![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 185 | Archive 186 | Archive 187 | Archive 188 | Archive 189 | Archive 190 | → | Archive 195 |
Which is correct?
I can't find clarification in the MoS and I see it both ways, so I don't know which way it should be. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 00:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I would go with singular for species and plural for genus, since most of the biological sources seem to do so, for reasons Sminthopsis outlines. It's semantically meaningful, because the species within a genus are generally quite distinct. Felis catus [yes, you can also treat it as a subspecies, but just go with the simple version for the sake of this example] is a small species of cat, in a very particular way: any member of this species will happily breed with other members of the species from anywhere in the world, and regardless of their often marked phenotypic differences. By contrast, Felis is a genus of cats; they are distinct from each other, and will usually not interbreed unless forced to by captivity or (in the wild) desperation due to lack of an available mate of their own species, even when some of them look more alike than do various different domestic breeds of F. catus. It's fine for a WP editor to use the singular for a monophyletic genus; all of WP is under constant revision, so "it might not be monophyletic forever" is irrelevant in this publication. It wouldn't make much sense, really, to write something like "Mezzettia is a genus of plants in family Annonaceae" when there is only one Mezzettia. However, it doesn't make good sense, either, to have (as Alphonsea does right now) "Alphonsea is a genus of plant in the family Annonaceae" when there are dozens of Alphonsea species of plants. If I eat a big bag of gummy bears, I do not say "I ate almost half a pound of gummy bear, at least three dozen of it." If I eat one large sandwich, however, I also don't say "I'm very full from eating so many sandwiches." I.e., let the language do what it normally does, and don't try to hammer it into unnatural WP:SSF molds, especially when we (and more importantly, our readers) don't get anything useful out of the endeavor. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
We've had four opinions, three in favor of plural and one for singular. Searches of Wikipedia and Google for "is a genus of (butterfly/butterflies) (moth/moths) (bat/bats) (etc.)" show that the plural is more common but not overwhelmingly so.
We can (a) let it go and continue to let people do as they wish and be inconsistent like the rest of the world, (b) be prescriptive and settle on plural following the majority, (c) make it another VAR thing where what was written first shouldn't be changed without good reason, or, I'm open to other suggestions.
I suspect we'll compromise on (a), though I'm a prescriptive sort and would prefer (b). Is there a need for any further discussion? Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 23:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Hmains: You removed "Where there is disagreement on the style to use in an article, and the guidelines do not give a reason for using one over the other, then editors should defer to the style that was first used in the article." In essence, this is what is said in all four of the specific guidelines. It is just a summary of what they say. I take it you do not agree with the passage, but it is surely a fair reflection of the guidelines. Spinning Spark 21:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Where more than one style is acceptable under the Manual of Style, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. [a] If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. If a style or similar debate becomes intractable, see if a rewrite can render the issue irrelevant.
Where this manual provides options, consistency should be maintained within an article unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable. [1] If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.
SlimVirgin recently undid this edit [2], as have I. The edit summary "Closing another WP:GAMING / WP:LAWYER loophole" seems to be somewhat unusual - there is no loophole in the rule that, unless a particular style is required by the MOS, in areas where there are many acceptable styles the existing one should generally be maintained unless there is consensus to change it. That longstanding principle of the MOS is a key aspect of the MOS and should not be changed lightly, and particularly not in that manner. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 02:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason.
The wording has been there for years, and it matters, for the ultra-obvious reason that it does not mean "acceptable to any random person for who-knows-what reason", it means "acceptable under WP's own style guidelines". Otherwise, it would mean that any article full of "ain't" wouldn't be editable to remove that since "ain't" is acceptable in many forms of vernacular English. And so on. It would enable a firehose of WP:SSF editwarring. I won't speculate on why SlimVirgin every several months comes and makes this drive-by deletion without consensus, but it's tendentious. I do know that a lot of editing gaggles that are overly proprietary about "their" content would like to see that wording removed so they can push all kinds of style quirks found only in specialist publications, but that's a WP:NOTHERE can of worms we can't open. This is not the Give Me My Specialized Style or Give Me Death WP:BATTLEGROUND. It's taken a decade and half to actually get WP into a state that mostly complies with WP:TECHNICAL, MOS:JARGON, and related guidelines. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
"The way that the MOS works, any style which is not prohibited, and for which there is no other style prescribed, is "acceptable", whether that style is explicitly mentioned by the MOS or not."
Yes, exactly. There are literally thousands of possible style points on which MoS says nothing at all, on purpose (read through New Hart's Rules, The Chicago Manual of Style, and Scientific Style and Format some time; we'd have to grow MoS by around 5000% to encompass all that stuff). WP's MoS leaves most matters to editorial discretion. What it can't do is throw itself in the trash after years of hard-won compromises on the style items that editors will fight about incessantly, by allowing pundits who "accept" some MoS-conflicting style to declare it "accepted" and editwar to impose or defend it in little fiefdoms. There's also a clear subtext that's been running around lately that older articles should somehow be completely exempt from compliance with later guidelines, starting with MoS. This obviously can't happen. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
15:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
For the record, my position is that there is no difference: a style is "acceptable" for Wikipedia if and only if it is "acceptable under the Manual of Style", because the MOS is by definition the place where a style could be deemed unacceptable. Certainly the new text cannot mean that only styles explicitly mentioned by the MOS are acceptable, because as SMcCandlish wrote "There are literally thousands of possible style points on which MoS says nothing at all, on purpose ...". I do not support including meaningless language in the MOS. I do think that if something is required by the MOS, no other style is "acceptable", but that is not the issue I am concerned about in this discussion, which is just about the words "under the Manual of Style". — Carl ( CBM · talk) 19:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Should the passage If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. If a style or similar debate becomes intractable, see if a rewrite can render the issue irrelevant., or similar wording, be added to the "Retaining existing styles" section? 15:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Support. All four specific guidelines referenced in the section say essentially this, it is consistent with Arbitration Committee rulings on this matter, [10] [11] and is precisely the same wording as already in the lead of the MOS. Placing it here (or something similar) puts all the summary information regarding style variations in one place for the convenience of readers linked to that section. Spinning Spark 15:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Conditional support. I will support this only if an explanation is added that consistency for matters not addressed in the MOS should not be enforced unless there exists a consensus among reliable external sources, such as printed style guides, that the matter should be consistent within an article. We should not enforce consistency to a greater degree than typical quality English writing. Jc3s5h ( talk) 15:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Conditional support: It also has to remain in the MOS lead. It was put there as a general principle, not just a line-item about ENGVAR/DATERET/ERA/CITEVAR matters in particular, and this is important. The ArbCom action that has involved MoS has been about a) infoboxes (and mostly about whether to have one at an article at all, which is not an MoS matter but a content dispute); b) date anto-formatting and auto-linking, which doesn't even exist here any longer; and c) nationalistic campaigning about punctuation nitpicks that are not actually subject to ENGVAR. So, none of the things for which that language was added to MoS to address are actually ENGVAR/DATERET/ERA/CITEVAR concerns at all. That said, yes, it would help to have all three of these points included in MOS:STYLEVAR. If anyone objects to using the lead-copied wording, be clear what these points are:
The principal danger we have here in inserting something to this effect directly into MOS:STYLEVAR is wording it poorly, in a way that increases rather than dispels proprietary/territorial/ WP:OWN behavior. I would support using the MOS lead language quoted above, verbatim, since it encapsulates all of the points very concisely with careful word choices ("If", "an article", "used" in past tense, etc.). Any rewrite of it to "customize" it for STYLEVAR would need very careful examination, and I'm highly skeptical the quoted wording can be improved upon without negative side effects. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment One thing we want to avoid is giving a perception that discussion about style matters is the intended outcome. The intention is that, unless the MOS says otherwise, existing styles should be silently left alone, and new changes should be brought into line with the existing style of each article. The underlying motivation for these principles is that discussion about issues with no objective "right or wrong" has a particular tendency to waste everyone's time (cf. bikeshed effect), and so we want people to focus on more productive matters, not on which optional style should be used in an article. I am afraid the proposed language doesn't convey this clearly enough. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 20:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I thought that, when there are more than one person in a photo, and the caption mentions the names of one (or more) of the people in the image, it is a good idea to indicate which one is which with at least one word, "right" and/or "left". I also thought that normally, those words ("right", "left") are in italics. I thought I remembered seeing that in art books and catalogs. In this edit, Mitch Ames removed the italics from "right" that I had just added. I didn't understand the reason for using regular font for "right" and "left", but before I reverted, I decided to see what the WP:Manual of Style had to say about it. I found the following in MOS:CAPTION, the section "Formatting of captions", third bulleted item:
The text of captions should not be specially formatted, except in ways that would apply if it occurred in the main text (e.g., italics for the Latin name of a species).
If I understand this correctly, and we follow this, Mitch Ames is right. However, I prefer italics for "left" and "right". Compare:
I didn't start a discussion with Mitch Ames because it appeared that, according to the MOS, he was right, and I've been busy, but I thought I'd start a discussion about this.
I would like to point out that if the image is of a painting, the painting title will be in italics, but the necessity of indicating which person is which, or where a building or object is in the image, with "left" and/or "right", would occur more often in the caption of a photograph than in the caption for a painting, so the likelihood of having a title in italics and a word such as "right" in italics in the same caption would be minimal. – Corinne ( talk) 03:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The text of captions should not be specially formattedsimply means that the whole caption doesn't go in italics, or small caps, or anything else, to distinguish it from article text, as you sometimes see in some publications. It's silent on what one might do with stuff like (r) and (l) or (right) and (left) or (foreground). E Eng 19:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
...makes it clear the words are not part of the thought of the caption...— But the words are explicitly part of the thought of the caption. The caption describes the picture, and the positions of the people in the picture are a legitimate part of the description. Mitch Ames ( talk) 05:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
As mentioned above, italics are for emphasis, and so personally I think it is unusual to emphasize a position indicator. isaacl ( talk) 16:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
This is certainly something that should be left up to the individual editor, for various good reasons. One good reason is that (as we can see above) there is no one clear correct or better way. A second good reason is that adding another needless rule bogs down the MOS with more detail and makes it harder to learn and harder to use. A third good reason is that creating a rule means enforcement, it puts interactions about the matter into an enforcement mode where editors are playing rules cop with other editors and this is not as functional as peer-to-peer interactions. A fourth good reason is that there's zero evidence that it matters to the reader.
A fifth good reason is that micromanaging editors to this level is demoralizing and not how you attract and nurture a staff of volunteer editors (for instance we have a stupid micromanaging rule that I have to write "in June 1940" and not "in June of 1940" which is how I naturally write, and every stupid micromanaging rule like this is just another reason to just say screw it. As the Bible says "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn" ( 1 Timothy 5:18, paraphrased from Deuteronomy 25:4) which updated means "Let the editor who did the actual work of looking up the refs and writing the friggen thing -- you know, the actual work of the project -- be at least allowed the satisfaction of presenting it as she thinks best, within reasonable constraints".
That's five and that ought to be enough although I'm sure I can come up with more if pressed.
If you run into a situation where (as the OP noted) "In this edit, Mitch Ames removed the italics from "right" that I had just added" then play it as it lays, guided by WP:BRD. Anything that you add is subject to redaction and then discussion per WP:BRD. In this case, Mitch Ames would have been well within his rights. WP:BRD in these cases just means "I liked it better before, prove your edit is objectively an improvement". Your options are to let it go (recommended!) or open a thread on the talk page and maybe you can convince Mitch Ames and the other editors that, after all, the italics are an improvement in this particular case (if that's how you want to spend your energy).
Conversely, if the italics had been there for a while (sufficient to be part of the stable version of the article) then the removal of the italics would be subject to rollback per WP:BRD and you would be within your rights to roll back the change.
This means different articles will do it differently. This annoys a certain type of editor. Oh well. Herostratus ( talk) 17:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
1) There is no "stupid micromanaging rule that [you] have to write 'in June 1940' and not 'in June of 1940'"; there's just a rule that you can't editwar tendentiously to prevent others from removing the unnecessary "of", or to force the "of" into existing content. This applies to similar guidelines, too; e.g. no one has ever been banned or blocked for adding bare URLs as citations despite WP:CITE advising against this. Editors get into "MoS flamewar" trouble – they self-demoralize and demoralize those around them – when they try to stop changes to "their" content by others seeking guideline compliance. It's almost always over-asserting personal (often professional or niche) preference ("what I learned in school", "how we do it at the newspaper I work at", "what the journals I submit to expect", etc.) in defiance of what WP's own guidelines want to see. This is a territorial, WP:VESTED urge, and people have to resist it, since there are thousands of editors and it's inevitable ( WP:MERCILESS) that content will be changed by later volunteers, who all have radically different preferences. The War of the Preferences is only kept in check by a style guide and agreement to follow it as a WP guideline. Every time someone takes a "don't you dare change my beautiful prose" position over style trivia, they are exhibiting a WP:COMPETENCE problem.
Making editors happy is a bottom-rung WP goal to the extent it is one at all; satisfying readers is the main public one, and being successful as a project is the main internal one; both of these require a minimization of strife so the work can continue, through compromise, i.e. through editors learning they cannot always get what they want and that their individual wants take a back seat. Those who refuse to write any way but their way should go be bloggers or novelists. MoS is not micromanaging editors, only content. This is necessary to a limited extent, and participation in that nit-pick management is optional, just as are all the other forms of chrome-polishing around here, from GAN and FAC, to categorization details, to filling out infoboxes and navboxes, etc. We resist willy-nilly expansion of MoS's extent, for all the reasons you two just outlined. A personal feeling of micromanagement can, in my experience, be traced directly to over-identification with the content (a failure to actually release it to the community except in name), and over-investment in winning style-related disputes (as some kind of sport debate or holy war), or both of those issues at once. (I initially arrived at WP and MoS exhibiting both, and had to unlearn those approaches.) MoS's stability and its conflict-reduction effectiveness are more important than its line-item details.
2) The "demonstrate that it's a real problem" process only applies to adding something new. It's fallacious reasoning when applied in an attempt to remove something long-standing from MoS (or any other policy, guideline, etc.); the very existence of the rule makes the incidence low or non-existent. "I want to delete the rule to not capitalize for emphasis because people aren't capitalizing for emphasis" is invalid logic. We do sometimes remove a rule, but it's almost always on the basis of obsolescence, or it being an implausible addition no one bothered to question back when it was added (especially on some of the more nit-picky subpages that aren't watchlisted enough).
—
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
10:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I was specifically describing the use of italics within a sentence in prose. Italics in this situation is for mild, local emphasis, whereas bold within a sentence is for stronger emphasis. isaacl ( talk) 03:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate all the comments here. Everyone is right – the best formatting for the position-indicating words ("left", "right", etc.) may depend upon the formatting of the rest of the caption; the question of whether one is justified in reverting a change in formatting may depend upon how long a particular format has been in the article; since various formatting styles seem to be acceptable, there is no good reason to require one style over another in the MOS, and doing so may cause more problems than it is worth; and finally, it is not important enough of an issue to spend a lot of time on, including reverting and arguing about it. Thanks again. – Corinne ( talk) 17:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
It's worth noting that, while MOS silence may be deliberate, there is no way to make that apparent to future editors. We should consider which is worse: Adding a sentence to indicate that this is up to editorial discretion, or having the issue brought up from time to time, possibly without awareness of previous discussions by any of the participating editors, to eternity or the end of Wikipedia, whichever comes first. ― Mandruss ☎ 07:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Comments are requested at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch
on whether it would be useful to mention "so-called '
protologisms'" in the Manual of Style section on
Neologisms and new compounds – if so, why, and if not, why not? This was the subject of an
earlier discussion on the same page with no clear consensus being reached. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk)
09:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
In reading MOS:STRAIGHT, I noted that my PC's keyboard does not have curly quotes, so I have no option other than straight quotes. I submit that this needs to added to the MoS subsection as a prime reason to standardise on straight quotes.
In reading MOS:SINGLE, as a long-time professional proofreader, I disagreed with the (now old-fashioned) style '[e]nclose quotations inside quotations with single quotation marks'. Current British practice is 'normally to enclose quoted matter between single quotation marks, and to use double quotation marks for a quotation within a quotation': [e.g.] 'Have you any idea,' he said, 'what "red mercury" is?' --Per New Hart's Rules (2005) p.85. The source also states 'People writing for the Internet should note that single quotation marks are regarded as easier to read on a screen than double ones.' Bjenks ( talk) 01:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Straight quotation marks are easier to type. As for single vs. double, please search the archives for what the enormous discussion on this, then come back here if you have something new to offer. E Eng 01:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
RGloucester reverted what is supposed to be the shortcut to the section about English varieties. If that is not a suitable shortcut, where else? -- George Ho ( talk) 18:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Unknown Pleasures#RfC: Italics for Pitchfork (website) magazine?. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C)
04:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello MOS editors. Is there a difference between BR Eng and Am Eng with regards to use of endashes and emdashes? I cannot see anything described at Comparison of American and British English. Please see this short thread for context. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 22:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
In the United Kingdom, the spaced en dash is the house style for certain major publishers, including the Penguin Group, the Cambridge University Press, and Routledge. However, this convention is not universal. The Oxford Guide to Style (2002, section 5.10.10) acknowledges that the spaced en dash is used by "other British publishers" but states that the Oxford University Press, like "most US publishers", uses the unspaced em dash.
I have never seen em dashes used in British books about British topics, only in American books or books by US writersdo you not recall writing? It's nice, though, that you've now seen the wisdom of backpedaling to generally.
Regarding this edit: the link prefixed with an unadorned section symbol, §, is an indication that the link is an internal link. From my writing experience, positional indicators such as "above" and "below" are discouraged, and with the specificity now available through hyperlinks, readers can easily locate the appropriate section by following the link. I appreciate, though, that some people may be accustomed to these indicators. Does anyone have any other views? isaacl ( talk) 15:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
[[#Whatever|above]]
, etc., as appropriate (and it would not be useful if it's in the same section, of course). Tony1 is correct that "above" and "below" are important cues that the material is on the same page, even as your own point is valid, that the material can be directly linked to. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
23:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Does this mean that if our article quotes a portion of text from a religion's scriptures that does so, we should use square-brackets to decapitalize the "He" in "but He did not have regard for Cain and his offering". Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
PS: If we think it necessary, we can add a clause in that section at MOS:ISMS to indicate not to make such changes in directly quoted material, but I'm skeptical this is necessary, since the question is rarely raised (this may be a first, in fact). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
At some point (I haven't dug it out of diffs yet) someone added the following to MOS:INSTITUTIONS:
The word the at the start of a title is usually uncapitalized, but follow the institution's own usage (a degree from the University of Sydney; but researchers at The Ohio State University).
I have reverted this as clearly controversial and against consensus. This idea has come up very frequently at university and other organization articles, and in every single case I can recall, the consensus was that this was specialized-style fallacy overcapitalization, in particular just marketing-based aggrandizement, and was not some magical exception to MOS:CAPS. I note that it directly contradicts what has long been at MOS:CAPS, including specific wording to the contrary at MOS:CAPS#Institutions, and there is also no such exception at its subsection MOS:THECAPS, or MOS:TM. So, this was a guideline WP:POVFORK, and one that runs counter to years of consistent consensus against this overcapping, and three applicable guideline sections. If people want to see consensus change on the matter, open an RfC about it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Update: It was also already covered at
MOS:THEMUSIC. I've now cross-referenced all of these at
MOS:TM, and we can probably just remove the line item from the main MoS page. Either that, or replace it with a more general one that is not specific to "institutions", a minor sub-matter of the general rule. Scratch that; it's concise and seems to fit there, and as a more general matter is already covered at
WP:MOS#Capitalization of "The" and its cross-reference to
MOS:THECAPS. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
08:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: note the link that was removed pointed to additional details on a separate page. I feel it is more appropriate for a manual of style to give a link to the appropriate guidance, rather than just saying "the usual way". Would anyone else like to weigh in? isaacl ( talk) 15:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
#Titles
on the same MoS page (which does not cause a confusing reload of the same page), or to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Italics
, a more detailed drill-down on the same topic. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
23:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
A return to shared and neutral principles is long overdue. We have just seen fruitless discussion of provisions in the lead under the dubious and concealed title "WP:STYLEVAR", and the addition of a new section called "Retaining existing styles".
My inquiry addressed to SlimVirgin on this talkpage yielded no answer:
So I went looking for an answer myself. Slim Virgin turns out to be responsible for attempting to make that shortcut a "thing", in this edit to MOS on 31 August 2015. Among the addition and shifting of other stuff, note the insertion of "STYLEVAR". SV's two-word edit summary was "per talk". But there was no discussion of that insertion here at WT:MOS. What we do find is SV then using the shortcut at this talkpage as if it were something long-settled, fully transparent, and presumably discussed. It was never discussed.
With an edit summary reading "+ red", SV minutes before had created the redirect called "WP:STYLEVAR". Such an "official" WP shortcut is normally subject to scrutiny and discussion; this one never was discussed, anywhere by anyone.
Apparently because WP:STYLEVAR was nowhere to be seen, though SV often referred to it, someone added a new section in MOS with the shortcut MOS:STYLEVAR. We have seen more confusion since then. The section had other problems, apart from duplication and mixed-up signage. It incorporated a shortcut that reloads the huge MOS page itself, where an internal link would be the proper procedure (heaven help mobile-device users). It had a note (a "footnote") that takes us not to the foot of the page but to the section dealing with italics. It perpetuated one set of contested interpretations of ArbCom decisions and ignored others. All of this it did without discussion, though there was some tinkering of the section later by others.
This sort of to and fro has been going on for far too long: SV removes wording from the lead that has stood for about 12 months; others restore it; SV or someone else reverts, appealing to "consensus" and using a spurious WP shortcut that was never anything like consensual.
I've removed contested material from the lead altogether. It was never consensual, and it is now redundant given the new section "Retaining existing styles". I've put WP:STYLEVAR among the shortcuts to that section, so at last it is visible to everyone (not just those who edit the lead).
I've shortened that new section, reducing it to something minimal we can all accept. Perhaps that is enough; but if anyone wants to add content, let them justify it here. This page is still under ArbCom sanctions, and we are quite rightly required to get consensus for the provisions of MOS.
Looking forward to that discussion, and to no insertion of controversy again.
Tony (talk) 10:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so (for example, it is acceptable to change from American to British spelling if the article concerns a British topic, and vice versa). Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk.
This piece of the lead has continued on since then in various forms, and I believe it should stay. It has been an important principle, and I believe that consensus supports it. I do not think that it was wise of you to remove it, and can't understand why, given that it seems to have originated with you. Prior to that edit, various forms of the same passage had been part of the MoS from 3 March 2006, with an addition by the above mentioned party following an arbitration case. In any case, I do think it is important that editors are made aware of the fact that ArbCom has issued multiple rulings on this matter, and that discretionary sanctions have the potential to apply. Furthermore, anything we can do to discourage edit-warring, whilst also maintaining the primacy of the MoS, should be done. RGloucester — ☎ 16:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
You point out that SV first inserted a version of the contested wording. She started a new section for it: "Disputes over style issues". Back before we suspected what use SV would make of her text, all I did was to trim the version I found and join it into a tidier lead. Note my clear edit summary, inviting discussion. Just two weeks ago we find Slim wishing it back into its own section: "This used to have its own section within the MoS, but it was moved to the lead. Perhaps we ought to move it back so that it's clearer as a principle".
I agree. Given the use her wording has been put to over the years (most often by SV herself), the surreptitious addition of "WP:STYLEVAR" (which took the hapless reader merely to the top of the MOS page), and the fact that there is now a separate section (called "Retaining existing styles"), I've done what SV has wanted. I've also removed SV's extra provision: "Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk." But this is not supported in any of the ArbCom links.
Here is what we do find from ArbCom (my underlining): "Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike". But we have seen SV herself appealing to "WP:STYLEVAR" to do just that: to go against MOS:LQ, which has always enjoyed sturdy consensus despite all attempts against it from SV and others.
Does anyone think ArbCom is happy for an editor to alter style that Wikipedia does mandate? ( "As for punctuation, I don't use LQ ...".) Hmm.
Have I answered your implicit question, RGloucester? Your last sentence: "Furthermore, anything we can do to discourage edit-warring, whilst also maintaining the primacy of the MoS, should be done." This is what I've done, in my minimalised common-ground text. For which I invite further discussion—and any additions that are demonstrated, here at talk, to be necessary and to reflect current consensus.
Tony (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
RGloucester, I'm glad that's sorted out. We agree: many recent revisions have created a mess. So have several that are not so recent, as I have shown. It's time for a collegial effort to bring about stability. Let's all work together. That's what I propose, starting from the simple shared foundation I've now put into MOS.
Best-practice Wikipedian procedure, in such a case:
SpinningSpark, you'll understand my need to sweep things clean earlier (as I saw it). Of course your own work was well motivated. I for one think some of it should go back in. The centralised information (linked using "MOS:VAR" especially) is important. Let's work together to incorporate that element again properly. I can suggest ways of linking that don't reload the page, and others that will not load another page twice. Let's keep things navigable and readable, especially to help those unfamiliar with the sprawling suite of MOS pages (this "MOSCentral" is daunting all by itself).
Kahastok, and everyone else here who cares about MOS as a core resource for Wikipedia, let's insist to everyone that good intentions are not enough. This has been a perennially difficult area to get right. Despite claims that one or another version is time-honoured and stable, no version ever has been. Can we all move forward cautiously, with respect for views held on all sides? (Better, let there be no "sides".) If anything is inserted in the absence of well-conducted dialogue, and without good notice in edit summaries, the same old problems will return. Could be days, weeks, or years: but as we have seen, they will come back to bite us.
As I see it, keeping things short and simple is the best default strategy. What we have right now can be accepted by everyone, right? Some will think X is missing, some will clamour for Y instead. So a basic version lacking both X and Y may be best.
I suggest a completely new talkpage section below (referencing this one), for orderly discussion toward stability in "Retaining existing styles" and the all-important lead. Step by systematic step.
Tony (talk) 07:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm citing a webpage whose title is simply and exactly "2010-Present". When I cited that page using {{ cite web}}, I used that just as presented. Another editor, referring to Wikipedia's standards for dashes, changed it to "2010–Present". Is there an SOP for making or not making such a change? — fourthords | =Λ= | 23:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Can
Hong Kong English,
Philippine English and
Singaporean English be included to that list to distinguish related articles from the prevailing dialect (
British English) used in articles about Southeast Asia. Irish English is obviously related to formal British English since they are next door to each other but the Philippines and the United States are halfway around the world so unless a reader is well versed in history, this is not always clear. In practical terms, it is annnoying to correct the proper
date format from British to Philippine since Philippine-related articles use
their own variant (mmmmddyyyy) (mdy).
Shhhhwwww!! (
talk)
04:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Moved from archive for closing
The general proposal is: Shall we stop implying support for pull quotes in our documentation, yes or no. The specific proposal doesn't include text to flat-out forbid pull quotes, they are just no longer mentioned. Herostratus ( talk) 17:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
(A " pull quote" repeats text that is also in the main body of the article, typically in a box or highlighted in some other way, to emphasize it and/or for page layout enhancement. This RfC devolves from a long discussion, here, which indicated very little use of or support for pull quotes in the Wikipedia.)
The suggested specific edits are shown below. Deletions are showed as bolded struckthrough and additions or changes are shown underlined
Specific changes
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
1) At this WP:MOS page, change MOS:BLOCKQUOTE as shown:
2) Move {{ Pull quote}} to {{ Cquote}} to and {{ Reduced pull quote}} to {{ Rquote}} (these already exists as redirects; this is simply to remove any reference to pull quote from the template name). 3) {{ Pull quote/boilerplate}} is transcluded into the documentation for {{ Quote box}}, {{ Quote frame}}, {{ Cquote}}, and {{ Rquote}}. Rename this page and edit it as follows:
4) Edit the "Usage" sections of {{ Quote box}}, {{ Quote frame}}, {{ Cquote}}, and {{ Rquote}} (which comes just below the above text) as appropriate to remove mentions of pull quotes. For instance, the edit for {{ Cquote}} would be
5) If we've missed any other mentions of pull quotes in any documentation, remove those also. IMPORTANT NOTE: This leaves the following warning at the top of {{ Quote box}}, {{ Quote frame}}, {{ Cquote}}, and {{ Rquote}}:
Which leaves these templates with little function (technically, although editors may continue to use them in defiance of the warning template). This is intentional. Removing the template, which amounts to formally permitting the templates to be used for regular quotes, is a contentious question and will be part of a separate RfC down the line. Herostratus ( talk) 17:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC) |
Also, just FYI, here is an example of how pull quotes work and look
| ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
You don't need to read all this text. Just scan the page with the realization that all of the text in the little boxes repeats text found in the main body of the article. That is what pull quotes do.
Pull quotes are a technique used by magazines as a layout device. The make the page layout sportier and more inviting to the eye, or are supposed to. They also emphasize and highlight some passage. This may interest the reader (who may be just scanning through the magazine's pages) and draw her into the article. In the opinion of most – really, virtually all – editors, this is not really an appropriate device for an encyclopedia. We are not eyeball bait. We aren't paid by how many views our articles get. We have no need to or interest in drawing the reader into the article in this way. In fact, use of pull quotes would, in this writer's opinion, serve only to confuse the reader.
This is why pull quotes are never used here – virtually never. Some editors claim they see them from time to time. I've been here eleven years and I've only seen one use of a pull quote, and that was because someone pointed one out to me in a discussion of pull quotes. So whether its "virtually never used" or "almost actually never used", they are very rare.
At the same time, this writer is not an advocate of straitjacketing the editors. There are good reason for this – we aren't a top-down hierarchy and fail if we try to be, we can crowdsource format as well as content to arrive at best solutions, and it's better for morale to give editors as much creative control as is consistent with good layout. As a volunteer organization, morale is very important. At the same time, we aren't an anarchy. But in my experience our current rules can be used to make a bad layout – too many images, or conversely walls of text, and so forth – and these are best handled by correcting and educating editors on an article-by-article basis.
Herostratus, This talk page And, to be honest, I'm tired of talking about pull quotes. We don't use them, they don't help us in our mission. This really ought to be unanimously accepted RfC. We shouldn't even need an RfC, but an editor objected to the proposition, and so here we are; getting anything done here is like pulling teeth, it seems sometime. But OTOH, democracy. As you see all of the quotes above are pull quotes. If you like what I've done here you can vote against the proposal, I guess. As to the larger question of how strict we should be about whether or not a quote can have a box around it – which is not at issue in the RfC, but indirectly affects it – for my opinion I'll drop a real (non-pull) quote:
That quote above was a real quote, not a pull, quote, just as an example of that. It's formatted with {{ Quote}}, which is basically HTML <blockquote>...</blockquote>, and is the only formally permitted way to show a quote in an article, although in real life editors use the boxed and big-quote templates above (which are supposed to only be used for pull quotes) for regular quotes. Herostratus ( talk) 16:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC) |
The changes in #3 are not really necessary and kind of miss the point. The note about Rquote in it would, if changed as above, just introduce a new conflict with MoS by suggesting that short quotes (which MoS says to do inline, as do all style guides except when addressing pull quotes) be put in a decorative template. We do not want people using Rquote to format short quotations. The FAC crowd raised hell about this stuff a few months ago because several of them like to include documentary excerpts in sidebars. So, we should create a template for this purpose called something like {{ Document excerpt sidebar}}, and sharply limit it, both in its documentation and in MoS, to be used for nothing but excerpts from cited sources. Not for quotation emphasis, not for pull quotes, and not for anything that is a WP:UNDUE problem, like giving excessive attention to primary sources that are dubious or one-sided. That should be enough of a compromise to get past this "our faction versus your faction" stuff that mired the last version of this discussion. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
One question is where this will leave {{ Quote box}}, {{ Quote frame}}, {{ Cquote}}, and {{ Rquote}}. Technically they wouldn't have any function anymore. But in real life 1) nobody has been using them for pull quotes anyway (since nobody uses pull quotes) and 2) some editors use them for regular quotes (in defiance of the documentation). This is all discussed in exhaustive detail at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 184.
My expectation is that, if this proposal is adopted, nothing about actual usage will change (people will continue to not use pull quotes, and some editors will continue to use {{ Quote box}}, {{ Quote frame}}, {{ Cquote}}, and {{ Rquote}} for regular quotes). Based on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 184, there is some support for formally permitting {{ Quote box}} (but maybe not the others) for regular quotes (by changing the documentation, e. g. by removing the "{{warning|This template should {{strong|not be used}} for block quotations in article text.}}" warning etc.). But of course a separate RfC would have to be run on that question. Herostratus ( talk) 17:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 185 | Archive 186 | Archive 187 | Archive 188 | Archive 189 | Archive 190 | → | Archive 195 |
Which is correct?
I can't find clarification in the MoS and I see it both ways, so I don't know which way it should be. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 00:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I would go with singular for species and plural for genus, since most of the biological sources seem to do so, for reasons Sminthopsis outlines. It's semantically meaningful, because the species within a genus are generally quite distinct. Felis catus [yes, you can also treat it as a subspecies, but just go with the simple version for the sake of this example] is a small species of cat, in a very particular way: any member of this species will happily breed with other members of the species from anywhere in the world, and regardless of their often marked phenotypic differences. By contrast, Felis is a genus of cats; they are distinct from each other, and will usually not interbreed unless forced to by captivity or (in the wild) desperation due to lack of an available mate of their own species, even when some of them look more alike than do various different domestic breeds of F. catus. It's fine for a WP editor to use the singular for a monophyletic genus; all of WP is under constant revision, so "it might not be monophyletic forever" is irrelevant in this publication. It wouldn't make much sense, really, to write something like "Mezzettia is a genus of plants in family Annonaceae" when there is only one Mezzettia. However, it doesn't make good sense, either, to have (as Alphonsea does right now) "Alphonsea is a genus of plant in the family Annonaceae" when there are dozens of Alphonsea species of plants. If I eat a big bag of gummy bears, I do not say "I ate almost half a pound of gummy bear, at least three dozen of it." If I eat one large sandwich, however, I also don't say "I'm very full from eating so many sandwiches." I.e., let the language do what it normally does, and don't try to hammer it into unnatural WP:SSF molds, especially when we (and more importantly, our readers) don't get anything useful out of the endeavor. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
We've had four opinions, three in favor of plural and one for singular. Searches of Wikipedia and Google for "is a genus of (butterfly/butterflies) (moth/moths) (bat/bats) (etc.)" show that the plural is more common but not overwhelmingly so.
We can (a) let it go and continue to let people do as they wish and be inconsistent like the rest of the world, (b) be prescriptive and settle on plural following the majority, (c) make it another VAR thing where what was written first shouldn't be changed without good reason, or, I'm open to other suggestions.
I suspect we'll compromise on (a), though I'm a prescriptive sort and would prefer (b). Is there a need for any further discussion? Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 23:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Hmains: You removed "Where there is disagreement on the style to use in an article, and the guidelines do not give a reason for using one over the other, then editors should defer to the style that was first used in the article." In essence, this is what is said in all four of the specific guidelines. It is just a summary of what they say. I take it you do not agree with the passage, but it is surely a fair reflection of the guidelines. Spinning Spark 21:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Where more than one style is acceptable under the Manual of Style, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. [a] If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. If a style or similar debate becomes intractable, see if a rewrite can render the issue irrelevant.
Where this manual provides options, consistency should be maintained within an article unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable. [1] If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.
SlimVirgin recently undid this edit [2], as have I. The edit summary "Closing another WP:GAMING / WP:LAWYER loophole" seems to be somewhat unusual - there is no loophole in the rule that, unless a particular style is required by the MOS, in areas where there are many acceptable styles the existing one should generally be maintained unless there is consensus to change it. That longstanding principle of the MOS is a key aspect of the MOS and should not be changed lightly, and particularly not in that manner. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 02:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason.
The wording has been there for years, and it matters, for the ultra-obvious reason that it does not mean "acceptable to any random person for who-knows-what reason", it means "acceptable under WP's own style guidelines". Otherwise, it would mean that any article full of "ain't" wouldn't be editable to remove that since "ain't" is acceptable in many forms of vernacular English. And so on. It would enable a firehose of WP:SSF editwarring. I won't speculate on why SlimVirgin every several months comes and makes this drive-by deletion without consensus, but it's tendentious. I do know that a lot of editing gaggles that are overly proprietary about "their" content would like to see that wording removed so they can push all kinds of style quirks found only in specialist publications, but that's a WP:NOTHERE can of worms we can't open. This is not the Give Me My Specialized Style or Give Me Death WP:BATTLEGROUND. It's taken a decade and half to actually get WP into a state that mostly complies with WP:TECHNICAL, MOS:JARGON, and related guidelines. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
"The way that the MOS works, any style which is not prohibited, and for which there is no other style prescribed, is "acceptable", whether that style is explicitly mentioned by the MOS or not."
Yes, exactly. There are literally thousands of possible style points on which MoS says nothing at all, on purpose (read through New Hart's Rules, The Chicago Manual of Style, and Scientific Style and Format some time; we'd have to grow MoS by around 5000% to encompass all that stuff). WP's MoS leaves most matters to editorial discretion. What it can't do is throw itself in the trash after years of hard-won compromises on the style items that editors will fight about incessantly, by allowing pundits who "accept" some MoS-conflicting style to declare it "accepted" and editwar to impose or defend it in little fiefdoms. There's also a clear subtext that's been running around lately that older articles should somehow be completely exempt from compliance with later guidelines, starting with MoS. This obviously can't happen. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
15:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
For the record, my position is that there is no difference: a style is "acceptable" for Wikipedia if and only if it is "acceptable under the Manual of Style", because the MOS is by definition the place where a style could be deemed unacceptable. Certainly the new text cannot mean that only styles explicitly mentioned by the MOS are acceptable, because as SMcCandlish wrote "There are literally thousands of possible style points on which MoS says nothing at all, on purpose ...". I do not support including meaningless language in the MOS. I do think that if something is required by the MOS, no other style is "acceptable", but that is not the issue I am concerned about in this discussion, which is just about the words "under the Manual of Style". — Carl ( CBM · talk) 19:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Should the passage If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. If a style or similar debate becomes intractable, see if a rewrite can render the issue irrelevant., or similar wording, be added to the "Retaining existing styles" section? 15:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Support. All four specific guidelines referenced in the section say essentially this, it is consistent with Arbitration Committee rulings on this matter, [10] [11] and is precisely the same wording as already in the lead of the MOS. Placing it here (or something similar) puts all the summary information regarding style variations in one place for the convenience of readers linked to that section. Spinning Spark 15:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Conditional support. I will support this only if an explanation is added that consistency for matters not addressed in the MOS should not be enforced unless there exists a consensus among reliable external sources, such as printed style guides, that the matter should be consistent within an article. We should not enforce consistency to a greater degree than typical quality English writing. Jc3s5h ( talk) 15:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Conditional support: It also has to remain in the MOS lead. It was put there as a general principle, not just a line-item about ENGVAR/DATERET/ERA/CITEVAR matters in particular, and this is important. The ArbCom action that has involved MoS has been about a) infoboxes (and mostly about whether to have one at an article at all, which is not an MoS matter but a content dispute); b) date anto-formatting and auto-linking, which doesn't even exist here any longer; and c) nationalistic campaigning about punctuation nitpicks that are not actually subject to ENGVAR. So, none of the things for which that language was added to MoS to address are actually ENGVAR/DATERET/ERA/CITEVAR concerns at all. That said, yes, it would help to have all three of these points included in MOS:STYLEVAR. If anyone objects to using the lead-copied wording, be clear what these points are:
The principal danger we have here in inserting something to this effect directly into MOS:STYLEVAR is wording it poorly, in a way that increases rather than dispels proprietary/territorial/ WP:OWN behavior. I would support using the MOS lead language quoted above, verbatim, since it encapsulates all of the points very concisely with careful word choices ("If", "an article", "used" in past tense, etc.). Any rewrite of it to "customize" it for STYLEVAR would need very careful examination, and I'm highly skeptical the quoted wording can be improved upon without negative side effects. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment One thing we want to avoid is giving a perception that discussion about style matters is the intended outcome. The intention is that, unless the MOS says otherwise, existing styles should be silently left alone, and new changes should be brought into line with the existing style of each article. The underlying motivation for these principles is that discussion about issues with no objective "right or wrong" has a particular tendency to waste everyone's time (cf. bikeshed effect), and so we want people to focus on more productive matters, not on which optional style should be used in an article. I am afraid the proposed language doesn't convey this clearly enough. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 20:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I thought that, when there are more than one person in a photo, and the caption mentions the names of one (or more) of the people in the image, it is a good idea to indicate which one is which with at least one word, "right" and/or "left". I also thought that normally, those words ("right", "left") are in italics. I thought I remembered seeing that in art books and catalogs. In this edit, Mitch Ames removed the italics from "right" that I had just added. I didn't understand the reason for using regular font for "right" and "left", but before I reverted, I decided to see what the WP:Manual of Style had to say about it. I found the following in MOS:CAPTION, the section "Formatting of captions", third bulleted item:
The text of captions should not be specially formatted, except in ways that would apply if it occurred in the main text (e.g., italics for the Latin name of a species).
If I understand this correctly, and we follow this, Mitch Ames is right. However, I prefer italics for "left" and "right". Compare:
I didn't start a discussion with Mitch Ames because it appeared that, according to the MOS, he was right, and I've been busy, but I thought I'd start a discussion about this.
I would like to point out that if the image is of a painting, the painting title will be in italics, but the necessity of indicating which person is which, or where a building or object is in the image, with "left" and/or "right", would occur more often in the caption of a photograph than in the caption for a painting, so the likelihood of having a title in italics and a word such as "right" in italics in the same caption would be minimal. – Corinne ( talk) 03:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The text of captions should not be specially formattedsimply means that the whole caption doesn't go in italics, or small caps, or anything else, to distinguish it from article text, as you sometimes see in some publications. It's silent on what one might do with stuff like (r) and (l) or (right) and (left) or (foreground). E Eng 19:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
...makes it clear the words are not part of the thought of the caption...— But the words are explicitly part of the thought of the caption. The caption describes the picture, and the positions of the people in the picture are a legitimate part of the description. Mitch Ames ( talk) 05:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
As mentioned above, italics are for emphasis, and so personally I think it is unusual to emphasize a position indicator. isaacl ( talk) 16:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
This is certainly something that should be left up to the individual editor, for various good reasons. One good reason is that (as we can see above) there is no one clear correct or better way. A second good reason is that adding another needless rule bogs down the MOS with more detail and makes it harder to learn and harder to use. A third good reason is that creating a rule means enforcement, it puts interactions about the matter into an enforcement mode where editors are playing rules cop with other editors and this is not as functional as peer-to-peer interactions. A fourth good reason is that there's zero evidence that it matters to the reader.
A fifth good reason is that micromanaging editors to this level is demoralizing and not how you attract and nurture a staff of volunteer editors (for instance we have a stupid micromanaging rule that I have to write "in June 1940" and not "in June of 1940" which is how I naturally write, and every stupid micromanaging rule like this is just another reason to just say screw it. As the Bible says "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn" ( 1 Timothy 5:18, paraphrased from Deuteronomy 25:4) which updated means "Let the editor who did the actual work of looking up the refs and writing the friggen thing -- you know, the actual work of the project -- be at least allowed the satisfaction of presenting it as she thinks best, within reasonable constraints".
That's five and that ought to be enough although I'm sure I can come up with more if pressed.
If you run into a situation where (as the OP noted) "In this edit, Mitch Ames removed the italics from "right" that I had just added" then play it as it lays, guided by WP:BRD. Anything that you add is subject to redaction and then discussion per WP:BRD. In this case, Mitch Ames would have been well within his rights. WP:BRD in these cases just means "I liked it better before, prove your edit is objectively an improvement". Your options are to let it go (recommended!) or open a thread on the talk page and maybe you can convince Mitch Ames and the other editors that, after all, the italics are an improvement in this particular case (if that's how you want to spend your energy).
Conversely, if the italics had been there for a while (sufficient to be part of the stable version of the article) then the removal of the italics would be subject to rollback per WP:BRD and you would be within your rights to roll back the change.
This means different articles will do it differently. This annoys a certain type of editor. Oh well. Herostratus ( talk) 17:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
1) There is no "stupid micromanaging rule that [you] have to write 'in June 1940' and not 'in June of 1940'"; there's just a rule that you can't editwar tendentiously to prevent others from removing the unnecessary "of", or to force the "of" into existing content. This applies to similar guidelines, too; e.g. no one has ever been banned or blocked for adding bare URLs as citations despite WP:CITE advising against this. Editors get into "MoS flamewar" trouble – they self-demoralize and demoralize those around them – when they try to stop changes to "their" content by others seeking guideline compliance. It's almost always over-asserting personal (often professional or niche) preference ("what I learned in school", "how we do it at the newspaper I work at", "what the journals I submit to expect", etc.) in defiance of what WP's own guidelines want to see. This is a territorial, WP:VESTED urge, and people have to resist it, since there are thousands of editors and it's inevitable ( WP:MERCILESS) that content will be changed by later volunteers, who all have radically different preferences. The War of the Preferences is only kept in check by a style guide and agreement to follow it as a WP guideline. Every time someone takes a "don't you dare change my beautiful prose" position over style trivia, they are exhibiting a WP:COMPETENCE problem.
Making editors happy is a bottom-rung WP goal to the extent it is one at all; satisfying readers is the main public one, and being successful as a project is the main internal one; both of these require a minimization of strife so the work can continue, through compromise, i.e. through editors learning they cannot always get what they want and that their individual wants take a back seat. Those who refuse to write any way but their way should go be bloggers or novelists. MoS is not micromanaging editors, only content. This is necessary to a limited extent, and participation in that nit-pick management is optional, just as are all the other forms of chrome-polishing around here, from GAN and FAC, to categorization details, to filling out infoboxes and navboxes, etc. We resist willy-nilly expansion of MoS's extent, for all the reasons you two just outlined. A personal feeling of micromanagement can, in my experience, be traced directly to over-identification with the content (a failure to actually release it to the community except in name), and over-investment in winning style-related disputes (as some kind of sport debate or holy war), or both of those issues at once. (I initially arrived at WP and MoS exhibiting both, and had to unlearn those approaches.) MoS's stability and its conflict-reduction effectiveness are more important than its line-item details.
2) The "demonstrate that it's a real problem" process only applies to adding something new. It's fallacious reasoning when applied in an attempt to remove something long-standing from MoS (or any other policy, guideline, etc.); the very existence of the rule makes the incidence low or non-existent. "I want to delete the rule to not capitalize for emphasis because people aren't capitalizing for emphasis" is invalid logic. We do sometimes remove a rule, but it's almost always on the basis of obsolescence, or it being an implausible addition no one bothered to question back when it was added (especially on some of the more nit-picky subpages that aren't watchlisted enough).
—
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
10:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I was specifically describing the use of italics within a sentence in prose. Italics in this situation is for mild, local emphasis, whereas bold within a sentence is for stronger emphasis. isaacl ( talk) 03:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate all the comments here. Everyone is right – the best formatting for the position-indicating words ("left", "right", etc.) may depend upon the formatting of the rest of the caption; the question of whether one is justified in reverting a change in formatting may depend upon how long a particular format has been in the article; since various formatting styles seem to be acceptable, there is no good reason to require one style over another in the MOS, and doing so may cause more problems than it is worth; and finally, it is not important enough of an issue to spend a lot of time on, including reverting and arguing about it. Thanks again. – Corinne ( talk) 17:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
It's worth noting that, while MOS silence may be deliberate, there is no way to make that apparent to future editors. We should consider which is worse: Adding a sentence to indicate that this is up to editorial discretion, or having the issue brought up from time to time, possibly without awareness of previous discussions by any of the participating editors, to eternity or the end of Wikipedia, whichever comes first. ― Mandruss ☎ 07:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Comments are requested at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch
on whether it would be useful to mention "so-called '
protologisms'" in the Manual of Style section on
Neologisms and new compounds – if so, why, and if not, why not? This was the subject of an
earlier discussion on the same page with no clear consensus being reached. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk)
09:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
In reading MOS:STRAIGHT, I noted that my PC's keyboard does not have curly quotes, so I have no option other than straight quotes. I submit that this needs to added to the MoS subsection as a prime reason to standardise on straight quotes.
In reading MOS:SINGLE, as a long-time professional proofreader, I disagreed with the (now old-fashioned) style '[e]nclose quotations inside quotations with single quotation marks'. Current British practice is 'normally to enclose quoted matter between single quotation marks, and to use double quotation marks for a quotation within a quotation': [e.g.] 'Have you any idea,' he said, 'what "red mercury" is?' --Per New Hart's Rules (2005) p.85. The source also states 'People writing for the Internet should note that single quotation marks are regarded as easier to read on a screen than double ones.' Bjenks ( talk) 01:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Straight quotation marks are easier to type. As for single vs. double, please search the archives for what the enormous discussion on this, then come back here if you have something new to offer. E Eng 01:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
RGloucester reverted what is supposed to be the shortcut to the section about English varieties. If that is not a suitable shortcut, where else? -- George Ho ( talk) 18:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Unknown Pleasures#RfC: Italics for Pitchfork (website) magazine?. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C)
04:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello MOS editors. Is there a difference between BR Eng and Am Eng with regards to use of endashes and emdashes? I cannot see anything described at Comparison of American and British English. Please see this short thread for context. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 22:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
In the United Kingdom, the spaced en dash is the house style for certain major publishers, including the Penguin Group, the Cambridge University Press, and Routledge. However, this convention is not universal. The Oxford Guide to Style (2002, section 5.10.10) acknowledges that the spaced en dash is used by "other British publishers" but states that the Oxford University Press, like "most US publishers", uses the unspaced em dash.
I have never seen em dashes used in British books about British topics, only in American books or books by US writersdo you not recall writing? It's nice, though, that you've now seen the wisdom of backpedaling to generally.
Regarding this edit: the link prefixed with an unadorned section symbol, §, is an indication that the link is an internal link. From my writing experience, positional indicators such as "above" and "below" are discouraged, and with the specificity now available through hyperlinks, readers can easily locate the appropriate section by following the link. I appreciate, though, that some people may be accustomed to these indicators. Does anyone have any other views? isaacl ( talk) 15:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
[[#Whatever|above]]
, etc., as appropriate (and it would not be useful if it's in the same section, of course). Tony1 is correct that "above" and "below" are important cues that the material is on the same page, even as your own point is valid, that the material can be directly linked to. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
23:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Does this mean that if our article quotes a portion of text from a religion's scriptures that does so, we should use square-brackets to decapitalize the "He" in "but He did not have regard for Cain and his offering". Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
PS: If we think it necessary, we can add a clause in that section at MOS:ISMS to indicate not to make such changes in directly quoted material, but I'm skeptical this is necessary, since the question is rarely raised (this may be a first, in fact). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
At some point (I haven't dug it out of diffs yet) someone added the following to MOS:INSTITUTIONS:
The word the at the start of a title is usually uncapitalized, but follow the institution's own usage (a degree from the University of Sydney; but researchers at The Ohio State University).
I have reverted this as clearly controversial and against consensus. This idea has come up very frequently at university and other organization articles, and in every single case I can recall, the consensus was that this was specialized-style fallacy overcapitalization, in particular just marketing-based aggrandizement, and was not some magical exception to MOS:CAPS. I note that it directly contradicts what has long been at MOS:CAPS, including specific wording to the contrary at MOS:CAPS#Institutions, and there is also no such exception at its subsection MOS:THECAPS, or MOS:TM. So, this was a guideline WP:POVFORK, and one that runs counter to years of consistent consensus against this overcapping, and three applicable guideline sections. If people want to see consensus change on the matter, open an RfC about it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Update: It was also already covered at
MOS:THEMUSIC. I've now cross-referenced all of these at
MOS:TM, and we can probably just remove the line item from the main MoS page. Either that, or replace it with a more general one that is not specific to "institutions", a minor sub-matter of the general rule. Scratch that; it's concise and seems to fit there, and as a more general matter is already covered at
WP:MOS#Capitalization of "The" and its cross-reference to
MOS:THECAPS. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
08:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: note the link that was removed pointed to additional details on a separate page. I feel it is more appropriate for a manual of style to give a link to the appropriate guidance, rather than just saying "the usual way". Would anyone else like to weigh in? isaacl ( talk) 15:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
#Titles
on the same MoS page (which does not cause a confusing reload of the same page), or to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Italics
, a more detailed drill-down on the same topic. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
23:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
A return to shared and neutral principles is long overdue. We have just seen fruitless discussion of provisions in the lead under the dubious and concealed title "WP:STYLEVAR", and the addition of a new section called "Retaining existing styles".
My inquiry addressed to SlimVirgin on this talkpage yielded no answer:
So I went looking for an answer myself. Slim Virgin turns out to be responsible for attempting to make that shortcut a "thing", in this edit to MOS on 31 August 2015. Among the addition and shifting of other stuff, note the insertion of "STYLEVAR". SV's two-word edit summary was "per talk". But there was no discussion of that insertion here at WT:MOS. What we do find is SV then using the shortcut at this talkpage as if it were something long-settled, fully transparent, and presumably discussed. It was never discussed.
With an edit summary reading "+ red", SV minutes before had created the redirect called "WP:STYLEVAR". Such an "official" WP shortcut is normally subject to scrutiny and discussion; this one never was discussed, anywhere by anyone.
Apparently because WP:STYLEVAR was nowhere to be seen, though SV often referred to it, someone added a new section in MOS with the shortcut MOS:STYLEVAR. We have seen more confusion since then. The section had other problems, apart from duplication and mixed-up signage. It incorporated a shortcut that reloads the huge MOS page itself, where an internal link would be the proper procedure (heaven help mobile-device users). It had a note (a "footnote") that takes us not to the foot of the page but to the section dealing with italics. It perpetuated one set of contested interpretations of ArbCom decisions and ignored others. All of this it did without discussion, though there was some tinkering of the section later by others.
This sort of to and fro has been going on for far too long: SV removes wording from the lead that has stood for about 12 months; others restore it; SV or someone else reverts, appealing to "consensus" and using a spurious WP shortcut that was never anything like consensual.
I've removed contested material from the lead altogether. It was never consensual, and it is now redundant given the new section "Retaining existing styles". I've put WP:STYLEVAR among the shortcuts to that section, so at last it is visible to everyone (not just those who edit the lead).
I've shortened that new section, reducing it to something minimal we can all accept. Perhaps that is enough; but if anyone wants to add content, let them justify it here. This page is still under ArbCom sanctions, and we are quite rightly required to get consensus for the provisions of MOS.
Looking forward to that discussion, and to no insertion of controversy again.
Tony (talk) 10:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so (for example, it is acceptable to change from American to British spelling if the article concerns a British topic, and vice versa). Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk.
This piece of the lead has continued on since then in various forms, and I believe it should stay. It has been an important principle, and I believe that consensus supports it. I do not think that it was wise of you to remove it, and can't understand why, given that it seems to have originated with you. Prior to that edit, various forms of the same passage had been part of the MoS from 3 March 2006, with an addition by the above mentioned party following an arbitration case. In any case, I do think it is important that editors are made aware of the fact that ArbCom has issued multiple rulings on this matter, and that discretionary sanctions have the potential to apply. Furthermore, anything we can do to discourage edit-warring, whilst also maintaining the primacy of the MoS, should be done. RGloucester — ☎ 16:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
You point out that SV first inserted a version of the contested wording. She started a new section for it: "Disputes over style issues". Back before we suspected what use SV would make of her text, all I did was to trim the version I found and join it into a tidier lead. Note my clear edit summary, inviting discussion. Just two weeks ago we find Slim wishing it back into its own section: "This used to have its own section within the MoS, but it was moved to the lead. Perhaps we ought to move it back so that it's clearer as a principle".
I agree. Given the use her wording has been put to over the years (most often by SV herself), the surreptitious addition of "WP:STYLEVAR" (which took the hapless reader merely to the top of the MOS page), and the fact that there is now a separate section (called "Retaining existing styles"), I've done what SV has wanted. I've also removed SV's extra provision: "Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk." But this is not supported in any of the ArbCom links.
Here is what we do find from ArbCom (my underlining): "Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike". But we have seen SV herself appealing to "WP:STYLEVAR" to do just that: to go against MOS:LQ, which has always enjoyed sturdy consensus despite all attempts against it from SV and others.
Does anyone think ArbCom is happy for an editor to alter style that Wikipedia does mandate? ( "As for punctuation, I don't use LQ ...".) Hmm.
Have I answered your implicit question, RGloucester? Your last sentence: "Furthermore, anything we can do to discourage edit-warring, whilst also maintaining the primacy of the MoS, should be done." This is what I've done, in my minimalised common-ground text. For which I invite further discussion—and any additions that are demonstrated, here at talk, to be necessary and to reflect current consensus.
Tony (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
RGloucester, I'm glad that's sorted out. We agree: many recent revisions have created a mess. So have several that are not so recent, as I have shown. It's time for a collegial effort to bring about stability. Let's all work together. That's what I propose, starting from the simple shared foundation I've now put into MOS.
Best-practice Wikipedian procedure, in such a case:
SpinningSpark, you'll understand my need to sweep things clean earlier (as I saw it). Of course your own work was well motivated. I for one think some of it should go back in. The centralised information (linked using "MOS:VAR" especially) is important. Let's work together to incorporate that element again properly. I can suggest ways of linking that don't reload the page, and others that will not load another page twice. Let's keep things navigable and readable, especially to help those unfamiliar with the sprawling suite of MOS pages (this "MOSCentral" is daunting all by itself).
Kahastok, and everyone else here who cares about MOS as a core resource for Wikipedia, let's insist to everyone that good intentions are not enough. This has been a perennially difficult area to get right. Despite claims that one or another version is time-honoured and stable, no version ever has been. Can we all move forward cautiously, with respect for views held on all sides? (Better, let there be no "sides".) If anything is inserted in the absence of well-conducted dialogue, and without good notice in edit summaries, the same old problems will return. Could be days, weeks, or years: but as we have seen, they will come back to bite us.
As I see it, keeping things short and simple is the best default strategy. What we have right now can be accepted by everyone, right? Some will think X is missing, some will clamour for Y instead. So a basic version lacking both X and Y may be best.
I suggest a completely new talkpage section below (referencing this one), for orderly discussion toward stability in "Retaining existing styles" and the all-important lead. Step by systematic step.
Tony (talk) 07:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm citing a webpage whose title is simply and exactly "2010-Present". When I cited that page using {{ cite web}}, I used that just as presented. Another editor, referring to Wikipedia's standards for dashes, changed it to "2010–Present". Is there an SOP for making or not making such a change? — fourthords | =Λ= | 23:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Can
Hong Kong English,
Philippine English and
Singaporean English be included to that list to distinguish related articles from the prevailing dialect (
British English) used in articles about Southeast Asia. Irish English is obviously related to formal British English since they are next door to each other but the Philippines and the United States are halfway around the world so unless a reader is well versed in history, this is not always clear. In practical terms, it is annnoying to correct the proper
date format from British to Philippine since Philippine-related articles use
their own variant (mmmmddyyyy) (mdy).
Shhhhwwww!! (
talk)
04:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Moved from archive for closing
The general proposal is: Shall we stop implying support for pull quotes in our documentation, yes or no. The specific proposal doesn't include text to flat-out forbid pull quotes, they are just no longer mentioned. Herostratus ( talk) 17:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
(A " pull quote" repeats text that is also in the main body of the article, typically in a box or highlighted in some other way, to emphasize it and/or for page layout enhancement. This RfC devolves from a long discussion, here, which indicated very little use of or support for pull quotes in the Wikipedia.)
The suggested specific edits are shown below. Deletions are showed as bolded struckthrough and additions or changes are shown underlined
Specific changes
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
1) At this WP:MOS page, change MOS:BLOCKQUOTE as shown:
2) Move {{ Pull quote}} to {{ Cquote}} to and {{ Reduced pull quote}} to {{ Rquote}} (these already exists as redirects; this is simply to remove any reference to pull quote from the template name). 3) {{ Pull quote/boilerplate}} is transcluded into the documentation for {{ Quote box}}, {{ Quote frame}}, {{ Cquote}}, and {{ Rquote}}. Rename this page and edit it as follows:
4) Edit the "Usage" sections of {{ Quote box}}, {{ Quote frame}}, {{ Cquote}}, and {{ Rquote}} (which comes just below the above text) as appropriate to remove mentions of pull quotes. For instance, the edit for {{ Cquote}} would be
5) If we've missed any other mentions of pull quotes in any documentation, remove those also. IMPORTANT NOTE: This leaves the following warning at the top of {{ Quote box}}, {{ Quote frame}}, {{ Cquote}}, and {{ Rquote}}:
Which leaves these templates with little function (technically, although editors may continue to use them in defiance of the warning template). This is intentional. Removing the template, which amounts to formally permitting the templates to be used for regular quotes, is a contentious question and will be part of a separate RfC down the line. Herostratus ( talk) 17:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC) |
Also, just FYI, here is an example of how pull quotes work and look
| ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
You don't need to read all this text. Just scan the page with the realization that all of the text in the little boxes repeats text found in the main body of the article. That is what pull quotes do.
Pull quotes are a technique used by magazines as a layout device. The make the page layout sportier and more inviting to the eye, or are supposed to. They also emphasize and highlight some passage. This may interest the reader (who may be just scanning through the magazine's pages) and draw her into the article. In the opinion of most – really, virtually all – editors, this is not really an appropriate device for an encyclopedia. We are not eyeball bait. We aren't paid by how many views our articles get. We have no need to or interest in drawing the reader into the article in this way. In fact, use of pull quotes would, in this writer's opinion, serve only to confuse the reader.
This is why pull quotes are never used here – virtually never. Some editors claim they see them from time to time. I've been here eleven years and I've only seen one use of a pull quote, and that was because someone pointed one out to me in a discussion of pull quotes. So whether its "virtually never used" or "almost actually never used", they are very rare.
At the same time, this writer is not an advocate of straitjacketing the editors. There are good reason for this – we aren't a top-down hierarchy and fail if we try to be, we can crowdsource format as well as content to arrive at best solutions, and it's better for morale to give editors as much creative control as is consistent with good layout. As a volunteer organization, morale is very important. At the same time, we aren't an anarchy. But in my experience our current rules can be used to make a bad layout – too many images, or conversely walls of text, and so forth – and these are best handled by correcting and educating editors on an article-by-article basis.
Herostratus, This talk page And, to be honest, I'm tired of talking about pull quotes. We don't use them, they don't help us in our mission. This really ought to be unanimously accepted RfC. We shouldn't even need an RfC, but an editor objected to the proposition, and so here we are; getting anything done here is like pulling teeth, it seems sometime. But OTOH, democracy. As you see all of the quotes above are pull quotes. If you like what I've done here you can vote against the proposal, I guess. As to the larger question of how strict we should be about whether or not a quote can have a box around it – which is not at issue in the RfC, but indirectly affects it – for my opinion I'll drop a real (non-pull) quote:
That quote above was a real quote, not a pull, quote, just as an example of that. It's formatted with {{ Quote}}, which is basically HTML <blockquote>...</blockquote>, and is the only formally permitted way to show a quote in an article, although in real life editors use the boxed and big-quote templates above (which are supposed to only be used for pull quotes) for regular quotes. Herostratus ( talk) 16:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC) |
The changes in #3 are not really necessary and kind of miss the point. The note about Rquote in it would, if changed as above, just introduce a new conflict with MoS by suggesting that short quotes (which MoS says to do inline, as do all style guides except when addressing pull quotes) be put in a decorative template. We do not want people using Rquote to format short quotations. The FAC crowd raised hell about this stuff a few months ago because several of them like to include documentary excerpts in sidebars. So, we should create a template for this purpose called something like {{ Document excerpt sidebar}}, and sharply limit it, both in its documentation and in MoS, to be used for nothing but excerpts from cited sources. Not for quotation emphasis, not for pull quotes, and not for anything that is a WP:UNDUE problem, like giving excessive attention to primary sources that are dubious or one-sided. That should be enough of a compromise to get past this "our faction versus your faction" stuff that mired the last version of this discussion. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
One question is where this will leave {{ Quote box}}, {{ Quote frame}}, {{ Cquote}}, and {{ Rquote}}. Technically they wouldn't have any function anymore. But in real life 1) nobody has been using them for pull quotes anyway (since nobody uses pull quotes) and 2) some editors use them for regular quotes (in defiance of the documentation). This is all discussed in exhaustive detail at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 184.
My expectation is that, if this proposal is adopted, nothing about actual usage will change (people will continue to not use pull quotes, and some editors will continue to use {{ Quote box}}, {{ Quote frame}}, {{ Cquote}}, and {{ Rquote}} for regular quotes). Based on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 184, there is some support for formally permitting {{ Quote box}} (but maybe not the others) for regular quotes (by changing the documentation, e. g. by removing the "{{warning|This template should {{strong|not be used}} for block quotations in article text.}}" warning etc.). But of course a separate RfC would have to be run on that question. Herostratus ( talk) 17:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)