctuation, in which such commas are included. Certain magazines and various informal arenas choose to use open punctuation; in formal writing in the U.S., however, it is correct to use closed punctuation." Maybe we should just punish all Brits in advance just in case they're thinking about leaving off the series/serial/Oxford/Harvard comma? And then add insult to injury by making rude comments about their spelling? Elf | Talk 18:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly either way, but the Associated Press stylebook, which most U.S. newspapers go by, is generally against serial commas. Maurreen 17:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, from my assortment of style guides:
 * Always use series comma: Chicago, Microsoft Manual of Style for Technical Publications (I'm not a microsoft fan, but this is a nice book), The New Well-Tempered Sentence (see above), Bugs in Writing (see above), Strunk and White, The Elements of Grammar (although notes "some writers prefer to omit this comma")
 * Usually use except sometimes maybe you don't have to: REA's Handbook of English Grammar, Style, and Writing; The Merriam-Webster Concise Guide for Writers (which also observes, "Most reference books, and most other book-length works of nonfiction use the serial comma. In all other categories of publishing, according to our evidence, usage is evenly or nearly evenly divided on the use or omission of this comma."); Woe is I (notes that it's optional but recommends using it)
 * Optional except when required to make meaning clear: The Holt Guide to English
 * Elf | Talk 18:26, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, and near as I can tell, Encyclopaedia Britannica uses the serial comma. Elf | Talk 18:33, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On the order of names
I'd like to propose that all names, in all languages, are given as [Family name] [comma] [Given name] in article titles (as, for example: Parker, Sarah Jessica). This would solve a lot of problems related to name orders which contradict the common English order of [Given name] [Family name]. Exploding Boy 21:43, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * How about just keep it in the order it should be in for all name orders, as there is nothing stopping us from doing that. That would make more sense, as thats what the peoples names really are. The [Family name] [comma] [Given name] seems like a real waste of the flexibility of wikis and computers in general. Also, I really like how articles about people are titled with their real name, and yet can be listed in categories under thier family name.  &mdash; siro  &chi;  o


 * Nonsense, perfect, if you ask me. This is the Wikipedia, English.

Wetman 07:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Other than being entertained by Wetman, User, I think we have to consider how most people will access the information. I'm guessing that almost everyone would type "Sarah Jessica Parker" and almost no one would start with "Parker, Sarah Jessica". Which means we'd also have to add redirects for every name in its natural order--and I'm not sure that it makes sense to always have the redirect be the text that's most commonly accessed. Although I certainly appreciate the challenges in our culture's tendency to sort by last name even though the last name comes--um--last. Wreaks havoc in my personal address book, I'll tell ya.  Elf | Talk 18:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Exploding Boy might try looking up Family name and see what a mess his system would create. To begin with, not everyone has a family name. There are numerous incompatible systems of nomenclature, present and past. What benefit if the article on Hamlet were renamed to, Hamlet and the article on Henry VIII was renamed to Tudor, Henry, VIII or something similar and the article on Björk was renamed to , Björk, Guðmundsdóttir or something similar? Jallan 21:33, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The reason I brought it up is largely because there has been an ongoing dispute regarding the order of Japanese names (and, to a lesser extent, Chinese and Korean names), which are normally given, in their respective languages, as FN-GN. Right now on Wikipedia, some names are given in GN-FN order, some are given as FN-GN, and probably a variety of other ways as well.


 * The argument about redirect pages is answered easily: Wikipedia is not paper.


 * The argument about single names (eg: Cher, Hamlet, etc) or people without family names is specious. Clearly single names don't require a comma.  There's nothing wrong with Tudor, Henry, VIII, and since Björk is her first name, the article would be titled Guðmundsdóttir, Björk, not the other way around (though it's debatable whether an article on Bjork really needs to include her last name in the title at all).


 * It's quite simple really:


 * articles on people with single names or who are best known by only one name would be titled with that name (thus, Madonna, not Ciccone, (Esther) Madonna Louise Veronica)
 * articles on people well known by both names would be FN, GN (as Clinton, Bill)
 * Articles on people whose name includes some embedded title would be in the normal order (thus Atilla the Hun, not Hun, Atilla the)


 * This is both encyclopaedic and bibliographical style, and it would quickly solve a lot of problems with name order. Exploding Boy 15:35, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * No this doesn't solve problems. It creates many new ones. Forcing use to move 10,000's of articles, requiring redirects from GN FN to the new format, etc. This is a very old established convention and there is no need to change it. Foreign name formats have been handled at Naming Conventions. Rmhermen 16:20, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

This is a terrible idea. Among other things, this makes the situation for other languages where given name comes second even worse. Will we have Mao, Zedong? john k 16:58, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The only possible reason for quoting personal names in this fashion is to allow them tp be sorted into, or looked up in, alphabetical order. Wikipedia is not paper and there is therefore no enforced order: you could produce an article List of People sorted by the third letter of their middle name if they have one or else not if you really wanted and this would produce, if not a helpful article, an interesting insight into the processes of your mind (just as this particular edit is an insight into mine at this tag-end of an&hellip;interesting Friday). You would then be subject to merciless editing, or more likely instant targeting by the list-phobics, and your list would be gone. That's got to be enough, it's Friday, just go home for goodness' sake! --Phil | Talk 17:10, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Mao, Zedong is desirable if for no other reason than that people will then be aware that he was not Mr. Zedong, just as Koizumi Junichiro isn't Mr. Junichiro and Kim Il-sung isn't Mr. Il-Sung. Exploding Boy 22:15, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Not only is this idea blatantly bad, but it contradicts our policy about locating the article at the most common english name. &rarr;Raul654 22:17, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah, another constructive post from Raul. Exactly why is it "blatantly bad," Raul?  And how does it contradict the policy?  People would still be under their most commonly used name, they'd just be listed in a more encyclopaedic and all-round more user-friendly style, because EVERYONE would be listed family name-first, rather than just a few people.  Exploding Boy 22:41, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * This idea is blatantly bad because


 * 1) You're talking about moving tens of thousands of articles, which realistically is never going to happen (and if you tried, you'd never get them all). And then of course there's the little matter of getting people to write new articles at family name, given name which is also never going to happen. Oh, and good luck trying to get everyone else to agree to it. (because if you think I'm being stubborn, you haven't seen anything yet)
 * 2) Our policy is that: "Generally, article naming (IE, where the article is located) should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity" - Harry Truman is quite a bit more obvious than Truman, Harry - it's almost more recognizable. This proposal violates our naming policy.
 * 3) If you want to link to someone now, you have to use Harry Truman instead of simply Harry Truman . All instances of Harry Truman now point to a redirect.
 * 4) On the other hand, what exactly do we gain by creating this mess for ourserlves? The vast majority of our biographical articles use the western custom of given name, family name. So for the vast majority of our biographic articles, this policy only creates problems. &rarr;Raul654 22:52, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Just one comment: people with a patronymic but without a family name are normally sorted on their first name, thus Björk Guðmundsdóttir, not Guðmundsdóttir, Björk, even in cases where other names are sorted with family name first. (As a matter of fact, the entire Icelandic phonebook is sorted according to first name.) However, I wouldn't trust most contemporary, Anglophone contributors on Wikipedia to recognize the difference between a patronymic and a family name, and if the unnecessarily complicated way of writing "last name" first would be implemented, names with a patronymic will no doubt often be written in the wrong order. //Tupsharru 06:07, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * As this is the English Wikipedia, we would sort them in the English usage, not the Icelandic. That is, patronymic as a kind of last name and are sorted together with them. (However we still have trouble deciding on a sorting order for the Dutch van and German von names.) Rmhermen 14:30, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * Do you have an authoritative source for what English usage is in this case?//Tupsharru 15:48, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It appears that Exploding Boy really wants to go with standard bibliographic style. That is somewhat more complex than always putting the family surname first. General bibliographic usage as been to generally list names by surname, followed by a comma, then by the other names, when the names are post-medieval names and when they are of European origin or names of those who have adopted European conventions or when the names have been adapted to fit European conventions. These modern surnames are sometimes patrynomics rather than family surnames. Names not fitting this convention are generally not re-ordered. Classical Roman names, for example, are not reordered. One normally does not see "Antonius Creticus, Marcus" rather than "Marcus Antonius Creticus" in an index. Where in modern usage surnames seldom appear, as with royal families of Europe, the names generally don't appear ordered by surname in indexes. It would be extraordinary to find a book referring to Queen Elizabeth II of the UK and find her listed in its index under something like "Windsor, Elizabeth, Queen of the United Kingdom, II".

An advantage of the traditional system is that it clarifies whether a surname is a modern family surname or a descriptive surname. If we come across "Marie d'Anjou" in an index, the reference is almost certainly to some pre-modern personage connected with the territory of Anjou, likely a member of its ruling family. If we come across "D'Anjou, Marie", the reference is almost certainly to a more modern person who happens to have the hereditary surname "D'Anjou". There is some small value in such a distinction, though it annoys indexers of books dealing with periods when hereditary family surnames were first coming into vogue.

But adopting the normal bibliographical system in Wikipedia would not at all solve a dispute over order of Chinese names. Under the traditional system someone knows immediately, by the presence of a comma, that in the case of "Dickens, Charles", for example, that "Dickens" is a surname and that in normal use the two elements are reversed. But coming across references like Hrólf Kraki, Vlad Tepe, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Mark Antony, Julius Caesar, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a reader unfamiliar with the name style or the persons knows nothing other than that, if there is a family name within any of these combinations, it is not marked by a comma. The only one of the above where we could reasonably make this clear though a comma is Mark Antony which we might reverse as Antony, Mark. For the rest, there is nothing to indicate whether "Hrólf", "Vlad", "Ho", "Julius", "Antiochus", and "Mao" are family names or not. In fact, of these, only "Mao" is a pure family name, "Julius" comes very close though the full family name was "Julius Caesar" (the given name "Gaius" being usually dropped in references to this particular personage).

One might use Mao, Zedong as Exploding Boy suggests. But the comma also indicates reversal and so indicates that in normal text we should see "Zedong Mao". That is incorrect. Placing a comma here would mislead. And that is not done in traditional usage. The dispute on particular names is because in environments derived from European culture the elements of Chinese names are indeed sometimes reversed. Should a Chinese name appear in reversed order or native order in an article title if it mostly appears in reversed order in English sources, as for example the name of a person of Chinese ancestry who is a native-born US citizen? Adopting normal bibliographic conventions in Wikipedia would now mean that the dispute would be instead about whether a comma should follow the family name rather than about the order in which the name elements should appear. The dispute would still exist. Exploding Boy's suggestion doesn't solve it at all.

Jallan 14:20, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Capitalization of compass directions with proper nouns
I've done some searching and come to the conclusions that (a) we don't currently have a policy on this and (b) this is the right place to raise the issue. Apologies if I'm mistaken.

Capitalization in Wikipedia articles is not consistent as regards the following usages. Can we adopt official policies and include them in our MoS? Have I missed the fact that we already have them? Or is this not the sort of thing we need to adopt specific policies for?

I know I'm supposed to be bold, but I didn't think unilateral changes to the Manual of Style were quite what was intended. Comments on these proposals are solicited.

{S,s}outheastern Pennsylvania
Clearly one heads north when one is going to North Dakota, but does one go to Southeastern Pennsylvania or southeastern Pennsylvania? If something comes from the Pacific Northwest, is it Northwestern or northwestern? I'm inclined to say the latter, i.e. to use lowercase, and the Chicago Manual of Style seems to back me up at the bottom of.

The {W,w}estern world
However, I think that Western and Eastern, when they refer to the cultures of the two hemispheres, are special cases. Western music, for example, is inconsistent, and I don't know which way to correct it. I guess I'd prefer capitals in this case, e.g. "I've spent six semesters studying Western philosophy and I'm sick of hearing about Western beliefs and customs", but I don't feel strongly about it.
 * It is customary to refer to the North as opposed to the American South (the latter article demonstrates appropriate capitalizations of related terms), and it would be inaccurate and potentially confusing to do otherwise, since "South" is a proper noun referring to a geographical and cultural reason and "south" is a direction on the compass. It's important to consider the context&mdash;I suppose it depends most basically on whether the word is being used as a proper noun or an adjective. --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * American South isn't entirely consistent either, but here's what I'm getting out of it:
 * The East and West parts of the world, the North and South parts of the U.S., and other similarly named regions such as the Pacific Northwest, the Midwest, etc., are all capitalized.
 * Their adjectival forms are likewise capitalized, so that people or things from the South are Southern, from the Midwest are Midwestern, etc.
 * However, directional words that refer to a general region of a defined area are not capitalized, so that one speaks of southeastern Pennsylvania or north Idaho, and people and things from those places are southeastern or northern, at least relative to people and things from other parts of the states. This convention will certainly help distinguish west Virginia from West Virginia.
 * Unfortunately, following these rules requires knowledge of the correct proper noun. Apparently, South Central Los Angeles is a proper name, so it's not south central Los Angeles, but you have to know that or be able to look it up.
 * I'll allow a few days for objections/additions, then I'd like to try to clean this up and post it on the project page.  &mdash;Triskaideka 19:21, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

draft
How about this?
 * Directions and regions:
 * Directions are not capitalized. Regions which are proper nouns are, but whether a region has that status can be a gray area.

Maurreen 17:20, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We should probably give some examples. I was thinking of something like:

Directions and regions:
 * Compass directions that are part of the proper name of a region should be capitalized, e.g. the American Midwest or South Central L.A.
 * When directions are used to indicate only a part of a region, they should be lowercase, e.g. north Louisiana.
 * Other forms of the words should follow the same conventions, so that a person from the Midwest is a Midwesterner, but a tree that grows in north Louisiana is northern (at least relative to trees in other parts of Louisiana).
 * It can be difficult to know whether the direction is part of the proper noun or not. Look it up when possible.  If you cannot determine whether the direction is part of the name, it may be best to assume that it is.

I don't know that I like the idea of capitalizing when you don't know for sure, but I like it just as much as not capitalizing when you don't know for sure, and I like them both better than telling people to do whatever they feel like, which I don't think befits a style guide. &mdash;Triskaideka 20:07, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer not capitalizing when people don't know whether the area is a proper noun. Maurreen 20:18, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the usage suggested. All references to specific regions should be capitalized.  Directions or general locations should not be capitalized.


 * So:


 * You head north from Richmond to reach Northern Virginia.
 * It is often cold in northern climes.
 * Unfortunately, South Phoenix is the focus of gang activity in metropolitan area.


 * Derivative words follow from the parent:
 * People who live in the Midwest are Midwesterners.
 * Inuit and Laplanders both live in northern climes. These northerners are a hardy sort.67.109.122.70 18:10, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reason for wanting to capitalize direction words even when they're not part of the proper name? I'm inclined to follow the CMoS in the absence of a reason to do otherwise.    &mdash;Triskaideka 18:17, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * How are you defining "proper name" of a region that is different than "reference to a specific region"?67.109.122.70 20:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * There is, for example, no officially defined geographical region called "Southeastern Pennsylvania". Certainly Pennsylvania has a southeastern part, but one can't be sure exactly what is meant when someone says "Southeastern Pennsylvania", so IMO, "Southeastern Pennsylvania" isn't the proper name of any geographical area, but rather, "southeastern Pennsylvania" is a handy description of a vague area.  In constrast, "South Central Los Angeles" (or nowadays "South Los Angeles", according to that article) is a specific geographical region whose boundaries are defined by the city of Los Angeles.  That's why I think the direction words in the former should not be capitalized, but those in the latter should.


 * I don't feel all that strongly about this, but whatever alternate policy we adopt, I'd like us to be able to give a reason for it. People will have a much easier time following a rule if they can remember why it's the rule.    &mdash;Triskaideka 21:04, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * That is why I suggested the definition I did. Its easy to remember (capitalize if referring to a specific place, region, or area, don't capitalize if referring to a general direction or area).  Its easy to implement (you don't have to know whether something is the "official" term -- whatever that means).
 * Under your definition, West Coast would NOT be capitalized because there is no official West Coast. The South (referring to the southern U.S) would not be capitalized because there is no official South.  Preposterous.
 * Even where there are govenment-recognized regions of cities or states, the government recognition often comes long after the terms are in broad usage. Think Upper East Side of Manhattan for example.
 * Let's focus on your vagueness test for a minute. I think we agree that the South gets capitalized.  But what states does that include?  Florida?  Just Northern Florida?  Texas?  Missouri?  Well, some people would say yes to all three states, some would exclude South Florida, seems pretty vague to me.
 * Is there a place here for a concept of common usage? Maybe the following couple of sentences are correctly capitalized:  "The culture in Northern California is different than in Southern California.  Similarly, though, the culture in eastern California is different than in the western, coastal cities."
 * BTW, do you have the CMoS language handy? I don't, so I don't know exactly what they say about this.  They've got people who have thought a lot about this stuff so I'm sure their opinion would be helpful.Chuck 22:24, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * U.S. Southern states suggests that there is a reasonably common definition of what states that term includes.
 * I certainly think there's a place for a concept of common usage, even though it may be difficult to determine whether a term is in common usage or not.
 * I don't have access to a copy of the CMoS itself, but I linked a page from their web site above. In response to the question, "What do I do when attempting to indicate specific regions in a particular county of a state? Do I write the North Central region of Contra Costa County, or do I lowercase north central, etc.?", they say, "We would lowercase regions within counties."  However, they also say that one should "capitalize regions in the United States such as the Northwest, East Coast, etc."  So I guess the question is, at what point does a region become too small (or too infrequently referred to) to merit capital letters?
 * I'm not partial to the CMoS over any other decent style guide; that was just the best comment on the subject that my web search turned up.  &mdash;Triskaideka 00:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to the Wikipedia, it is not the end-all on discussions of common usage of terms. Nor is it the end-all on discussions of how vague those terms might be.  If you used the term "the South" to me, I generally wouldn't think you were including Oklahoma (it wasn't even a state during the Civil War).  I definitely wouldn't think you were including Washington, D.C. since it was specifically placed in its location so it would be neither in the North nor the South, and it was part of the North during the Civil War.
 * Careful with that CMoS quote. They were asked a specific question about "the North Central region of Contra Costa County".  I agree that it shouldn't be capitalized, because north central is merely an adjective describing region.  However, North Central Contra Costa County perhaps should be capitalized, if it is a commonly used (especially if government sanctioned) term.
 * How about this for an idea. Let's use your earlier definition and say it gets capitalized if it is a proper name.  This is a little loose, but fits with other capitalization rules.  Basically let the author decide if the compass word is being used as an adjective (lower-case) or is part of the name (upper-case).  We can further define that place names are proper names through governmental action or common usage.
 * BTW, I would like to try to end up with a suggestion which gives reasonably strong direction. I was reading the Economist's on-line (abridged) style guide.  While each one of their points may make sense on its own, its difficult to make up a simple set of rules that would cover all of their examples.
 * I think its easier to err on the side of more capitalization. The difficulty of erring on the side of less capitalization is as follows:  You should always capitalize if its an official name (South Dakota for example).  But what about the North Atlantic?  How would you even go about deciding if its possible for there to be an official name for that.  OK, so you decide not to capitalize the word north there.  Then what about the North Sea?  Chuck 02:09, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The CMoS says, section 7.34m in my edition: "Certain nouns and some adjectives designating parts of the world or regions of a continent or a country are generally capitalized. Descriptive adjectives not part of an accepted appellation are lowercased."  Omitting lots of detail, here are some examples of capitalized and not capitalized: Antarctic Circle, North Atlantic, northern Atlantic, the South, the Southwest (US), the south of France, Upper Michigan, northern Michigan.


 * So, by the CMoS it should be northern California, southern California, north central region of Contra Costa County, etc. If anyone is dying for it, I'll type some more, but basically, no go on excess capitalization for unofficial and unrecognized place names incorporating directional indicators.  Ortolan88 01:13, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) Emphasis added for clarity.
 * Isn't the important phrase here "accepted appellation". I would think your list would look like Northern California, Southern California, north central region of Contra Costa County.  If Upper Michigan is capitalized, why are you coming to the conclusion that northern California should not be capitalized?  (I can't imagine that CMoS is making a distinction between upper and northern purely because one is a compass direction.)
 * Another example to back up capitalization of Northern California is CMoS' distinction between North Atlantic (accepted appellation) and northern Atlantic (not the accepted appellation). Chuck 02:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * FWIW, "Upper Michigan" is rather uncommon usage--it is far more commonly known as the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. older ≠ wiser 14:47, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think all of this might be more trouble than it's worth. Isn't it already a standard rule of English that proper nouns are uppercase, and most other things aren't?

I think it's best for the style guide to a concise reference to common questions that arise in Wikkipedialand. Maurreen 04:59, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * This seems to come up a lot so if we can come up with something short and clear, I think its worth it. How about we go with your original suggestion, and let people figure it out on a case-by-case basis.  In most cases, I think people will be able to easily decide between common terms that get capitalized ("... towns in Northern California") and descriptive terms that don't ("... the tribes of eastern Arizona").  Its probably not a big deal if it doesn't work perfectly on the margin, but its nice to provide guidance for people who may just be unsure what the rule is.
 * So we'll say to capitalize for proper nouns, terms in common usage, and their related forms, lowercase for terms not in common usage and their related forms, and use your best judgment (and above all, be consistent) if you're not sure? That's good enough for me.  &mdash;Triskaideka 18:55, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Draft 2?
Triskaideka, I'm not clear on what you mean by "terms in common usage."

Is this better?


 * Directions and regions:
 * Directions are not capitalized. Do capitalize regions that are proper nouns, include widely known expressions such as "Southern California," and their related forms.
 * But whether a region has attained proper-noun status can be a gray area. Use an appropriate reference if needed. Use lowercase when in doubt.

Maurreen 04:34, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On quotations and punctuation marks
Right now our official policy is to put punctuation marks inside quotation marks if it is a full quotation, but outside the quotation marks if it is a partial quotation. I've been looking at many encyclopedias and found that this is uncommon even in British publications. does anybody else feel that the current policy is needlessly confusing... or am I simply being an Ugly American here? I'd like to change it to have a uniform "punctuation goes inside quotation marks" style, but I really don't want to step on anyone's toes &#8211; just looking for a few comments on the issue. ;) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 16:52, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * The present official policy is in agreement with what is done in many (most? all?) other languages. You should consider the fact that many contributors here do not have English as their first language and have in fact learnt in school/university that the punctuation only goes inside the quotation marks if it actually belongs there in the first place. The only reason to do otherwise is, I guess, typographical, and I don't really find it much of an aesthetic improvement to get the empty space in one place rather than in an other./Tupsharru 17:19, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The rule has been in there since the first draft. I believe it is clearer that way.  There were many examples of this usage in the Wikipedia already.  I tried to make the first draft reflect what was already "best practice" in Wikipedia.  Ortolan88 22:21, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Personally, I can never remember what the policy is, so I generally just fake it. (I've read enough British authors over the years that my sense of such things is confused. In other words, my gut instinct is unreliable.) There would be something to be said for a system that is entirely consistent (and therefore easier to remember).
 * However, at the moment there is so much inconsistency with regard to punctuation that I almost wonder if it is worth the effort to have a rule. (Trying to enforce any change would be very difficult. Not that the current "rule" is enforced.)--[[User:Aranel|Aranel

("Sarah")]] 22:30, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Like the rest of the Manual of Style, none of the rules here are enforced, but when someone who loves copy-editing comes along to tend to an article, maybe quite an old one, they can look in the Manual of Style for guidance on consistency. Not that the rule is all that hard to remember:  If the punctuation is part of what is being quoted, put it inside the quotes, and if it is not part of what is being quoted, leave it out.  That is, the quotation marks contain only what is being quoted.  Ortolan88 22:57, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The current Wikipedia policy is often called "logical quotation". I far prefer it, despite what I was taught in school, and always use it when not prevented. Proponents of "typographical quotation" claimed it "looks better". Too often, I believed, it did not look better. It looked stupid. This is especially so in lists of words and meanings. For example, using logical punctuation:
 * "Three French words with related meanings are maison 'house', domaine 'estate, property', and château 'castle'."
 * This seems to be me to be more understandable and better looking than:
 * "Three French words with related meanings are maison 'house,' domaine, 'estate, property,' and château 'castle.'"
 * (The use of single quotation marks here rather than double quotation marks is standard linguistics usage when indicating a meaning of a previous word or phrase regardless of whether in the article as a whole double quotation marks or singlular quotation marks are used for top level quoting. I use it in Wikipedia since I prefer it and guideliness currently don't specify and the convention has spread to technical writing outside of linguistics. But using double quotation marks wouldn't change the point.)
 * Now if you aren't at all concerned with meaning, it is possible that at some level of abstract design that always putting a small base-line punctuation mark before a small high punctuation mark is aesthetically better, if there is an absolute in asethetics. But in parsing a sentence we are concerned with meaning.
 * This is only my personal feeling, not binding on anyone. If the Wikipedia Style Guide specifications had specified typographical quotation, I would bend to its whims. But considering that logical punctuation is specified in prestigious British style guides and in some general technical style guides, it is doubtful that such a rule would have stayed fixed in Wikipedia. The only reasonable choices are between letting the editor choose and logical quotation everywhere.
 * From The Canadian Web Magazine for the Writing Trade: Placement of Punctuation and Quotation Marks:
 * "In a literary work, we recommend the American style of always placing periods and commas inside the quotation marks. In a technical or legal work, where accuracy is essential, we recommend the British practice of placing periods and commas within quotation marks only when they are part of the quoted material."
 * I take Wikipedia as more technical than literary and this recommendation to come from noting increased use of logical punctuation in academic and technical writing outside of Britain.
 * Jallan 00:17, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Various observations: The comma and period inside the quotes "look better" only when true typography is used to place the quote over the punctuation, so that's not really an argument for doing it. My arguments for doing it come from Chicago and many other American style guides, but most acknowledge the historic reasons for the punctuation order. In technical style guides here, it is not the general case for punctuation to go outside the quotes, only when what's inside the quotes is an exact value (as in: type this URL into the field: "http://www.foo.com" .). However, I have no problem using the Wikipedia style guide and editing according to that. Elf | Talk 15:52, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Inline lists of translated words
I want to comment on the formatting of lists of inline translations of words. Compare this, from the preceding topic:
 * Three French words with related meanings are maison 'house', domaine 'estate, property', and château 'castle'.

with this from the following topic on this page:
 * ...englisch transcription for Bulgarian (Bulgarisch), Macedonian (Mazedonisch), Russian (Russisch), Serbian (Serbisch), and Ukrainian (Ukrainisch).

The latter--parens instead of quotes without dividing punctuation--is much easier to scan, read, comprehend than the former, and that's the form I've been changing things to as I have found them. For example, History of the Scots language was almost unreadable until parens were used. Elf | Talk 15:52, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * This is a good idea – should be policy, although I'm not sure how often it pops up. Derrick Coetzee 02:49, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think such a policy is needed. For one thing, I doubt it's a common problem. Maurreen 04:38, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Transliteration of Cyrillic
I'm sure I saw a comment a while ago that several users who can just about read Cyrillic find the italicised forms difficult (as some of the italicised forms aren't immediately obviously the same character as their non-italicised forms). Naturally, now I want to re-read it, I can't find it, nor can I find anything in the Manual of Style.

I'd like to propose that we create a policy thus:


 * When transliterating Cyrillic words, the Cyrillic should not be italicised, but the Roman alphabet transliteration should be. Ideally, a translation into English should follow.

A possible addition might include a guide on how to iotised and palatised characters, such as &#1063; (Che), &#1064; (Sha), &#1065; (Shcha), &#1071; (Ya) and &#1025; (Yo). (Personally I'd suggest a há&#269;ek on the core consonant(s) &mdash; so &#269;, &#353;, &#353;&#269; &mdash; and a letter Y before a vowel &mdash; ya, yo).

Opinions? :o) &mdash; OwenBlacker 21:46, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * There are pretty complete tables on de.wikipedia at de:Kyrillisches Alphabet, I assume you can make sense out of the tables even when not speaking German. They give a) scientific transliteration (with ISO variants where applicable) and b) german and c) englisch transcription for Bulgarian (Bulgarisch), Macedonian (Mazedonisch), Russian (Russisch), Serbian (Serbisch), and Ukrainian (Ukrainisch). Pjacobi 23:06, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * See also http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/rom1_ru.pdf -- Pjacobi 15:15, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Latin acronyms
I'd like to make the proposal, consistent with a number of style guides I've read, that all Latin acronyms but especially e.g. and i.e. be avoided in articles in favour of phrases like "for example/example:" and "that is/in other words". Derrick Coetzee 01:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree; I think that many people editing Wikipedia of course know what they mean, but my experience with the rest of the world says that most people don't. English is better for an English-language encyclopedia. :-)  Elf | Talk 04:32, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree. In legal writing I might use a term like "viz.", because it's comparatively well known among lawyers, but I'd avoid it on Wikipedia because of its obscurity.  By contrast, "e.g." and "i.e." are fairly common.  This is the English-language encyclopedia, not the Simple English version. JamesMLane 05:01, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It's true that "e.g." and "i.e." are fairly common. They're also fairly commonly misunderstood, by writers and readers. I've worked with a bunch of highly intelligent, well-educated people who consistently got these the wrong way around. I banned use of all Latin phrases when I was a documentation manager - yes, even "etc" - and I support the proposal here. English evolves, and it's evolving to route around Latin since most people don't have a classical education. I don't think of this as a bad thing: it's just what English does, and has always done. Above all: we write to be read, or else what's the point? -- Avaragado 08:28, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Your comment uses several words that came into English from Latin. As people learn English, they learn the meaning of words like "documentation", and they learn the meaning of abbreviations like "e.g."  They don't need a classical education.  They don't even need to know that the word or abbreviation they've just learned comes from the Latin.  Plenty of people who've never heard of Algonquian can tell you what a raccoon is.


 * I agree with writing to be read. From that perspective, Latin can indeed be overdone.  There are some instances in which a Latin-derived word tends to be favored by writers who want to seem educated, or who think that it's more appropriate to formal writing -- or, perhaps, who've spent too much time in academia.  I personally use "understand" (Old English root) more often than "comprehend" (Latin root).  The most common Latin abbreviations, however, are known widely enough that I don't see their use as an impediment to readability. JamesMLane 13:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with JamesMLane and would also add that banning perfectly ordinary English acronyms like i.e. and e.g. (and yes, they are English even though they are derived from Latin) is not really in the spirit of this place. Neither is it a realistic option. What English does best, and the reason that it has such a huge word store, is that it freely robs words from other languages. If we try to ban them all from Wikipedia, we'll have to write in Anglo-Saxon (or maybe Old Norman French, and isn't that just dog Latin at base?). Filiocht 13:43, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Quotation marks: New policy proposal

 * With quotation marks, we have no rigid rule. Some users prefer using one style (punctuation goes outside the quotation marks when quoting only part of a sentence, but inside when quoting a compete sentence), while other prefer another style (punctuation always goes inside quotation marks).


 * I prefer the "rigid rule" that is presently in place, not because it is a rigid rule, but because it gives guidance to editors, that is, if the punctuation is part of the quote, quote it, if not part of the quote, don't quote it. Keep in mind, that which is frequently forgotten in these discussions, the purpose of any manual of style is consistency. This proposal will result in inconsistency and gives no guidance to editors. Contributors in general don't pay much attention to the Manual of Style so far as I can tell. This is good, because a lot of the Manual of Style is intimidating to people not accustomed to editorial markup.


 * If I am reading correctly, this "no rigid rule" paragraph is the only part of this proposed policy that is actually new, the rest is pretty much as it already is in the Manual of Style. Ortolan88 03:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) PS -- I should state my bias. I wrote the first draft of the Manual of Style, basing it on what I found in the Wikipedia at that time, and the rule about "logical quotes" was in that first draft because many carefully written articles, including mine, already used it. Ortolan88
 * Have to agree. Seems like we should just pick one system and move on.  (Also, it seems like we already have, so lets.)  Chuck 04:17, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that if you're quoting several paragraphs, there should be quotes at the beginning of each paragraph, but only at the end of the last paragraph. For longer quotations, an indented style may be better. Since quotations are already marked by quotation marks or indentations, they need not be italicized.
 * It is probably best to use the "double quotes" for most quotations, as they are easier to read on the screen. Use 'single quotes' for "quotations 'within' quotations," or to mark words for attribution.
 * Note that if a word appears in an article with single quotes, such as 'abcd', the Wikipedia:Searching facility will find it only if you search for the word with quotes (when trying this out with the example mentioned, remember that this article is in the Wikipedia namespace). Since this is rarely desirable, this problem is an additional reason to use double quotes, for which this problem does not arise. It may even be a reason to use double quotes for quotations within quotations as well.
 * For uniformity and to avoid complications use straight quotation marks and apostrophes, not curved (smart) ones or grave accents:
 * Correct: ' "
 * Incorrect: &#8216; &#8217; &#8220; &#8221; `
 * If you are pasting text from Microsoft Word, remember to turn off the smart quotes feature by unmarking this feature in AutoEdit and "AutoEdit during typing"! . Many other modern word processors have a smart quotes setting - please read the appropriate documentation for your editor.
 * The grave accent (`) is also used as a diacritical mark to indicate a glottal stop; however, the straight quote should be used for this purpose instead (e.g., Hawai'i, not Hawai`i).

I'm planning on adding this revised policy in a week if there are no objections. Comments? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:07, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Except for the punctuation issue (addressed above) I'm fine except for the Hawaii example. Why are we even addressing a rare character here.  My understanding of that character, also used for other Hawaiian words, is that the preference of character use is (i) the Unicode character (there is a specific unicode character defined), (ii) opening left apostrophe, (iii) grave accent, (iv) straight apostrophe.   Straight apostrophe might be the most cross-platform, but is the least accurate.   Anyway, is this really the right way to open up the rare character can-of-worms.  There are plenty of other characters and diacritic marks we would need to address as well.  We can start a section to address such characters, but it doesn't belong with quotes.  Chuck 04:17, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see what this change would improve. Maurreen 04:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The only real change here is removal of long-standing Wikipedia preference for logical quotation. But editors have long time been writing articles by this standard and correcting articles to fit this standard. As with any change here, consensus is needed. And I don't see that occurring.
 * I agree with Chuck on the Hawai'i issue, which is controversial and not clear and also not altogether folllowed. Does this mean that when referring to Hawaiian names in an English context one should use the straight quotation rather than the grave, or that even when quoting Hawai'ian forms natively one should do the same? I don't think the latter is intended, or at least would not be understood now as being a reasonable rule. That should be made clear. There is an increasing tendency in general for use of rarer Unicode characters to appear throughout Wikipedia as fonts increasingly support them. I have seen use of the &amp;lsquo; character in Hawaiian names and the only objector I've seen to it backed down at once when the user made an issue of it, even saying that if the editor wanted to persist in using it against the standard, he'd support the user. It is hard to remember that even as short a time as three years is was considered rather daring on the web to display even common characters outside of ISO Latin-1 without special downloadable fonts and how a few cranks were still raving away on usenet claiming that Unicode couldn't work and that no-one was using it. That no-one is generally addressing the matter of rare characters may indicate that there is no problem to be addressed, that is, that those using rare characters are largely doing so with reasonable restraint and issues raised are being solved reasonably by individual discussions.
 * Jallan 17:32, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that Manual of Style (dashes) should be renamed to something like Manual of Style (puntuation), and any policies in this area sould join it there.Susvolans 17:05, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Don't think so. Punctuation is pretty much the first line of "style" and should remain in the main body of the Manual. Ortolan88 18:02, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fictional Universe Format
While most of the pages have, as thier first sentence the particular universe they're from, I was thinking if it would be good for the first line of every entry like this to appear as something like this:

Part of the Star Trek fictional universe.

Then the start of the article text (after a single empty line), just so there's something universal to differentiate fictional articles from non-fictional. --Barry 16:46, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Only if there are variants available. "Fictional universe" is not a designation associated with all fictional story-settings. (Tolkien, for example, preferred the term "legendarium", which is more appropriate in this case. Middle-earth is in this universe, not a fictional one.)


 * It would seem more reasonable to simply suggest that all articles referring to fictional settings should clearly indicate the setting in an appropriate manner. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 17:09, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Nor does one normally refer to the "Oliver Twist fictional universe" or the "Romeo and Juliet" fictional universe. That would sound absurd. And overstandardization is often worse than no standardization. Simply indicate that the article concerns something fictional and identify where it comes from in any words that is clear and appropriate to the subject. Jallan 17:36, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Unless the article is written from the POV of someone in the universe, (which is not a good idea), it should just be part of the first sentence or two. Too many "standardized" notifications will make Wikipedia seem more like a database of facts and less like an encyclopedia   &mdash; siro  &chi;  o


 * I wasn't speaking for every single fictional reference. Just the one from the large and complex ones.  Star Trek, Star Wars, Tolkien, etc.  Just a single point to tie them together.  --Barry 14:07, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Pronouns
Because the discussion on gender neutrality for pronouns has died out, I'm going to remove the link to the discussion from the style guide. Maurreen 14:04, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Libel
I've seen a few potentially libelous articles, with statements along the lines of someone was "arrested for ..." If the person hasn't been convicted or pleaded guilty, the sentences should be reworeded. Does anyone object to adding an explanation in the style guide about this? Maurreen 23:16, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * At least in the U.S., people are generally arrested for a specific crime, that is they are charged with that crime at the arrest. This does not mean the same thing as they are convicted of. They were charged with is similar but can mean arrested for or might mean merely that a warrant was issued for their arrest for a specific crime. Rmhermen 23:42, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * To say that someone is "arrested for" a crime at least implies that the person committed that crime. This is from the Associated Press stylebook:
 * "To avoid any suggestion that someone is being judged before a trial, do not use a phrase such as 'arrested for killing.' Instead, use 'arrested on a charge of killing.' '' Maurreen 00:39, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Somewhat of a..."
Moved from Village pump. Reuben 18:30, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have always learned that constructions like "somewhat of a bore" are incorrect - in this case, "something of a bore" or "somewhat boring" would be correct. See for instance "Common Errors in English". I haven't found any sources supporting the "somewhat of a..." form, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it might be correct in the UK. Any comments? In the U.S. at least, "somewhat of a..." is often used but is considered incorrect.

Reuben 08:26, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Considered incorrect by who? And why should be listen to them? I would avoid these constructions not because they're wrong, but because they're a little bit informal, colloquial, and awkward. Also, they're a little too wishy-washy. But wrong? I think not. Nohat 08:43, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * One example is the New York Times, which puts considerable effort into its formal and traditional style. As I understand it, that's an important component of the encyclopedic style that Wikipedia aims for.  Whether to talk about things being incorrect or just informal, colloquial, and awkward is more a question of philosophy than style.  Careful U.S. sources seem to avoid using "somewhat" as a pronoun.  What I'm wondering is whether this carries over to other parts of the English-speaking world.  I have changed "somewhat" to "something" in a few articles, but will revert those edits if they are not appropriate.  If the point of style I was applying is U.S.-only, then I certainly would not want to impose it on somebody else's text when copy editing. Reuben 09:27, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Nohat. "Somewhat" is wishy-washy, but not wrong. Nor is it a U.S. taste. The New York Times style guide has no entry for it. And the "something of" construction is not familiar to me. Maurreen 16:56, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Really? I don't have access to the NYT style guide, but I have always known them to avoid "somewhat of a."  A quick check on their usage, from Google: "somewhat of a" (a few hits, mostly in direct quotes), "something of a" (very many hits).  Thanks for looking it up in their style guide.  Also, is there a better place in the Wikipedia to ask for comments on style?  Thanks. Reuben 17:20, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Maurreen 17:39, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that we should be using 'somewhat' or 'something of a...' at all in these contexts in an encyclopaedia. Surely Wikipedia should say exactly how much or how far a fact is correct or incorrect. It's one thing for a newspaper to use this kind of style, because they often want to introduce an attitude or a comment on previously discussed items whereas we but it's another thing in an encyclopaedia. In Wikipedia we should be discussing items pared down to facts. Dieter Simon 22:29, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Billion
Go to Talk:Earth. I removed the word billion from the article yesterday because billion is a word with ambiguity in its meaning. Then, later on, it was returned, with scientific notation also being kept. Does anyone have any opinions about the use of the word billion at Wikipedia?? 66.245.96.130 16:30, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, although it is certainly ambiguous when reading a document from many years back, and while its cognates in foreign languages may have different meanings, in contemporary English "billion" almost always means the value 1,000,000,0000, and any other use is increasingly seen as archaic or obscurantist. Certainly this is the case in the U.S., as far as I know it's the case in Canada and the UK. Are there places where this is not so? Do you have recent citations of it being used in any other meaning in English? -- Jmabel 05:14, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * In English, one "billion" is $$10^9$$, or 1,000,000,000. The problem may arise in other languages, where the loose translation of "billion" (i.e. in Spanish "billón") means 1,000,000,000,000; in other words, that's a million millions, or a trillion in English.--Logariasmo 06:59, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * "In English"? That depends on American English, British English or the others.  Billion is indeed ambiguous and should be avoided where possible, though I agree $$10^9$$ is the most common definition now. violet/riga (t) 19:29, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * That's very vague. Again, I will ask: "Do you have recent citations of it being used in any other meaning in English?" - Jmabel|Talk 19:49, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, but only in discussions of the difference between the (largely historical) British-based meaning of $$10^{12}$$ and the (now more more common) American-based meaning of $$10^9$$. Certainly, the British government stopped using $$10^{12}$$ about 30 years ago, and in my experience everyone in the UK these days would expect "billion" to mean $$10^9$$.  However, I cannot vouch for the rest of the English-speaking world. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:14, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * My point was that if there is some other way of stating the information then that should be preferred. Unfortunately, however, it's rarely the case that you can write it some other way. violet/riga (t) 20:37, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Fortunately, it is usually the case that you can write "thousand million", which is easily understood and unambiguous. &mdash;AlanBarrett 21:22, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * But we all trip over "thousand million" every time we read it. Just say "billion".  I doubt that a Wikipedia article will flabbergast anyone on Earth, by introducing the word "billion" as meaning $$10^9$$.  Tempshill 23:55, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * There's a part of the introduction to the Style Guide that may be relevant here: "One way is often as good as another, but if everyone does it the same way, Wikipedia will be easier to read and use, not to mention easier to write and edit." It's reasonable for us to select one meaning of "billion" to be used here.  But in this case, it's not in fact true that one way is just as good as the other &mdash; using it to mean $$10^9$$ is far more common.  So why not make it official and use it that way all the time? Factitious 02:46, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * This is covered in the Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Maurreen 03:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah, thank you. Looks like that issue has already been argued to death &mdash; avoiding the billion wording seems a reasonable solution in light of all that. Factitious 04:20, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

We should definately avoid this, as there are other, clearer ways of saying the same thing. It is like the flamable / inflamable debate. The amount of confusion is not worth being right. Mark Richards 03:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Use of quotation mark for glottal stops, etc.
User:Susvolans replaced a paragraph about rendering the glottal stop in Hawaiian with new material. I have reverted to the older version. The new material was as follows:"The grave accent (`) is also used as a diacritical mark to indicate a glottal stop; however, except in article titles, the left quotation mark should be used for this purpose instead (e.g., Hawai&lsquo;i, not Hawai`i or Hawai'i). It is supported in almost all browsers, and can be used in Wikipedia. Do not type a left quotation mark directly into Wikipedia. It may display correctly on your browser, but not on others. Instead, use the HTML entity &amp;lsquo; or the numeric form, &amp;#8216; or &amp;#x2018;. Wikipedia in English does not currently support left quotation marks in article titles; a grave accent should be used instead."The difficulties are that, other than in Hawaiian, the glottal stop is normally indicated by a right quotation mark or a similar mark and the left quotation mark or similar mark mark indicates a pharyngeal consonant found in Semitic languages called there &lsquo;ayan or &lsquo;ain. The symbols resembling quotation marks are commonly used in Latin-letter transliterations of Arabic names and of Hebrew names and words in scholarly transliterations. Accordingly all renderings of glottal stop are not done by a left-quotation mark symbol. Also, two more technical symbols are available in Unicode: U+02BE MODIFIER LETTER RIGHT HALF RING and U+02BF MODIFIER LETTER LEFT HALF RING which are generally preferred by Semiticists for transliterations of Semitic words and names and which are already in use in hundreds of articles in Wikipedia for transliterations of Semitic names.

At the least the above needs to be reworded to recognize this. Personally, it seems to me reasonable to use &amp;lsquo; for ( &lsquo; ) at the present time for the &lsquo;okina character in Hawaiian. But that is itself not the proper character according to Unicode and Hawaiian government specifications. The proper character is U+02BD MODIFIER LETTER REVERSED COMMA. See the discussion at Okina and the external links there. If Susvolans' recommendation is accepted for Hawaiian, it should at least be mentioned in the recommendation that in future, when systems better support it, the proper &lsquo;okina symbol should be substituted. Or, since of common browsers, only Microsoft Internet Explorer on Windows currently won't find the proper characters if they exist on any font on the system and insert them, should we perhaps now be using the proper character (as is being done in many Semitic transliterations) rather than wait only because Microsoft can no longer be bothered to improve their browser to the standard of other browsers?

Jallan 15:27, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Regardless of MS's immobility, our service is ultimately to our readers, who almost all use IE, and aren't going to change browsers to see glottal stops on Wikipedia. If anything doesn't look right in IE, it's not an option. Derrick Coetzee 16:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Almost all Wikipedia readers use IE? What percentage?  I would hope they'd realize that if they use a browser that can't handle Hawaiian characters reasonably, their ability to read Hawaiian words will be impaired. Factitious 16:50, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think he's basing that on the general widespread use of IE. Do you really need statistics about how MS dominates in the browser wars? Unfortunately, most readers (i.e., users of IE) couldn't care less about Hawaiian characters. They come to Wikipedia and see an empty square or a funny looking character and conclude that Wikipedia is broken, not their browser. older &ne; wiser 17:10, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * There are hundreds of articles in Wikipedia now that don't look right on most users' versions of IE, perhaps thousands. People who care about special characters generally don't use IE. There have been no guidelines in that area such as character sets for the Latin script, Greek script, Cyrillic script, mathematical characters and so on that must be used for any article in Wikipedia. Accordingly, for example, editors have used IPA characters for pronunciation indications and so forth. There are two extreme attitudes about this on the web (outside of Wikipedia):"1. Bleeding edge: Do things right from the beginning, using the proper Unicode characters and proper XHTML features and expect readers who care to use proper tools. The entire web will catch up soon enough. After all, using anything outside of Latin 1 or one of the other standard 8-bit sets on the web was considered rather daring only three years ago. Things move very quickly. So build for the future, not for the past. People too stubborn to upgrade when upgrades are free will just have put up with a few characters not appearing properly, but often characters they don't care about anyway. 2. Ultra-careful: Don't use any character or any feature that every browser at least as old as Netscape 5.0 onward doesn't support fully. You can always update the page later. For Wikipedia this would mean almost nothing outside of Latin-1."Wikipedia obviously should generally be somewhere in the middle. But exactly where is probably very contentious. And the target is constantly moving. I expect this is why the matter has not come up in the style manual. It's too hot to touch and too complex. And the genie is out of the bottle already. Many articles, perhaps thousands of articles, exist using characters that don't display on all systems. Yet users and other editors aren't complaining signficantly. I don't recall ever seeing a complaint outside of an occasional individual complaint on a talk page, that was quickly overruled by others or where a compromise was easily obtained. Obviously, then, using such characters is an option, since it has been taken as an option with minimal or no opposition. There is no policy that every Wikipedia article must display to perfection on every system, regardless of browser being used and local fonts available. The problem tends to be self-correcting, in that those users who care about seeing particular special characters are also the ones who have their systems set up to view them properly (or are already used to seeing them displayed as boxes or question marks on other sites). The other users don't care, and so the boxes or question marks that appear don't matter to them. They just know that some characters are being used that don't display properly on their system, which often happens when languages other than their native language are displayed. Nothing odd there at all. All quite normal. Just what one expects. And editors using rare characters are generally restrained in their use. Wikipedia could set a policy that, for example, until further notice, the normal left-quote and right-quote characters must be used for Semitic transliterations rather than the half ring characters, that dotted t for emphatic t in Semitic languages should be rendered by t. rather than by the proper Unicode character which has been used instead in many Wikipedia articles. But then who would do the fixing, expecially when even a year from now it might be generally conceded that those characters were no longer a problem?Jallan 18:20, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I pretty much agree with Jallan. I have no problem with restrained use of rare characters, so long as some equivalent that renders correctly in older browsers is also given. I like how this is handled in the Hawaii article, where the "correct spelling" with the special mark is noted and explained, but the more common English spelling is used through most of the article. older &ne; wiser 18:41, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * We should be "bleeding edge" and warn people via .  Chameleon 18:54, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, I like Chameleon's idea. Of course even Unicode is incomplete in some respects (such as lacking p-macron used in phonemic Hebrew transliterations), but I generally like using proper Unicode most of the time.  But even I'm not perfect, and I find myself using &amp;lsquo; for &lsquo;okina.  I suppose I am willing to bend on the half-circle/single-quote issue, going single-quote instead of the ultra-rare characters.  As for other characters in Semitic transliterations, they are well supported in fonts such as Tahoma, so I'm comfortable using them. - Gilgamesh 02:17, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not even sure what we are talking about here anymore. If we're talking about providing a precise transliteration or pronunciation guide once in a article, I see no problem with using rare characters. But if you start using those rare characters at every instance throughout the article, that may be a problem. I mean, this is the English Wikipedia and if something makes words in an article illegible to a significant number of readers, that is definitely a problem. older &ne; wiser 02:58, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

We were originally talking about User:Susvolans's quite reasonable attempt to replace some material in the style guide which is obviously outdated. Even the Hawaii article now ignores that recommendation. The difficulty was in part that Susvolans spoke of "glottal stop" rather than simply &lsquo;okina and that opened up another set of issues, indeed the whole matter of special characters, however such characters are going to be defined. Also, if the style manual is going to be changed on that point, as indeed it should be, since the character proposed for &lsquo;okina is in fact not the official character, there should be some discussion on the matter of whether people should go through articles containing Hawaiian forms and replace one incorect character (the typewriter apostrophe) by another incorrect character (the left quotation mark) or should immediately start using the proper character.

I don't think we should to try to define general usages here for all unusual characters. It's too big. What characters particular editors wish to use for transliteration depends very much on what they are trying to do and the particular languages they are dealing with and what users might expect ... and so forth. People dealing with Semitic languages should be dealing with issues having to do with transliterating Semitic languages, people dealing with English phonetics should be deciding how to render English phonetics, people dealing with Hindu languages should be deciding how to render Hindu languages, people working on articles on logic should decide what logical notation should be used, people discussing Chinese characters are the ones who can best decide which characters are most likely to display properly. If people working in any such field wish to set up standards for that field they should try to get consnensus themselves. Mostly that is what has been happening.

As to the current obsolete rule about how to render &lsquo;okina, I have two alternate suggestions:"1. Simply remove it. It was an oddity anyway. We don't have similar rules for Semitic transliteration or Hindu transliteration or how to render Icelandic here. Those working on articles displaying Hawaiian forms can do as they wish, as is done with other languages.2. Change to a modified version of Susvolans' recommendation that refers only to the &lsquo;okina rather than glottal stop in general, which I believe is what Susvolans intended to do. The revised text might read: To indicate the &lsquo;okina (glottal stop) character in Hawaiian, the left quotation mark should be used (that is, Hawai&lsquo;i, not Hawai`i or Hawai'i), though in any article titles where the &lsquo;okina should be displayed, the grave accent must currently be used as a substitute. (The proper Unicode &lsquo;okina symbol is Unicode U+02BD MODIFIER LETTER REVERSED COMMA, but currently this is not available in many fonts and unfortunately display problems are likely to result on many systems if the correct character is used.) But do not type or paste a left quotation mark directly into the Wikipedia editor. It may display correctly on your browser, but not on others. Instead, use the HTML entity &amp;lsquo; or the numeric form, &amp;#8216; or &amp;#x2018;." I'm not pushing this exact text or even the exact recommendation. It is for those working on articles where Hawaiian forms will be displayed to decide whether &lsquo;okina should now be rendered by &amp;lsquo; or by the more correct &amp;#699; (as in Hawai&#699;i versus Hawai&lsquo;i). They can best balance current problems versus future benefits in using the &amp;#699; character now or using &amp;lsquo; now&mdash;knowing that in a year or two at most everything should be changed to the proper form.

Jallan 04:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Read instruction creep. Restricting the character set other than on a case-by-case pragmatic basis is generally bad, so we should just cut back, possibly including parts of the preceding section. Susvolans 12:26, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed on attempting to restrict character set usage here. However we don't want people to get the idea that the single curly quotation mark characters are totally forbidden for all purposes. How about this:"Characters identical in appearance to left single quotation mark or right single quotation mark are used as letters in some languages and some Latin-letter transliteration systems, for example the &lsquo;okina character in Hawaiian and for &rsquo;alef and &lsquo;ayan or &lsquo;ain in Semitic languages. For such purposes, use of the single left quotation and right quotation characters may be acceptable to produce unambiguous display on almost all systems even though these characters are not the recommended ones in Unicode for those purposes. The characters may also be used in discussions about the quotation marks themselves. If using left or right quotation mark for such reasons, do not type or paste a left quotation mark directly into the Wikipedia editor. It may display correctly on your browser, but not on others. Instead, use the HTML entities &amp;lsquo; or &amp;rsquo; or the correponding numeric forms: &amp;#8216; and &amp;#8217 or &amp;#x2018; and &amp;#x2019;. If necessary to represent such characters as letters in article titles, the normal straight apostrophe ( ' ) should usually be used in place of the right quotation mark and the grave accent ( ` ) in place of the left quotation mark."This is general, rather than restricted to Hawaiian and makes it clear that the curly single quotation mark characters may be used in particular circumstances without committing to desireablity of doing so, as something for case-by-case discussion on talk pages and so on. I think it is useful to warn against attempting to use the curly quote characters directly rather than using the HTML entities.Jallan 14:27, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with this, from Jallan: "As to the current obsolete rule about how to render &lsquo;okina, I have two alternate suggestions: 1. Simply remove it. It was an oddity anyway. We don't have similar rules for Semitic transliteration or Hindu transliteration or how to render Icelandic here. Those working on articles displaying Hawaiian forms can do as they wish, as is done with other languages. Maurreen 13:52, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Spelling of scientific words (sulphate/sulfate)
The current guide says (under "scientifc style"):


 * In articles about chemicals and chemistry, use IUPAC names for chemicals wherever possible, except in article titles, where the common name should be used if different, followed by mention of the IUPAC name.

This is OK (I guess) but recently we have had a round of edit war followed by inconclusive (rather thin) discussion over at Talk:Global_warming over whether this policy applies to science articles in general, or just (as the policy above appears to say) for chemical names. I'm introducing the discussion here in the hope of getting some more opinions.

I would like to propose that the policy above be modified to include:


 * note that this policy applies strictly to articles whose main concern is chemistry, and not to science articles only peripherally concerned with chemistry, in which case the std wiki policy applies..

or somesuch. You might think that unneccessary, but see the discussion on the t:GW (William M. Connolley 18:49, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)).


 * "Sulfur" will be acceptable the day "telefone" is. The same day Hell freezes over.  Chameleon 18:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * To you perhaps. But "phantasy" is now an archaic spelling.  [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 19:18, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Google hits: Search pattern  All languages   English only sulfur              1,760,000      1,130,000 sulphur             1,560,000        978,000 sulfur -sulphur     1,130,000      1,050,000 sulphur -sulfur       967,000        913,000

The form sulfur is currently at least acceptable to a large number of people (as is sulphur), however unacceptable it might be to one individual here. That's fact. And of course many who use sulfur in some contexts are quite willing to accept sulphur in others, and vice versa, or willing to accept both evenly, or don't care much at all, or follow their own preferences in their own writing and don't mind others doing the same. Jallan 20:41, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Please please please. DO NOT use Google to try to prove any point about usage. Google only proves a point about usage on the Internet, and as there are probably more English web pages based in the United States than in the rest of the World put together, it proves little about usage in general. This should really be posted somewhere prominent, indeed there should probably be a Wikipedia namespace article on it. Mintguy (T) 23:04, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I will continue to use Google to see what it says on usage issues. I don't always follow it, but it's often better than "my usage is usually normal so whatever I normally do must be the norm." What is the best spelling to use for a name that occurs in different spellings in different sources? Sometimes Google shows the opposite to what I think it should as to what the standard form should be. Sometimes further thought and research indicates that Google is probably correct. Sometimes there are good counter-arguments against what Google seems to claim. But Google can show, as in this case, that two different spellings are both widely accepted. I totally agree that in this case the ratio between the figures is not to be trusted. But Google is a useful tool for usage when, like all such tools, it is used with care and not used exclusively. Jallan 01:00, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with your conclusion in this case, but not your argument. Certain clear misspellings that would never be considered acceptable any time soon still remain popular, as evidenced by their many thousands of Google hits. Here are some simple examples:
 * cigarete (28,700 hits)
 * lvoe (14,500 hits)
 * copyrihgt (8,110 hits)
 * tonw (3,150 hits)
 * Derrick Coetzee 15:44, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * It can be useful tool when there isn't a USA vs. rest of the world debate going on and more generally when it used with an understanding that simply comparing hit counts doesn't always tell you anything useful. I agree with Derrick and was going to make the same point myself. In addition, I remember some time ago someone stating that out article on the Ardennes Offensive should be called "Battle of the Bulge" because of the huge hit count, ignoring the fact that "battle of the bulge" +diet gets almost as many hits as "battle of the bulge" +germans. Mintguy (T) 17:46, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 20:57, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)) What you say is true, but besides the point. I'm not arguing for a policy of spelling (for example) sul(f|ph)ur as sulphur in all articles, only that the std policy - in general, of spelling being left as with the originator of the article - be accepted to apply to all articles except those strictly concerned about chemistry. Note that there are exceptions: direction quotations should go with the original (hence I reverted the 1955 nobel for chemistry back to sulphur).
 * This was also discussed recently in the Darbot registration section of Wikipedia talk:Bots. Rmhermen 21:01, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * My comment and Google results were mostly pointed at User:Chameleon's odd point. But on the main issue, I can't see that the suggested addition would help. It would only move debate to the exact meaning of peripherally. Personally, I'm for scientific terms in scientific articles where they don't obscure meaning, and certainly sulfur doesn't obscure the meaning as a replacement for sulphur. (Where a new term that might be new to many would possibly obscure meaning, use both terms. An encyclopedia should inform.) But even if the new clause was included by consensus, I'd still feel that the global warming article was more than peripherally connected with chemistry. Accordingly, the proposed addition would accomplish nothing. If anything, the current clause should be strengthened. It seems to me odd to suggest that an article on chemisty should use sulfur while an article on atomic physics might not. Jallan 21:10, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * (William M. Connolley 21:40, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)) I disagree with you over the chemical content of GW. The current policy *is* that a chemistry article should spell it sulfur but a physics article should spell it as the originator left it. I'm asking for that to be clarified.
 * I don't think the suggested additional words clarify. That is, anyone who believed that sulfur should be substituted for sulphur because the article was concerned with chemistry would say that same even if the new wording was added. Similarly, anyone who disagreed because they felt the article was not sufficiently concerned with chemistry would also still disagree. I don't care very much myself about the standards in this case. After all, sulphur, sulfur: it's the same thing. But my opinion is the suggested addition wouldn't help. Jallan 23:05, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"I would like to propose that the policy above be modified to include: note that this policy applies strictly to articles whose main concern is chemistry, and not to science articles only peripherally concerned with chemistry, in which case the std wiki policy applies.. "

Please do not insert this shortsighted, hasty and completely unnecessary clause in the style manual. Can you imagine the edit wars that will be created by such a thing? Each and every article dealing with chemistry in any way will have one. We've already had a war on Global warming because Connolley thinks that it is only slightly related to chemistry


 * (William M. Connolley 15:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)) At this point, you've blown your case.

and therefore should remain exempt from IUPAC nomenclature (Vsmith and I disagree with that completely). Wikipedia should strive to attain the maximum amount of standardization between all articles, and especially SCIENCE articles, as possible. I wish to stress again, this is NOT a USA vs. whatever argument here, this is an international standard.--Deglr6328 23:13, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 15:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)) You can say that this isn't a USA-issue as often as you like, but it won't make it true.
 * Mr Connolley, please read the note I quoted below from from [World Wide Words], it is a British site and they are going along with IUPAC. Read it and stop your personal attacks and silly posts please. -Vsmith 16:09, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The issue has been discussed in WikiProject Science and the following is the reccomendation there:


 * In the interest of consistency and clarity the IUPAC standard should be used for chemical names in all science articles. Alternative spellings should be referenced in addition, especially when dealing with regional issues and historical development.


 * The IUPAC currently recommends:
 * Aluminium instead of aluminum
 * Caesium instead of cesium
 * Sulfur instead of sulphur

-Vsmith 22:27, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 15:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)) You kind of forgot that you wrote that in on 10th Oct yourself. Probably just an oversight I imagine.
 * No, I didn't write it. It was there for discussion. I moved it to and adopted it as the policy for the science group. Check before making accusations - it is there in the history. I'm getting tired of these chidish rants with no substance. -Vsmith 16:09, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Being from the US, I'm fond of the crazy aluminum spelling, but the IUPAC guidelines seem like the best way of keeping things consistent, and, as a bonus, strike a balance between the major dialects. I wholeheartedly support the recommendation above. Factitious 18:24, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley has launched an edit and revert attack on the WikiProject Science page in an obvious attempt to be disruptive and obscure the points made here. I am asking him to stop and engage in serious discussion. -Vsmith 17:20, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am proposing that the current guide under scientific style: In articles about chemicals and chemistry, use IUPAC names for chemicals wherever possible, except in article titles, where the common name should be used if different, followed by mention of the IUPAC name. be modified to reflect the WikiProject Science recommendation above, as follows.

'''In the interest of consistency and clarity the IUPAC standard for chemical names and spellings should be followed in all science and science related articles, except in article titles, where the common name of a compound should be used if different, followed by mention of the IUPAC name. Alternative terminology and spellings should be referenced in addition when dealing with historical development and some local or regional issues.''' -Vsmith 22:41, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 15:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Stongly disagree.


 * Suggest providing at least one example of how a IUPAC name would follow a common name in an article title. I can't figure out exactly what is required and don't think this should be required. A REDIRECT with the IUPAC spelling would probably be better. Also, the Wikipedia Style Manual recommends against the use of the word "alternative" in this kind of context. See Manual_of_Style. Change to "Variant" here? The phrase "should be referenced" combined with "some local or regional issues" is confusing. The "should" is negated by the "some". Perhaps a better last sentence would be:"Variant terminology and spellings may also be used in addition to IUPAC recommendations where appropriate, for example in direct quotations and close paraphrases, in historical discussions, when treating local or regional issues, and for general clarification." Jallan 13:54, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pointers. I was not really happy with my wording of the last part. And the redirect idea is better and more consistent.-Vsmith 15:07, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

IUPAC?
How about spelling out IUPAC on first reference? I never heard of it before I came to Wikipedia. Maurreen 04:07, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 11:35, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Interior Unit for the Promotion of American Cpelling?


 * Must you be so obnoxious here? Please stop this nonsense. Don't drag the legitimate disagreement we're having here into ad-hominems and underhanded jabs. The IUPAC has adopted what are traditionally British spellings for many other things, see: aluminium, caesium etc. and no one here, except you it seems, really cares a whit about such a petty thing anyway. --Deglr6328 17:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Follow the links here IUPAC The following quote is from [World Wide Words], (read the whole article for a good and humorous perspective on the issue):

''Nobody is suggesting British people change these spellings for all purposes, only when using them in scientific contexts. The Royal Society of Chemistry rushed out a press release the next day to support the QCA, pointing out that standardisation is especially important for ease of communication (like looking things up in databases, for example, where variant versions of common terms are a bugbear). The Society added that standard chemical nomenclature already specifies the f forms of words like sulfur following agreement by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) in 1990.'' -Vsmith 12:02, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * It is not just a case of making the British change. Americans would have to use "aluminium". I would be happy with this, though perhaps it should be only rigorously enforced in technical and scientific articles; how many Americans would remember to use "aluminium foil" in a cookery article! -- Chris Q 13:58, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Couldn't agree more. Almost all of the "pure science" articles already use "aluminium" but some others about capacitors, rocket engines and whatnot still use the old spelling and should be changed. Next on the list. Cooking articles though will be ok as is and exempt from the changes as per the manual of style dictates.--Deglr6328 17:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * There. I just did like 20 aluminum-->aluminium fixing edits . Are you satisfied that this is not a "US thing" now Mr. Connolley?--Deglr6328 08:02, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Is there somewhere on the IUPAC website where these spelling preferences are listed? I'm all in favor of international standards and this seems like a very good solution, but if we are going to go by the IUPAC standard, we should be able to point to what it is. The best I could find were  (PDF) and, both of which list sulfur, but each lists aluminum and cesium as alternate spellings. Where is the "standard"? It seems like aluminium and caesium are only just barely marginally preferable in the IUPAC recommendations. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 19:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Info is hard to find it seems in the vast IUPAC list of reports, the WikiProject Science page (that has been essentially vandalized by one of the parties here) has a link that does list it. Note - it may be a draft version. -Vsmith 20:43, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Here's that link (PDF). For aluminium and caesium, alternative spellings of aluminum and cesium are said to be "commonly used". No alternative spelling is listed for "sulfur". Obviously this is only talking about scientific usage of the term. I think that the goal to follow IUPAC for naming of chemical elements and compounds in all scientific articles is laudable and correct. (Even if I do hate "aluminium", if only because it ruins an old cartoon where the aliens came from the aluminum planet "Munimula".) However, the original problem came up more because of definition of "what is a science article", which is a lot harder to judge. (Personally, I'd think global warming falls into that category, but one of the main contributors feels that it doesn't, or at least that it has little to do with chemistry, so that the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry has nothing to say to him in this context. But I can't see a different standard for physics and biology as compared to chemistry, either.


 * As regards the policy, I'd personally support the Vsmith formulation with the Jallan codicil. Mpolo 07:44, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Should, in accordance with this rule on using IUPAC nomenclature, all instances (bar in article titles perhaps) of ethylene be changed into ethene, or glycerine/glycerol into 1,2,3-propanetriol (propane-1,2,3-triol?), or lecithin into phosphatidylcholine, or even sulphuric acid into sulfuric(VI) acid? All these are standardised systematic names which should be adhered to, but are evidently not. There is no reason that I can see to limit the rule to element names. If this rule should not apply to such names, then there is no reason to bastardise sulphur, either. I'd much rather go with the 'we accept all variant spellings' attitude ... &#8212;Sinuhe 14:06, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes. Standardize and also include the common or more familiar name, such as glycerine and lecithin for clarity when the IUPAC name is drastically different or unfamiliar. Sulfur like aluminium is clear and not drastically different nor unfamiliar. I don't think the oxidation state (VI) is needed in sulfuric acid, hmm.. is that from IUPAC? Sulfur(IV) oxide and sulfur(VI) oxide are recommended for SO2 and SO3 although the di- and tri- prefixes are still commonly used. I'll have to check rhe nomenclature for polyatomic ions & acids. -Vsmith 15:12, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, unless you make the distinction sulphuric acid = H2SO4 and sulphurous acid = H2SO3 (as Wikipedia appears to be doing, of course not in keeping with IUPAC), then the former is sulphuric(VI) acid and the latter sulphuric(IV) acid.


 * Disregarding for the moment whether or not the IUPAC recommends using oxidation states in acids, the IUPAC would not recommend "sulphuric (X) acid", it would recommend "sulfuric (X) acid"


 * Darrien 22:02, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)


 * I think the article on glycerol would very quickly become less readable if 1,2,3-propanetriol was used in excess ...


 * We aren't talking about changing common chemical names to be consistant with IUPAC nomenclature. We're talking about changing the names of three chemical elements to the IUPAC recommended spelling.


 * Darrien 22:02, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)


 * But what is more, if both sulphur and aluminum are, as you say, clear and would be easily understood, I really don't see the point in standardisation; it would not be any more useful than standardising Wikipedia as a whole to one brand of English.


 * Why would standardizing Wikipedia to one dialect not be useful?


 * Darrien 22:02, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)


 * That IUPAC should be able to prescribe English usage just because it is some international organisation is blasphemous;


 * That statement is absurd. Equating the use or misuse of a language to blaphemy is something I would only expect a hard-line nationalist to say. Nationalists are frowned upon here, if you want to be taken seriously, I suggest that you word your sentences carefully so you don't send a false impression.


 * Darrien 22:02, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)


 * so long that either word is standard English use, it should be dealt with exactly the same as any other regional variation: leave it the way the original author spelt it, or harmonise it with the article if written in another form of English.


 * Why? If one spelling is used predominantly, if not exclusively, in the field it is most associated with, why shouldn't we use that version?


 * Darrien 22:02, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)


 * The rule about diversity in spelling is not only quite firmly ingrained in the project, but also exists for a reason: namely, amongst others, to prevent edit wars (sometimes unsuccessfully, but nevertheless). Renaming substances with the superficial reason of standardisation


 * It sounds like you think that this is some kind of conspiracy. Again, something I would only expect a nationalist, and a quite paranoid one at that, to say.


 * Darrien 22:02, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)


 * with IUPAC nomenclature is, I think, hurting standardisation of articles to one variety of English,


 * It wouldn't be "hurting standardization" to an internationally accepted variety of English, would it?


 * Darrien 22:02, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)


 * and is bound to result, as evident from this very discussion, in ill will and resentment.
 * Whilst it is perfectly in order for sulphur to be under sulfur, caesium under caesium and aluminium under aluminium, there is no compelling reason to change the spelling in non-related articles, even if they are connected to science. Searchability is a problem either way, since most people who know one type of English will think their word should be the standard. Again, there seems to be little need to standardise merely in the sciences, and IUPAC may not be the proper standardisation body anyway. Why not standardise on the OED and go with sulphur and aluminium?


 * Because the OED favors one dialect more than the IUPAC? Because "sulphur" is etymologically wrong?


 * Darrien 22:02, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)


 * It is, after all, considered to be closest to something which might be termed an authority on English (and no, I'm not actually proposing that, but IUPAC as standard is, in a way, not very neutral). &#8212;Sinuhe 20:09, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * How is the IUPAC standard not neutral?


 * Darrien 22:02, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

Wider audience?
Maybe it would be good to invite people interested in chemistry to the discussion. Maurreen 22:12, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * They already are. Vsmith is a participant at WikiProject Science, and I am a participant at WikiProject Chemistry.


 * Darrien 22:26, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)


 * Well, in that case, I'll go back to my regularly scheduled programming. :) Maurreen 22:51, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Deletion from Misc. section
I'm going to delete the following, which was not discussed. The point here seems to be only that references can get outdated. Maurreen 22:51, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"However, bear in mind that good manuals of style only report what constructions/language people used when they were researched. When dealing with new constructions/neologisms/changes in usage of language, they may not be adequate. And if it's a fine point you're faced with, you'll probably find both options you're thinking about are acceptable anyway."


 * It was me. I didn't put it on here because I didn't think it was in any way controversial. There are three points here:


 * The first point, as Maurreen notes, is that references can get outdated. The first edition of Fowler's Modern English Usage, for instance, is of limited value as far as current British English usage is concerned. Language can change fast, particularly now we have instant worldwide communication via the internet. It would be wrong for Wikipedia to remain with archaic formulations just because they appear in an old book.


 * The second point is that all a manual of style can legitimately do is report how language is used. It does not set hard and fast rules: 'correct' usage is whatever people in real life accept as being acceptable.


 * The third point, which is a smaller one than the first two, is that there may not be a unique answer to the question 'what is currently acceptable usage?' jguk 23:47, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * 1. Re references can get outdated: I think most people already realize that, so I don't see the need to tell them.


 * 2. On your second point: That is your opinion of what style guides do.


 * 3. Your third point: I agree that there is not always a hard and fast answer to many issues. But I don't see any need for your addition to the style guide.


 * Maybe it would be better for you to add some of this to the Wikipedia's entry on style guides. Maurreen 00:10, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reversion
I am going to revert to before the recent changes by jguk, which were not discussed and more than I initially realized. I will add back in the notes about discussing significant changes. Maurreen 05:11, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I still don't understand which ones you think are significant. I consider none of the amendments I made to be significant, but just clarifying and dealing with inconsistencies. Apart from the one given above, the amendments I made were:


 * (1) Making clearer that differences in US/UK English and other forms of English appear in puntuation and phrasing;


 * (2) Deleting exhortations to use two particular US English constructions in an article otherwise not written in US English. One of these was asking people to write 'U.S.' rather than 'US'. This is silly. An article in UK English would look strange if it referred to 'the UK' and 'the U.S.'. The other was to promote a comma construction applicable to US English but which is dying out and becoming non-standard in UK English.


 * I'd be grateful for fellow Wikipedians' thoughts. jguk 06:38, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Draft trim
Because the style guide is about 40 kb, I made a quick trim draft at * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style--Draft Trim. See if you think it's OK. Maurreen 05:58, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * It wasn't very easy to see what changes you made. To deal with this, I amended your page by deleting the contents, replaced it with the contents of the current version of this article and then reverted back to your original. Hope you don't mind.


 * Anyone interested in what is actually proposed can go to 'history' on Maurreen's page and comparing versions. jguk 20:47, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I like it! [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 20:56, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * First the disagreements:If contractions are to be discouraged as they now are, then the Manual of Style should not use them. Do what I say, not what I do, is acceptable according to philosophy. But do what I say which is what I also do is far better. A Manual of Style ought to follow its own rules.Eliminating reasons for some of the recommendations is bad psychology. People are more ready to cooperate with rules when the reasons for them appear. No links in headings, for example, is a rule very often broken, probably because there is no obvious reason for it. It especially needs the reason to be given. "The page itself will only display one space (unless you use &amp;nbsp; to force it otherwise)."I think this should be put back. It is a nice tip for rare but occasional cases where extra spacing is wanted (without fiddling with &amp;nbsp;)."* Scholarly abbreviations of Latin terms like i.e., or e.g. should be avoided and English terms such as such as and for example used instead."This was only added to the Manual very recently. But it is recommendation of most style guides and I believe it to be an excellent one, one I've tried to follow for years, though I still catch myself typing one or the other of these. The abbreviations i.e. and e.g. are essentially space-savers for use primarily in footnotes and in compressed writing and in technical writing and I think should be left there, where they do belong."Thus 'other meanings' should be used rather than 'alternate meaning' or 'alternative meaning'. Some dictionaries discourage or do not even recognize this latter use of alternate. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary 'Usage Note' at alternative simply says: 'Alternative should not be confused with alternate.' However, alternative is also not entirely acceptable because of the very common connotations in American English of 'non-traditional' or 'out-of-the-mainstream'. Further, some traditional usage experts consider 'alternative' to be appropriate only when there are exactly two alternatives."I personally found this very helpful. I think it should remain though it could do with some shortening.<br\><br\>I agree with the rest of the changes. I especially agree with the omission of multiple examples where one or two alone suffices.<br\> Some further changes that might be made:<br\>"This is done by prepending a colon to the first line."The colon doesn't work well, as it only indents on the left side. I have been using "and" instead which do the job properly. I realize they are deprecated HTML tags ... but they work properly."Try to avoid highlighting that the article is incomplete and in need of further work."I agree with this, but why bother? In actual practice in Wikipedia it seems it is ok to ignore this, as long as you do it with a template. Most inconsistant."A reference to 'the American labour movement' (with a U) or to 'Anglicization' (with a Z) may be jarring."Anglicization is just Oxford-style British English spelling, as used, for example, in Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings: "Translation of these presented little difficulty; but there remained one or two older names of forgotten meaning, and these I have been content to anglicize in spelling: as Took for Tûk, or Boffin for Bophîn." This is a very bad example in the Manual. Anyone jarred by that deserves a good jarring! :-)"If the spelling appears within the article text, also consider a consistent synonym such as focus or middle rather than center/centre."This advice is horrendous! Is there another style guide in the world that would suggest one should reconsider using normal, everyday English words because they have more than one common spelling? The result of this, if people paid any attention, would be a non-standard Wikipedia dialect of English, limited to spelling-neutral vocabulary. Better to go with a fixed spelling, whether US or Britsh or whatever, than this!<br\><br\>Jallan 01:12, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jallan, my understanding about the part on Latin abbreviations is that there was no consensus.

For the other things that you'd like put back in, do you want to do that, and then we can move it over to the regular style guide page?

Then we could talk about other substantive changes separately. Thanks. Maurreen 02:53, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree on keep substantive changes separate from stylistic changes or trims. I've laid down a new version of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style--Draft Trim putting back what I think should stay (at least until discussed) as well as making a few minor intended stylistic improvements. For example, USAmerican 'z' and British 's' both appeared in the guide as it stood, and not just in contexts where the difference was being discussed. Also, all references to text in coded form are now formatted as non-spacing, which I think improves readibility (as well as improving consistancy of style within the manual and following standard convention). I did not change the capital letters used to indicate the letters themselves to italics in:"A reference to 'the American labour movement' (with a U) or to 'Anglicization' (with a Z) may be jarring."Yet the very next section reads:"The letter E is the most common letter in English"... a supposed example of when one should italicize. My feeling is that capital letters standing for letter names are more often not italicized in such contexts, unlike lowercase letters. If the Draft Trim says for another day without any complaints or additional changes, then I guess it can be taken as accepted. Jallan 03:29, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * These changes are OK with me (although I think the original addition of the part on Latin abbreviations was premature).


 * Possibly. But removing was probably also premature as part of a general thinning rather than on its own. I've also kept the stuff on Hawai'i rather than Hawai&rquo;, though that is obviously out-of-date and needs to be changed or removed. I have ignored my own feelings on other issues I have raised above. Jallan 14:54, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Point taken. Maurreen 15:05, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Food for the thought for the future: As we make additions to the style guide, we might also want to think about thinning it one way or another.
 * Maurreen 04:04, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes. The Manual of Style will undoubtedly continue to expand *Sigh*, but this can be partially offset by individuals who see ways to abbreviate its contents by a shorter phrase here and another shorter phrase there. On possibility would be to make the main page very terse: recommendations given alone without examples or rationale. Expanded versions of the recommendations with rationale and examples would appear on subpages. Jallan 14:54, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Jallan, it should stay for at least a week, and then if there are no complaints or additional changes it should be taken as accepted. jguk 05:53, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with that. Leave it until midnight October 26. The only difficulty I see is that it could become unsychronized with the main page during that period. Since this trim is intentionally being limited to changes in style in the page itself and omission of unnecessary verbiage, I suggest that during that period, any substantive changes made to the main page (whether thought by individuals to be right or wrong) should be duplicated onto the trim page, so that if or when the trim page is laid down, it will still be in substantive agreement with the main page and any debates on substantive issues will not be affected. I'm willing to attempt to keep the pages in synch though I don't mind anyone else doing it also. I also suggest that changes to the main page be discouraged during that week, that people hold off making substantive changes, whether they be on use of quotation marks or Latin abbreviations or anything else. Jallan 14:54, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Since midnight October 26 is ambiguous, let's go for 23:59, 25 October 2004 (UTC) jguk 20:18, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Good trim. Have made some further suggestions. The main ones are listed below:


 * Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules (remove tautology)
 * the joy of wiki editing is that perfection is not required. (remove POV. What is perfection when talking about English anyway?)
 * Copy-editing wikipedians will refer to this manual, and pages will either gradually be made to conform with this guide or this guide will itself be changed to the same effect. (turn the tide against instruction creep)
 * This article concentrates on when you may choose to use them
 * For event articles about a particular event, it may be a good idea to understand News Style as a convention for organizing presenting materials in a straightforward way ; basically, from top to bottom in order of relevance . (clarifying)
 * The use of so-called "free links" to other topics relevant to your article, for example,, is encouraged. Use the links for all words and terms that are relevant to your article. (simplify and replace US reference with a neutral one)
 * You may wish to consider the following suggestions: (clarify that these are guidelines not rules)
 * Contractions reinserted throughout (making article easier to read)
 * You can When form ing plurals, adjectives and other phrases thus: . This is clearer to read in wiki form than &mdash; and easier to type. This syntax is also applicable to adjective constructs such as , as well as hyphenated phrases and the like. (simplify)
 * This is discouraged in most situations. (no need to say this, people know what looks ok and what doesn't)
 * Numbered footnote links can be used throughout the article ; they are replaced by numbers in increasing order starting from 1 . (as opposed to starting from where, 284?)
 * Replaced 'capitalization' with 'using capitals' (and derivatives) throughout. (keeping it simple)
 * Job titles: shortened, de-Americanised and removed too current an example
 * Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents: (pruned)
 * Calendar items: (pruned)


 * aaaah too many to list - please see history and ask if there's anything you don't understand or object to. And I haven't deleted the contractions section though IMO it should be removed. jguk 21:38, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Trim intent
I disagree with jguk's changes to the draft trim. A trim is meant only to shorten. Any desired changes in meaning deserve to be brought up separately and individually. And I agree with Jallan that they should wait until after a decision on the draft trim. Maurreen 05:57, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Which bits of my proposed amendments to the proposed amendments are you saying are changes in meaning? I tried to avoid having changes in meaning (I'll propose some of them soon!). jguk 06:29, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"1 Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules (remove tautology)'"

The tautology was an idiomatic, nuanced tautology. Perhaps idiomatic nuance should be avoided in a set of rules intended to be also read by people are not all totally fluent in English. But I would keep "all" at least.

"2 the joy of wiki editing is that perfection is not required. (remove POV. What is perfection when talking about English anyway?)"

Not POV at all. You don't have to edit any article to your own standards of perfection if you don't want to. Work on the parts where your own strengths lie. Others will fix the parts where their strengths lie. That is POV only in that it is a POV espoused at Wikipedia, quite different than a POV that article will be accepted only when vetted by give other experts, which is another quite legitimate POV.

"3 Copy-editing wikipedians will refer to this manual, and pages will either gradually be made to conform with this guide or this guide will itself be changed to the same effect. (turn the tide against instruction creep)"

This explains why so-called rules can be ignored, because other Wikipedians in their editing will enforce them. It looks forward to the ideal of total agreement between style guide and all articles. It is a clear explanation of how things are supposed to work in Wikipedia, and in this case (more than in some other explanations elsewhere of other facets of Wikipeida), how they actually do work. Wikipedia has a house style, just like other publications. It has editors who attempt to enforce it, just like other publications. The difference is that anyone who wants to can be a writer or editor. Many publications do not insist that all writers conform exactly to their house style: that is one thing editors are for, to edit the writing to conform to house style or to ask the author to rework material to conform to house style. The struck-out sentence is essential.

"4 This article concentrates on when you may choose to use them"

No. This article concentrates on "when". A writer may ignore the rules, as indicated, but later editors of the text should mostly apply them and should mostly not edit an article contrary to the rules. The meaning of the original has been subverted.

"7 You may wish to consider the following suggestions: (clarify that these are guidelines not rules)"

This is not clarification. This is a radical change. Guidelines are rules, whether on the page to guide a pen or in common metaphor. The material removed in number 2 clarifies: "Pages are expected to be edited to conform with this guide."

":10 This is discouraged in most situations. (no need to say this, people know what looks ok and what doesn't)"

This text was a strong hint to editors that this practice should mostly be edited out, but not always – that some latitude is given here. Such hints are needed to make the guide practical. And one of the reasons why there are such guides is that people disagree on what looks ok and what doesn't.

These changes indicate a POV contrary to how this page and the more specialized parts of this guide are used within Wikipedia. The pages are used as guides and sets of rules for editors who are deciding how to improve an article and are also used as protection against editors making arbitary stylistic changes to an article. Their wordings are cited regularly in disputes. They have far more authority than simple suggestions that Wkipedians "may wish to consider". They are the rules.

"8 Contractions reinserted throughout (making article easier to read)"

A style guide should follow its own rules. First loosen the rules in the guide by obtaining consensus on this point. I personally doubt that there is any gain in readibility in using contractions. There is probably more gain in readibility in avoiding negatives which would get rid of many of them as a side-effect. Also, not all rules in this guide or its sub-guides are what I would choose to use. But one tries to follow them, just as one should to follow the guidelines in any project one becomes involved with. Idiosyncratic claims that something is easier or harder are often undemonstrable. Personally, I prefer spelling through and though as thru and tho, forms that are, I think, obviously easier to read, forms that did have a vogue for a while in the 60s. Also iland is easier to read than island as well as being the correct etymological form. (I have numerous other preferred spellings that I think would not be welcomed here.)

"12 Replaced 'capitalization' with 'using capitals' (and derivatives) throughout. (keeping it simple)"

"Using capitals" is not quite the same thing. It suggests uppercasing of the entire word (which admittedly capitalization can also mean). Later, instead of "using capitals" the replacement is the specific and perfectly accurate "begin the first letter with a capital". Now words ending in -ize/-ize are usually not very attractive and there is nothing wrong with using synonyms for that reason. But I do object to what appears to be an attempt to take away the supposed freedom at Wikipedia to choose the spelling one wishes (within the limits of some demonstratable modern conventional spelling and consistancy within an articles) by discouraging use of the very words to which this freedom can be applied. Surely we would not accept attempts to replace all occurrences of died with the euphemisim passed on and all occurrences of genital organs with private parts and so forth, while not disallowing such euphemisms either. The phrase "being the first letter with a capital" looks fine until one realizes why it is being used. Then it looks absurd: variantion-spelling prudery against words that are not monogomous in respect to the string of letters they hang out with. Should food in Wikipedia, but nowhere else, have only taste, and not flavour? Should Wikipedia have theatrical establishments and movie houses and stages but no theatres or theaters?

There are some excellent style changes here as well. I like some of the changes very much. But I agree with Maurreen. There are too many changes here and too many of them are dubious and too many indicate an attempt to change the POV of how this page is used and has been intended to be used to consider this suggested replacement adequate as a whole.

Jallan 02:44, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to give a point by point rebuttal, I'll propose some policy changes soon that would cover many of the points and see if they get consensus.


 * I've amended the draft trim to take account of Jallan's comments. Two points to note. The contractions have disappeared (as far as I am aware). Mostly this was done by changing 'Don't' to 'Avoid'.


 * I am still avoiding using the word 'capitalisation'. There are, as Jallan notes, two reasons for doing this. The first, and most important, is readability. It's an ugly long word and IMHO, like all long -ise/-ize words should be used sparingly: only using it where any other construction would sound unnatural or convoluted. This is the primary reason for changing it!


 * Second, where we can, we should avoid using language that marks it out as being US/UK or as preferring one particular style of writing words over another. The flow and sense of the article is always more important than this. I am not suggesting that words and phrases should be excised from wikipedia. But I am suggesting that if the same flow and sense can be conveyed in a neutral style, then it will be easier for an international audience to read. Where it can't, and I accept there are many many cases where it can't, then use an internationally acceptable standard form of English consistently (either US or non-US) in that article. Of course, really this comes back to readability (for an international audience) again, which brings us back to the first point.


 * Finally, I should note that I think I've achieved 'readability' in my eliminations of 'capitalisation' and 'italicise'. If you disagree with the odd change, rewrite it, but let's not revert wholesale. jguk 04:19, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I favor Jallan 's version. I appreciate that jguk has apparently backed off from trying to change the meaning.


 * But this was supposed to be simple, a matter of shortening only, not a matter of comparing numerous styles and versions. In my opinion, the question to address concerning the draft trim is this: Has it lost anything (through shortening) from the original that you wish to keep?


 * My answer to that question is that Jallan 's version does not. So, it is fine.


 * Jguk : Does Jallan 's version lose anything from the current style guide that you wish to keep?Maurreen 15:14, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contractions
For what it's worth, I think the elimination of all contractions on this page was a bit hasty. Some of the resulting expressions, such as "Do not get fancy", seem quite awkward to me. I'd also argue that Wikipedia's tone in general is more informal than paper encyclopedias and so benefits from more conversational wording (I also used this to argue for singular they.) While eliminating contractions is often acceptable, I would suggest it be avoided when it results in a stilted or awkward expression. Am I alone in this? Derrick Coetzee 16:18, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think it was needed, especially because the style guide isn't part of the encyclopedia per se. For that matter, I'd be OK with eliminating the style guide's rule against contractions. Maurreen 16:26, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * See my comments above. Personally, the non-contraction style do not seem awkward to me in the examples. But people use different kinds of English and are used to different kinds of English. If most disagree, then I have no horrible objection to changing Wikipedia style. But unless a new consensus appears, the recommendation should remain and the style guide should follow it. Jallan 01:16, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a better solution for the Manual of Style would be to use different expressions that don't seem so awkward without contractions? "Keep it simple" would work instead of "Don't get fancy". (Although I agree that contractions are becoming more and more standard in English writing, and there are places where it seems appropriate to retain them.) [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 03:20, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea. I don't feel strongly either way, but I'm a big believer in work-arounds. Maurreen 03:27, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sept. 11 attacks
You're invited to a poll at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks over whether that should remain the article's title or it should be changed to "Attacks of September 11, 2001".

I favor the latter, because using two commas to set the year off is widely supported by U.S. English reference books, and Wikipedia style says: "If a word or phrase is generally regarded as correct, then prefer it to an alternative that is often regarded as incorrect." Maurreen 07:38, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * This poll has now ended. jguk 04:30, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article on style guides
I am looking for a input to help resolve a dispute about the article on style guides. The question is this: Was the article better before or after the rewrite? Thanks. Maurreen 15:30, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * No, that's not the question in dispute. The question is should it be clearly mentioned that style guides may be descriptive and/or prescriptive or should the article be restricted to a discussion of prescriptive style guides with no reference to descriptive ones. jguk 15:44, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * What would be the point of such a descriptive style guide? Hyacinth 03:07, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I would say not. A "guide" is often something that shows you around an area, so I see no reason why a style guide couldn't be a map rather than a set of rules. I can't see what use this would be of (outside of in the development of future style guides, maybe a synthesis of guides). Hyacinth 04:05, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The latest version of the best known British English style guide, Fowler's Modern English Usage (3rd Edition), is a mostly descriptive style guide. An interesting read, if you're into that kind of thing, though there are other style guides out there that are even more descriptive. . Birchfield's rewrite of Fowler into a far less prescriptive (and thereforE into a descriptive) form was not universally popular. See in particular the first reviewer's comments. As far as the point of them: well, they are not suitable for publishers and newspapers as they don't impose consistency. They are suitable for users interested in how language is used and help the user decide what form of words, spelling, etc to choose for the particular audience the user is addressing. jguk 07:24, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Section on specialised vocabulary
I added a section on specialised vocabulary. Feel free to edit as required, but certainly for rail transport, a warning is needed. The US and UK evolved entirely separate terminology or "jargon". So I first said that most situations people need to explain jargon anyways, or avoid its use, but pointed out that this was especially necessary as some places use an entirely different set of jargon.


 * For topics that have unique vocabularies, for example rail transport, effort should be made to adequately explain jargon or avoid its use where possible. This has another purpose, as in the case given, disparate terminology has evolved in different locations around the world (see rail terminology as an example). In other words, even experts in another location may not be familiar with jargon used in your location.

Should I add the section to this current page? zoney &#09827; talk 11:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * How about this?
 * For topics with unique vocabularies, such as rail transport, try to avoid or explain jargon. This has another purpose, as in the case given, disparate terminology has evolved in different places around the world (see rail terminology as an example). In other words, even experts in another location may not be familiar with jargon used in your location.
 * Maurreen 18:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * We already have a policy on Explain jargon. Any proposal to change this policy should (i) bear the existing policy in mind; (ii) appear on Wikipedia talk:Explain jargon. Easy to miss this policy, it was right at the bottom. jguk 20:38, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reformatting
I've moved a list of where all the Manual of Style-type guidance can be found to the top of the page. (i) It will be easier to see what policies we've got now; (ii) It will shorten that annoyingly long contents list; (iii) it's slightly shorter. Hope this isn't seen as too controversial. (And I'm not attached to the linking sentence I've added at the top of the new list. If anyone can think of better wording, please change it.) jguk 20:38, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * It is a drastic change, but I consider it an improvement. It's centralized things, eliminated a lot of redundancy, and drastically reduced the page and table-of-contents size. Derrick Coetzee 23:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I changed it, partly to get the table of contents higher. Maurreen 04:02, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Or, the question is: Are style guides prescriptive by definition? Maurreen 03:34, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reformatting
I've moved a list of where all the Manual of Style-type guidance can be found to the top of the page. (i) It will be easier to see what policies we've got now; (ii) It will shorten that annoyingly long contents list; (iii) it's slightly shorter. Hope this isn't seen as too controversial. (And I'm not attached to the linking sentence I've added at the top of the new list. If anyone can think of better wording, please change it.) jguk 20:38, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * It is a drastic change, but I consider it an improvement. It's centralized things, eliminated a lot of redundancy, and drastically reduced the page and table-of-contents size. Derrick Coetzee 23:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I changed it, partly to get the table of contents higher. Maurreen 04:02, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The main point I have re: Maurreen's change is that many of the "guidance" bits really are policy and should be in the specialised section. These are Wikipedia:Captions; Wikipedia:Categorization; Wikipedia:Cite sources; Wikipedia:Explain jargon; Wikipedia:List; Wikipedia:Naming_conventions; Wikipedia:Proper_names. I'd rather rename these as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (captions), etc.. and put them in the first section. (I thought this too radical to do straightaway, without discussion, though.)jguk 06:21, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Maurreen, you've removed the guidance on Captions, Identity, Specific countries (and the references to the style guides within that section), When All Else Fails, Do Not Get Fancy, and all the other stuff that was at the end of the article. May I ask why? jguk 06:27, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * It was an accident that I didn't realize and can't fix on this computer without reverting. Apparently the page is too long for me to edit on this computer. My apologies. Maurreen 07:30, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Linked Lists
Sometimes I think it is work repeating a link. For instance, Maher Arar contains the text "Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and Sudan"; Syria is not linked because it is mentioned further up the article. I would link it. PhilHibbs 14:18, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. I've thought about linking, and here are some general criteria I came up with for a good link:
 * The subject being linked should be somewhat unfamiliar to a significant proportion of people who read the article (unlike, say, water, or town). In more specialized articles, there is an even higher standard of such expectations, and obvious concepts within the field (such as vector in math, variable in computer science) should only be linked in the intro, if at all.
 * A link should only be given more than once if the reader may not have seen the first link, or the new link is in a new context. For example, if a reader might reasonably have skipped the section containing the first link, another link is probably warranted.
 * If the linked article is unfamiliar to most readers and important to the article, it should be briefly summarized in the linking article.
 * Never ever link to an article that describes a completely different concept from the one actually being referred to in the linking article. For example, linked list has nothing to do with this section. Mislinks are worse than no link.
 * The link text should unambiguously describe the linked article. In particular, no "surprise" or humourous links.
 * Some of these seem very obvious, but they're broken all the time. Probably other stuff I'm forgetting, but this is the jist of it. I've been occasionally attacked by people who like to dump links throughout an article, often linking to articles completely different from my intended meaning, as well as subjects that are totally obvious (in general) or totally obvious within the field, and often repeatedly. Derrick Coetzee 18:14, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Whilst what you say seems reasonable, I'm not convinced that we need a policy on this. You claim that there are instances where you;ve been attacked by people dumping links throughout an article, though, which suggests it is a problem area. Could you provide examples? jguk 18:21, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Capitalization for region names
The existing guideline for capitalization of region names is confusingly vague. Manual of Style currently says:


 * Whether a region has attained proper-noun status can be a gray area. Use an appropriate reference if needed. Use lowercase when in doubt.

This seems to conflict with the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization), which I've codified in that page as "region names are proper nouns". I suggest trimming the confusing text quoted above and replacing it with the following guidelines: (a) region names and geographic features notable enough to have Wikipedia articles are proper nouns, and should be capitalized; (b) region names containing directions (eastern Iowa) are proper nouns only if widely used enough to merit their own articles, and should otherwise be lowercased in article text. Comments? -- Rbellin 22:14, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be better to clear up the ambiguity if we can. For what it's worth, the reason for the ambiguity in the wording is that there is a lot of ambiguity in actual use. You can read the discussion that led to this wording here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style--Archive8. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:25, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * It seems that this basically substitutes "Wikipedia article" for "appropriate reference". I have no objection to that.  Undoubtedly it will sometimes be the case that a Wikipedia article should exist, but does not yet, but if the capitalization is fixed when links to a new article are added, then I don't think it will be a terribly big deal.   &mdash;Triskaideka 22:41, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I think I agree with your rationale but not your policy as written. The suggested change could be read that capitalization depends on Wikipedia contents, but Wikipedia is a work in progress. I don't think I'm saying this very well. But if a given area could merit an article, but doesn't yet, then what? I think the policy as written is concise, and recognizes that the style guide can't cover all possible situations. Maybe we could compromise with a link to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization). Maurreen 02:38, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The primary thing that confused me about the existing guideline is that it seems to apply to all region names, when in fact (I think?) it wants to discuss the specific case of region names including directions. That is, regions like the Connecticut River Valley (this was the one I was trying to deal with) are preferably all-caps, at least according to Naming conventions (capitalization), while the case of eastern Iowa or Western Massachusetts can be more complicated. So I'm okay with the vagueness, if it must persist, on this subtopic, but the broader topic should be handled more prominently. (And "notable" or "meriting a Wikipedia article" is not a standard based on the current state of Wikipedia.) -- Rbellin 03:29, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with you to a point, but can't figure out a good way to explain my disagreement or another suggestion. And because I'm the only one dissenting, I'll go along with your proposal. Maurreen 15:56, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the proposed change. Whether a particular region or geographical name is notable enough to be a Wikipedia article is both a grey area and irrelevant. I can imagine an article Grasslands of Wyoming in which within the article the form used would be "grasslands of Wyoming". There is a small valley within the city of Toronto commonly known as Hogg's Hollow, well known as place where traffic is often backed up to in local traffic reports. It probably will never deserve a Wikipedia mention. That doesn't mean that it would be correct to call it "Hogg's hollow" if mentioned in an article on Toronto.


 * Whether a descriptive name for an area is a proper name or the normal description of the area is also dubious. Do a Google search on "north circumpolar region". It seems about 80% of the hits have the description titlecased and about 20% in lower case. I don't think either convention is wrong. Search "northeastern states" for a similar variance. Saying "region names are proper nouns" is circular reasoning. Of course they are. But that doesn't help. Is "northeastern states" being used as a supposed region name or being used as a description? I did a study a few years back on capitalization of the term "prairie provinces". They phrase was usually titlecased when considered as a region. But the same article would probably lowercase it in a sentence such as: "The prairie provinces consist of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta." The same term, when its meaning is transparent, may in the same article be used sometimes as a name or proper noun and sometimes as a description: "Manitoba and Saskatchewan are prairie provinces." Titlecasing proper nouns is standard. The difficulty is in determining whether a particular short descriptive phrase referring to a region is best considered to be a proper noun or as a normal descriptive phrase, but not really a name or proper noun. The proposed emendations and the change at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization) provides no clarification on that point. That change is redundant. It misses the point.


 * Jallan 17:57, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Country order
We might want to consider how to avoid or resolve alphabetic international rivalry within Wikipedia. For example, when listing items, do you have a preference for either of these two formats: "U.K. style guides, U.S. style guides" or "American style guides, British style guides" ? Maurreen 16:30, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

Further, the poll does not list the option of leaving the policy as is.

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

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

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

Proposal 1
Proposal 1 is to delete the following:

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

Rationale for:


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

Support Proposal 1

 * jguk 18:55, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * violet/riga (t) 19:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Gadykozma 20:01, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Niteowlneils 20:37, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC). I violate it routinely, and I'm in a US ;) native.
 * Sinuhe 20:48, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Improv 22:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Dieter Simon 00:10, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC). It does seem to come more easily to me as a Brit to use US, however, no disrespect intended.
 * Arwel 01:43, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Mintguy (T) 01:50, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Chris 73 Talk 02:04, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose Proposal 1

 * RickK 20:46, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC). Brit-centric.  RickK 20:46, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Jmabel | Talk 21:30, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:26, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) Shouldn't we use the local form? See the third point under Manual of Style.
 * Violations of the policy could be fixed across all articles with a SQL query and a single dedicated editor. Use of "US" seriously damages the ability of a case-insensitive search engine (as most are) to locate the word, as well as not meeting the general convention used in the U.S. itself. To use the same form for UK and US also implies some strong analogy or relationship between them which does not exist. Deco 00:16, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Nunh-huh 01:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC). Use of U.S. is a standard style guide recommendation in style guides for publications other than those for newspapers, where every character that can reasonably be omitted, will be omitted.

Proposal 2 (A)
Replace the policy:

8.3 Commas

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

With:

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

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

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

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

Did two or three people congratulate Joe Bloggs?

Disambiguate by rephrasing or using semicolons:

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

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

Rationale for:


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

Support proposal 2 (A)

 * jguk 18:55, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * violet/riga (t) 19:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Gadykozma 20:01, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC), on the condition that Sinéad O'Connor and Pope John-Paul II's daughter stays in one of the examples.
 * Sinuhe 20:48, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) (though in the above example explanation, the text should read 'two people or three', not 'two people, or three' (ie, without a comma), notwithstanding the text in brackets)
 * Chris 73 Talk 02:02, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC) Less complicated that way

Oppose proposal 2 (A)

 * Niteowlneils 20:29, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC). a) General writing manuals such as Strunk and White are more likely to favor a, b, and c, while the a, b and c form is more likely to appear in more limited manuals, such as journalism guides. b) I believe the majority of Wikipedia articles follow the current standard. c) I believe consistency seems more professional/authoritative. d) I can not think of a case where the final comma before 'and' or 'or' doesn't enhance the clarity of the text. e) Makes the copious Wikipedia MoS even larger.
 * Joe Bloggs was congratulated by John Smith, the Chairman of the committee; and Jane Doe. is just wrong usage of the semicolon. Proper English would be Joe Bloggs was congratulated by John Smith, the Chairman of the committee, and by Jane Doe.RickK 20:43, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * OK - but what about if the proposal was reworded along the lines you suggest? Of course rewording entirely ....Jane Doe and John Smith, who is the Chairman...' is, of course, even better. jguk 20:49, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Of course, but people don't tend to write that way. :) RickK 22:59, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Improv 22:18, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The policy cannot kindly suggest ambiguity be avoided. It must demand it. Otherwise, there is no strong rationale for making a change that eliminates ambiguity introduced by commas. I favour this proposal's attempt to be less simple-minded, in dealing with the more semantic problem of ambiguity instead of a purely syntactic heuristic. I'll move my vote if there is a change in wording. Deco 00:23, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Nunh-huh 01:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC). Use of the Oxford comma is a perfectly reasonable style guide recommendation.
 * James F. (talk) 01:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) Indeed, Oxford commas are very much a better style of list.

Comments

 * I would support allowing authors to choose whichever style sounds better if clarity is not an issue, but as the serial comma has actual utility and the alternate style is just some people's preference, I'd rather see our policy favor the serial comma a little more strongly than this proposal does. Perhaps it could say that the serial comma is the "default" style, or the one that should be used when there is any doubt. I think a style guide should say something definite that people can refer to in an argument.  &mdash;Triskaideka 21:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I have no problem saying that the serial comma (or Oxford comma, to give it its technical term) should be used when there is any doubt. The proposal is about dropping the obligation to use the Oxford comma and (possibly) replacing it with a more general requirement to make sure lists are unambiguous. (The replacement wording clearly needs some work, and proposed amendments of it are welcome.) jguk 21:22, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

Rationale for:


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

Support proposal 2 (B)

 * jguk 18:55, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * RickK 20:44, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose proposal 2 (B)

 * violet/riga (t) 19:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) – the house style will be asked by new people that join, may as well have it here
 * Niteowlneils 20:36, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC). Same reasons I oppose 2A, plus what Violet said.
 * Wikipedia takes a very laid-back attitude to style: articles should be made to conform, eventually, but people need not: that is, if you don't want to take care of it, someone else will. In light of this, I don't think the fact that some people may be ignorant of policy or bothered by instruction creep should stop us from setting a useful policy for the benefit of those who do want one.   &mdash;Triskaideka 21:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I, for one, have come across many, many ambiguous missing serial commas in my editing. The claim that people use serial commas in ambiguous situations is simply incorrect. A final word on the subject is absolutely necessary. Deco 00:27, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Nunh-huh 01:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC). Use of the Oxford comma is a perfectly reasonable style guide recommendation.
 * James F. (talk) 01:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) Indeed, Oxford commas are very much a better style of list.


 * Note re: archiving: There was a fair bit of refactoring during this poll, so it's being repeated below from another part of the edit history to make sure it's all here.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

Proposal 1
Proposal 1 is to delete the following:

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

Rationale for:


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

Support Proposal 1

 * jguk 18:55, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * violet/riga (t) 19:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Gadykozma 20:01, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Niteowlneils 20:37, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC). I violate it routinely, and I'm in a US ;) native.
 * Sinuhe 20:48, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Improv 22:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Dieter Simon 00:10, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC). It does seem to come more easily to me as a Brit to use US, however, no disrespect intended.
 * Arwel 01:43, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Mintguy (T) 01:50, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Chris 73 Talk 02:04, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * zoney &#09827; talk 17:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Dainamo 20:29, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) I emphasise, however that I disagree with some of the logic against U.S. and probably would prefer the latter in US/U.S. specific articles. Nevertheless, both forms work in context and, provided consistency is applied throughout a single article, there should not be any rule on one form or the other except when refering to titles such as U.S. Navy as opposed to The US (or U.S.) economy.  One can use both cases in searches

Oppose Proposal 1

 * RickK 20:46, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC). Brit-centric.  RickK 20:46, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Jmabel | Talk 21:30, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:26, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) Shouldn't we use the local form? See the third point under Manual of Style.
 * Violations of the policy could be fixed across all articles with a SQL query and a single dedicated editor. Use of "US" seriously damages the ability of a case-insensitive search engine (as most are) to locate the word, as well as not meeting the general convention used in the U.S. itself. To use the same form for UK and US also implies some strong analogy or relationship between them which does not exist. Deco 00:16, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Nunh-huh 01:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC). Use of U.S. is a standard style guide recommendation in style guides for publications other than those for newspapers, where every character that can reasonably be omitted, will be omitted.
 * Factitious 07:07, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC). "U.S." is clearer and more useful for searching.  This rule should definitely be followed in all articles, which would eliminate three of the four rationales above.  To help our style be consistent, I'll make an effort to watch for the "US" mistake when browsing, and correct any instances of it.
 * PhilHibbs 09:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Grammatically incorrect. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 17:02, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * It has been suggested that the form "U.S." is grammatically incorrect, but I am afraid that this assertion only holds true in American English, not in International English. And, if this proposal is "Brit-centric," as one user asserts, the current policy is Americo-centril. Nevertheless, I must oppose this proposal, which seeks to entirely delete the item of policy instead of providing a suitable replacement. I think that it would be more appropriate to require that "U.S." be used if the article is in American English, and that "US" be used if the article is in International English. Any bias toward either American or International English would thereby be eliminated. -- Emsworth 21:40, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 20:39, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) We need to respect regional differences.
 * PedanticallySpeaking 22:00, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * JohnyDog 22:17, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Jallan 01:04, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) Inconsistant usage, but would need much cleanup as the policy as also been much followed as well as much disregarded. I would rather not take any action in the direction of changing this policy without more information, even though seeing "U.S." and "UK" in the same sentence does rather scream for correction of one form or the other. Would a policy of inserting periods in two-letter intitialisms but not in longer intitialisms be too idiosyncratic. Probably not any more than only putting periods in the initialism "U.S." Jallan 01:04, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Use either but link to United States so people can use what links here to find it rather than relying on search. Angela. 03:07, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (A)
Replace the policy:

8.3 Commas

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

With:

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

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

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

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

Did two or three people congratulate Joe Bloggs?

Disambiguate by rephrasing or using semicolons:

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

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

Rationale for:


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

Support proposal 2 (A)

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

Oppose proposal 2 (A)

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

Comments

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


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

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

Rationale for:


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

Support proposal 2 (B)

 * jguk 18:55, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * RickK 20:44, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose proposal 2 (B)

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

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

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

Style guide philosophy
In my view, some of the issues concerning this style guide might be resolved more easily if we decided some general philosophical issues that could guide future decisions. For example, these could include whether we think it should be more concise or more detailed, or how formal to be with the language. Any comments about such a possible philosophical underpinning? Maurreen 12:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I favor a concise, prescriptive guide, clear and to the point, but one which also contains links for each item to sub-pages giving rationale for that rule, further examples, reasons for debate, and so on. In some cases the sub-page might contain nothing but links to sections in discussion page archives and external links to sections of other style manuals on the web or discussions of the points being considered. The main guide would be short for those doing a quick look to see if there is a rule there and what it might be. But if someone wants fuller examples, more clarification, or discussion of the rationale behind the rule along with what objections may have been raised to the rule, the information is only one or two clicks away. Jallan 03:27, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Jallan, all that sounds smart to me. A few other things I favor:
 * I think we don't need to be nearly as extensive as many other guides. I think the style can more or less evolve on a basis of what is needed.
 * The links you suggest above could also better integrate the specialized style guides, etc. For example, "Dates" could link to the Dates and Numbers style guide or the dates section within it, or a similar set up.
 * I'd also like a more alphabetical organization and possibly cross-references. That is, a user could find "commas" under "C" (and perhaps also under "punctuation). But I think most style guides favor the topical approach, so I'd understand if anyone objected. Hopefully, the guide could eventually evolve so people could find things very quickly regardless of how they look things up.
 * Clarity and accuracy are two top guiding principles.
 * Maurreen 06:28, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Visual presentation
Along the lines of what Jallan suggested about organizing supporting material for the style guide, I've been working on organizing the archives topically. One of these is called "Visual presentation."

I'm not sure what's the best title. Other options include "Layout" or "Design." What do you think? Maurreen 07:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I like "Visual presentation". "Layout" or "Visual design" would also be OK.  Just "Design" would be bad, because the term has such a broad meaning.  &mdash;AlanBarrett 19:02, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think we need to strike a firm line between what is policy and what is just advice. I'd prefer to keep policy to a minimum, but supplement that with non-binding advice. The reason being that a binding policy needs to deal with all possible circumstances - non-binding advice doesn't. I'd also hate to see lots and lots of instruction creep.


 * I can't seem to find what you're calling "Visual presentation", perhaps you could find a link. I'm trying to see if I can collate a lot of guidance in just one article. At present it is dotted all round the Wikipedia namespace and is often disputed. You can see how far I'm progressing on User:Jongarrettuk/Better writing guide. The proposal, in due course, would be that something like this is put forward as guidance, with all the existing pages becoming redirects (or deleted). It would be made clear that the guidance is not official policy. The intention would be that it would supplement the Manual of Style and How to Edit a Page pages, which are policy.


 * Let me know your thoughts. Hopefully we can work together on simplifying and collating the guidance on the Wikipedia namespace. jguk 20:19, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)