Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Manual of Style and User talk:63.117.64.254: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →‎Images: resolved
 
General note: Introducing deliberate factual errors on Carl Weathers. (TW)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}}
{{shortcut|WT:MOSCO|WT:WPMOS}}


== Let's start ==


== October 2008 ==
I think, I hope, this is going to work, so let's begin. See for instance [[WP:RfA Review/Reflect]], which was enthusiastically attended; this is a recent project designed to get people to weigh in on RfA issues. The problem that led to the project was that a wide range of people were not buying in to the goals and methods at RfA. Lots of people were willing to complain, but few people were willing to help out by carefully considering their thoughts and participating in debate, for various reasons: they thought they were "out of the power structure" and wouldn't be listened to, and they were afraid that they wouldn't sound very smart if they tried to weigh in, because there were plenty of people who were fast to criticize, and the issues were complicated. Sound familiar?
[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Thanks for experimenting with {{#if:Carl Weathers|the page [[:Carl Weathers]] on}} Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, and has been [[Help:Reverting|reverted]] or removed. All information in the encyclopedia must be [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]] in a reliable published source. If you believe the information you added was correct, please [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|cite references or sources]] or discuss the changes on the article's [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] before making them. Please use [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|the sandbox]] for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia|welcome page]] if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-error1 --> [[User:DoubleBlue|<font color="darkblue">'''Double'''</font><font color="blue">Blue</font>]] ([[User talk:DoubleBlue|Talk)]] 01:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

:''If this is a shared [[IP address]], and you didn't make any [[Wikipedia:vandalism|unconstructive]] edits, consider [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?|creating an account]] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.''
Let's do something similar in some ways and not similar in others. Our job is easier in the sense that we already have a long record of questions and answers, so we know what people want to talk about; our job is harder because there are a huge number of talk archives that have various bits of relevant information. So we don't really have less work to do than the folks at [[WP:RfA Review]]; we probably have more. It's taking them several months just to collate the answers. [Removed stuff that was more relevant to 0.7; that's being dealt with now.] - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 14:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

:I see two projects, here, both intriguing; The first is a detailed copyedit and "certification" of the 30,000 articles of WP Version 1.0. The second is what might be termed a "MOS Review", as that would take the form of the questions and answers you mention. I can think of a methodology for the first (I'm thinking Milhist's tag & assess drive as a template), but I'm nowhere near familiar enough with MOS to begin to contemplate the second. For the [[WP:RREV|RfA review]], we drafted questions about the subject - in this case, you'd probably break the MOS into Images, Citations & References, Links, Infoboxes, Section Headings, See Also:, Naming conventions, and other sections, then get impressions on each - what works, what doesn't. RfA review was very specifically as open as possible, and you'd want the same here - but the key is that you don't bias the results by actually asking questions, just asking for opinions and letting editors throw them against the wall. Then, whatever sentiments seem to be the most widespread are used to guide thinking on the next phase, where you have editors offer suggestions on how to fix those problems - which is where we are with RfA Review right now. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Claims]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Evidence]] </small> 18:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Just a personal note: taking on a big project that is inherently about conflict makes me uneasy; I'd appreciate participation, and people checking my work, and expressions of support, and especially, co-workers!

One difference between RfA Review and style guidelines is that we already have the pages, and many discussions have already taken place; this isn't necessarily a difference in how we proceed, just where we proceed. Trying to do the same thing on two different pages generally doesn't work well, so the discussions about WP:CITE should probably be at WT:CITE. What we can do here is to talk about what has worked and what hasn't, about how to make it work. Here (or somewhere around here), we'll ask people who don't think things are working well at WP:CITE to say why. Was the talk page too argumentative? Were the issues too complex? Were you concerned that, no matter what you said, you'd lose anyway, so why bother? If we want WP 1.0 to succeed, we have to do whatever it takes to get more people participating and gaining confidence that the result of the process reflects professional and encyclopedic English, as perceived by a reasonable cross-section of Wikipedians.

Let me just quote myself from [[WT:Avoid_weasel_words#Demotion to essay]]:
*How do we adjust our Wikipedian instincts to the reality that no two wikiprojects will ever agree on all style guidelines? The only tool we have is consensus, and that tool is guaranteed not to work well; professional English is hard and it varies among countries and even from one section of a newspaper to the next. That's why no one knows all the style guidelines, even though it's a matter of [[WP:PG|policy]] that guidelines can't be ignored, <s>and why [[WP:V0.7]] is about to go on sale at Walmart largely un-copyedited.</s>
*How do we overcome the known downsides of working in a nonprofit environment? The fun stuff gets done, the boring stuff doesn't. Working on your own articles is fun, copyediting articles you don't have a connection to is boring. Promoting style guidelines you feel passionately about is fun; reviewing existing guidelines you don't care about to see if they've been superceded by later work is boring ... and also thankless, since every page will have at least a few champions. There's around 99% agreement with the statement that current style guidelines are not likely to be read and absorbed even by all the very active editors; there's an impression that they are too difficult and extensive and not sufficiently reflective of consensus. How much pruning do we have to do to get a much higher rate of "buy-in"? - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 19:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

:This has been discussed a bit at [[WT:FAC]], and I thought I'd throw my two cents in here too. As mentioned above, you've described two very large projects: streamlining the MOS and bringing articles into compliance for a future Wikipedia release. I think it will be impossible to run both of these initiatives from the same wikiproject - they are each incredibly large and will need a great deal of attention. In my opinion, this '''has''' to start with a streamline of the MOS. That will benefit a great number of editors and may make it a lot easier to recruit people for the second job (fixing the existing articles). [[User:Karanacs|Karanacs]] ([[User talk:Karanacs|talk]]) 21:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
:: I agree. Solving the copyediting issue by October seems out of reach, so lets focus on the longer term and discuss MoS streamlining first. Hopefully, we will then have style guidelines that can be applied in time for version 1.0. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 22:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

== Overlap ==

Thanks Karanacs, and Sandy also expressed the view that if we don't do things in the right order ... if we try to pull in a bunch of perspectives first, and then work on avoiding overlap and contradictions in the guidelines second ... then all we're doing is making a hard job harder. [I had an idea about asking people to demote style guidelines to essays, but I don't think it will work.] - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 02:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

: Dan, my friend, please work on the [[WP:TLDR]] factor :-) As soon as I hit "let's propose on at least 50 of those style guidelines talk pages that they take a voluntary demotion to an essay", you lost me. That won't fly. Again, first catalogue the issues, the redundancy, overlap and contradictions. From that will flow the rest. A whole ton of those pages are probably redundant. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Okay, I cogitated. I have no problem with working on CAT:GEN and doing that before trying to pull in more support ... in fact, you may have noticed that no one from WP:VPP and only G-Guy from WT:GAN has shown up here; so really, there's nothing to do, yet. But we've got a problem on the horizon; I'm going to start working on the 30K articles to edit, and someone's going to revert me, I'm going to say "per MOS", they're going to say "so what", and then we land at maybe WP:3RR. Then what? What do I say? "It's a style guideline"? How far does that get me, when almost no one knows what the 90 style guidelines are, or has read them, or knows the difference between style guidelines, wikiproject style guidelines, essays, etc? Isn't this a problem that needs fixing, at some point? This isn't FAC or GAN we're talking about, where there's a great deal of contentment and buy-in; this is hostile (grin) territory. I've got some ideas for how to tackle the problem, but I'd like to hear how other people are going to approach this first, to get an idea of what's feasible. - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 00:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
::::: Dan, when I do MoS cleanup, I *only* do the straightforward and uncontroversial, and as far as I know, I'm almost never reverted. If you focus on basics, you should be fine ([[WP:ACCESS]], [[WP:LAYOUT]], [[WP:DASH]], [[WP:MOS#Ellipses]], [[WP:PUNC]], [[WP:ALLCAPS]], [[WP:MSH]], [[WP:MOS#Images]] and probably a few I've missed ... I think [[User:Epbr123]] has a list on his user page). Generally, editors are appreciative, as they just weren't aware. I can't imagine, though, why anyone would attempt editing of 30,000 articles. It seems to me that a more effective way to raise awareness about the basic MoS issues is to get FAs in line first, and then maybe GAs. For example, [[WP:LEAD]] and [[WP:LAYOUT]] are part of [[WP:WIAGA]], but as far as I can tell, those items are rarely checked, and I catch them when they show up at FAC. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I like Sandy's suggestion. My proposed steps for the overall project:
::::*I think we should begin by cataloging what documents exist as part of the MOS and where they overlap.
::::*After we know the scope of the issue we can initiate a discussion on which can be streamlined or combined.
::::*Once we have a (slightly) more concise list of discrete guidelines we can determine the best method to proceed on cleanup. We may want to have a large RfC or something to let people discuss which guidelines they feel are actually valuable. Or, to speed up the process, we might propose several versions ourselves of which guidance we think can/should be eliminated. The approach will probably need to be decided after we know the breadth of the problem. This step will likely take a long time.
::::*After we have a new list of guidelines for inclusion, then we need to dialogue with the GA team and ask them to reconsider which ones they consider appropriate standards for their process. The new and improved MOS will also need to be widely advertised.
::::*Once we have the guidelines themselves ironed out, a new project should focus on copyediting existing articles to get them up to standard. We may be able to host training sessions with wikiprojects to help interested editors see how the guidelines apply to their pet subject.
[[User:Karanacs|Karanacs]] ([[User talk:Karanacs|talk]]) 01:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

*This would be a very good thing to do. If a whole-MoS audit isn't conducted (it's a big big job), the alternative is for people to pick of groups of subpages that are highly likely to overlap etc., and to name them here as under audit. I tried to start such a process at the start of this Wikiproject, but no one responded. I'm willing to pick off a few easy ones. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 01:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC) PS Where are the archives? This ''is'' MOSCO, isn't it? [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 01:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
**I didn't delete anything; all the old stuff is in the one archive page. You can pull any of it back in, but I wanted to make sure people saw that we've got deadlines with WP 0.7 and WP 1.0; I was hoping we'd attract some new workers, but it's not working, yet. - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 02:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
***P.S. Progress is being made; current consensus at [[WP:WEASEL]] is "demote to essay". - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 02:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
****Doesn't look like consensus to me; but I prefer, and wish you would consider, dealing with such cases by changing to {{tl|guideline}}. They still are widely agreed on, but they're out of MOS. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 15:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
*****I'll back away from saying what looks like consensus, and focus on trying to present all the relevant arguments and let others decide. See that page for discussion. - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 16:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Another big picture item is that there needs to be a process by which a pages is added to style guidelines. I've told this story before, but when [[WP:MEDMOS]] was added to MoS, we were forced to jump through hoops. We were told we had to get broad consensus, we posted at the Village Pump, MoS and at over 20 WikiProjects. As far as I know, no other MoS page has had to go through that, and it's not clear what kind of consensus is needed before a page is added to MoS. Guidelines about the guidelines are needed, and they should include a discussion about not repeating text that is already covered in another guideline or policy page, which pages cover what, and by what process is a guideline added. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

:Part of a broader problem: what do a page need to have done to become a guideline (or, for that matter, a policy) at all? I suspect that there are people checking the policy tag, and any page that just decides to be one will get reverted; but that may be wishful thinking. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 17:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

::VeblenBot reports policy promotions and demotions at WP:VPP; I think it covers all policy categories, but I'm not sure. - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 18:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

::: I believe it failed to cover a few guideline categories, and this error was brought up in the Pump and rectified; that's how the discussion started to initiate reports for style guidelines here, after all.
::: Now, let's identify, succinctly, which are the exact problems with the Manual of Style. It is:
:::# '''Sprawling''' – It's so large that people just don't bother follow it or try and understand it.
:::# '''Vague''' – No one really knows where it starts and where it ends, and there are many borderline guidelines.
:::# '''Disorganised''' – There is no clear structure, and people get easily lost.
:::# '''Repeating''' – There is significant overlap, causing inconsistencies and confusion.
::: I think I've got the basic ones. One can see that they are interconnected: if one of these is improved, they all do. Now, solutions:
:::# We need to clip and merge where we can. This is a slow process and will rely a lot on the other steps, as good mergers are dependent on better organisation. However, I don't think we can cut so much as some people have suggested; if you consider the great variety of areas the Manual covers, and that there are quite plausibly topics it isn't covering yet and will have to in the future, you will see that a large MoS is inevitable. So, I say just trim the fat and pay more attention to the other points that follow.
:::# We need to delineate the Manual and specify certain criteria and consensus thresholds for inclusion into the corps. The current anarchy, especially as far as WikiProject guidelines are concerned, is the cause of much confusion in the application of style guidelines, as well as the organisation of the Manual itself. Some progress has already started being made here; I find that proper management of the categories is crucial on this front.
:::# We need to adopt a form of organisation that will make each individual guidelines easily accessible and the whole more coherent and less intimidating. Taking for granted that, even in a reduced form, the Manual will have many pages, and that a number of them includes several clearly defined parts, I have started thinking that we need attractive methods of navigation distinguishing not so much between pages as between important sections within them. A nice navbox, for example, with collapsible groups of relevant links (like the grouping example in UltraExactZZ's message in the previous section) would be most helpful. An index, as suggested in various forms and places, would also help; I have in mind a full index of MoS concepts along the lines of [[WP:EIW]]. It would also help with...
:::# ...eliminating overlap, as it would make it immediately obvious where a concept refers to multiple locations. We must also define the relations between the main page and the rest; overlap between the supplementary pages is undesirable, but between them and the main page it is often needed.
::: I hope this is a good summary. [[User:The Duke of Waltham|Waltham]], <small>[[User talk:The Duke of Waltham|''The Duke of'']]</small> 08:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
::::It's a great summary; the only thing you left out is that, as UltraExactZZ will tell you, some editors will not buy the final result if their opinions on the matter are not tabulated and presented to the community for their approval. It's a big job, but I don't think that part of the job can be skipped. Gazimoff and UltraExactZZ did a great job with that, and Ultra has offered to help here.
:::::On a personal note, this is exactly the kind of thing I thought I would be doing, but the Version 0.7 deadlines are going to be brutal, and apparently I'm some kind of minor functionary in charge of copyediting for that. I'll be back after the close date for Version 0.7. - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 19:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

== Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words is no longer marked as part of the manual of style ==

{{lw|Avoid weasel words}} has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the manual of style . This is an automated notice of the change ([[User:VeblenBot/PolicyNotes|more information]]). -- [[User:VeblenBot|VeblenBot]] ([[User talk:VeblenBot|talk]]) 18:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

== An example of a serious conflict ==
I present here an example of a serious conflict that flew under the radar: [[Wikipedia:Sister projects]], being elevated to a guideline, while in conflict with [[WP:EL]] and [[WP:LAYOUT]]. This is exactly the sort of thing a WikiProject needs to identify, putting guidelines in place so that our pages will be in sync. See my posts at the two pages, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Layout#Reinstated_long-standing_text_on_Sister_links here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikimedia_sister_projects#Disputed here.] By what process did Wikipedia:Sister projects become a guideline, and why was it allowed to become a guideline when it was in conflict with other guidelines, and how can we identify and catalog the conflicts, contradictions and redundancies that exist across all guideline pages? We need a process to manage the process by which pages become guidelines. This page elevates non-reliable content that we wouldn't even allow in most cases as External links to a place within the body of our articles, against [[WP:EL]] and [[WP:LAYOUT]] (not to mention reliable sources), and opens the door for editors to get content into our articles that our policies would normally disallow (see the [[Stuttering]] FAR for an example of advert, COI, non-RS text that simply moved to WikiBooks so it could try to be linked in our Stuttering article). [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 01:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
:It's been a guideline since before 2007. You make a very good point about having to keep an eye on links to sister projects; I've never known how to handle this. - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 01:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
:: Even worse, that an obscure page has been out of sync with pages widely quoted and accessed ([[WP:EL]] and [[WP:LAYOUT]]) for over a year. These are the problems that MOSCO should be addressing. In this case, it's not about commas, dashes, and date links. It affects our content, as it allows non-reliable, inaccurate information into Wiki articles, against policy. The sister projects are a back door for POV, advert, spam and COI content that is excluded from Wiki articles (see the example on the [[Stuttering]] FAR, where the author simply moved his content to WikiBooks). I know that dashes and dates and commas and ellipses matter a lot; this matters a lot more. It is about our fundamental accuracy and reliability. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 01:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I started a conversation on this subject started last week at [[WT:POLICY#Proposing_guidelines]]. I posted a proposed process ~12 hours ago; please feel free to add your thoughts. (It's in a sandbox in my userspace, but I'm happy to have any experienced editor make changes.) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

:::: WhatamI, go back in MEDMOS archives and see the hoops we were forced to jump though before adding MEDMOS as a guideline; for some reason, we were the only ones. We posted to MOS, to the Village Pump, and to at least 20 other Projects. We can't have these [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Layout#Reinstated_long-standing_text_on_Sister_links turf wars,] where a couple of editors come in and change a long-standing, oft-quoted, oft-referenced page because a few of them developed a contradictory guideline at another page. And, I've been trying to call attention to this forever: until we catalog and index all of the contradictions and redundancies, we are spinning our wheels. This contradictory guideline at an obscure Sister projects page just happened to surface, and as I've always warned, we have no means of solving it, but we do have one editor willing to edit war to change a long-standing page to his preferred version of another obsure page. We need a much bigger picture than what is on your page, although it's a start. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 21:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The generic problem is well-known. The question is - "what is the appropriate solution"? Expecting a vast number of editors with varied backgrounds and knowledge of Wikipedia, few of whom will have more than a general understanding of the history and scope of MOS, and with whom there is no easy way to communicate, to start lining up to support across-the-board consistency, coherence and integrity is a pipe-dream. It may have worked when MOS was in its infancy, but it's not gong to happen now. What then are the options? They would include:
:1) An Arb-com type solution. A small cadre of trusted editors elected on a regular basis to bring coherence to the beast that is MOS. An change to any MOS related page requires their agreement. Advantage - maximum chance of achieving the goal. Disadvantage - minimum chance of getting community agreement. All editors of good standing want fairness and justice for all. Only a proportion of editors (mostly GA and FA writers and reviewers I suspect) care that much about MOS and will not relish more beauracracy and interference in their right to edit anything and everything and/or their pet project's new style guidelines.
:2) A sysop type solution. As for the above but trusted editors are admitted to a cabal via an RfA style process. An advantage over (1) is that anyone with a serious interest might hope to join up one day rather than just the rich and famous. Disadvantages include as per (1) above (although maybe a little less so), and a perceived danger that the style police will rum amok.
:3) Harden up MOS into a policy that subsidiary page guidelines have to conform to. I am not sure how this would work, but it might encourage more editors to watch the main MOS page? Likely to be controversial.
:4) Leave MOS as a guideline, but create a new policy. This policy would state something along the lines that whilst MOS itself is a guideline, in order to promote consistency and the good name of all things Wikipedia all related/subsidiary pages that deal with style issues must conform to the 'main page'. In my view it should also say that no change of substance should be made to MOS without it being discussed on the talk page first, but that's another issue. Advantage - may be the simplest to create. Disadvantage - may be hard to enforce, but whilst few people may wish to engage in an edit war with WikiProject X whose new 'proposed policy' is to allow ampersands in page titles (or whatever), it might be quite different if reverting such changes were backed up by policy and a group of folks committed to making it work.
I'm a little out of my depth here - some of these may have been tried, some may be unworkable. I'm just trying to come up with a shopping list. [[User:Ben MacDui|<font color=" #6495ED">Ben</font>]] [[User talk:Ben MacDui|<font color="#C154C1">Mac</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Ben MacDui|<font color="#228B22">Dui</font>]] 08:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

: All of this points to a need for a meta-guideline and some accompanying process to regulate how style guidelines are added and removed from the Manual of Style. However this is done, it will ultimately only be enforceable, like anything on Wikipedia, if it is backed by the weight of consensus. The arbcom/sysop type solutions will only work if the need for such policing is widely recognised and the principles widely supported, in which case, there is perhaps not much need for an elite group anyway: we can all help to control the proliferation and inconsistencies of style guidelines as long as we have an agreed set of ground rules and principles.
: This meta-guideline can't be part of MoS main, because it is not part of the Manual of Style &ndash; it is ''about'' the Manual of Style, and "hardening" MoS main is unlikely to gain consensus support.
: Fortunately, such process coordination of style guidelines is ''precisely'' the ''raison d'etre'' of MOSCO (this WikiProject). So this is the place to define what we mean by the Manual of Style and a style guideline, to agree a process for regulating guidelines, and to build consensus for action when style guidelines violate these principles.
: In particular, I suggest that proposals for new style guidelines should be made here. Here are some suggested principles for such proposals.
:# There must be a clear need for proposed style guideline: the quality of the encyclopedia is being compromised by its absence.
:# The proposal is not covered by an existing guideline and cannot be incorporated into an existing guideline.
:# The proposed guideline does not conflict with pre-existing (style) guidelines and policies.
: Once a few people agree a provisional process, they can start reverting additions to the Manual of Style which have not been approved (using the tracking provided by VeblenBot) with an edit summary linking to MOSCO. Interested editors will soon come here complaining, and we can then start to build the consensus that such an approval process is necessary. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 11:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
::See also the parallel thread at [[Wikipedia_talk:Policy#Proposing guidelines]] and the recent discussion at [[WP:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_54#How many editors have actually read the Manual of Style?]]. G-Guy, I'm very happy to see your participation here. It's not a secret that work on style guidelines is hampered by factionalization. No one here is at fault for this, but people here might help fix it. - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 13:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
:: I'm a faction of one :-) ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 16:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
::: Excellent start, G guy's ideas will be helpful going forward, but what about resolving current guideline pages that are redundant and contradictory? [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

::::Pardon my ignorance, but what is a "meta-guideline"? [[User:Ben MacDui|<font color="#6495ED">Ben</font>]] [[User talk:Ben MacDui|<font color="#C154C1">Mac</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Ben MacDui|<font color="#228B22">Dui</font>]] 18:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::I made the word up to refer to a guideline about guidelines, as opposed to (say) article content or user conduct. [[WP:POLICY]] is an example of a meta-guideline (or even a meta-policy!). A meta-meta-guideline would be a guideline about meta-guidelines ("[[Anything You Can Do (song)|Anything you can do]], I can do [[meta]]"), but lets hope we don't need those! :-) ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 18:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::: So in the spirit of not calling a spade an "agricultural implement for moving earth", I think we are agreed that per my No. 4 above, what is needed is a proposal to create an overarching policy to govern style guidelines. I can't see any value in avoiding use of the second of these 'p' words myself. If that be the case then by all means let us move on to the next stage. [[User:Ben MacDui|<font color=" #6495ED">Ben</font>]] [[User talk:Ben MacDui|<font color="#C154C1">Mac</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Ben MacDui|<font color="#228B22">Dui</font>]] 20:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::: <sigh> light at the end of the tunnel, hope it's not a freight train. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 20:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::::I suggest we create a sub-page for defining the guideline. Here is a place that could be used to monitor overall MOS changes [[Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Wikipedia_style_guidelines]]. [[User:Morphh|<span style="color:green">Morphh</span>]] <sup>[[user talk:Morphh|<span style="color:chocolate">(talk)</span>]]</sup> <small><i>20:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)</i></small>

The only sister project that could agree with at this point regarding embedding sister project links in the context is Wiktionary. I've used this when there was insufficient information to create an article on a term, but still wanted some link to better inform the reader and a dictionary was sufficient. I also don't see Wiktionary as a large issue with backdooring Wikipedia policy. I'm not firm on this though... and could go either way. All the others should go into External links. We should rewrite the sister project guideline to reflect the long standing Layout guideline. [[User:Morphh|<span style="color:green">Morphh</span>]] <sup>[[user talk:Morphh|<span style="color:chocolate">(talk)</span>]]</sup> <small><i>14:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)</i></small>

: It needs to be fixed, but for the purposes of this page, it serves as an example of multiple pages that were out of sync and no one knew it ([[WP:LAYOUT]], [[WP:EL]], [[Wikipedia:Sister projects]] and numerous others that are contradicted by the Sibling project page); I continue to implore that we need to prioritize two goals: 1) develop a meta-guideline for guidelnes and 2) catalogue the redundancies and inconsistencies to see how bad the problem is. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

=== Another conflict, LEAD and MOS ===
What happened to alternate names in the lead, bolded ?

At [[WP:MOS]], we have:
: [[Wikipedia:MOS#First_sentences]]

But at [[WP:LEAD]], we have nothing: another contradiction. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

:I inserted "Equivalent names may follow, and may or may not be in boldface" at WP:LEAD. One editor was arguing for less bolding on the talk page; I'm going to start by talking with that editor privately and then report to the group. - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 17:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

:Where does [[Wikipedia:Writing better articles#First sentence]] fit into this discussion? [[User:Butwhatdoiknow|Butwhatdoiknow]] ([[User talk:Butwhatdoiknow|talk]]) 17:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

:: It's a never ending black hole :-) My aim with these examples is to show that we must get a method to get a handle on the beast. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

===Noticeboard suggestion ===
Because of my post above, and Dank55's subsequent post to the talk page of [[WP:LEAD]], I realized I had missed a thread there started by Tony1. If an editor who follows MoS and stalks Tony misses a thread, that gives us an idea of how bad the problem is. Suggestion:

We need a MoS noticeboard, similar to [[WP:RSN]], [[WP:FTN]], etc. All talk pages of all style guidelines could include a notice at the top about centralized discussions there: it could be a place for 1) centralizing questions, 2) centralizing changes to guideline pages, and 3) centralizing approval of new guideline pages. I can't keep up with all the damn MoS pages. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

:I'm not opposed to this idea at all, but I'd like 24 hours before I respond; I've asked for opinions from 2 people who are not regular contributors to style guidelines to get their take. Also, somewhere early on in the process, we need to post at WT:CONSENSUS and WP:VPP on this, because those folks have had a fairly negative reaction in the past to any and all guidelines along the lines of "before you make edit X, you must first do Y". I do believe that we have a valid need and that we won't break the wiki, but there are some people we need to get on board if we don't want to derail. - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 20:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

==WikiProject talk banner==
Would anyone object to me creating a talk page WikiProject template that alerted interested editors to the project. I didn't even know this project existed until someone told me. It would be helpful to apply this to some of the MOS talk pages so other editors can get involved. [[User:Morphh|<span style="color:green">Morphh</span>]] <sup>[[user talk:Morphh|<span style="color:chocolate">(talk)</span>]]</sup> <small><i>13:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)</i></small>
:Sounds great, everyone is welcome. - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 13:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here it is... [[User:Morphh|<span style="color:green">Morphh</span>]] <sup>[[user talk:Morphh|<span style="color:chocolate">(talk)</span>]]</sup> <small><i>14:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)</i></small>
{{WPMOS}}
:It's very good. My only suggestion is that it allude to language as well as the measurement, mathematical side. But it's no big deal. Thanks. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 14:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

::Added "improve language" to the description. [[User:Morphh|<span style="color:green">Morphh</span>]] <sup>[[user talk:Morphh|<span style="color:chocolate">(talk)</span>]]</sup> <small><i>14:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)</i></small>
:::This was a very good idea! ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 16:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
:::: Excellent, Morphh; hopefully it will bring in more members. Maybe if someone has time they can drop notes to the original signers on this Project that attempts are underway to invigorate the page? [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

*Morph, I was referring to the graphic, not the accompanying text. The MoSes ''are'' mostly about language, but I see only mathamatical references in the icon. But again, no bid deal. However, I suggest a slightly tweaked text:
<blockquote>This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines.</blockquote>

[[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 08:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

:Tony, thanks for clarifying. I've reworded it as you suggested and added a new icon. I'm not sure what would be the best icon but here are some others I thought might fit. [[User:Morphh|<span style="color:green">Morphh</span>]] <sup>[[user talk:Morphh|<span style="color:chocolate">(talk)</span>]]</sup> <small><i>14:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)</i></small>
<center>
{| class="wikitable"
! align="center" | 1
! align="center" | 2
! align="center" | 3
! align="center" | 4
! align="center" | 5
! align="center" | 6
! align="center" | 7
! align="center" | 8
|-
| [[Image:Nuvola apps kig.png|45px]]
| [[Image:Crystal 128 desktop.png|45px]]
| [[Image:Nuvola-inspired File Icons for MediaWiki-fileicon-doc-alt2.png|45px]]
| [[Image:To validate.svg|120px]]
| [[Image:Copyedit icon.svg|96px]]
| [[Image:Crystal Project kedit.png|45px]]
| [[Image:Crystal Project package graphics.png|45px]]
| [[Image:Nuvola_apps_ksig.png|45px]]
|}
</center>

Thanks, Morph. I feel like I've made a storm in a teacup. To me, the new one is too cluttered. If the fountain-pen one (No. 3 with the blue background) isn't yet taken, why not '''pounce''' on it. It's simple and distinctive, and in an ironic way (outmoded tool) encapsulates the ambit of MOS over the linguistic and the numerical/mathematical. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 03:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

== Wikipedia:Transclude text has been marked as part of the Manual of Style ==

{{lw|Transclude text}} has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ([[User:VeblenBot/PolicyNotes|more information]]). -- [[User:VeblenBot|VeblenBot]] ([[User talk:VeblenBot|talk]]) 18:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

::: ''Copied from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Wikipedia:Transclude_text_has_been_marked_as_part_of_the_Manual_of_Style WT:MOS]. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

: Does anyone have any idea what this Bot message is about? [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 18:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
::The category 'Wikipedia style guidelines' was added to [[Wikipedia:Transclude text]], which means that page is now part of the Manual of Style. The messages are to let people know when pages are added to, or removed from, the manual of style. If there is any way I can improve the 'more information' page, please let me know. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>([[User:CBM|CBM]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:CBM|talk]])</small> 18:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
::: ah, thanks, now I get it. Maybe you should add [[User talk:Tony1/Monthly updates of styleguide and policy changes]] to the notification list? [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 18:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
::::That would be very easy to do. Tony, when you read this - how do you feel about that? &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>([[User:CBM|CBM]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:CBM|talk]])</small> 19:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
::::: Also, are you notifying [[WP:MOSCO]]? [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
: OK, now the issue (and thanks for the notice). I don't agree that page is ready for guideline status nor that it should have been added. By what process was it added and by what process do we remove it? While the goal is indeed worthy, until redundancies and contradictions across existing MoS pages are catalogued and resolved, we can't be transcluding text from one (possibly disputed, as in the current case of Sister projects) page to another. This isn't ready for primetime yet; first things first. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
:: The page itself is labeled an experiment. Is there any reason why it shouldn't, with that limitation, be included on a list of style guide articles? Better to give it the light of day (to live or die on its merits) rather than hide it away in a corner to fester in darkness. (In response to Sandy's concern: There isn't a Sister project transclude text page in part because it is disputed.) [[User:Butwhatdoiknow|Butwhatdoiknow]] ([[User talk:Butwhatdoiknow|talk]]) 19:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
::: Again, used only as an example of work we need to do as a Project, it highlights the issues: by what process did it become a guideline? A couple of editors tagged it? There was some discussion and posting across a wide number of pages first? We have to stop this business of anything gets elevated to guideline status without broad consensus, no matter how worthy the page. This particular page is an experiment, hence obviously shouldn't be designated guideline and isn't ready. I'm not picking on this page rather the fact that we have no process. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

==WikiProject structure==
I'd like to get some ideas discussed on how we need to structure the project. I'm thinking this talk should be about the project, and not about the particular MOS issues. I don't think we need another talk page to break up the discussion, we need to centralize and organize the discussion. In this effort, I think we should create a separate sub-article specifically for addressing the issues. I'm thinking it could utilize <nowiki>{{subarticle}}</nowiki> links from sub-articles (like what is done at [[WP:FAC]] and numerous other review areas) or just create sections like normal. It would be nice to have some template in each page (or section) that highlights what MOS articles are affected and a description of the issue before the general discussion. I'm also thinking we should create a sub-article that outlines our MOS dependencies. List each MOS article describing what articles depend on the article, what the article depends on, or a duplication that should be addressed. It seems we need to create something to better understand the interdependence, so we can move forward with addressing the goals of the project. Thoughts [[User:Morphh|<span style="color:green">Morphh</span>]] <sup>[[user talk:Morphh|<span style="color:chocolate">(talk)</span>]]</sup> <small><i>19:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)</i></small>

== Proposed policy ==

I like Morphh's suggestion above and maybe what follows should be moved to such a page in due course. Here is a starter. Please note that my view is that a "meta-guideline" is still a guideline and that I believe what is needed is a policy. Its deficiencies include the name, which I don't like at all, but its the best I can do at 9am Yoo-kay time. [[User:Ben MacDui|<font color=" #6495ED">Ben</font>]] [[User talk:Ben MacDui|<font color="#C154C1">Mac</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Ben MacDui|<font color="#228B22">Dui</font>]] 08:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


The '''Meta-Style''' policy sets out Wikipedia's policy on how to amend the [[WP:MOS|Manual of Style]] and its associated Subsidiary Pages.

The reason for its existence is the growth in the scope of the Style Guidelines and the resultant contradictions and inconsistencies within it. The policy also aims to increase the stability of the style guidelines and ensure that significant changes are only made after due discussion and [[consensus]].

===Definitions===
Style guidelines &ndash; All guideline pages associated with the clarification of presentational styles on Wikipedia.

Manual of Style &ndash; The "main page" of the style guidelines, which sets out the core issues. Abbreviation - WP:MOS.

Subsidiary pages &ndash; Pages other than the Manual of Style that form part of the style guidelines.

Guidelines &ndash; Specific guidelines within a style guideline.

===Principles===
The principles on which this policy is based are:

====New guidelines and subsidiary pages====
1. There must be a clear need for a new proposed style guideline or subsidiary page: without this, the quality of the encyclopaedia is being compromised.

2. A proposed subsidiary page is not wholly or partially covered by an existing guideline or policy and cannot easily be incorporated into an existing one.
3. A proposed subsidiary page or guideline does not conflict with existing style guidelines and policies.

4. Proposed new subsidiary pages and amendments to guidelines of a substantive nature should be notified in advance to:
*Village Pump (WP:VPP?)
*[[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style]]
*[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Manual of Style]]
*[[Template:Announcements/Community bulletin board]] (?)
*WikiProjects that are likely to be specifically affected by the proposal.
The notifications should indicate a single identified talk page where the discussion will take place.

====Manual of Style====
1. Substantive changes to WP:MOS may be made only after considered discussion on the talk page and the reaching of consensus on the matter.<!--This seems to make stepwise evolution more clunky; what's wrong with the current system?-->

====All style guidelines====
1. Style guidelines shall use [[American English]] unless, consistent with [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English|Manual of Style#National varieties of English]], a guideline has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, in which case it should use the appropriate variety of English for that nation.
*Examples?

==Comments on above draft==
It started off in title case for the defns - I was probably confusing them with bird species, and the changes look fine to me.

I've added back "or guideline" to "New guidelines #3" and removed the bracket around "style".

I've added "New guidelines #4" per Tony1's suggestion. I have not included "that consensus be reached here (meaning the WikiProject?) as a prerequisite" as at first sight it seems unnecessary to have two separate discussions.

I've removed old "MOS#1" as redundant per Tony1's comment.

Re new "MOS#1" Tony asks "what's wrong with the current system?" I'd say:
:a) Wiki rules work pretty well for articles, but MOS is not an article. It seems to me absurd that any passing editor can make tens of thousands of articles in breach of MOS on a whim, even if it is only for an hour or two.
:b) Watching MOS is hard work and it's easy for things to slip thru' e.g. the UK metric/imperial business and possibly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&diff=238705120&oldid=238703489 this diff] from today. If undiscussed changes are going to be reverted, it might as well be explicit in my view. This need not apply to typos, corrections to syntax and improved wording etc. but it should apply to anything that changes the underlying meaning. Alternatively, it could be a "guideline within the policy". [[User:Ben MacDui|<font color=" #6495ED">Ben</font>]] [[User talk:Ben MacDui|<font color="#C154C1">Mac</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Ben MacDui|<font color="#228B22">Dui</font>]] 12:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

; Comments from SG:
:1) There have, surprisingly, been past arguments that [[WP:MOS]] is not the "main" MoS page (sigh). Establishing this as a basic starting place may help.
:2) Total nitpick dumb question, but I think most of MoS is written in US English? Stay consistent?
::Yes, although there are presumably subsidiary pages where ENGVAR applies. It would be weird to have (say) style guidelines for Indian literature written in US English.
:3) Another, nitpik, change the hyphens in "Definitions" to endashes to conform with MoS.
::Surely "nitpick" or is that English English? By all means.
:4) "A proposed subsidiary page is not wholly or partially covered by an existing one ... " to " ... is not wholly or partially coverd by an existing guideline or policy ... "
::Fine by me (save the typo) (oh no, now I'm nitpiking too).
:5) "New guidelines and subsidiary pages" needs to also require posting to Village Pump, MoS main page, MOSCO (this page) and Community portal. Get broad coverage.
::Surely.
[[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
::Replies by [[User:Ben MacDui|<font color=" #6495ED">Ben</font>]] [[User talk:Ben MacDui|<font color="#C154C1">Mac</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Ben MacDui|<font color="#228B22">Dui</font>]] 18:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

*I'd prefer that the minimum requirement for substantive changes be an explicit edit summary and notification on the talk page. For example, I've made two additions in the past month (ampersand subsection and the recommendation to reword triple hyphenated adjectives (bottom of "hyphens") in this way. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 03:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
::Fair enough - l suggest leaving suggestions of this nature for 24 hrs. If there is no disagreement they go in. By all means tweak away as well. [[User:Ben MacDui|<font color=" #6495ED">Ben</font>]] [[User talk:Ben MacDui|<font color="#C154C1">Mac</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Ben MacDui|<font color="#228B22">Dui</font>]] 08:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I don't like this idea of having necessarily to notify in advance. People usually do this for changes that are likely to be contentious, but the two examples I gave above were unlikely to be contentious, and no one even commented when I left notes ''after'' I made the changes.[[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 11:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Well the weasel in the woodshed is "of a substantive nature". Nobody commented, presumably because they thought the changes were sensible clarifications and/or too minor to mention. This may be very hard to pin down, but for example:
::::*you made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&diff=237428100&oldid=237106082 this change re species names]. There was no objection from me or anyone else because it changed the presentation but did not change the meaning.
::::*there were objections to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&diff=237489855&oldid=237488886 this change about imperial measures], because it was deemed to involve a change in the meaning rather than a clarification of the existing meaning.
::::Personally I'd much rather someone raised an issue and asked for comments than made a "substantive" change first and waited for objections afterwards - but then I am British and ever-so-polite. Yours sincerely, [[User:Ben MacDui|<font color=" #6495ED">Ben</font>]] [[User talk:Ben MacDui|<font color="#C154C1">Mac</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Ben MacDui|<font color="#228B22">Dui</font>]] 07:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

===How to coordinate something that happens in five places at once?===

The changes to the proposal to require multiple notifications, while well intentioned, will kill off this WikiProject and the hope of using it to coordinate the MoS just as it is coming back to life. How can one coordinate a discussion of a proposed guideline when it takes place on four or more different pages? Is such an approach likely to gain the support of consensus? Will editors do it or will they [[WP:IAR|ignore the rules]] per [[WP:BURO]]?

What is required here, in the case of new style guidelines at least, is not multiple notifications, but a discussion and approval process. That process should take place here. Anyone who cares about organising the MoS should watchlist this page. It should not be necessary for proposers to make multiple posts, unless a WikiProject or MoS page is specifically affected by the proposal, in which case a post should be made to direct interested editors to the discussion here. If the purpose of this WikiProject is diluted across multiple pages, then it will become an unwatched, disregarded backwater again. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 08:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
: Agree somewhat (see next section, where conversation is prematurely fragmented IMO), but disagree somewhat (widespread notification is needed on proposed new pages). What about my idea for a central noticeboard? Is that dead in the water or a possibility? [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
::I'm all for a central noticeboard. In fact we already have central noticeboards, so the ideal solution would be to ''abolish'' all but one of the central noticeboards, so that we end up with a ''real'' central noticeboard.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 16:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

:I think we can usefully distinguish between multiple notifications, indicating where a central discussion is taking place, and multiple discussions. I agree the latter would be a disaster, but it is the former that is intended. [[User:Ben MacDui|<font color=" #6495ED">Ben</font>]] [[User talk:Ben MacDui|<font color="#C154C1">Mac</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Ben MacDui|<font color="#228B22">Dui</font>]] 17:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

::I've added "The notifications should indicate a single identified talk page where the discussion will take place" to make this explicit. [[User:Ben MacDui|<font color=" #6495ED">Ben</font>]] [[User talk:Ben MacDui|<font color="#C154C1">Mac</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Ben MacDui|<font color="#228B22">Dui</font>]] 07:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Where ''is'' this supreme central noticeboard? There are things to post already. I suppose the sections need to include the following.

'''(1) Proposed changes to the status of pages'''
*(a) Merging/splitting
*(b) Promotion to / removal of MoS/guideline status
*(c) Deletion


'''(2) Notification of issues between pages'''
*(a) Duplication/overlap
*(b) Contradiction/disharmony


'''(3) Identification of issues within a page:'''
*(a) Need for copy-editing
*(b) Need for structural renovation


'''(4) Notification of substantive changes within a page:'''
*[Can't think of useful categories]

This process would need to be flagged and linked to in the template posted at the top of every guideline talk page. We'd need to determine the kind of action/process required for each of these. Thoughts? [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 17:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

: We need to create it. Before my brain explodes. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

::Maybe in tabular form? Separate tables for each? Columns for (1) might be:
::Page(s)|Action proposed|Comments|Link to talk-section at the page|Signature
::An editor here would then create a talk-page section on each entry for (1) on the talk page of the WikiProject MOS, and insert a link to it from the talk page(s) of the page(s) in question. Then we need to follow an established sequence of actions/decisions, which will have to be formulated soon. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 17:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

::: I had in mind joining the ranks of [[Template:Editabuselinks|the existing noticeboards]] for a centralized discussion point. Tables are hard to edit and discourage participation. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

*Existing noticeboards? Can you give an example? Won't our stuff be submerged if placed somewhere general? If tables are difficult (yes, I see your point), I'd go simple and provide a line-by-line headings for each entrant to fill in, like a form. Here's an example for category 1 above. First the blank, then filled in.

'''Notification 3'''
*'''Style guide(s) concerned:'''
*'''Action proposed:'''
*'''Brief reasons for proposal (link to any relevant discussions, if helpful):'''
*'''Link to any relevant discussion:'''
*'''Signature:'''

'''Notification 3'''
*'''Style guide(s) concerned:''' [[WP:CONTEXT]] and [[WP:MOSLINK]]
*'''Action proposed:''' Merge CONTEXT into MOSLINK.
*'''Brief reasons for proposal (link to any relevant discussions, if helpful):''' They overlap substantially and deserve to be rationalised; merging them would do a favour to our readers, so they can find everything they need about linking in the one guide. [[Wikipedia_talk:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#Remove_section_which_duplicates_WP:MOSLINK|Here]], the merging of the whole of CONTEXT has support, and needs to be thought through and discussed in a more centralised place.
*'''Signature:''' [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 14:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

'''Notification'''
*'''Style guide(s) concerned:''' [[WP:EMBED]] and [[WP:MOSBOLD]]
*'''Action proposed:''' MOSBOLD has already been proposed for a merge; that would solve this.
*'''Brief reasons for proposal (link to any relevant discussions, if helpful):''' MOSBOLD says that there are very few good reasons for bolding below the lead section, which we all agree with, but EMBED shows the initial terms in the list all bolded (and linked!) I see this pretty often, perhaps because EMBED is one of the WIAGA criteria, perhaps because it just seems right to a lot of people. I'm concerned that if we support the current wording in MOSBOLD, which suggests you can't use any bolding in a list unless it's a "definition list", and if people comply with that, then they'll just do something worse to emphasize the items in a list if they think emphasis is needed, such as turning it into (shudder) a glossary, or giving each item its own subsection heading. Bottom line: bolding the first word or few words in embedded lists is pretty common, not just for "definition lists", but in any list where the rest of the text supports or describes the concepts listed; even if we wanted to, I don't think we could successfully squash the practice. See for instance [[Robot#Increased productivity, accuracy, and endurance]]. - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 21:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

==Merge two proposals?==
It seems that the proposing and making of changes to MOS is just a special case of the proposing and making of changes to policies and guidelines generally. A proposal for this has been made by [[User:WhatamIdoing]] - I've just moved it to [[WP:Policy/Procedure]] for convenience. I think we should try to combine discussion on the two proposals (the general one and the one above relating to MOS) into a single discussion - it may turn out that there is no need to have different rules for MOS than for other guidelines.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 09:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
:In fact, having looked over the two proposals, that would be my position. I.e. we don't need a separate proposal for MoS as set out above, but we can try to amend the general proposal at [[WP:Policy/Procedure]] to ensure that it catches issues of importance to MoS (in fact it already contains specific statements about where MoS-related proposals should be announced).--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 10:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
:: I'm not thrilled to have yet another page to watchlist, further fragmenting discussion, when we're still trying to build steam and consensus here. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Well yeah, that's rather my point. Both proposals are open, they cover similar ground, so let's merge the two discussions into one (even though that discussion is still at an embryonic stage). Since that one is more general (applying to all guidelines, not just MoS), it makes more sense to have the discussion over there. Anything that's been agreed here that isn't covered by that proposal can be addressed by amending that proposal suitably.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 16:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
::::They certainly cover some similar ground. WP:Policy/Procedure would appear to be primarily aimed at new pages - its hard to imagine that such complication is needed to cover small but substantive changes to existing guidelines. If implemented it would certainly be a method by which the above policy proposal would emerge into mainspace. However, its my sense that this project probably needs to be somewhat more clear about its own aims before any kind of merger would be useful. This might not take long but at this point it seems a fraction premature. Speaking personally, I too need fewer pages to watch, not more and realistically I can't see how it would make any sense to stop watching this one and start watching Policy/Procedure instead. [[User:Ben MacDui|<font color=" #6495ED">Ben</font>]] [[User talk:Ben MacDui|<font color="#C154C1">Mac</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Ben MacDui|<font color="#228B22">Dui</font>]] 19:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Yes, it's (deliberately) aimed at new pages, in an effort to reduce proliferation through the "anyone can slap {{tl|guideline}} on a page" process. It will not solve all of MoS's problems, and it is not specific to style guidelines (although style guidelines are used as an example, because I thought that publicizing the existence of this project might be useful).
::::::The question is fundamentally whether anyone here has any objections to this proposal for managing the creation of new guidelines/policies. Is there anything there that you think should not be done, or should be done differently, or that directly interferes with your much larger plans? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need to separate the procedure for "new" pages from the procedure for making substantial changes to existing pages. Both have the same consequences (changes in policy that the community needs to know about and for which consensus needs to be unambiguously established). As far as I can see the procedure needs to be basically the same in both cases, but with a suitable definition of what consitutes a minor change that doesn't need to go through the full procedure. And I also don't see why the rules for MoS should be different from those for other policies and guidelines. MoS doesn't exist in isolation, and preventing inconsistencies between MoS and other rules is just as important as preventing inconsistencies within MoS. --[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 07:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
:I think that incremental change is more likely to be successful (in the real world). It takes time for people to adapt, and I'd rather grow the advice in the direction of announcing major changes instead of imposing a potentially burdensome process on everything while we're still working out the kinks.
:Also, "just" slowing down the promotion of inadequately reviewed guidelines seems like a way to stop the bleeding here at MOSCO. Reconciling "only" 91 style guidelines should be simpler than reconciling (91+recent promotions). [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
::I agree with Kotniski. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 16:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we're in a position yet to resolve conflicts over how important the style guidelines are, and by extension, how hard it should be to invent new style guidelines; we haven't yet built enough support among the wikiprojects. I completely support the fantastic work that many people, and Sandy and Tony in particular, have been doing removing contradictions from the style guidelines. (With a caveat: Tony, on rare occasions, you have been known to make a change to the style guidelines because you think it will make pages look better, even when you know you don't have consensus. Please don't do that; we have to maintain trust that we're not biasing the process; also, there's an infobox at the top of every style guidelines page that says not to do that.) We're almost home; let's keeping moving. Also, IMO 0.7 is a perfect opportunity to be nice to the wikiprojects, so keep an eye on [[WT:1C]]. I like Sandy's idea of a noticeboard, but I think it would be easier to sell WT:MOS as a noticeboard (it's got the 120 archives to prove it) than a new noticeboard. One last thing, and then I really need to get back to 0.7. Take all this as half-assed guesses rather than The Word. I remember a talk by Jimmy Carter (see [[Jimmy Carter#The Carter Center]]) where he mentioned that it was often surprisingly easy to get autocrats to agree to elections, because they assumed everyone loved them ... they tended to be told what they wanted to hear ... but it usually turned out that they lost. The process at FAC and on style guidelines pages is about 90% great IMO, and we need to sell that, and I don't see any autocrats around here. But the process that I first suggested at the top of this page involved lots of community input, and that request isn't a part of what most of you are talking about. I suggest not going forward with most of the ideas on this page, for now; you don't have the votes at WP:VPP to win, yet. I'm optimistic that we can get there, after a while. - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 18:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
:Sheesh. No, I didn't mean Sandy and Tony are autocratic. The analogy was that all humans have this weird failing of selective listening; even dictators who hold all the cards are regularly deposed by elections that they themselves called. Moral: don't call an election on the importance and handling of style guidelines unless you know how it's going to turn out. Things are basically fine the way they are. - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 22:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

== Confused.com ==
Perhaps everyone is up-to-speed here except me, but what I think might be helpful is a "To-do" list or box of some kind identifying useful tasks to be undertaken. This could get complicated because it is more than likely that some tasks cannot begin until certain key steps are undertaken or agreed first. The "policy strategy" issue (which I like to think I understand) seems to be stalled pending a resolution of the merger issue. Much of the rest of the discussion passes me by however. I am willing to be helpful but unless someone can provide some straightforward tasks to be getting on with I shall be on stand-by. [[User:Ben MacDui|<font color=" #6495ED">Ben</font>]] [[User talk:Ben MacDui|<font color="#C154C1">Mac</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Ben MacDui|<font color="#228B22">Dui</font>]] 11:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
:I think we're agreed that finding places where the style guidelines contradict, and things that seem clearly out of line with what people are expecting, is the top priority. We differ on what to do after that; I recommend that we pursue "buy-in", getting a wider set of people to go along with the idea that the style guidelines are a net positive, and there are several ways to do that. Some people want to go in other directions. For now, let's keep filling in the blanks until we've found and fixed all the problems. If we have a quick answer, great, and if not, post at WT:MOS.
'''Notification'''
*'''Style guide(s) concerned:'''
*'''Action proposed:'''
*'''Brief reasons for proposal (link to any relevant discussions, if helpful):'''
- Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 13:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

So, a tentative "to do" list we might create to assist potentially helpful editors and some associated questions might include the following. They are deliberately phrased as an attempt to assist someone who has not already spent 3 years working with the issues.
*Find places where the style guidelines contradict one another and post the problem at WT:MOS.
**Q. Why post at WT:MOS and not here? Is there a list I can add this too? Is it OK to just add this to the list or are you expecting me to take an active part in fixing the problem?
***A. My suggestion was "If we have a quick answer, great, and if not, post at WT:MOS." This still seems right to me. My last "notification" involved an apparent contradiction between WP:EMBED and WP:MOSBOLD; but since MOSBOLD has already been marked for a merge, this problem may go away on its own if we do nothing (but I'll keep an eye on it to make sure). Whenever "doing nothing" has a good shot of working, I'm in favor. For problems where there's no obvious answer, I don't see how it could hurt to ask at [[WT:MOS]], even if we also talk about it here. That's what we've always done. Regarding "active part", posting any concerns either here, or at WT:MOS, would be helpful. Of course, we will also regularly look at the individual talk pages reasonably often; at least once week before the end of the month and around the end of the month.
*Fix the problems.
**Q. Where - the issue is by definition one that affects two different pages - which one should I start with? If the problems can be fixed without the need for an agreed policy first, why do we need a policy?
***A. It will vary depending on the question, and we don't need a policy to fix pages.
*Participate in discussions about a proposed policy (above).
**Q: The key questions are: Is the proposed policy phrased suitably? Does it make sense to merge the discussion with WP:Policy/Procedure?
***A. If it's desirable to change policy, I'd suggest we first pursue a wider "buy-in".
*Pursue a wider "buy-in".
**Q. How? Where? How can I be sure I will not be accused of canvassing or vote-stacking or breaching other guidelines/policies I may not have heard of?
***A: The thing that we're doing a fabulous job with and that everyone agrees needs to be done first is, wherever possible, to edit the style guidelines so that they don't contradict each other and don't have stuff that seems odd. Doing that will automatically untie some other knots, and it's impossible to predict how many or which ones, so let's do that first and see what we've got. Also, there's disagreement on what to do next; let's focus on where we agree. - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 14:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
*Other (please add). [[User:Ben MacDui|<font color=" #6495ED">Ben</font>]] [[User talk:Ben MacDui|<font color="#C154C1">Mac</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Ben MacDui|<font color="#228B22">Dui</font>]] 13:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

: Heh, you seem to be taking too much for granted. :-) First of all, what is a style guideline? I've just read all the comments above since 10 September—I do regret my failure to participate more actively—and I'd say we need to do the following:
:# Provide a definition of a style guideline. That will help us define inclusion criteria, and thus remove irrelevant pages from the corps. It will also help with #4. It can be part of a so-called "meta-guideline" or not; I'm not sure we need that in order to make clear that contradictions are unacceptable (it's common sense and one of this project's missions).
:# Document the pages we agree belong to the Manual of Style. My idea, as I've said, is to create an index along the lines of [[WP:EIW]], but for style matters. It will initially help us easily spot overlaps and redundancies, and it will be useful in the long term to editors looking for specific guidelines. I don't have hopes of drastic reduction of the manual, so we should improve navigation instead. (If you have a big city with traffic problems, you don't tear down houses to make it smaller; you improve transport.)
:# Then we can start fixing the problems and contradictions (as several messages above describe).
:# We should also devise a system of evaluating prospective style guidelines. A good example is [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals]], where WikiProjects-to-be are proposed and evaluated (most of those that manage to come into being actually do so as task forces). It is officially an optional process, but few projects are created outside it. Here we could tighten things a bit, and even apply it retroactively to local guidelines that haven't passed the hooks MEDMOS seems to have.
:# I like the idea of a central venue for changes to guidelines and approval of new ones, and I also like the idea of using notification templates at the top of every style guideline's talk page. This would provide information to more people than would bother watching the central venue (whatever that would be), who would only visit for discussions interesting them.
: By no means are all these my ideas; I am both summarising and suggesting here. [[User:The Duke of Waltham|Waltham]], <small>[[User talk:The Duke of Waltham|''The Duke of'']]</small> 01:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

== [[WP:NCLL]] overhaul ==

I've completely overhauled [[WP:NCLL]]. I would appreciate both critical review, and extra eyes watching out for reflexive reversion without substantive justification (a common problem at NC pages). — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> &#91;[[User talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]&#93; &#91;[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|cont]]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 00:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
:It's well-written and easy to follow, even for someone like me who knows little about the topic. - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 02:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

== Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines has been marked as part of the Manual of Style ==

{{lw|WikiProject Ships/Guidelines}} has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ([[User:VeblenBot/PolicyNotes|more information]]). -- [[User:VeblenBot|VeblenBot]] ([[User talk:VeblenBot|talk]]) 18:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

:Having discovered the joys of the confusingly named "set index" articles I added this to [[:Category:Wikipedia style guidelines]] as it is mentioned at both [[WP:MOSDAB]] and [[WP:SETINDEX]] as providing suitable guidance on this worthy subject. [[User:Ben MacDui|<font color=" #6495ED">Ben</font>]] [[User talk:Ben MacDui|<font color="#C154C1">Mac</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Ben MacDui|<font color="#228B22">Dui</font>]] 12:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

::I did read through the page as soon as it was marked, and I liked it except for the recommendation to use {{tl|'}} as an apostrophe after italics. My position is that this apostrophe should be either italicized or not depending on what looks good to most Wikipedians, the devs should respect that preference, and once we've got rough consensus, asking people interested in ships to type all those extra characters is counterproductive; it makes an otherwise good style manual look fussy. Reputation is everything. - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 12:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

== Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles) is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style ==

{{lw|Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles)}} has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ([[User:VeblenBot/PolicyNotes|more information]]). -- [[User:VeblenBot|VeblenBot]] ([[User talk:VeblenBot|talk]]) 18:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

== Draft MOS subpage on glossaries ==

{{Resolved|1=Just an FYI; further discussion at [[WT:MOSGLOSS]].}}
I'm glad the glossary thread at [[WT:MOS]] came up, because I'd actually already been giving this a lot of thought. I wrote it all up at [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (glossaries)]] (which is tagged and categorized as a proposal, not as a style guideline).

Please have a look at it. I believe that it covers all the bases that it needs to, and is both guiding in general and flexible where it needs to be. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> &#91;[[User talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]&#93; &#91;[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|cont]]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 00:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

== The Links page cluster ==

It does not affect us directly, but it is linked (pun intended) to our cause: Mr.Z-man has pointed out that there are too many link-related pages, and suggests a reduction of their number. Details [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Redundant guidelines|here]]. [[User:The Duke of Waltham|Waltham]], <small>[[User talk:The Duke of Waltham|''The Duke of'']]</small> 12:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

== Flags in navigation templates of elections ==
I'd like to notify you about [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#Template:Slovenian elections]]. This discussion has been going on without consensus for too long now (with the [[User:Number 57]] constantly [[Special:Contributions/Number 57|reverting]] people who see the flags as a distraction). I'd really appreciate your input. --[[User:Eleassar|'''Eleassar''']] <sup>[[User talk:Eleassar|my talk]]</sup> 13:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

== Images ==
{{Resolved|1=Discussion centralized at [[WT:MOS]].}}
*'''Link to any relevant discussion:''' None that I know of. - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 19:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
::Similar discussion occurring at [[WT:MOS#Image placement, part the second|WT:MOS]]. May I suggest that we keep the discussion in one place? Either here or there; I'm not fussed about which. Also, DanK55, preventing 'drop down' (image stack) is a trivial thing, so doesn't need to be a worry. [[User:PrinceOfCanada|Prince of Canada]]<sup>[[User talk:PrinceOfCanada#top| t]] | [[Special:Contributions/PrinceOfCanada|c]]</sup> 21:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Okay, WT:MOS is fine, I'll move it. - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 21:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:34, 11 October 2008


October 2008

Thanks for experimenting with the page Carl Weathers on Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, and has been reverted or removed. All information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable published source. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Manual_of_Style&oldid=244489287"