→Retain: tidy |
|||
Line 445: | Line 445: | ||
:If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used. Where an article that is not a stub shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor. |
:If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used. Where an article that is not a stub shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor. |
||
I think the intention is that once a spelling style (or date format) has been established (by first usage), that is the presumptive style for that article (UNLESS there are strong national ties, or perhaps an explicit consensus is developed by editors to make a change). If someone makes a style change, regardless of how long it stands, any edit-wars are to be settled in favour of the original variety. However, AS WORDED, the guideline only covers the "early stages" of an article (and articles that are not stubs yet are still ambiguous on variety), and is not CLEAR on what is to be done with articles where the style was initiated many years ago. It should just say something like: |
I think the intention is that once a spelling style (or date format) has been established (by first usage), that is the presumptive style for that article (UNLESS there are strong national ties, or perhaps an explicit consensus is developed by editors to make a change). If someone makes a style change, regardless of how long it stands, any edit-wars are to be settled in favour of the original variety. However, AS WORDED, the guideline only covers the "early stages" of an article (and articles that are not stubs yet are still ambiguous on variety), and is not CLEAR on what is to be done with articles where the style was initiated many years ago. It should just say something like: |
||
:"...The variety of spelling chosen by the first contributor should be used for the life of the article, unless.... Where an article shows no signs in its early stages of which variety it is written in, the first edit that disambiguates the variety shall become the accepted variety for that article." |
:"...The variety of spelling chosen by the first contributor should be used for the life of the article, unless.... Where an article shows no signs in its early stages of which variety it is written in, the first edit that disambiguates the variety shall become the accepted variety for that article." |
||
Note that speaking of "the first edit" makes it less of a personal matter. The same ambiguity exists in [[WP:DATE]]--[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae|talk]]) 22:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:06, 21 November 2009
Manual of Style | ||||||||||
|
Hard to understand
I think the following passage is a bit muddled and hard to follow:
- Textual information should be entered as text rather than as an image. Text in images is not searchable, and can be slow to download; the image is unlikely to be read as text by devices for the visually impaired. Text may be colored and decorated with CSS tags and templates. Even if the problems can be worked around, as by including a caption or internal information, editors should still consider whether fancy text really adds anything useful. Any important text in an image should also appear in the image's alt text, caption, or other nearby text.
1. I don't understand "Even if the problems can be worked around, as by including a caption or internal information ...". What "problems" is this referring to? What does "internal information" mean?
2. I don't understand if "fancy text" refers to text in images or text not in images.
3. Because of its position in context, "Text may be colored and decorated with CSS tags and templates" reads at first as if "text" means "text in images", whereas presumably it means text not in images; in other words, you can use these devices to avoid having to put text in images. 86.161.40.253 (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC).
- I am pretty sure that "Text in images" here refers to pictures—jpgs, etc—of text rather than keyboard-entry text. For example, an image of the New York Times logo would be legible to a person reading with his or her eyes, but it wouldn't show up in a CTRL-F search for "New York." How do you think we can express this more clearly? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- For logos, you must stick to the graphics produced by the company, for copyright reasons. For annotations, I agree that text is clearer, as factors like anti-aliasing and artefacts can break up the outlines of characters. I like {{Annotated image}}: it's clearer; editors can scale the text and image parts independently; it's easier to internationalise (I "sold" it to a Dutch WP editor, and the Dutch version is used widely) See examples at Template:Annotated image/doc/Samples.
- I'm aware of one pitfall, although it's mainly about using one browser in the right way (IE of course). --Philcha (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. I agree that the wording was hard to follow, and tried to improve it. Eubulides (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, Eubulides, I agree that your change is an improvement. However, it also highlights more strongly the fact that it does not clarify when it applies or where. For example:
- An image will often need to preserve embedded text (i.e. as pixels rather than characters) in identifications of cover and other pages of books, in posters, game box art, film shots, etc.
- In these cases compliance with copyright will usually require embedded text to be preserved.
- On the other hand text in diagrams should be presented as characters rather than pixels, for a long list of reasons, including: greater clarity (no problems with anti-aliasing and image artefacts); easy of re-scaling; easy of internationalisation; better illegibility for readers who have visual difficulties but are not functionally blind.
- Presentation of text as characters rather than pixels generally applies to images created by WP editors, as external image content (e.g. diagrams) will usually require embedded text to be preserved, for compliance with copyright.
- These only the cases that I thought of fairy quickly. It would be useful for other editors to identify other cases that needed to be considered. Then we'll be in a good position to produce a guideline that occurs the ground well and links to other guidelines and policies such as copyright. --Philcha (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that an image often needs to preserve embedded text, and your examples of book covers etc. are good ones; but I'm afraid I don't understand the point about copyright. For example, File:Autism's False Prophets frontcover.jpeg is a copyrighted book cover used (via fair use) in Autism's False Prophets. Suppose we cropped away the bottom third of that image, so that the resulting image omits the text "BAD SCIENCE, RISKY MEDICINE ...", and suppose the article shows the cropped image instead. How would that violate copyright? Eubulides (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, Eubulides, I agree that your change is an improvement. However, it also highlights more strongly the fact that it does not clarify when it applies or where. For example:
More picky comments
From the MoS:
- "Do not use color alone to convey information (color coding). Such information is not accessible to people with color blindness, on black-and-white printouts, on older computer displays with fewer colors, on monochrome displays (PDAs, cell phones), and so on.
- "If it is necessary to use colors, try to choose colors that are unambiguous (such as maroon and teal) when viewed by a person with red-green color blindness (the most common type). In general, this means that shades of red and green should not both be used as color codes in the same image. Viewing the page with Vischeck can help determine whether the colors should be altered.
- "It is certainly desirable to use color as an aid for those who can see it, but the information should still be accessible without it."
Some of these comments were raised before, but the thread got turned into a debate about something else, so they were never actioned:
1. The words "in the same image" seem redundant because any rules that apply to colour-coding in "images" presumably also apply to text.
2. Once #1 is fixed, the problem arises that, depending on interpretation, the MoS violates its own guidelines by using red/green coding. One way to recover would be to assume that "If it is necessary to use colors" means "If it is necessary to use colors alone". However, it doesn't actually say this, and it's not clear if that's really what's meant.
3. "If it is necessary to" seems if anything to be discouraging the use of colour-coding, yet the guideline later says it's "desirable". Again, the resolution depends on whether or not "If it is necessary to use colors" is supposed to means "If it is necessary to use colors alone".
Sorry for these picky comments! 86.161.40.253 (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC).
- There's no need to apologize: the comments are quite apropos, and the wording was confusing. I tried to clarify it while retaining what I understand to be the intent. Thanks for bringing this up. Eubulides (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- See WP:COLORS and Category:Articles with images not understandable by color blind users. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Question
I was warned by Caspian blue at here. See my reverts, please. [1], [2], and [3]. I only edited per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Sea of Japan (East Sea) and Wikipedia:MoS#Section name. It is true that, as Caspian blue pointed out, there is no mention that using the "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" for a heading is prohibited, but at the same time there is no mention that the using of it for a section or a subsection name is permitted. I thought the subsection name "Sea of Japan or East Sea naming dispute" was not appropriate because Sea of Japan (East Sea) was already used in a preceding sentence and section names should not explicitly refer to higher-level headings. Did I miss something or do something wrong? Please point out and clarify if my understanding of MoS is not good enough. Of course I am fully aware that I did three reverts and have to be careful. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- i've weighed in over there, but this should be discussed on that article's talk page. thanks Sssoul (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Did I misinterpret Mos? I thought the section name "Geographic dispute" was a higher level heading and it already told readers that the section was about disputes. Please specify exactly where did I make a mistake. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 10:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- yes, in my opinion you've misinterpreted WP:Manual_of_Style#Section_headings, or at any rate overlooked the statement "unless doing so is shorter or clearer" (my emphasis). the fact that this is a naming dispute, not a geographic dispute, needs to be clear; and (per Wikipedia:Naming conventions) both names need to be given in this kind of article.
- that said, the whole sub-section might fit better under "miscellaneous issues", since it's a naming dispute, not a geographic dispute. but please move this discussion to that article's talk page, since that's where it belongs. thanks Sssoul (talk) 10:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Did I misinterpret Mos? I thought the section name "Geographic dispute" was a higher level heading and it already told readers that the section was about disputes. Please specify exactly where did I make a mistake. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 10:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
More about square brackets....
The following discussion, which I initiated, was archived but it was not resolved. It appears in Archive 110.
(the pertinent part of the old discussion follows):
Use of square brackets
Currently, the third example for square brackets is this:
To make the grammar work: She said that "[she] would not allow this" – where her original statement was "I would not allow this". (Generally, though, it is better to begin the quotation after the problematic word: She said that she "would not allow this.")
I don't think this is the best example for how to use brackets to make the grammar work. I would use something along the lines of the following (it could be an additional example, instead):
For example, if referring to someone's statement "I hate to do laundry," one could properly write: She "hate[s] to do laundry."
I think this is a better illustration because, as the current example itself explains, starting off a quote with brackets is usually not necessary. But, I didn't want to unilaterally change the manual of style. Agnosticaphid (talk) 06:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
. . .
It seemed like everyone agreed that it was a good replacement, so I replaced the example. I believe I properly placed the punctuation outside of the quotation marks. (The rules here about that confuse me sometimes since I'm from the US; feel free to fix it if it's wrong.) Of course, if people think it's better with both illustrations, go ahead and add the old one back. Agnosticaphid (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to jump in, I must have missed something massive in this section of the conversation (or perhaps others I have not read). The statements She "hate[s] to do laundry" and She said that "[she] hate[s] to do laundry" are not the same at all, given the original quote, "I hate to do laundry". Stylisticly, we all seem to agree that Agnosticaphid's style is superior to the original example cited in the MOS. However, the meaning is massively changed, and I thought that this was not allowed in quoting direct quotes. Please, if I'm wrong about this, point out to me where I am wrong, because I do get confused sometimes, I may have missed something too subtle for my brain. I spend a lot of time on WP between edits staring at The Treachery of Images.
Both in real life, and in editing an encyclopedia article, I do not believe I am allowed to interpret others' meaning, but merely to report fairly their statements. Because someone said that they hate to do laundry does not mean that they hate to do laundry. Maybe it's just because I'm some person whose had adequate significant others to know the difference between a statement of a fact and a fact that I see the difference this way. But I'm reminded of the Fair Witness example described so many years ago: I may not say that "the house is white" merely because it's white on this side. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to interrupt the conversation again. If this is the wrong place to complain that the MOS now allows the meaning of a direct quote to be changed in favor of style, could someone please point me to the proper place where I may file a complaint about the issue? Thanks! —Aladdin Sane (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
[end old discussion]
I believe Aladdin Sane's point is at least worthy of discussion. It seems that Aladdin Sane thinks that the meaning of "I hate to do laundry" is changed when it is stated as: She "hate[s] to do laundry." The example is too non-encyclopedic/abstract for a useful discussion of Aladdin's point. Supposing instead the situation was:
Some quote exists where Hillary Clinton says, "I hate to do laundry." Would it be appropriate to include in the Hillary Clinton article (if referenced) a line that says: Ms. Clinton "hate[s] to do laundry"?
I believe it would. It's hard for me to understand how this qualifies as "interpret[ing]" Ms. Clinton's statement. It seems that Aladdin Sane believes that to quote in such a way fails to convey that the information was self-reported, and thus perhaps unreliable. But, isn't that why direct quotations are accompanied by citations to their source? I fail to see how writing
Ms. Clinton has previously stated that she "hate[s] to do laundry."
really adds anything to the statement if the quote was already accompanied by a citation that shows the information is self-reported. At any rate, there is really no reason whatsoever to write
Ms. Clinton has previously stated that "[she] hate[s] to do laundry."
when the immediately-preceding example would suffice. As I stated, there's not really ever a reason to begin a quotation with an entire word in brackets.
(I'm sure, in my haste, that I've improperly placed some of the punctuation in all these examples.)
Agnosticaphid (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think I'm addressing a different point here, but when I read "Ms. Clinton has previously stated that '[she] hate[s] to do laundry,'" I tend to interpret Ms. Clinton's words as referring to some other woman (otherwise, why would Ms. Clinton say "[she]"?). So I would think that in general replacing "I" with "[she]" in a quote changes its meaning. —Bkell (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- There is no a reason that I can think of for beginning a quotation with a bracketed word; you can always put the grammatically correct word before the quotation and begin the quotation with the next word. While altering a quotation and using brackets to indicate the alteration is permissible, it is often (although not always) preferable to avoid altering the quotation by rewriting what surrounds the quotation or by quoting less. In this instance, the problem is easily avoided: Ms. Clinton previously admitted, "I hate to do laundry." On the other hand, a personal pronoun should never be ambiguous because its antecedent should be clear. I also notice a trend to excessive use of past perfect tense when simple past tense is both correct and more concise. —Finell 05:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Single quotation marks
The section on quotation Wikipedia:MOS#Quotation_marks states that 'Search engines may not find quotations within single quotes...' If this is true, it mean that this technical issues de facto does not allow to write articles in a variance of British English. Please see here American_and_British_English_differences#Punctuation. What should this technical issue be that would not allow this? I suggest the following text instead:
- Double or single
- Quotations are enclosed within double quotes (e.g., Bob said: "Jim ate the apple."). Quotations within quotations are enclosed within single quotes (e.g., Bob said: "Did Jim say 'I ate the apple' after he left?"). Variances of British English in the use of quotation marks must be done consistently throughout the article.
Mootros (talk) 06:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- ... my understanding is that Wikipedia does not use UK conventions with quotation marks, regardless of WP:ENGVAR. i have no idea what the "technical issue" bit is referring to, though, and i agree that it sounds a bit silly. maybe it could be rephrased or omitted, but i'm not aware of any consensus for adopting UK quotation-mark conventions. Sssoul (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- My bias is towards British styles, but the American one is better in my opinion because it reduces the odds of quotation-marks getting confused with nearby or enclosed apostrophes. However, unlike spelling, I don't think the Manual of Style has an equivalent of ENGVAR for punctuation: it uses neither the pure U.S. version nor the pure British one, but its own "logical" rules, at least for quotations. For one thing, practical considerations favour using the "straight" quotation marks (single and double) found on computer keyboards rather than the prettier and less-ambiguous "inverted commas" ("sixes and nines") curving into and out of the quotation. What I don't understand is why the same logic doesn't apply to hyphens and dashes since computer keyboards don't have single keys for en-dashes, em-dashes and "minus-hyphens" (or whatever they're called). —— Shakescene (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- On my Mac keyboard an en-dash is no harder to type than a straight double quote: hold down option and press the hyphen key for an en-dash, hold down shift and press the single-quote key for a double quote. The em dash and curly quotes are not much harder. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing some equivalent trick with Windows (with Alt or Control); but if I'm missing it, I can guarantee that 90% of users (the ones who even know the distinction) won't know it, so it's something not to be assumed — more likely its contrary should be assumed. (And believe me, Macs are not the computers upon which Wikipedia is most-read.) I use Alt+0149, Alt+0150, Alt+0151, etc. (by the way, my own screen's too small to make out most of the symbols at 100% so I've blown up the attached table to 150%.) —— Shakescene (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- On my Mac keyboard an en-dash is no harder to type than a straight double quote: hold down option and press the hyphen key for an en-dash, hold down shift and press the single-quote key for a double quote. The em dash and curly quotes are not much harder. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- My bias is towards British styles, but the American one is better in my opinion because it reduces the odds of quotation-marks getting confused with nearby or enclosed apostrophes. However, unlike spelling, I don't think the Manual of Style has an equivalent of ENGVAR for punctuation: it uses neither the pure U.S. version nor the pure British one, but its own "logical" rules, at least for quotations. For one thing, practical considerations favour using the "straight" quotation marks (single and double) found on computer keyboards rather than the prettier and less-ambiguous "inverted commas" ("sixes and nines") curving into and out of the quotation. What I don't understand is why the same logic doesn't apply to hyphens and dashes since computer keyboards don't have single keys for en-dashes, em-dashes and "minus-hyphens" (or whatever they're called). —— Shakescene (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
code | symbol |
---|---|
Alt+0145 | ‘ |
Alt+0146 | ’ |
Alt+0147 | “ |
Alt+0148 | ” |
Alt+0149 | • |
Alt+0150 | – |
Alt+0151 | — |
:Can you explain what is meant by "variances of British English"? Powers T 14:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- 1. Does not British English accept either single or double quotations as equally correct?
- 2. Any changes to the MoS should be in the imperative, not the indicative. We're telling people what to do, not telling them what we've seen other people do, and we should own that: "Use double quotes," not "Double quotes are used."
- 3. The MoS should follow ENGVAR for punctuation, treating U.S. and British conventions equally. I prefer the American style because it doesn't make the eye trip over apostrophes, but I don't think that the British style is so ungainly that it would interfere with Wikipedia's mission.
- 4. If there is a bona-fide technical problem with single quotes, not a minor annoyance that people are dressing up as a bona-fide technical problem, then we should favor double for the time being. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, British English accepts either single or double quotations as equally correct. However, it is imperative that this is used consistently: i.e. only one style is possible in an article. Mootros (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- So it's not as if the Wikipedia MoS forces British writers to use a system that is considered incorrect in their variety of English. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, kind of, but not really: There are basically two side to the argument, the "contemporary" version (ie The Economist, The Times, The Guardian's style etc.) on one side, and Fowler and Co with The King's English (a benchmark still in print!) on the other side. Both sides would argue to have the correct version. A sanction of either would mean that one side could not have their "correct" version and would therefore need to rely on an "incorrect" one. I personally think there cannot be an imperative here, because British English itself does not make this imperative, except for consistency. Mootros (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- So it's not like the serial comma in American English, in which case most sources agree that either way as fine so long as the writer is consistent, but rather that British English is divided into camps. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, kind of, but not really: There are basically two side to the argument, the "contemporary" version (ie The Economist, The Times, The Guardian's style etc.) on one side, and Fowler and Co with The King's English (a benchmark still in print!) on the other side. Both sides would argue to have the correct version. A sanction of either would mean that one side could not have their "correct" version and would therefore need to rely on an "incorrect" one. I personally think there cannot be an imperative here, because British English itself does not make this imperative, except for consistency. Mootros (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- So it's not as if the Wikipedia MoS forces British writers to use a system that is considered incorrect in their variety of English. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, British English accepts either single or double quotations as equally correct. However, it is imperative that this is used consistently: i.e. only one style is possible in an article. Mootros (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Bibliography title format standardization
The format of the titles of bibliography articles are frankly a mess. Titles are formatted as "John Doe bibliography", "Bibliography of John Doe", "List of works by John Doe", "Works of John Doe''" and many others. They need standardized.
I propose that these titles be standardized in the "John Doe bibliography" format. This follows the same format used for filmographies and discographies and both of these categories have virtually universal formatting.
Some specialized bibliographies (e.g. List of short stories by Isaac Asimov) will not be able to use the format but most (e.g. Bibliography of Isaac Asimov) will benefit from the standardization. It will also become easier to search for a bibliography with standard formatting.--Marcus Brute (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- There are some problems here, but I don't think renaming them all "Jane Doe bibliography" is the solution. When I hear the phrase "Jane Doe bibliography", it is a bit unclear if there are books both by Doe and about Doe. With the phrase "List of works", it is absolutely clear that the only works included are those written by Doe. Perhaps "bibliography" should be reserved for lists that contain both? Awadewit (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Since the category is called "Bibliographies by author" and "John Doe bibliography" and "Bibliography of John Doe" were already by far the most common formats with no complaints, I think the implied consensus is that ambiguity over the word "bibliography" is negligible. Futhermore, your same logic could be as easily applied to filmographies with people wondering if Alfred Hitchcock filmography refers to films by Alfred Hitchcock or about Alfred Hitchcock. Since bibliography can refer to both "by" and "about", that would mean that a bibliography article could contain sections with both types, not that it must.--Marcus Brute (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- On a separate note, bibliography specifically establishes that the article is about written works whereas "list of works" could refer to absolutely anything the person has done.--Marcus Brute (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you that "bibliography" implies "written works", which is why it does not work for people like William Blake or Andy Warhol, who worked in a variety of media - for them "List of works" is the better phrase. Awadewit (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- A "bibliography" is not always a list of written works by its subject; in fact, I would argue that it is most often a list of written works about or pertinent to the study of its subject. I am also slightly bothered by its use for the work of authors such as Shakespeare (a small part of my brain says "Shakespeare did not write books, he wrote works that were compiled in book form") although I admit this is completely irrational and should be ignored :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- bibliography at dictionary.com Awadewit (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, my point exactly; "X Y bibliography" introduces ambiguity. (That's how I see it, anyway.) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- bibliography at dictionary.com Awadewit (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- A "bibliography" is not always a list of written works by its subject; in fact, I would argue that it is most often a list of written works about or pertinent to the study of its subject. I am also slightly bothered by its use for the work of authors such as Shakespeare (a small part of my brain says "Shakespeare did not write books, he wrote works that were compiled in book form") although I admit this is completely irrational and should be ignored :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you that "bibliography" implies "written works", which is why it does not work for people like William Blake or Andy Warhol, who worked in a variety of media - for them "List of works" is the better phrase. Awadewit (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- How does "list of works" not introduce ambiguity?--Marcus Brute (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
(restarted indents) While I can see a precedent clearly exists with the naming conventions of filmographies and discographies, most of these would seem to be list class articles and therefore should be named using WP:LISTNAME. "The name or title of the list should simply be List of _ _". Oldag07 (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- "List of works" is perfectly clear and adequate for most of these pages. If there is any ambiguity then "List of literary works by X" will do. I don't see the point of making everything conform to some central directive in any case. --Folantin (talk) 10:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
What of the article that have previously gone by the title "bibliography." Shall those be changed to "list of works"?--Marcus Brute (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- This discussion is ongoing, so why have you mass moved all the articles to xxx bibliography already? They should be moved back until something is resolved. Heck, you've even invited WP:BOOKS to come along and discuss it, but only after you moved them all.[4] Matthewedwards : Chat 00:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- My 2¢ is that "List of works of", or "Bibliography of" is more correct, grammatically, than anything else that is used, and fits in with what WP:NCLL says, as well as WP:LISTNAME and WP:LOW. Also, this discussion is at the wrong place. It should be at WT:NC or WT:NCLL, not the MOS. Matthewedwards : Chat 01:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- "John Doe bibliography" is ungrammatical, in that it uses a proper noun as an adjective (and therefore always sounds wrong), and its meaning in Wikipedia is always ambiguous. "List of works" (or, to be more specific, "List of books", "List of writings", "List of poems", "List of paintings", etc.) is appropriate for works by one author. "References" or "Sources" are the best terms to use on Wikipedia for what is called a "bibliography" in a term paper or thesis. —Finell 04:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- List of works by ... is my preferred option as modern authors often do not restrain to only one format. Take for example Richard Dawkins who has books, movies, TV documentaries, and so on. The List of works by is much more versatile and useful. This is different from music or filmmakers whose work are generally confined to one format. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Subsequent uses of names
I refer to the convention that once a person's been mentioned in an article, that person is referred to thereafter by last name only. I found a guideline on this at WP:LASTNAME which in fact relates only to biographies. I'm seeking responses to the suggestion that we encourage editors to use their judgement to make exceptions to this rule, in unusual cases where it brings greater clarity; an example being an article where a large number of people are introduced, making it difficult for the reader to keep track of who's who. An instance has arisen where this appears to be the case: these edits were made, giving rise to this discussion on the article talk page, leading to the suggestion being made here. What are people's thoughts on this? As things stand, it seems we should either state the exception in MoS or remove the edits. PL290 (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding the specific article, the edits shouldn't stand either way. The article is currently inconsistent: it doesn't follow the surnames-only convention and it doesn't repeat the first name consistently.
- Regarding the guideline, editors are always free to ignore all rules and so when an article would be improved by the addition of given names, editors are free to do it. The added value must be clear, however, or the edits won't stand up to future assessments. I don't think we need to describe specific exceptions, but that's based on my opinion that surnames-only is usually quite clear and I don't want to encourage more exceptions.
- I was surprised to learn that the surname-only convention is described on the biographies page. Given that WP:NAMES and other shortcuts point to that page, should we infer that the guideline applies to more than biopgraphies? If so, perhaps we should add a blurb on this page that points to the description on WP:NAMES. — John Cardinal (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I had never heard of this guideline & find it (if applied to all articles) far too prescriptive, not widely followed, and not reflective of much academic practice. Editors should be left to make their own choices. It is not clear if the quideline is supposed to cover only the subjects of biographies (when it actually does make sense) or everybody mentioned in them. The stated reason "The use of the given name gives the impression that the writer knows the subject personally, which, even if true, is not relevant" clearly only applies to a small subset of all articles. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Upper case or lower case letter (e.g., the Treaty that has been mentioned before by its proper name is meant here )
We are currently discussing a topic here that might be of broader interest. A solution here at the MOS should increase consistency across our articles.
I try to sum up briefly: The Treaty of Lisbon is discussed in an article and often referred to as the Treaty, when exactly this treaty (the Treaty of Lisbon) is meant. The question is whether it should be the treaty instead. One position is that, at least in legal texts, it is common practice to use the upper case letter. The other position (hope I get this right) is that this is an anaphoric reference which should be written in lower case letters.
Has this been discussed before; is there already a guideline; or do we need to go through this? Tomeasy T C 11:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Personally I don't buy the anaphoric argument at all. In the article, it describes a literary style or device used in two instances: 1) Fiction, as in Dickens, 2) Persuasive speaking (AKA POV) as in Churchill. Neither seems appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Again, speaking for myself personally, I would use the upper case when referring to the specific Treaty, as opposed to "a treaty" in general, just because "specific editor likes specificity". —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- "Anaphoric" is here used in the sense described in the article Anaphora (linguistics), which states In linguistics, anaphora is an instance of an expression referring to another. Loosely, an anaphor is the mirror of an antecedent. For instance, if you write "The Treaty of Lisbon, which was signed over a year ago, will come into effect in December; this historic agreement is the culmination of many years of effort." the terms which, this historic agreement and it are anaphors. It should make no difference (in normal English usage) if you replace "this historic agreement" with "this treaty" or "the treaty". If "treaty" were used as a proper name (like "the Queen" or "the President" it would not refer to a different entity when used in a different treaty. Anaphors, on the other hand, do refer to different entities in different texts, usually something mentioned recently in the text (including the title). Legal (and similar) usage is different. There, I believe, it is customary to capitalize the terms for the specific referents ("hereinafter called the Buyer", "the Treaty", "the Member States", etc.) --Boson (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to me that although people would probably understand that you were referring to "the Treaty of Lisbon" the second time you wrote "the treaty," it could be ambiguous. What if there was an article about a certain treaty that referred in passing to another treaty? I think the best tactic would be to write The Treaty of Lisbon ("Treaty") was signed in ____. But, as the person above me observed, this is very similar to legal usage, and I know wikipedia's not a courthouse. Agnosticaphid (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I would use "the treaty" or "the Treaty of Lisbon" but not "the Treaty". We are not writing German here; nouns are not capitalized, and "the treaty" is just a normal noun phrase. There's no need to invoke complicated rhetorical terms for what it is: it's a noun. If you want an abbreviated form of a too-long proper name, call it Lisbon or Joe or something, but not Treaty nor even The Treaty. And if you've already referred nearby to a different treaty, then capitalization isn't going to help reduce any ambiguity, so you'll have to spell out the full name anyway. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with David Eppstein. Also, we writing English, not legalese. There is no ambiguity in "this treaty" or "the treaty" where only one treaty is being discussed. Using "a treaty", on the other hand, would be unclear, and would be incorrect if referring to the one treaty under discussion. —Finell 04:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- @David. That's also how I understood the issue at first. However, I think, it has yet one more twist. You can argue that the Treaty is not "just a normal noun" as you claim, but a shorthand form of the proper noun The Treaty of Lisbon, as opposed to talking about a treaty. The point is that you might be talking about treaties in general and thereby use the words the treaty, which would be written just like that - also according to the rule that you oppose. Therefore, this rule would add clarity by discriminating the shorthand form of the proper noun from the truely "normal noun". The question is just, do we want to make such a subtle distinction, or shall we opt for a rule that is much easier to comprehend and to exert.
- However, I agree with you that the capital T does not help to avoid confusion if a second treaty was introduced to which you would have to refer as the Treaty as well. Tomeasy T C 16:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have to go with the lowercase crowd on this one. "Treaty of Lisbon" but "the treaty." In addition to the other reasons already mentioned, a capital T looks presumptuous to me. The treaty should stand on its own value and its own meaning without being puffed up with unnecessary lettering. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Have we come to a decision here? if I was a bit keen, I would say that consensus is not to use the capital T. Tomeasy T C 08:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Music terminology has been marked as part of the Manual of Style
Wikipedia:WikiProject Music terminology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- This notice appears to have been prompted by an inadvertent error: while changing an {{inactive}} tag to {{historic}} on that page, someone changed a link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music) to a transclusion of said page. I have changed it back to a link. Maralia (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Commas and periods inside or outside quotation marks
This section from the Manual of Style:
- Inside or outside
- On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not. This practice is referred to as logical quotation. It is used by Wikipedia both because of the principle of minimal change, and also because the method is less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing.
This point conflicts with virtually all American manuals of style: Turabian, MLA, APA, Associated Press, Chicago, etc. They all agree that commas and periods always go inside the quotes. No need for interpretation or logical judgment or analysis or anything else. Using the nonstandard style invites the kind of misquotation, ambiguity, and errors we are trying to avoid, because that is not the style that was used in the original.
JPFay (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- This American rule is surprising when you first learn about it, and like all counter-intuitive rules creates a certain affection once you got used to it. It was originally introduced for a specific technical reason that is explained at Quotation mark#punctutation. In the 21st century this reason no longer applies. This rule, virtually unknown outside the English-speaking world, isn't even universally followed there. It is logical for a modern project such as Wikipedia to anticipate trends when trying to create some consistency on top of the underlying situation of various variants of English. In this case it's fairly obvious that in a hundred years (probably much earlier) our standard will be followed by all but the most conservative publications even in the US. Hans Adler 15:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hans, the spellings of most words got the way they are because of things that no longer apply. Does that mean we should rip them apart and put them back together again every few years? No. The rule is there now and it should not be thrown away just because some people don't like it. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We're writing for a 2009 audience, not a 2109 one. Having American articles written in an American standard would be just as good for our readers as having New Zealand articles written to a New Zealand standard. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- The reason why "money" and "honey" are spelt this way — namely, that the sequence "unn" has too many consecutive vertical stroke to be readable with blackletter typefaces — has been outdated for muuuuch longer that the reason why commas are put inside in US English. Indeed, words more recent than that (but still older than anyone around here) are spelt as "sunny", "funny", "bunny". This is no valid argument for starting spelling "munny" or "hunny". --___A. di M. 13:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Not commenting on this fully, but this issue has been hashed out time and time again. JPFay, I invite you to go through the archives (I assure you, most or all of your points have been raised at one time or another) before restarting the discussion again so that we don't end up in this endless cycle. Also, this is the English Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia; we don't have to do everything the US way. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- After reading it, I'm fine with how it is now. WP MOS asserts a style I can appreciate, but did not learn in school. It's OK with me to learn a new way. I especially appreciate the WP:ENGVAR argument made in the case of how WP MOS is written now (logical quoting sounds like a nice non-nationalistic compromise to me); this isn't American Wikipedia, as has been said and agreed. When I tally the numbers, I find that speakers (writers) of American English are actually in the minority on this network that comprises an estimated 1.6 billion as of June 2009. Anyhow, my English instructors and programming instructors always did disagree as to whether the quotes go inside or outside...so I appreciate MOS's guidance as to "how it's done here". —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose change: Some American editors (I am one) question this guideline because it is not the one that they learned. However, the style that Wikipedia has chosen makes sense for Wikipedia, and there is broad consensus to retain it. I conform my placement of punctuation marks to the style of the publication or audience for whom I am writing. I use Wikipedia's guideline for Wikipedia, and use the style that JPFay refers to in most of my other American writing. Please note that while that style is prevalent in American writing, it is not universal in the U.S. (some U.S. publications, especially technical journals, use the logical quotation system), and the style guideline that Wikipedia follows is common in other parts of the English-speaking world. English Wikipedia is not written exclusive for the American audience. —Finell 04:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support change to the MoS to permit American punctuation in accordance with ENGVAR. This issue keeps coming up every couple of months for a reason: Banning correct American punctuation is an insult to American Wikipedians. We also have no logical reason to do it. The idea that American punctuation causes technical problems in encyclopedic writing is a myth. None of the opponents of American punctuation have ever been able to present a real case or clear example of a situation in which American punctuation causes confusion that other forms of punctuation do not. We should permit both American and British punctuation just as we permit the serial comma and color spelled with a U and other matters that do not interfere with Wikipedia's message.
- The only American publications that use the British/"logical" style are the ACS and computer programming journals, largely because they deal with data strings. Every other academic and professional journal uses American punctuation. This might not be the American Wikipedia, but it's not the computer programmers' Wikipedia either (at least not any more). So-called logical punctuation is not an advantage in English-language encyclopedia writing, only in writing for computer programming. Wikipedia articles are much more similar to the types of articles in most academic journals and magazines than they are to computer programming articles. We don't quote data strings in our articles—and American punctuation makes exceptions for these anyway—we quote song titles and words-as-words and things that people have said. American punctuation does all of these justice perfectly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- This sounds as if you are still entertaining the misconception that MoS recommends double punctuation, which only occurs in the contexts you mention. What MoS actually recommends is to not mislead: by not inserting our own punctuation into the quoted text; not even at the end. Hans Adler 15:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- How is writing "Bruce Springstein, nicknamed 'The Boss,' sang 'Born in the U.S.A.' " misleading? No reasonable person would think that the comma is part of the nickname or song title. That's why the system has worked for a hundred and fifty years. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- This sounds as if you are still entertaining the misconception that MoS recommends double punctuation, which only occurs in the contexts you mention. What MoS actually recommends is to not mislead: by not inserting our own punctuation into the quoted text; not even at the end. Hans Adler 15:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose any change to the MoS that would permit right-thinking Wikipedians to follow what is without any doubt the only correct and logical style. Let's continue to trample on the rights of Americans not to be offended by the deliberate abuse of their language. Let's continue to endanger "the easily damaged smallest pieces of type for the comma and period" by recklessly not putting them "behind the more robust quotation marks" (quoted from Quotation mark#punctutation, which explains how illogical quotation became the standard in some parts of the world)! Hans Adler 15:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- it's been pointed out over and over that a] so-called logical punctuation is not an ENGVAR issue, and b] Wikipedia's MoS doesn't have to follow other styleguides; most other styleguides are not designed for situations that resemble Wikipedia. i'm an American who is not a computer programmer, and i consider so-called logical punctuation a brilliant improvement on "national" punctuation styles. Sssoul (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- What that means, Sssoul, is that you don't like American punctuation, not that the programmers' style is inherently superior. We do not have the right to disregard parts of the language just because we don't like them or think that we can do better. American spelling is more intuitive and logical than British spelling, but that doesn't mean that we insult and exclude the British by throwing their system away. The word "theatre" isn't pronounced "thee-treh," but it's not as if people get confused by "theatre." However, people have been arguing that American punctuation is confusing and misleading and that is just not true. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- smile: and what that means, Darkfrog, is that you don't like so-called logical punctuation. i'm sure it's okay with you that others also express their views, right? Sssoul (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't happen to like it. However, you don't see me proposing that we ban it, only that we do not force people to use it where it is incorrect. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- smile: and what that means, Darkfrog, is that you don't like so-called logical punctuation. i'm sure it's okay with you that others also express their views, right? Sssoul (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- If it wasn't so confusing your teachers wouldn't have had to spend so much time teaching it to you. If your teachers hadn't spent so much time on this rule, you wouldn't be so attached to it now. Of course it is confusing that commas and periods get one treatment, and semicolons, question marks and exclamation marks get the other. Of course it is misleading to those not used to the American rule to see a comma or period within the quotation marks if it isn't actually quoted. Especially in short articles where it isn't even clear which variant of English they are following. Hans Adler 15:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, the teaching process was quite straightforward. "Place periods and commas inside the quotation marks all the time" covered it and we moved on to the next part of the lesson. It's the British system that takes time to teach, but I understand the Brits consider it to be worth it.
- Hans, you're citing problems that don't exist or that already have solutions. On short articles with no clear British or American preference, the first contributor's style should stand, as always. Half the English-speaking world is used to the American rule. We're not going to please everyone no matter which way we go. ENGVAR gives everyone equal respect and equal treatment. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- ENGVAR makes it very clear that it is about spelling and grammar. It does not, and should not, extend to punctuation. Most editors never notice the subtleties that we are discussing here and have no idea what the quotation style for their own variant of English is supposed to be. Hans Adler 16:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's like saying that most editors don't know what a proper source is or that most editors don't know how to write well. 1. Yes, many of them do. 2. The ones who don't will be corrected by Wikipedia's editing process. We have always dealt with problems like that. There is no reason why ENGVAR couldn't or shouldn't extend to this point. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- ENGVAR makes it very clear that it is about spelling and grammar. It does not, and should not, extend to punctuation. Most editors never notice the subtleties that we are discussing here and have no idea what the quotation style for their own variant of English is supposed to be. Hans Adler 16:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Proposed new text
I propose the following new text:
On Wikipedia, place all exclamation points and question marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not. Place all colons and semicolons outside of the quotation marks.
- Correct: Did Arthur say, "I'm over here"?
- (The question mark is part of the overall sentence but not part of the quoted text.)
- Correct: No, he said, "Where are you?"
- (The question mark is part of the quoted text.)
- Correct: There are three common definitions of the word "gender": colloquial, sociological, and linguistic.
For direct quotations, place all periods and commas that are part of the quoted material inside the quotation marks.
- Correct: The Prime Minister said, "The treaty is reasonable and will be signed."
- (The Prime Minister spoke a complete sentence with its own stop.)
When using quotation marks for partial or indirect quotations, words-as-words, short-form works, or expressions, American and British punctuation styles differ. Follow ENGVAR.
- American: The Prime Minister said that the treaty was "reasonable."
- British: The Prime Minister said that the treaty was "reasonable".
- American: "Carefree," in general, means "free from care or anxiety."
- British: "Carefree", in general, means "free from care or anxiety".
- American: Bruce Springsteen, nicknamed "The Boss," performs "Born in the U.S.A."
- British: Arthur C. Clarke wrote the short story "Loophole", which was published in 1946.
When quoting data strings or keyboard entries, place periods and commas outside the quotation marks. This is considered correct in all varieties of English.
- Correct: To use a long dash on Wikipedia, type in "
—
". Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- No. American-style quotation can be misleading, especially to un-American readers. And of course it's illogical. As your own Declaration of Independence says (using your preferred quotation style): "We hold these Truths to be self-evident." It says so among other platitudes, such as: "The History of the Present King of Great-Britain is a History." Wow. Who would have thought it? Hans Adler 15:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- You know what, Hans? Take your own advice. Show me. In all our discussions, no one has ever been able to write down an example of how the American style alone could mislead readers in an encyclopedia article. They've always had to chop off half the sentence to do it, and that would be misleading no matter what style of punctuation was used. American punctuation is no more misleading than British spelling. No one thinks that "centre" is pronounced "senn-treh." It's understood that that's just how the language works. It isn't right to ban part of a variety of English solely because some people don't like it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Chopping off half the sentence is one of the things we must guard against in an environment where some editors try to manipulate by misquoting sources that others have no access to. "I used American-style illogical quotation style" must not be a valid defence when caught with such manipulations. Hans Adler 16:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's not what I'm talking about. I mean that whenever I ask for an example, people chop off half a sentence, say "It's not the missing words that cause the confusion; it's American punctuation!" and I don't buy it. Saying "I was not hurt" instead of "I was not hurt but deeply offended" is equally misleading regardless of which form of punctuation is used.
- Maybe we should continue this discussion in the above section. It would be better if this section were reserved for comments about the proposed text specifically. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is that a reader not used to illogical quotation might examine the placement of the periods, and upon finding that they are inside the quotation marks come to the conclusion that they misremembered what the Declaration of Independence said since apparently it does contain these sentences as complete sentences. This is a very very minor point. But everything that we are discussing here is a very very minor point. Unless you believe that the world is going to end if an international project hosted in the US standardises on NIH punctuation rules. Hans Adler 16:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Except that that doesn't happen in practice, just like people don't say "senn-treh" when they read a British "centre." It's an imaginary problem. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is that a reader not used to illogical quotation might examine the placement of the periods, and upon finding that they are inside the quotation marks come to the conclusion that they misremembered what the Declaration of Independence said since apparently it does contain these sentences as complete sentences. This is a very very minor point. But everything that we are discussing here is a very very minor point. Unless you believe that the world is going to end if an international project hosted in the US standardises on NIH punctuation rules. Hans Adler 16:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Chopping off half the sentence is one of the things we must guard against in an environment where some editors try to manipulate by misquoting sources that others have no access to. "I used American-style illogical quotation style" must not be a valid defence when caught with such manipulations. Hans Adler 16:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Tony (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't see the rationale for the change of style. And going from a fixed logical style to an ENGVAR situation that encourages inconsistency seems to be a step backwards. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's worth pointing out that Wikipedia does not have a fixed logical style. When you see "I went to the store." in a Wikipedia article, even an FA, you can't reasonably conclude anything about whether the period is actually part of the original text. We encourage inconsistency with the current policy, because it is so time-intensive to bring articles into compliance with the recommended style; the only way to meaningfully encourage consistency would be to select styles that could be enforced partly or wholly by bots. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- As reasoning against logical quotation, this has the basic flaw that, with or without thinking about it, the reader's best guess as to whether the punctuation is from the source will be that it is if within the quotes, and not otherwise; therefore, the amount of correct information conveyed by the encyclopedia will increase monotonically with the number of cases in which logical quotation is used. There is a very seductive trap in thinking that just because perfection in unachievable, that somehow justifies not even trying. (Of course the argument isn't very seductive in that form, which is presumably why it propagates in other forms.) --Pi zero (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Why do you believe readers would assume logical quotation is being used? The more likely, and correct, assumption, would be for them to assume that Wikipedia is a random amalgam of diverse styles and that style differences convey no information at all. Anyway, to the extent you encourage people to believe that Wikipedia uses logical punctuation - e.g. by claiming it as a house style despite the fact that nobody is actually attempting to make articles conform to that standard - you increase the amount of incorrect information being conveyed as well. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- As reasoning against logical quotation, this has the basic flaw that, with or without thinking about it, the reader's best guess as to whether the punctuation is from the source will be that it is if within the quotes, and not otherwise; therefore, the amount of correct information conveyed by the encyclopedia will increase monotonically with the number of cases in which logical quotation is used. There is a very seductive trap in thinking that just because perfection in unachievable, that somehow justifies not even trying. (Of course the argument isn't very seductive in that form, which is presumably why it propagates in other forms.) --Pi zero (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's worth pointing out that Wikipedia does not have a fixed logical style. When you see "I went to the store." in a Wikipedia article, even an FA, you can't reasonably conclude anything about whether the period is actually part of the original text. We encourage inconsistency with the current policy, because it is so time-intensive to bring articles into compliance with the recommended style; the only way to meaningfully encourage consistency would be to select styles that could be enforced partly or wholly by bots. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's a pretty big guess, Pi Zero. It seems more likely, and we've seen, that American readers assume that a comma outside the quotes is the result of sloppy work. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- The random-amalgam assumption might be more likely (though I doubt most readers would formulate such a sophisticated assumption about the matter), but I don't accept that it would be correct (especially not about the better articles).
- I have made no assumption, nor guess, that readers would necessarily even think about what style of quotation is being used, let alone that they would assume logical quotation. I do, however, maintain that it's a rare reader who can prevent their imagination from constructing a model of the source that's being quoted, nor prevent the punctuation of the quote from being suggestive. (Don't think about pink elephants!)
- BTW, far be it from me to underestimate the, er, parochiality of the average American reader, but do you really thing they're that well-educated about American writing style? :-) --Pi zero (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- A system used by, at minimum, 300 million people? The word "parochial" doesn't truly apply. And yes, most American readers are so used to seeing a comma inside a quotation mark as just part of the quotation process that no, there aren't going to be the kinds of problems that you're claiming. Look at it this way: People grow up reading newspapers and novels—things with dialogue. They're used to seeing the comma in the middle: "I don't know," she said, "what he was thinking." It is understood that the commas is there to separate things and that the character really said "I don't know what he was thinking." That example is a little crude, but it is repeated and repeated and repeated year after year. That's not even counting other types of quotations. Yes, it's going to be ingrained that the comma inside the quotes is just part of the process, just like how "centre" as "senn-ter" and not "senn-treh" is ingrained into British readers. (The question is why British people (whose system treats dialogue the same way) don't make the same assumption.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Unlike most aspects of the MOS, this one is poorly enforced in featured content processes. That's because it's so hard to enforce: you can't look at a page and tell whether it is in compliance. So I wouldn't be confident that better articles conform to the rule - I know my FAs don't because I've never used anything but the American style. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. It was difficult enough to gain consensus for the present guideline, and I doubt that there will be sufficient consensus now to change it. Let sleeping dogs lie. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Logical quotation is one thing that WP:MOS gets altogether right, following a fundamental encyclopedic rationale despite parochial forces to the contrary. --Pi zero (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose for reasons I stated in preceding section, and for the reasons others have stated here. In addition, there is a high degree of compliance with this guideline throughout Wikipedia, especially in GAs and even more so in FAs. Changing the guideline would suddenly make all these articles wrong. —Finell 19:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- That would be true any time the guideline is changed and improved. As I've said in other cases, the fact that there would be a lot of work involved is no reason not to improve the MoS. We should simply accept that bringing articles into compliance would be a slow and gradual process. Think of it this way: The American English FA articles that are written using the British style might become out of compliance with the MoS once it is updated, but right now, they're out of compliance with what's right, proper and correct. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose For all the reasons above. We need stability on MOS. Don't change anything unless there is widespread consensus for a change, and not just a few scattered dissenters. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Using ENGVAR for spelling variations is problematic enough, but it would be inadvisable to extend it to punctuation. I can't help but think that the end result would only damage our attempts to bring a professional look to the project. --Ckatzchatspy 00:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- If we're talking about how it looks, it may be relevant, then, that professional writers in the U.S. use American punctuation. In U.S. English, it is U.S. punctuation that looks professional. To U.S. eyes, commas and periods outside the quotes look sloppy. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Punctuation, and its placement, is as much a part of grammar as word choice and word order. To claim that there is a guideline, namely ENGVAR, that respects differences in national varieties of English usage such as spelling and grammar, and then to specifically exclude a major part of grammar from that guideline seems out of alignment, for lack of a better term. All punctuation should follow the general guideline of ENGVAR, for consistency with ourselves.oknazevad (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Because Wikipedia often discusses computer-related matters, and it is critical to distinguish whether terminal punctuation is part of text within quotes, logical quotation serves Wikipedia better than any other approach. Even though few people bother to type it this way, a valid web address is "http://www.yahoo.com." --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia often discusses music. It often discusses history. It often discusses linguistics, but we don't write the articles in phonetic characters. Both American and British punctuation styles permit outside-of-quote placement for data strings. Computer issues are already covered using standard punctuation forms. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Many fields use computers or store relevant information on the web, so computer syntax is likely to come up in any article. I don't know what to make of " Both American and British punctuation styles permit outside-of-quote placement for data strings. Computer issues are already covered using standard punctuation forms" except to say that while there may be ways to avoid using quotes in connection with computer syntax, many writers will chose not to use these quote-avoidance techniques. --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- And yet most fields, if in the U.S., use American punctuation in their professional journals. This is an encyclopedia. It is meant to be read by human beings, and while it should be searchable by machines, there is no need to use an inappropriate, incorrect or non-encyclopedic writing style just to accommodate the traditions used in data storage. By "Both American and British styles permit out-of-quote punctuation in the case of data strings," I mean To use a long dash on Wikipedia, type in "
—
". is perfectly correct American English. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- And yet most fields, if in the U.S., use American punctuation in their professional journals. This is an encyclopedia. It is meant to be read by human beings, and while it should be searchable by machines, there is no need to use an inappropriate, incorrect or non-encyclopedic writing style just to accommodate the traditions used in data storage. By "Both American and British styles permit out-of-quote punctuation in the case of data strings," I mean To use a long dash on Wikipedia, type in "
- Many fields use computers or store relevant information on the web, so computer syntax is likely to come up in any article. I don't know what to make of " Both American and British punctuation styles permit outside-of-quote placement for data strings. Computer issues are already covered using standard punctuation forms" except to say that while there may be ways to avoid using quotes in connection with computer syntax, many writers will chose not to use these quote-avoidance techniques. --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per Pi zero (and the so-called logical style is neither American nor British) Sssoul (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose: I took 1st through 3rd grades in the U.S. and then attended primary school in England, where, naturally but inexplicably, the quotation rules changed (then I returned to the states in mid-First Form/7th grade). I've always attempted (when not constrained by a prevalent publication style) something similar to Wikipedia's logical punctuation, i.e., put closing punctuation within quotation marks if but only if it's in the original source. Very few ordinary readers of Wikipedia know either that there's a trans-Atlantic difference between punctuation conventions or that something called EngVar exists, let alone how it works. So they'd have no way of knowing whether that U.S.-inserted artificial comma, or that U.K.-excluded authentic period/full-stop, was in the original text. Of course they're even less likely to know about logical punctuation, but at least when the extract or quotation is reproduced at fifth-hand and stripped of surrounding comments—as happens to much of Wikipedia—it's more likely to show what the original source did. And while no one should be bludgeoned, bullied or intimidated into silence by majority opinion, this is breathtakingly close to WP:Snowball: we've argued this with Darkfrog half a dozen times over the past year, and the likelihood of a different consensus than the longstanding trans-Atlantic one is pretty slim. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- And, P.S., EngVar isn't an appropriate analogy because it's always and imperatively required that within any quotation, the source's spelling be used, since we want to reproduce the exact text for our readers. An article in U.S. style about Lincoln that's quoting Gladstone's writing should use Gladstone's (British) spelling within the quotation marks. A British-styled article about Churchill that's quoting FDR's writing should use Roosevelt's U.S. spelling within the quotation. Logical quotation is much closer to the spirit of this rule: British editors shouldn't put any of Roosevelt's periods outside quotation-marks, and U.S. editors shouldn't insert a non-Churchillian comma into Churchill's prose.—— Shakescene (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- But I am proposing that current ENGVAR rules apply to punctuation. If an article about Churchill quotes an American source, then the spelling in that source is preserved even if it is American. However, spelling used in the article text itself must be British. That is what I am proposing here. Of course intra-quote periods and commas would stay where the sources put them, but any body text would be written using the article's prevailing style. Hence Bruce Springsteen, or "The Boss," performs "Born in the U.S.A." but Clarke wrote "Loophole", which was published in 1946. (Unless Springsteen is mentioned in passing in British article or "Loophole" in an American one, etc.)Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- And, P.S., EngVar isn't an appropriate analogy because it's always and imperatively required that within any quotation, the source's spelling be used, since we want to reproduce the exact text for our readers. An article in U.S. style about Lincoln that's quoting Gladstone's writing should use Gladstone's (British) spelling within the quotation marks. A British-styled article about Churchill that's quoting FDR's writing should use Roosevelt's U.S. spelling within the quotation. Logical quotation is much closer to the spirit of this rule: British editors shouldn't put any of Roosevelt's periods outside quotation-marks, and U.S. editors shouldn't insert a non-Churchillian comma into Churchill's prose.—— Shakescene (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support. --___A. di M. 13:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. I disagree that the move-the-commas style is "American". Some American and some British sources use each style. But the move-the-commas style doesn't make any sense, on either side of the pond. --Trovatore (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Logical quotation is clearer and more precise, and seems to be opposed solely on grounds of pride. Ilkali (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Capitalization of Titles
The "2 Article titles, headings, and sections" portion of the manual of style is somewhat confusing. Here are some thoughts on the issue.
Wiki's are a fairly new phenomenon. As such, they should be subservant to standard conventions just like anything else. Almost since the invention of the printing press, all major words in titles have almost always been capitalized. To divert from such a long history of usage seems to be a bad idea.
Also, I noticed that the title "Wikipedia:Manual of Style" actually appears to be wrong according to Wikipedia's own standards. In this case, Manual of Style is not a proper name; it is a generic noun. In other words, it is "a" manual of style, and not "the" manual of style. Therefore, it appears that the title should actually be "Wikipedia:manual of style". Notice also that the abbreviation is stated as being MOS or MoS. That, in and of itself, also appears to lack consistency. Shouldn't it be Mos or just mos?
Further, IMHO, it seems more prudent to state that if the sub-titles or section headings don't end in "......", then it isn't a sentence or lead-in phrase, and it is a title that should be capitalized in the normal manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KitchM (talk • contribs) 16:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it's the case that "since the invention of the printing press, all major words in titles have almost always been capitalized". The UK practice appears to be not to capitalize major words, only the first letter of the first word. There was a previous discussion about why Style in Manual of Style is capitalized – search the talk page archives. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Jacklee. Title-style capitalization and sentence-style capitalization are both correct and proper forms. Personally, I don't mind either style so long as the article is consistent. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- For what it is worth, the Canadian Press Style Guide, which is widely used in Canadian media, recommends the same style as the Wikipedia Manual. I think that that KithcM's view is based on what s/he is familiar with, as opposed to "standard conventions... since the invention of the printing press." Ground Zero | t 16:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Size of superscript text
In the past I've noticed one or two instances of small superscripted font used for <ref> tags. In other words:
- <small><ref>...</ref></small>
On my browser, the resulting text is scarcely legible, and with some numerals not legible at all, so I've tended to remove the <small> tags where I've seen them. I just came across Monarchy of Canada, which has masses of references formatted in this way and otherwise seems a fairly well put-together article. What do others think about this style of formatting? Can you read it clearly? Should it be deprecated and put back to normal size font when encountered? 86.134.43.204 (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC).
- No. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Can you read all of the superscripts clearly? 86.134.43.204 (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC).
- I understood that what goes in 'ref' tags is at 90% normal size in the first place. Am I mistaken, or not drawing a fine enough distinction? If everything in 'ref' tags goes 90% anyway, I'm missing the point of adding the 'small' tag. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know the exact ratio but superscripted "ref" text is, by default, quite clearly smaller than normal text. I assume the size was chosen as a compromise between wanting to make the text fairly unobtrusive and wanting to ensure that it's legible. Like you, I do not understand the point of the "small" tag in addition. IMO all such text should be the same size, and if the view is that it needs to be smaller (which I anyway don't agree with), that should be done at a "template level", when the "ref" tag is interpreted and translated. 86.134.43.204 (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC).
On the page that you link to I can read everything fine. I say "no" because tags aren't added to refs lightly, if some has formatted the text in that manner then the may be a simple reason, one which may not be obvious. The subscript <small> could be there for an invisible reason. And FYI that is superscript. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- It probably hardly matters, but I don't understand your last sentence. I know what superscripts and subscripts are. The "small" tag is, in itself, neither subscript nor superscript. It simply makes the font size smaller. 86.134.43.204 (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC).
- If the text is made smaller, and thus sits below the line of the normal font size then is is subscript, not superscript. Superscript is a different bit of code. But the small tag makes text sit below the normal size font line. The difference is important. There is no point making a complaint then dismissing the correct term when it is pointed out. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I still have no idea what your point is or why you think my use of terminology is incorrect. Don't bother trying to explain further, it doesn't seem worth it. 81.152.168.31 (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC).
- The problem is, it's an undocumented reason. I went through the talk page and archives and didn't find discussion about it. That said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't see the need to clean every reference in the article of the small tags, I don't see that much gained in the name of standardization, and if many new references are added, people with the article on the watchlist will get the ref tags inside small tags. —C.Fred (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", yes, but for me it is broke (specifically, illegible). However, it's interesting that Darrenhusted can read it OK. I presume that the person who formatted the refs that way could also read it OK. Thing is, I have a very standard XP + IE setup, that I imagine is shared by tens of millions of other PC users. 86.134.43.204 (talk). —Preceding undated comment added 23:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC).
- I have five different browsers, and there no problem in any. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", yes, but for me it is broke (specifically, illegible). However, it's interesting that Darrenhusted can read it OK. I presume that the person who formatted the refs that way could also read it OK. Thing is, I have a very standard XP + IE setup, that I imagine is shared by tens of millions of other PC users. 86.134.43.204 (talk). —Preceding undated comment added 23:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC).
- My Compaq FS7600 screen is so small that I can barely make out commas from periods (full-stops), but I didn't see anything too unusual at Monarchy of Canada, except for this: The article separates footnotes that explain things in the text from straight "citations" of sources, with two series of numbers beginning at 1. The small "n" in front of some superscripts must refer to the explanatory notes, as opposed to the citations. And some of the notes refer to supporting citations below them. I don't have time now to explore this in detail, but I strongly suspect the sizing issue has something to do with this rather unusual set-up. Other articles have tried using letters instead of numbers for the non-citation-type footnotes; see, e.g., List of World Series champions. Compare it with the list of teams at the bottom of Major League Baseball, where the whole numbered list of team changes (separate from the standard References section) is in small type. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any technical reason why the notes/citations split necessitates the use of a small font. I just tested a short section of it without the "small" tags (preview only!) and it seems to work just as well. It's curious, though, that you also "didn't see anything too unusual", which I assume means the superscripts aren't noticeably incredibly tiny and illegible for you either. I'm beginning to wonder if it's a problem only I'm seeing. Out of interest, I'll leave a note on the article's talk page asking why it was done. 86.134.43.204 (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- It may be that the numbers look OK to me because they're about the right proportion to the text, while the normal Wikipedia footnote-superscript is a bit large. On the other hand, the letter "n" does look tiny, and were it more than one letter (a word, phrase or sentence), it would be hard for me to read. [If I had the time, patience and expertise, I might be moved to convert all those n-footnotes (numerical tags) to letters to reduce all that confusion (i.e. something roughly analogous to the hierarchy at List of World Series champions), but I don't know the "#tag" template's syntax or protocol.] —— Shakescene (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I notice that on articles where the <small> formatting is not used around references, the inline citation tags push the lines of text apart, compared to lines that don't have inline tags. On articles where the <small> formatting is employed, the line spacing is consistent throughout the article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Right. Are the superscripts clearly legible for you too, Miesianiacal? 86.134.43.204 (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, quite. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Right. Are the superscripts clearly legible for you too, Miesianiacal? 86.134.43.204 (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any technical reason why the notes/citations split necessitates the use of a small font. I just tested a short section of it without the "small" tags (preview only!) and it seems to work just as well. It's curious, though, that you also "didn't see anything too unusual", which I assume means the superscripts aren't noticeably incredibly tiny and illegible for you either. I'm beginning to wonder if it's a problem only I'm seeing. Out of interest, I'll leave a note on the article's talk page asking why it was done. 86.134.43.204 (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- If there are any problems with the footnote size (though I don't think there are), they should be resolved across the site through CSS at MediaWiki talk:Common.css, not forced with markup. —Werson (talk) 04:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know if it's a problem, per say, but from my perspective the <small> formatted inline tags actually make the articles look much better; consistent line spacing is more tidy and professional. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Werson; we should avoid the extra markup. If the CSS isn't right or can be improved, we should change that. — John Cardinal (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I also agree with Werson. Ideally we shouldn't be making ad hoc solutions on a per-article basis. There should be an agreed Wikipedia-wide standard for the tags in question. 81.152.168.31 (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC).
- How does one go about it, then? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- One goes about it by, first, not using explicit markup such as <small> to format references, and second, if you feel that the formatting of references could be improved, taking it to the Mediawiki page linked to by Werson. In case it isn't clear, my opinion on this specific case is that the <small> tags should be removed. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- How does one go about it, then? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know if it's a problem, per say, but from my perspective the <small> formatted inline tags actually make the articles look much better; consistent line spacing is more tidy and professional. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Section Headings
Has anyone notice that when you add a new section, the text is layout as (for example):
two equal signs, a space, header text, another space, and then two more equal signs.
But you have editors (especially admins) who editwars on removing the spaces saying that it is the law of manual style.
In this document it clearly states it is optional, but when the wiki software, itself, creates the spaces, then for consistency, all should have spaces. It makes sense since it is better to identify headers! -- Roger Zoel 01:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- There is no need for consistency here. It does not affect the appearance of the article or anything else. Do you really have examples of admins edit warring over this? —Finell 05:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm assuming that RogerZoel is talking about the difference between ==Title== and == Title ==. I'm not sure that there is editwarring over formatting, but it should be noted that when bots clean up references and markup they will add spaces. RogerZoel seems to have a specific problem with a few editors on a few pages, I would suggest that RogerZoel stops worrying about adding spaces. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- LOL, who is worrying? PLEASE! I'm just advocating for a new user. I just think that those who seem to have "the power" can arbitrate what is rule of law and what is not when no such action is needed in this situation. It's one thing when someone does good faith editing and then called a dumbass or idiot because they didn't follow the MOS. Then when you call them on it, "it's a matter of consistency" is their response. They don't need to belittle the new user of it, and surely not to assert their admin powers and accuse the user of edit warring and promise a threat of being block. Wikipedia is not this way. Grow up admins! -- Roger Zoel 22:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- And some bots eliminate spaces, which likewise makes no difference in the final rendered page. I responded to the rest of Roger Zoel's post on his talk page. —Finell 00:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Tour names in Italics
I am having a disagreement with another user on whether to put concert tour names in Italics or not. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) is not very clear on concert tour titles. The article section in question is Sakis Rouvas#Tours. Since they are technically titles, they should be in italics. It would seem that concert tours would fall under "Works of art and artifice" on WP:MOS (titles), so therefore should be in italics. But the other user is arguing that because other Tour articles/sections are not in italics, these titles should not be either. I pointed out WP:Other stuff exists but she is adamant on the fact that it is not a big deal since other articles that do not have them in italics are GA or FA articles. Any insight on this problem would be appreciated. Greekboy (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am not aware of any real world precedent for italicizing the names of concert tours, so I doubt that we would do so on Wikipedia. —Finell 00:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I remember considering this problem once too. I decided that although there was a theoretical case for italicising tour names (other than purely descriptive names like "European Tour" or whatever), in practice it seemed unnecessary. 81.152.168.31 (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC).
Retain
WP:RETAIN currently states:
- If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used. Where an article that is not a stub shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor.
I think the intention is that once a spelling style (or date format) has been established (by first usage), that is the presumptive style for that article (UNLESS there are strong national ties, or perhaps an explicit consensus is developed by editors to make a change). If someone makes a style change, regardless of how long it stands, any edit-wars are to be settled in favour of the original variety. However, AS WORDED, the guideline only covers the "early stages" of an article (and articles that are not stubs yet are still ambiguous on variety), and is not CLEAR on what is to be done with articles where the style was initiated many years ago. It should just say something like:
- "...The variety of spelling chosen by the first contributor should be used for the life of the article, unless.... Where an article shows no signs in its early stages of which variety it is written in, the first edit that disambiguates the variety shall become the accepted variety for that article."
Note that speaking of "the first edit" makes it less of a personal matter. The same ambiguity exists in WP:DATE--JimWae (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)