Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Consistency

I made a similar comment above in discussing straight versus curly quotes, but I thought I'd make it more generally, as well.

Why are we not interested in consistency in the MoS? Its a huge cop-out that when we disagree on something (curly vs. straight quotes, serial commas, US vs. U.S., etc.) that the answer is "either one is OK".

A lot of people complain "I don't like serial commas" or "straight quotes are ugly". To me, the ugliest thing is inconsistency. I don't care whether its US or U.S., I just want to pick one so all the articles look consistent. I don't care if we use serial commas or not, I just want to pick one so all the articles look consistent.

If we aren't actually providing specific guidance, why have an MoS at all. (OK, I'm exagerating, there's plenty of stuff that has actually been hashed out here, but you get the idea.)

I know there are some issues people take very personally that we can never approach this way, like British vs. American spelling or AD vs. BCE. (Just so you understand where I'm coming from, I'd be happier with all British spelling than with some British and some American spelling ... and I'm American.) However, for something like straight vs. curly quotes or US vs U.S. ... just pick one, let's flip a coin, who cares! Chuck 23:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. —Ralph Waldo Emerson

While I understand and symphatize with the urge to homogenize, to do so would just cause a deluge of unnecessary acrimony and animosity to no useful end. One of Wikipedia's greatest strengths is its diversity. Nohat 03:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, its diversity of information, ranging from Pokémon to Esters to Invented sports to Animals. One of Wikipedia's greatest weaknesses is its not being one project with one style of writing, but about twenty ways which make it look like a collection of pages rather than an encyclopedia (hyperbole, I give, but you get the idea). Having a broad range of information makes it look great. Having a broad range of prose style makes it look unreliable. And this is an encyclopedia to be both great and reliable, not just one.

My agreement with Chuck goes all the way to the flipping a coin. Minor things - that really, honestly, don't matter just so long as it's all the same. Having US here and U.S. there and “text” and "text" here looks horrible and quickly depreciates the respect of this encyclopedia (again, if already resolved, then ignore that fact and you get the idea). Just pick one, I don't care if I disagree with it, I can live as long as style is upheld.

If we really want a nice diverse style, then it may well be worth deleting this project page altogether. Having on every line, "you can do whatever you want, and don't force anything on anyone" is essentially doing the same thing.

Please please, please, people, see style for what it is, and don't make these long, drawn-out, ten-page-long debates about whether a dot should be there or not (hyperbole). If it's split even, take the status quo. If the majority's clearly against you, then live with it and edit by the majority. This is a manual of style, not a manual of freedom. (This is for minor things, not fundamental structural or major things.)

I also posted such a comment above, just under Chuck's, and then I saw this, sorry about the double post (the posts aren't replicates but convey the same thing). Neonumbers 12:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

How is it acrimonious to say "for consistency's sake, we have decided not to use curly quotes in the Wikipedia"? Don't the edit wars we get today (not to mention the discussions on this page) cause acrimony? Does anyone really care that much about any one of these issues? (If so, they really need to get some perspective.) Also, I agree with Neonumbers: the diversity of information makes Wikipedia great, the diversity of styles makes it ugly.

Oh, and regarding your quote... it would make just as much sense if you replace "consistency" with "inconsistency". They key part is the "foolish" part. If you think consistency in general is foolish, you should be against having a MoS at all. You don't think its foolish and "little" to be arguing over the spelling of "aluminum" or whether or not to use curly quotes?

Chuck 16:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

This idea is never going to get any kind of consensus support. Debates surrounding what the MoS should say are never going to be ended by flipping coins because those kinds of solutions are not representative of consensus. I guess you are having trouble believing it, but yes, plenty of people really do care that much about these issues. I see no value in imposing the will of the apathetic. The MoS process will continue to be characterized by long, drawn-out debates on the merits of various positions with the MoS representing the consensus of those debates.

No, consistency in general is not foolish, but a consistency based on no more than coin toss is foolish. And so is the notion that the MoS would be improved by settling debates with a coin toss. If you don't want to argue over such "trivial" matters like the spelling of "aluminum" or whether or not to use curly quotes, then don't. But how dare you have the hubris to tell us what we should and should not argue about! Nohat 17:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

First of all, my position is not that we necessarily settle things with a coin toss. You clearly didn't read what I wrote if you think that. My position is that we not end up with guidance that is "do it either way". I also never tried to tell you what you should or shouldn't argue about. I merely threw a rude, obnoxious quote back in your face.

Regarding flipping a coin: If there is not consensus either way between two choices, it implies that the cost/benefit of either choice is similar -- at that point, flipping a coin is a perfectly valid way to choose between two apparently equally valid choices. If one choice was really better it would receive consensus, regardless of any individual's belief to the contrary.

So argue away, but remember that at the end of the day, the whole point of the MoS is to provide guidance of how to edit wikipedia consistently, not to validate everyone's spelling and typesetting opinions. Chuck 00:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

True, coin tosses won't work for everything, but that's not the point. The debates over what's "better" and what's "worse" have destroyed the manual of style. Every detail merits a short debate, sure. But if it's truly clear there is no true consensus and the points even up — or, let's face it, we make arguments based on personal choice (even I do) — then instead of having a long, drawn out debate that ends in a compromise as good as nothing, a coin toss in its theory would do fine. (In practice, I would put it to the side with majority, however slight.) (And remember, there is no such issue about issues where there actually is a better way and therefore has consensus.)

This isn't about consistency based on coin tosses. This is how we make this the one project it was meant to be. One project, one encyclopædia, one style. We are, or should be, a unified team, not a divided community.

I'm not saying debate should be replaced with coin tosses. I'm just saying that, amidst the debate and reverts and the desire for absolute uncontested consensus, we're forgetting what this manual's all about. Guidance, consistency, style. The constant arguments seem to have overpowered the need to work together. To make the manual of style work like a style guide, some of us — even almost half of us — have to give way sometimes out of our will to make the style guide do its job. Otherwise, the manual will ultimately cripple and the encyclopædia with it. Neonumbers 12:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

That's a very nice argument, but I'm trying to see where you are going with it. After all, at present, a supermajority of native English speakers are Americans (see the graph in the English language article), and Canadians tend to side with Americans on the spelling of most words (with exceptions like center/centre). As an American, I personally don't mind going with the "majority rule" rule, since in practice, such a rule would usually favor American English usage (curb/kerb, median/central reservation, periods always inside quotes, and so on). But I am also concerned that such a rule would severely alienate users of British English and its variants, resulting in a permanent fork of the encyclopedia. --Coolcaesar 13:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

A consistent answer, applied uniformly across the Wiki, even if it's the "wrong" answer (for some people), would be better than the current system where we tear each other apart with debate and still flip and flop the style recomendation from one polarity to the other every few months. I heartily agree that a coin toss would be better than what we have now.

Atlant 13:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The underlying assumption of this little debate is that every stylistic choice is equally valid. Sometimes this is the case: there is really nothing apart from tradition that prefers color to colour (or colo3r, to drive the point home with an absurd example). Such issues might, I agree, just as well be settled with a coin toss. I care not and don't contribute to WP:MOS discussions about such issues.

But it's not always that easy. Take the straights vs curlies debate. The arguments are not symmetric. One side argues that straights are to be preferred because the are easier to enter or edit. The other side argues that curlies are to be preferred because it preserves data integrity (curlies can be automatically converted to straights but not vice versa) and the result is closer to the ideals of traditional typography. These aren't simply two arbitrary and symmetrical conclusions; they rely on which weights are attached to opposing ideals (data integrity vs. ease of editing, for example) that aren't necessarily based on aesthetics or regional traditions. A similar discussion is the use of diacritics. For me, the difference between Paul Erdős and Paul Erdos (and even Paul Erdös) is significant. It's a question of more information versus less information. The correct diacritic can be dumbed down to ö or o, but the other direction doesn't work. So on this topic I have an opinion that is not based on regional or traditional whims. It's a question about information quality (or “data integrity” if you want).

In summary, the difference between Paul Erdős and Paul Erdos is qualitatively different than the difference between colour and color. For the latter, a coin toss would be fine. But there are many matters where one stylistic choice is better (contains more information, has a higher standard of typography, correct grammar, etc.) but more hassle (harder to enter or edit or get right). These aren't symmetric, and worth debating. I will always decide on the “better but harder” side. Consistently. Arbor 14:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a classic example. If one choice is really "better", it will receive consensus. (Isn't this the Wikipedia's definition of better in this context?) If it does not receive consensus, then regardless of your (clearly strongly held) personal opinion, it must not really be better. The fact that your position is not "based on regional or tradition whims" is irrelevant. Instead it is based on your "data integrity whim", which you claim is a priori more important that someone else's "ease of editing whim". In fact, a counterargument that you failed to mention is that neither Paul Erdős nor Paul Erdös are actually english spellings. I don't know anything about the specific issue, since we generally don't use diacritics in english, but there is potentially an equally valid point to be made that in an english language publication, you use neither (except maybe as redirects and to reference the original spelling within the article). So maybe my "let's stick to english whim" should be the one that wins out.

What's really interesting about your point, though, is that you are basically saying "I don't care if we flip a coin when I have no opinion on the outcome, but I do care on issues where I do have an opinion on the outcome". Is this really a constructive position? Chuck 18:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry it came out that way. I didn't try to disparage either straight quotes or diacritic-less spellings in this contribution. The argument from ease of editing is a very strong one, and it is not clear that it trumps the argument from data integrity, (It does for me, but as I said, this is worth discussing — I didn't say that the outcome is clear.) On the other hand, the debate between color and colour are two qualitatively equivalent spellings. Hence there are no useful “higher principles” to appeal to, and discussion is (in my mind) a waste of time. A coin toss would be fine. I, personally, always write colour (and find the alternative mind-numbingly ugly); it's something I care about very much. But if there was a WP policy for American spelling, I would cheerfully follow that, in spite of my whims. But I can see no rational argument for preferring colour over color—the two choices are symmetric. Arbor 20:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, so now I'm confused what your point is. The existence or lack of existence of "higher principals" bears no relation to the fact that eventually a decision should be made. Are you arguing that you would rather no decision was made than a decision was made that you disagree with. I still find it hard to believe that it is controversial that the MoS actually provide guidance, instead of saying "do it either way". If people are fine with it being done the "other" way some of the time, then why not all the time? Chuck 22:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I was agreeing, to a large extent, with you. Yes, in a lot of cases I would prefer the MOS to be more restrictive. For example, a decision to use (say) American spelling would be fine with me—I can just switch on another spell checker, or some friendly soul can correct my Britishicism. These things I find symmetrical, and I am right behind you; consistency is good. However, there are other debates on this talk page that I find very relevant, and where your criticism is (IMO) too blunt. I took the straight/curly debate, or the diacritics debate as examples of the point I wanted to make. These debates aren't symmetrical (I feel). The two positions are based on how important we think different, relevant but conflicting, ideals are. For example, ease of editing (a fundemental Wiki cornerstone) versus data integrity or professionalism (which I happen to think are more important). This is in principle a relevant topic for debate (without there being an obviously superior position, even though I know what I think), whereas I agree with you that, e.g., colour vs color might as well be decided with a coin toss. Arbor 07:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

...Speaking of pointless debates, this is certainly one.

• Coin-flipping (or any random decision-making method) is never going to be a consensus-supported method of deciding MoS guidance
• No one is going to stop arguing about supposedly "unimportant" matters simply because it has been suggested that debating them is not a worthwhile activity
• There is not going to be a universal spelling of color (or any other word whose spelling varies from country to country) chosen for use throughout the Wikipedia project.

Nohat 08:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I have NEVER ONCE stated we shouldn't debate things. What I have suggested is that at some point a decision should be made one way or the other. Or when a decision has previously been made, that we not break down and revert to a "do it either way" position.

I think it interesting, by the way, that you know what will and won't be supported by consensus. You are the master of group psychology and I bow to your esteemed greatness. Chuck 18:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll start by commenting on the color vs. colour thing: my personal opinion is that the current policy on follow-the-first-editor spelling is good because American vs. British English standardisation is truly unrealisitic; and having said that, if there was a guideline mandating American English (I'm a NZer, we follow Britain), I would happily defer to that guideline despite my view against it. I guess that's just my thing and isn't really important.

Anyway, I now start to see, thanks to Arbor, why there is a debate at all about quotation marks, and yes, I guess that now I can symphathise a little bit. The arguments are asymmetrical — but they are still equal and they from a perfectly neutral stance cancel out one for one. (Obviously this ignores weighting of priorities, I accept that. I actually personally have a very strong view for straight quotes.)

Now, that thing aside, there is indeed nothing that merits no debate whatsoever, true; what I find annoying is the long debates that are just saying the same thing over and over and lasting several months and ending with "do either". For the manual of style to work, some of us will have to give way sometimes.

At this point originally began an explanation of what I'm asking for. Then I realised that I'm just repeating what said earlier. So here's my point: Where there is no consensus, we must remember that this is a manual of style, and nothing else, and therefore we have to turn one way or the other. My detailed explanation is in my last post.

Again, for the record, I'm not saying that debating is pointless and shouldn't be happening. But surely there be consensus that a style guide is to provide guidance with style? Neonumbers 07:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Some of us are concerned about m:instruction creep and try to limit the number of rules and regulations to a minimum. We understand that too many rules makes Wikipedia a difficult and unfriendly quagmire in which to work. In most cases, stylistic questions are fine left to the writer's discretion. The fact that some people find consistency aesthetically appealing does not make for a very persuasive argument. We need only provide guidance when there is a clear advantage to consistency. The onus is on the legislator to demonstrate not only that his proposed legislation will solve a problem, but also that a significant problem exists in the first place. Nohat 08:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

1) What's the matter with "instruction creep". Show me how it becomes "difficult" or "unfriendly". No one is required to follow the MoS. No one is graded on how well their edits follow the MoS. Someone may come along later and, for example, change all of your straight quotes to curly. But so what ... if you take it personally if someone edits your work, you really shouldn't be contributing to wikipedia.

2) There is no such thing as the "legislator" in the wikipedia. If you think there is, you don't belong here. The wikipedia works on consensus. If people think there is a need for guidance, then there is such a need. If people don't think so, then there isn't a need. Chuck 16:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem with instruction creep is self-evident. It's overwhelming and off-putting to conscientious users who want to be aware of all the rules and guidelines to make constructive contributions if there is an endless quantity of them, especially when they serve no useful purpose, such as arbitrary and capricious entries in the MoS. If there is no clear consensus that something should be done one way or another, then there should be no guideline at all, not a randomly selected guideline.

A legislator on wikipedia here is you, the person who wants to add additional rules. If you think that MoS guidance should be selected by a coin toss when no consensus emerges, then please, by all means, make a proposal. Set up a poll. See how much consensus you'll get. Nohat 20:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

One of, and perhaps the main thing that was emphasised to me clearly when I first came here was not to worry about doing things wrong because someone would come along and change it. And if, by chance, someone else does something wrong, then just change it — no need to take it up with them.

So, again, we forget what this manual is about. Guidance. There's nothing wrong with making an out-of-line edit if it contributes information. It's a wiki world. Someone else will change it to suit.

The manual does not exist to impose strict rules on editors. It is a reference guide so that editors who do like to know which way is preferred can look things up. Editors do not need to be familiar with this at all — someone else will come along and take care of it for them. Those who make out-of-style edits will not be reprimanded.

On that note, perhaps that should be made clear: that conformance is the goal of the team and there is no requirement for editors to follow it flawlessly. (And I would say that only essential things go on this page to make life easier for the newcomer; minor, specialised preferences can go on the supplementary manuals.)

There is a fundamental difference between this and legislation: legislation is about the individual, whereas this is about the project. We can all contribute, information helps and so does style, and there is no need to have both in the same person — I have no shame in saying I have no information to offer here. When will people realise what this is? One project, driven by the will of editors to make this the best encyclopædia (not collection of encyclopædias) around.

Despite all this bluster about how I don't understand how Wikipedia works (which is nonsense), I have still yet to a see a reasonable argument for why it is so important that Wikipedia have official preferences on things that we can't come to consensus on. Despite your sunny-day scenario for the MoS, in the Real World, the MoS is used by domineering editors to push undesirable and unnecessary changes into articles to make it conform to the MoS without any demonstrable effect other than aggravating users. The shorter and less full the MoS is of useless rules, the more useful it is, and the more likely it is that users will stick around and help contribute by making articles more accessible, informative and accurate, instead of being put off by an interminable and needlessly abundant MoS full of arbitrary and capricious rules that imperious and officious busybodies use to make needless and profligate changes that exasperate and annoy potential long-term contributors. I see no legitimate useful purpose and a mountain of drawbacks to having official stylistic preferences for things that don't actually affect our measurable value as an encyclopedia; that is, our ability to accurately inform. There is no need to fill the MoS with useless official preferences on picayune stylistic matters. Nohat 05:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice diatribe. This discussion might be more productive if you would ratchet up the civility a little bit. Am I an "imperious and officious busybod[y]" because I sometimes go through an article and fix the punctuation to match the Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks section? If so, please explain.

Your personal pet peeve "Oh no, someone changed my curly quotes to smart quotes", is no more valid that my personal pet peeve "How come this article has curly quotes and the last one I read has smart quotes". Your fear that editors will be put off by people editing their work (god forbid) is not particularly compelling in a medium where it says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here" at the bottom of every edit page.

So let's say I'm editing a long article and I want to add a few sentences, and one of the sentences includes a list, and I'm trying to decide if I should use a serial comma. Tell me how I'm supposed to decide. I have to read the whole article and tabulate the number of times serial comma is used, the number not used, and then go with the majority? Or do I have to go through the history and figure out the first time someone made a list and see whether they used the serial comma or not. Or do I just do it whichever way I feel like and just risk leaving the article looking like crap. Wouldn't it be a lot easier if the MoS just said "Use serial commas" or "Don't use serial commas". Which one of those scenarios creates the simplest, least controversial editing process?

BTW, I have yet to see a situation where there was a big todo over someone coming through an article and implementing style changes per the MoS. Can you give me an example? Chuck 16:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I haven't checked your editing history so I don't know what kinds of edits you have made, but I know for a fact that some mean-spirited editors will wikistalk people who they have gotten into disagreements with and follow them around the wiki, making changes of the sort I described to agitate and annoy. It's happened to me, and I've seen it happen to others, and it's really annoying. The less ammunition we give those people (with unnecessary and arbitrary MoS guidelines), the harder it is for them excuse their incivility. If this doesn't apply to you, then I'm sorry you thought I was accusing you of being imperious and officious.

My fear is not that editors will be put off by people editing their work; it is that editors will be put off by people making unnecessary and capricious changes bolstered by a MoS full of arbitrary rules that have no logical justification other than "we just decided to do it this way".

Note that this is not my only reason for opposing unnecessary MoS entries. I have outlined my other reasons for opposing them above: that if they're not needed, they shouldn't be had, that diversity is an asset, and so forth.

In your example scenario, the answer is that the editor should just do it whatever way he feels like as long as the result is reasonable. If the result is not reasonable, then someone else will change it so it is. A MoS entry that says "use serial commas" or "don't use serial commas" would not be some kind of editing panacea: it just moves the debate from a the trenches where the actual efficacy of particular editing choices has palpable impact to here, where the debate turns into interminable and wasteful meta-discussions (and meta-meta-discussions) on the theoretical benefits of particular editing styles with very little concern for or measurable impact upon the actual quality of articles.

So, rather then continue this rather pointless meta-meta-discussion, why don't you put your money where your mouth is, so to speak, and make a proposal? Nohat 20:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Assholes will always find ways to annoy people. I'm really not trying to be rude or dense, or frankly even say that I don't believe that happens, I just find it hard to believe that someone following you around changing, for instance, all of the times you write "U.S." to "US" would be annoying, as long as they were doing it based on some sort of consensus arrived at here. I certainly don't see how its a priori uncivil. Are they making annoying comments in the summary field? Are there MoS items that lend themselves to this? I often change the punctuation in quotation marks to be consistent with the MoS. If I am annoying people, however inadvertently, I would think that's weird.

Frankly I would think it was awesome if someone followed me around fixing all the little nits to make my edits consistent, assuming they weren't leaving obnoxious comments in the summary line, of course.

Why isn't it more useful to just have a discussion once. You seem to be saying "Instead of having a discussion once and getting it out of the way, we rehash the discussion again and again and again". That seems counterproductive. Isn't the simplest way to focus on actually adding content and to decide simple issues (especially Arbor's "symmetric" issues) once, in a forum like this.

I find it hard to figure out what your last paragraph means. No one is forcing you to continue this "pointless discussion", although I did notice that you managed to sneak in a snide comment at the end. Have I not made a proposal? Unfortunately, my proposal does not result in some type of action taken. Instead I was trying to invite discussion on the issue and try to encourage one possible approach to decisionmaking.

But you want me to make a proposal so let me start by setting the stage. First, I certainly believe we should discuss things thoroughly before making a decision. Second, rather than 2 choices, there are usually 4 (or more) choices in any of these debates. Assuming x and y are contradictory guidance: (i) add x to the MoS, (ii) add y to the Mos, (iii) add both to the MoS, allowing editors to choose between them, and (iv) add nothing to the MoS. My original proposal was that we should avoid using choices (iii) and (iv) as cop outs. Yes, sometimes there is consensus that we really don't need guidance on that issue. But many times, there seems to be consensus that we should say something, but we can't agree on what, so we end up with (iii) or (iv). So my proposal summarized is:

When there is consensus that MoS should address an issue, we should try to avoid ignoring the issue in the MoS or allowing multiple styles in the MoS, even if it may mean one side giving in and "taking one for the team" or both sides agreeing to choose randomly. When there is not consensus that MoS should address an issue, it should be left out entirely.

I know its more of a suggested philosophy than a proposal that would result in a specific action, but you asked me to propose something. Maybe that's not as bad as you thought it would be? Chuck 21:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)