Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Draft Trim/Archive 1

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.I agree with the rest of the changes. I especially agree with the omission of multiple examples where one or two alone suffices. Some further changes that might be made:"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!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)


 * Since I've already outlined my own improvements to Jallan's version, explained them and amended them in response to Jallan's comments, I should really throw this question back to you. What does my version lose from the current style guide that you wish to keep? jguk 16:15, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The current form still contains changes or possible changes beyond simple trimming, notably the ommission of "This is discouraged in most situations". There are too many such changes: omission of details about use of titles and what might seem to be stylistic changes but are also probably substantive changes. The main page reads:"*When writing an article about specific people or specific groups, always use the terminology which they themselves use (self identification)."The word "always" here may not be a tautology but an indication that this is intended to be more strongly enforced than some others, that it when another rule contradicts this should take precidence. If the phrasing of this should be changed for clarification, and I would support that for varous reasons, it should be discussed on its own, not as part of a trim which is not intended to change the meaning of the text and should neither clarify or obscure. Refactoring of sections of the page, beyond minimal stylistic changes, should be discussed separately.
 * This includes removal of supposed American references as non-neutral, a concern which I would rather not address either way. Leave things as they are. The style guide for The Economist is uses George Bush as an example on one page and twice on another . The style guide of the Manchester Guardian have five references to George Bush, only two references to Tony Blair , and no references to Queen Elizabeth. Their front page  contains a quotation from Thomas Jefferson. It would seem that reference to things American is quite normal British style."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."Removing perfectly normal words and expression and replacing them with euphemisms to avoid words with more than one spelling is not neutral. Avoiding language that is US or UK or Canadian or Australian is not neutral. There is no existing style of English that does this. If there were a style in use anywhere in which hue was almost always preferred to color or colour and journeyed was almost always preferred to traveled or travelled, that would become a different style of English, notable by its avoidance of particular words rather than its spelling. Choice of such a style is just as much a non-neutral choice as any other choice of language style, but far less acceptable when the style is recommended by no style guides, journals, or publishers, so far as I know. Wikipedia is not a soap box to advocate use of a new style of English. The phrase gray area or grey area is a common English idiom, in common use in English. It is not neutral to ban it. The sentence fragment "its significance is easier to recognize" was replaced by "its significance is easier to identify". But replacement of recognize by identify breaks the idiom and so disrupts the flow. Google shows:

Search pattern                             Hits "identify the significance"                4,120 "recognise the significance" -recognize    5,540 "recognize the significance" -recognise   15,800
 * Examination of examples found for "identify the significance" reveal it is used with a different meaning than "recognize the significance". And presentation is not the same as organization and is arguably no less ugly a word. Arrangement would be better. But organization (whether spelt as organization or spelt as organisation) remains the obvious word to use. Categorization is the term used in Wikipedia. And it does not mean a system of categories. A case can be made that though Wikipedia now has categories it still does not have a system of categories. The artificiality of such substitution is that if in Wikipedia these categories had instead been called classes, then we would speak of classification, a word which Jongarrettuk would probably accept without bother.


 * Readability for the minor differences in spelling of some words has never been an issue. Books written with British English spellings are read avidly by Americans with no difficulty. Books written by Americans are avidly read by Britshers with no difficulty. The minor differences in spelling are far less likely to cause difficulty than unfamiliar words and words with different meanings in different varieties of English (such as pavement and momentary). People mostly learn quickly not to notice such spelling differences. People really read by word and morpheme recognition. An American child who reads one book in British English and a British child who reads one book in American English probably achieves that recognition before finishing the book, and may never even notice some of the variant spellings in the book in any case. Anyone who has used the web much has long ago achieved that recognition. Genuine international English is the product of different varieties of English, not the intersection, especially not a limited intersection based on spelling. It is English in which differences are recognized (or recognised) and accepted, not removed. The latter is a variety of English used nowhere.
 * I agree with the removal of capitalization because it is an unnecessarily ugly word and is imprecise. (A more precise word titlecasing is now often used.) I don't agree on replacement of any word because it can be spelt differently, just to hide what kind of English a writer was writing. Some of the other stylistic changes I find excellent. Use of avoid is good. But I agree with Maurreen that this is all too much for a trim. Get the trimming part approved (or rejected), and then go onto other points, dealing with them separately, not in a mass of politically correct changes, stylistic changes, refactoring, and substantive changes in meaning. If such matters are dealt with all at once, then the discussion should be limited to one small section of the style guide, a reworking of that section on its own.
 * Jallan 22:34, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No big deal
Overall, the draft trim has taken more of my time that it is worth. I accept Jallan's version, and I accept the style guide as it is now. Maurreen 20:40, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Again, I agree with Maurreen. It's taken too much time. But I think the version that Maurreen and I agree on, is superior to what is there now, though of course far from perfect. And there is no use in that time being wasted. None of jguk's suggested changes were reversions to the current style sheet, so jguk seemingly does take the version that I last edited as superior to what currently exists, though far from what jguk would like (and what I would like.) But the set time limit has passed. Unless jguk or someone else objects in the next few hours, (after I've slept for the night) I will take it that there is consensus that the trim I last edited from Maurreen's work contstitutes an acceptable improvement and will move its contents to the main page. (Of course, anyone can always revert later or attempt further changes, or revert part of it. Anything can still be undone if there is consensus to undo it.) I still do strongly approve strongly of many of jguk's suggestions for improvement and will support jguk on those if jguk wishes to continue the matter, or may even forward them myself, though I currently find myself rather tired of this and would on my own not take the initiative immediately. (There is some value in letting a new version lie for a while also and put some more thought into future improvements.)  Jallan 02:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)