Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 90

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 85 ← Archive 88 Archive 89 Archive 90 Archive 91 Archive 92 → Archive 95


First contributor example

The gasoline/petrol war was eventually decided based on the first contributor rule, after all other arguments were exhausted without any consensus. Should we mention it as an example? — Omegatron 04:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we need an example? — The Storm Surfer 04:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Dashes

Which dash should be used here: "the 2006-07 football season"? Epbr123 11:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

En dash. See WP:MOS#En dashes. --PEJL 11:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
See the proposal for overhauling the "years" section at MOSNUM. Tony 00:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Archives are a mess

I can't find anything in there. What happened to the old system of just using chronoclogical order? Marcus Taylor 01:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to it: I tried to look for something I remembered from around December 2006, but it was hopeless trying to find it. Tony 03:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The person who used to keep the archives insisted on doing it according to subject, which meant no one could ever find anything. I've been thinking for some time of going back to the beginning and re-creating chronological archives. Let me know if you think that would be helpful enough to justify the work. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Slim, I think that' s a good idea (without knowing how much work it would be for you). In addition, filing by subject means that someone has to tend to it continually into the future. Not a good prospect. But let's see what other people think. Tony 06:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I think I'll make a start. It's probably not a huge amount of work (famous last words). It's really only a question of copying the page every 100-200 kilobytes or so. Onwards and upwards ... SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
That would be excellent. I concur that the current topical archives are non-helpful. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"We" in mathematical examples should be discouraged

I think it's a bad idea to use the term "We need to find.." in mathematical articles because it usually allows the "textbook syndrome" to kick in once someone uses it. For instance, in the example "To normalize the wavefunction, we need to find the value of the arbitrary constant A." would be much better as "To normalize the wave function, the value of an arbitrary constant, A, must be determined.". From the mathematics articles I've edited here, the term tends to encourage the use of "imagine a.." or "suppose we have" which make articles sound more like textbooks than encyclopaedia articles. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 23:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Concur, per WP:NOT which specifically says we should not be emulating textbooks or other "guides". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Textbooks may well use active voice in places, but that doesn't mean that that ascribing agency and bringing in a personal/human element is a device that is owned by or characteristic of textbooks alone. It might well be that a WP articles share with textbooks an audience of non- and semi-experts, which is a good reason to temper what otherwise can be a tiresome use of the passive voice throughout (which I hate).
So rather than relying on the tarring of this practice with snobbery about textbooks, can we think in more linguistic terms? Tony 01:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I mostly agree with Minestrone here. "We" just doesn't sound like something you'd ordinarily read in an encyclopedia. That's an aesthetic judgment on my part, but Tony's dislike of the passive voice seems to be primarily an aesthetic judgment as well. To me the passive voice connotes dispassion (ah, there's an Italian word, distacco, which would be perfect here; I don't quite know how to translate it -- detachment, maybe?), which is pretty much what one wants in an encyclopedia. --Trovatore 03:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Interesting: I'd have called it "neutrality" rather than "detachment". WP doesn't need to be detached/disengaged from the reader, does it? I'd like to think that some of our articles can inspire and delight readers as well as informing them. In any case, is "we" all that personal when it's used to avoid the passive? My preference is not to use one option throughout an article, but to be more flexible: not passive unerringly. There are linguistic/psychological disadvantages to it. Want me to explicate? Tony 03:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not calling for a hard ban on the word "we", but I haven't really seen an example where I thought it was an improvement. By the way, in math articles, it's not usually a choice between "we" and the passive. The other choice is to make the mathematical objects themselves the subjects of the sentences -- the objects act rather than are acted on. That's the solution I usually prefer -- I think it comes out more descriptive, less didactic. --Trovatore 03:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
As a side note, I find myself concurring with Trovatore again, on all counts, and further I think that WP should be detached, in several senses. That's just kind of how encyclopedias are. I have a dreadful time with the people who work on bio articles within the scope of WP:CUE but who are not members or even regular wikipedians. The general urge is to write in a "directly engaging" style, with the result that many, many of these article end up with a {{Magazine}} slapped on them. There's a huge difference between "John Doe, then a resident of Florida, won the 1999 WPA World Nine-ball Championship, defeating John Q. Public, 11-2" and "In 1999 we saw the Floridian youth take the pool world by storm, trouncing hardcore favorite "Pistol John" Public in an 11-2 spanking". I don't even really exaggerate at all here. The "we" issue to my mind has quite a lot to do with this "journalistic" style that many, many newbie and even not-so-newbie editors bring to Wikipedia, requiring more experienced and encyclopedianism-grokking editors to revise and revise. It's a major pain the [insert body part of choice here]. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, so is it worth inserting a "recommendation", carefully worded? Time is ripe to do this, by changing the subtitle in the MOSNUM draft of text that will end up soon here at MOS-central, from "Common mathematical symbols" to "Mathematics", and adding to the subsection a summary of the most important linguistic guidelines. If that's something you favour, we'd need to move quickly. What do you think of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(mathematics)#Writing_style_in_mathematics? Tony 05:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The "we" issue is beyond math articles, though. Hmm... — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Good point, although I can see that it's a particular problem in maths articles. Should we, then, put this off until the "Usage" subsection here is overhauled and significantly expanded (can't be long now)? I'm itching to make people think twice before writing quite a few things, such as "Note that". Tony 05:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful with wording this; I had an objection to the perfectly idiomatic, and non-textbook "has come down to us" of surviving classical texts, based on this part of MOS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we need to tread carefully (the wording needs to be posted here first, and the Mathematics submanual people need to be alerted to it). I've been criticised for writing "has deepened our knowledge of ...". Who's "we/our"? was the question. It's a reasonable point to make. Tony 05:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

New subsections on times and numbers being finalised!

As advised twice in the past week on this talk page, the folks at MOSNUM have been working hard on a summary of the most important information in their submanual, to insert here. This information will probably also be the basis of an overhaul of the text at MOSNUM itself, which will continue by providing greater detail and covering a wider range of topics.

I'm hoping that the text will be finalised and the insertion made into MOS-central early next week. Please speak up now if you have suggestions or improvements, here. Tony 05:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Which dash?

Which dash should be used at Toronto Raptors' Accomplishments and Records? Thanks. —MC 00:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You've currently used dashes in two ways: a spaced hyphen and a spaced emdash. Neither is correct. Also, mixing styles is incorrect:

  • (spaced hyphen) Morris Peterson (rookie - 2001; sophomore - 2002)
  • (spaced emdash) NBA playoff record for most three-point field goals in one half with 8 — Vince Carter, Toronto vs. Philadelphia Sixers, May 11, 2001.

You can use either spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes. Some sports editors prefer spaced endashes:

  • (spaced endash) Morris Peterson (rookie – 2001; sophomore – 2002)
  • (unspaced emdash) Morris Peterson (rookie—2001; sophomore—2002)

whichever you choose, you should use it consistently throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. —MC 01:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Commas inside quotes

wow I'm kinda shocked about WP:PUNC's commas & quotes stuff. I distinctly remember reading a Barron's grammar guide that said precisely the opposite. What authority was referred to when coming to this conclusion? Thanks Ling.Nut 11:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You're referring the so-called logical style of placing punctuation outside quotes if it's structurally part of the external sentence in which the quote exists. Have a read of it again. We don't need outside authorities for justification, although they play a role in the policy we make here. WP's MOS serves its unique mode, readership and function. Tony 11:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I understood that the "non-logical" style was based on the typographical aesthetics of the printed page, which are of less relevance to Wikipedia. The logical style is normal in British English and is also preferred in IT circles, where punctuation can be critical. Even though the Chicago University Press continue to use the "American style", they also say (in the Chicago Manual of Style) that the logical style is used in linguistic and philosophical works; textual criticism is another field named as presenting problems for "American" style. The Oxford University Press use the logical style and they point out (in the Oxford Guide to Style) that the ambiguity of the "US practice" can lead to problems when material from US and British sources are mixed. This could be an issue for Wikipedia. --Boson 19:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it could, and is precisely why WP settled on logical style; quotations using US-style that are themselves inside quotations can be handled with [sic] in the rare case that they actually introduce an ambiguity. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I understood that the “non-logical” style was based on the typographical aesthetics of the printed page, which are of less relevance to Wikipedia.
Like hell they are! Wikipedia should look as aesthetically nice as a printed page. Felicity4711 03:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
but the same graphical considerations do not apply. For html, both ways look equally clunkyDGG (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Consistency with regard to BC/AD vs. BCE/CE

Resolved
 – Wrong venue: This discussion should be, and otherwise has been, taking place at WT:MOSNUM.

I understand the principle that the same style of spelling, terms, etc should be used in the same article. However, what about if there is a main page that uses say BC, whereas a sub-page uses BCE. Specifically the pages I'm looking at are History of Japan and Japanese Paleolithic. The former uses BC, as indeed do the other historical sub-pages, but the latter has used BCE since the start.

So can one see the consistency rule as applying to such similar, related pages such as in this case, or does it only apply to individual articles even if they're part of a series? John Smith's 14:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

  • This is a worthy consideration, but one that is cirumscribed by the fact that articles that start out as "daughters" of one article often attain a life of their own and may be closely related to more than one article. Where there's no resistance, consistency should be a goal, I think; but let's not raise blood pressure about it. Tony 14:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • In principle, using the same datation method for "related pages" sounds nice, but the application would call for endless arbitrations:
-If two pages are related, which one should have primacy over the other?
-What is the definition of "related" (endless discussions about pages which are related in a fundamental way and those which are not... keeping in mind that basically all pages are related on Wikipedia).
-In the very case of Japanese Paleolithic, since the History of Japan thus starts with a BCE/CE article, an argument could be made that the rest of the Japanese history should follow suit, especially as Japan is fundamentally not related to the Christian cultural area.
So I am afraid that going into considerations of relatedness would only complicate the matter. The fundamental issue is that Wikipedia uses two datation systems, a traditional religious one (BC "Before Christ"/AD "Annus Domini") and a more modern, more neutral, one (BCE "Before current era", CE "Current era") used by most scholars, and that one day opinions will have evolved enough to make the latter the obvious choice for an International and culturally-neutral Encyclopedia. PHG 01:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
You don't have to a be overly religious to use the more common BC/AD and people should not be overly offended by their use (or lack of use) either. After all, both eras use the birth of "someone" as its ending/starting point.
And PHG, it is ANNO Domini— not ANNUS Domini (I wonder what you were thinking about... :) ) and it's Common Era— not CURRENT era. And most "scholars" are... —MJCdetroit 03:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction, but "Annus Domini" is also used, being the nominative, as a Google search will show (see also Annus horribilis for a parallel). What you seem to be alluding to has one "n" less. And "The Common Era, is also known as the Current Era" as explained in that very Wikipedia article. PHG 14:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I see no problems in switching from CE to AD as the subjects change emphasis. Keeping what is immediately in front of the reader consistent is enough of a goal, and quite difficult enough. DGG (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • PHG, I'm only raising this issue because the page in question is a sub-page of one created much earlier (History of Japan), as well as it being part of a series. It was also created after the other pages in the series. So it is obvious what should take precedence. Your argument that Japanese history starts with a BC/CE article is rather ridiculous. If matters were more unclear, a discussion could be held but once again the first version used would stay until a decision was made. There's nothing wrong with a case-by-case basis.
Also I dispute most scholars use BCE/CE. I would say that most use BC/AD and that there is no longer anything non-neutral about the latter term. If one wants to say the latter imposes a "religious" slant, then someone else can retort the former imposes a "secular" attitude. John Smith's 10:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe BC/AD is not adequate for articles not specifically related to Christian matters, especially as a neutral alternative is available with BCE/CE. In this case (Japan), or in the case of Buddhism for example, BCE/CE is the obvious culturally-sensitive choice. Saying that BC/AD is neutral is not credible, as it is equivalent in nature to the Hijra (even the Wikipedia:Manual of Style describes "the overtly Christian associations of AD and BC"). This is another debate though, but I maintain my objection to using the coherence between separate articles as a pretext to push the BC/AD point of view, especially as it comes from a notable "BC/AD date-warrior". PHG 14:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Yet it is widely used for non-Christian matters, and I see no real complaints from most users. Even the article Shinto uses BC/AD without any problems. It is not insensitive to use BC/AD in Japan-related articles at all - you're imagining things.
I would advise you to not make comments such as "a notable BC/AD date-warrior". Maybe I should suggest you are the reactionary who is out of tune with the majority and seeks to maintain his own sense of "neutrality" despite the obvious common-sense in ensuring commonality between pages in a series and parent pages. John Smith's 15:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

C’mon, BCE/CE is just old wine in new skins; it’s nothing more or less Christian-based than BC/AD, just a bit more disguised than that bit of Latin does. That being said, a lot of people feel more comfortable with disguise than with actually adapting their point of view. Christoph Päper 01:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A few comments:

  • 70% of the world is not Christian. This is indeed the large majority, and to them there is a difference between mentionning "Christ" and "Dominus" every time we talk about history, and just saying "Current era".
  • The last time there was a wide-ranging debate on the BC/AD-BCE/CE issue, the vote came out 50-50. The claim that "BC-AD" would be the "majority view" is therefore totally untrue. The reality is that Wikipedia users are deeply split on the subject.
  • Going back to the subject of Japan, if Japan-related articles are to be coordinated with the same date system, it would definitely make more sense to adjust all articles along the BCE/CE system. Japan itself never mentions "Christ" or "Dominus" when it uses the Western Calendar. It just says 西暦 ("Seireki", Western Calendar), and for BC says 紀元前 ("Before the start of the current era") and for AD 紀元後 ("After the start of the current era"), hence chooses secularity.
  • Actually, the History of Japan article was started in April 2002 with the BCE/CE date format: here, which fundamentally renders nil the proposal being made here. An early date warrior changed the date format to BC/AD, and now it is claimed that all related articles should be changed to BC/AD as well for consistency??? This is reason enough to return the History of Japan to its original BCE/CE format, and the only kind of harmonization between articles that could be warranted would be along the BCE/CE line, as is only natural for non-Christian related articles. PHG 01:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Nice try PHG. It's reverting to the first NON-STUB. The version you've listed is clearly a stub. So we don't revert to that.
70% of the world couldn't give a fig about BC/AD. I'm sure some people do care, but I don't think it's that much. John Smith's 10:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Appart from your light-handed dismissal of 70% of the world, where does it say that the date format is only taken into account from the time an article reaches non-stub status? Could you give me a link? Thanks. PHG
Or maybe your rather malicious portrail of 70% of the world being so intolerant as to be unhappy with the use of two letters. I think they're much more flexible than that.
Under "National varieties of English" there is a recommendation to use the first non-stub. Under the more specific "Dates and Numbers" there is no recommendation to using the first verion, either non-stub or stub. However, the main MOS page says "Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." First major contributor would indicate the first non-stub. John Smith's 12:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you, but you cannot have it both ways: I am the creator and the first major contributor of the Indo-Greek article, and I chose early in its history (as I was de-stubbing it) that it should be BCE/CE. Your edit warring to BC/AD is therefore inadequate.
  • In the case of the History of Japan article, the facts are that this article was started as BCE/CE, and, to your point, de-stubbed using BC/AD.
  • However I still strongly dispute the validity of BC/AD datation for a non-Christian subject such as Japan, and it seems the MOS covers this sort of case:
"it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so (for example, it is acceptable to change from American to British spelling if the article concerns a British topic, and vice versa)."
MOS here makes a point that cultural affinity or the lack thereof can be a substantial reason to change a style (including a datation style). This clearly applies to our case (which is even more crucial and sensitive than the British English/American English example given): Japan or Buddhism etc... are totally non-Christian topics, whereas MOS recognizes "the overtly Christian associations of AD and BC". This translates into quite a few people actually being offended by the usage of BC/AD on these pages. In full confomity with the spirit of the MOS there is therefore substantial reason to adopt a non-Christian datation system such as BCE/CE for non-Christianity related topics.
In particular, I am afraid there is no legitimate ground for your edit warring trying to establish BC/AD on such pages as History of Nepal, History of Japan or History of the Americas. Regards. PHG 01:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, nice try. But it doesn't say anything about "cultural affinity" - it merely acknowledges there is a Christian link. As MOS also says, BC/BCE or BC/AD is acceptable to use. It does not say either is inappropriate. Also I did not change from one style to another in the case of the HoJ page. It was not consistent across the article - I made it so. John Smith's 09:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
You seem to overlook the part that voids your argument: MOS does say a change in style can be made when there is a substancial reason to do so, and gives as an example of a substancial reason the coherence between article content (British topic) and article style (British English). This very sensible rule covers all elements of style in MOS, including date formats. It is obvious in that case that for non-Christianity-related articles a non-Christian dating system (BCE-CE) is the most coherent with article content, allowing to avoid "the overtly Christian associations of AD and BC" (per MOS). And the MOS allows to pro-actively change to the style that best fits article content. This is only common sense, and we have the responsibility to implement it for non-Christianity related articles. Regards. PHG 01:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
And I would once again contend the article being "non-Christian" is irrelevant. Check MOS where is says that BOTH styles are acceptable. There are no caveats to that. John Smith's 05:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Claiming "irrelevant" the fact that an article has no link whatsoever with Christianity is really only your personal opinion: a lot of people would disagree with such a statement, and I have not seen it anywhere as fact or policy. What is indisputable is that the MOS acknowledges "the overtly Christian associations of AD and BC", and that it has a policy of consistency between topic and style: forcing an "overtly Christian BC/AD" dating format in articles which have nothing to do with Christianity, or would rather even take their distance from it, is just contrary to this consistency rule. I agree both styles are acceptable, but when challenged in such articles, the only sensitive thing to do is to adopt the more neutral BCE/CE. PHG 07:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
It isn't my personal opinion. MOS clearly says that either term is acceptable. It is for you to prove that there are caveats attached to that. You have repeatedly failed to do so - stating the bleedingly obvious (Christian links to BC/AD) doesn't help your argument at all. If that's all you have to say, I'm not impressed at all. John Smith's 07:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Please kindly respect Civility rules. The caveat is that the MOS promotes consistency between topic and style (introduction). And rest assured, I believe not forcing the usage of BC/AD on others actually agrandizes Christianity. PHG 07:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I am being perfectly civil - you appear to have overreacted. Why does consistency between topic and style mean BC/AD cannot be used? You're not making any sense. I also couldn't care less about whether Christianity is agrandized or not - that wasn't why I started this topic. Anyway this discussion isn't going anywhere. I had hoped that this talk page could clear things up, but there hasn't been enough 3-party discussion. John Smith's 18:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi John. I don't know how it could be clearer: a fundamental point of the MOS is to promote consistency (Introduction), including the consistency between topic and style (as demonstrated by the recommendation to use British-English for a British Topic). In that case, it is only natural for a non-Christian topic to use a non-Christian datation method. Imposing a "overtly Christian BC/AD" (MOS) on non-Christian topics fundamentally goes against the MOS consistency approach. It is a very simple, commonsense and sensible policy: whatever the rethorics, your argument against it doesn't stand. Regards. PHG 01:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
My argument stands fine - it's yours that is baseless. John Smith's 11:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Consistency between topic and style (i.e. BCE/CE for non-Christian topics) is really the only way to go. You are merely holding onto a technicality ("What was the first style used on this page?") to defend your point of view, in total disregard of what an article is about (History of Nepal???). I do not expect to convince you, as it is quite obvious you are on a crusade here. PHG 07:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course on a different note, the use of BCE/CE is technically more accurate, because it is unlikely that Jesus was born in 1AD, and was picked arbitrarily in the year 532 based on some historical guesswork, which is most likely slightly inaccurate (by a few years in either direction). This means that AD as 'year of our lord' is probably inaccurate, making CE not only more acceptable from a secular point of view, but also a better descriptor. I support the use of CE/BCE in all pages discussed here, and would go so far as to say it should go in to the MOS as the standard except for specifically christian focused articles. Owain.davies 10:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about Jesus - you have the wrong page, I think. John Smith's 18:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
???? I can't say i really understand your comment. You are talking about measuring units of time in relation to his alleged birth, and i'm just pointing out that it's probably an incorrect measure - making common era more relevant. Owain.davies 20:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Sigh*, it isn't used anymore as a reference to his birth. It's just an old way of expressing time - the fact it was alleged to be to do with his birth is not relevant to the actual measuring of time itself. John Smith's 21:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly right, it isn't used a reference to his birth by most people, making it redundant, and CE/BCE more appropriate as a terminology. Owain.davies 21:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I support User:Owain.davies's opinion that the MOS should establish the standard as BCE/CE, except for specifically Christian focused articles.PHG 07:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in this dispute, but editors interested might want to note that I have nominated Template:History of China - BC for deletion.[1] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

MOSNUM

The summary of WP:MOSNUM that was recently added by User:Tony1 is much too detailed. All rare cases and exceptions – often clearly marked as such by signal words – should be left to the subpage, as should explanations. (Of course, with stricter, logical rules that section could be shortened that much it perhaps wouldn’t need its own page any more. Ain’t gonna happen, I know.) Christoph Päper 00:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  • All rare cases and exceptions ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Why don't you provide examples of details that you think are inappropriate here? I thought, perhaps, of "Centuries and milliennia", but it's only one point in the whole section; hardly seemed worth excluding. Pleased to hear specific recommendations here. Tony 00:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought the hint about keywords was obvious. Stuff like “Rarely, a night may be expressed in terms …” or “… exceptions are performance averages in sports …” needs to be cut.
In other places the text is overly verbose, e.g. nobody – or at least too few people to be worth being considered in a generalised rule – would put any suffix after a 24h time (except maybe ‘h’), which actually is an example where there could be even firmer shortenings: just describe the format of the 24-hour clock, leave the exceptional 12-hour clock to MOSNUM.
Sorry for not being more constructive, but I have already put more time in this again than I promised myself. Christoph Päper 01:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Christoph, look elsewhere in MOS and you'll find fine details. Here are examples: "The Latter Day Saint movement has particular capitalization and naming conventions." and "In periodic table groups, use the IUPAC names (these use Arabic numerals, not Roman numerals or letters)." If there's consensus for the removal of fine details, sure. It should be done systematically, and raised at MOSNUM talk, too. Tony 09:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
When other sections that consist of an outline of a subpage have details too fine, those should obviously go too. The talk about what to keep should rather be done on this page in my opinion, because it is here where the trimmed content is featured. Christoph Päper 16:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Either MOSNUM talk or MOS talk are fine by me in the first instance, with the assumption that the other talk will receive a notification/link where it's more than a trivial issue. I'd be happy to see a subsection on the issue of removing a few points from MOS for which there's consensus that their level of detail is inappropriate for MOS. Feel like pursuing this? Tony 04:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_90&oldid=1078775790"