911:. With any luck the participants will put that debate (let's call it Debate D1) on hold in order to begin Debate D2: consideration of the variety of English in which D1 should be conducted. Then, if there really is a God in Heaven, D1 and D2 will be the kernel around which will form an infinite regress of metadebates D3, D4, and so on -- a superdense accretion of pure abstraction eventually collapsing on itself to form a black hole of impenetrable disputation, wholly aloof from the mundane cares of practical application and from which no light, logic or reason can emerge.
574:
560:
118:
819:
leave him alone except in the extreme situation of solitary confinement. By destroying all space between men and pressing men against each other, even the productive potentialities of isolation are annihilated..." Or as John Stuart Mill -- himself a great lover of commas, so you can't dismiss him as a bleeding-heart, comma-omitting permissive corruptor of young punctuators -- said... Oh, never mind.
24:
95:
864:
That last point, BTW, is one of the first thing MOS says. I'm quite aware that there's a MOS rule requiring comma-after-year. And I'm telling you that removing that rule, or changing it to a short mention that opinions differ on this, would go a long way toward repairing the disdain many editors have
675:
a rule, we could do that with an RfC, but I wouldn't recommend that, for a couple of reasons. One, it would probably be a lot of work ending in no consensus. Two, give editors a little room to breathe, shall we? We don't need to micromanage every possible clause construction. The project will survive
452:
The sport analogy: MOS is like the rules of football, an agreement between participants (and observers) on how the game will proceed, so that it can actually proceed in sensible fashion. You don't decide to employ a basketball rule on the football field just because you don't like the football rule.
193:
lower courts have ruled on that issue and been unable to agree. This not only reduces the high court's workload, but helps ensure that the issue has been "thoroughly ventilated" through many points of view and in the context of a variety of fact situations, by the time the high court takes it up. The
818:
As Hannah Arendt put is so well: "It is the inner coercion whose only content is the strict avoidance of contradictions that seems to confirm a man's identity outside relationships with others. It fits him into the iron band of terror even when he is alone, and totalitarian domination tries never to
780:
Having rendered yet another noble service in defense of the homeland (as they like to tell themselves) they jump back into their black SUVs and scurry up their rappelling ropes to their double-rotor helicopters and fly off to their next target, never knowing or caring whether that particular article
480:
What may be happening is intelligent editors have created, argued, and reminisced about so many rules, guidelines, and related flora and fauna that
Knowledge (XXG) is running out of them. Intelligence flows like water into extant depressions, and when the ground is mostly level all we get are slight
255:
In the real world, English-language writing style is subjective and variable; most style matters are arbitrary to a degree. The leading
English-language style guides all disagree with each other on hundreds of alleged rules. It is not logically possible for MOS to be objectively "right" or "wrong"
804:
FOR ONCE -- GRANT US JUST A SHRED OF PERSONAL AUTONOMY, A TINY REMINDER OF THE TIME WHEN THERE EXISTED A FEW ZONES OF DISCRETION IN WHICH MEN WERE FREE TO WORK OUT WITH THEIR FELLOW-EDITORS WHETHER OR NOT TO APPLY A COMMA, ACCORDING TO THE DICTATES OF THEIR OWN CONSCIENCES? CAN YOU REALLY NOT SLEEP
651:
We don't have a rule for it, so its not your job to "fix" other editors' constructions to a format that pleases you personally. It's just roiling the text for no gain. (On the merits, English is a human language, not a programming language, and everyone understands what is meant by "former
American
616:
A fifth good reason is that micromanaging editors to this level is demoralizing and not how you attract and nurture a staff of volunteer editors – for instance we have a stupid micromanaging rule that I have to write "in June 1940" and not "in June of 1940" which is how I naturally write, and every
758:
Where I've seen actual trouble is when other editors -- who have shown (and will subsequently show) no active interest in the article itself -- arrive out of nowhere in their radar-equipped year-with-no-comma–detector vans, then break down the door to weld court-ordered ankle-bracelet commas onto
170:
with various results in various cases, but with reason to believe the differences are arbitrary and not worth all the arguing – a final decision on one arbitrary choice (though an intrusion on the general principle that decisions about each article should be made on the Talk page of that article)
919:, is of course to be regretted. But they will know in their hearts that their sacrifice is for the greater good of Knowledge (XXG). That won't be true, of course, but it would be cruel to disabuse them of that comforting fiction as we bid them farewell and send them on their way.
794:
are not the targets of these jackbooted comma-thugs -- at least not this time. "Look," they say to their children, "that's what happens if you don't obey the rules. You should love Big
Brother MOS for his heroic dedication to relieving you of the burden of deciding anything for
753:
in serious conflict over a particular instance of that question. The discussion might go, "Hmmm... I'd use a comma myself but if you prefer none... yeah, that looks OK too. Now about that source-reliability question we were discussing..." but that's about it.
328:
try to answer every conceivable style question. Many of us also hold onto a poorly-aging notion of "proper" writing from our school days, and some are later habituated to field-specific writing norms in our work life, in conflict with other styles.
453:
Your team doesn't play by a different rulebook than the opponents. And players do not stand on the pitch arguing for hours about how they wish one of the rules were different; they get on with the game, or the spectators will boo them and go home.
763:
whose only crime was appearing in public with his trailing digit exposed -- something which (these prudish enforcers of
Victorian punct-morality seem never to understand) was considered perfectly acceptable in most cultures throughout human
304:
because policies and guidelines are sensitive and complex, users should take care over any edits, to be sure they are faithfully reflecting the community's view and to be sure they are not accidentally introducing new sources of error or
995:
609:
A third good reason is that creating a rule means enforcement, it puts interactions about the matter into an enforcement mode where editors are playing rules cop with other editors and this is not as functional as peer-to-peer
150:
need for project-wide consistency (e.g. "professional look" issues such as consistent typography, layout, etc. – things which, if inconsistent, would be significantly distracting, annoying, or confusing to many readers);
35:
on resisting "MOSbloat", which if unchecked could turn
Knowledge (XXG)'s Manual of Style into a superdense neutron star with a gravitational pull so powerful that the entire project will be sucked into it and never seen
914:
That some editors will find themselves inexorably and irreversibly drawn into this abyss, mesmerized on their unending trip to nowhere by a kaleidoscope of linguistic scintillation reminiscent of the closing shots of
185:
situations to discuss, the debate devolves into hypothesizing along the lines of "Well, suppose an article says this ..."  – no examples of which, quite possibly, will ever occur in the real life of real editing.
666:
change other editors' constructions, and do not "correct" other editors to match your personal predelictions. It just leads to pointless roiling of the text, unnecessary bad feelings, and pointless sterile edit
397:. Whether MOS agrees with a particular news publisher's style preferences, or that of a popular journalism style guide, is simply irrelevant. MOS has adopted virtually nothing from news stylebooks, which are
465:
I think a good rule of thumb when editing guidelines might be: "If you're thinking about/trying to remedy particular editors' particularized classes of mistakes, you shouldn't be writing a guideline right
701:
980:
847:
The opposite of rigid prescription of everything isn't "flightiness" on everything; the opposite of rigid prescription on everything is measured guidance appropriate to the point being discussed:
341:
books, because that's what an encyclopedia is. To an extent, MOS is also influenced by the most clearly demonstrable, dominant, long-term patterns of
English usage found in high-quality sources
975:
643:
And from a series of posts, by the same wise editor, in a discussion of whether someone should be described as a "former
American hockey player" or an "American former hockey player":
776:
them? I'm not advocating that unhygienic extreme but a bit of exposed backside shouldn't shock anyone in this enlightened age. But I digress, so back to our narrative underway...)
933:
734:
You treat punctuation marks like mathematical operators which organize words into nested structures of
Russian-doll clauses and such, and they're nothing like that.
541:
617:
stupid micromanaging rule like this is just another reason to just say screw it. As the Bible says "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn" (
370:
955:
865:
for those parts of MOS which ridiculously overreach and overprescribe, thereby preserving respect for its important provisions on things that really matter.
307:. Substantive changes to MOS are especially sensitive, because they can directly affect the content of thousands – potentially even millions – of articles.
223:
MOS is very well-developed now, and it is unlikely that the "new" rule you want to insert has not already been considered and rejected several times before.
386:. However, MOS does not blindly follow any of these, because they may not always address what Knowledge (XXG) needs for its purposes and readership.
970:
965:
781:
has, or has not, been improved by their visitation. Certainly all the breaking of the crockery and smashing of the furniture can't have helped, but
332:
MoS is not "broken" just because it conflicts with or omits something found in your favorite overly comprehensive or topically specific manual.
425:
606:
A second good reason is that adding another needless rule bogs down the MOS with more detail and makes it harder to learn and harder to use.
625:) which updated means "Let the editor who did the actual work of looking up the refs and writing the friggen thing -- you know, the actual
40:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge (XXG) contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
950:
321:
313:
132:("MOS"). This page contains the thoughts of some of Knowledge (XXG)'s most brilliant and renowned editors on keeping such bloat in check.
41:
506:
in a discussion of whether we should standardize forms such as "received a degree", "took a degree", "graduated", "was graduated", etc.
749:
All over Knowledge (XXG) there are years with comma following, and years with no comma following, and never have I seen two editors,
827:
Punctuation is not some flighty thing that you use when it feels right or the mood takes you (otherwise the MOS would be redundant).
398:
960:
264:
272:
945:
111:
have one. And if it doesn't already have a rule on that nit-pick at this late date, then it probably doesn't need one now.
901:
573:
559:
104:
382:
351:
338:
284:
an encyclopedia article nor a public "how to write" guide for the world. It is an internal document determined by
738:
and no, I don't buy into the "OhButIfWeDon'tThereWillBeEndlessArgumentOnEachArticle" reasoning just because that
622:
618:
629:-- be at least allowed the satisfaction of presenting it as she thinks best, within reasonable constraints"...
440:
260:
376:
357:
164:
with generally the same result (so that by memorializing that result we can save pointless future arguing),
428:
as found in scientific journals. Avoid making assumptions about the reader's background; do remember that
229:– for the reader experience, and in internally guiding cleanup and the resolution of recurrent disputes –
117:
299:
285:
45:
542:
discussion of whether MOS should specifically command or forbid the italicization of indicators such as
412:
Knowledge (XXG) is also not written in sharply varying styles from topic to topic. We do not wallow in
288:(informed, of course, by reliable sources on style), not by citations or through willy-nilly revisions.
599:
This is certainly something that should be left up to the individual editor, for various good reasons.
444:
236:
55:
635:
This means different articles will do it differently. This annoys a certain type of editor. Oh well...
325:
324:. This seems to be forgotten more often in MOS-related discussion and editing, in part because many
281:
246:
with a minimum of editorial strife over stylistic trivia, so that we can get on with the work we're
476:
during a 2018 MOS dispute – we're not quite sure what it means, exactly, but the imagery is great:
908:
291:
32:
135:
125:
679:
I believe in letting the person who (after all) did the actual writing work be given a kind of
136:
If MOS doesn't need to have a rule on something, then it needs to not have a rule on that thing
247:
577:
563:
537:
436:
296:
more caution should be exercised in editing policies and guidelines than in editing articles
220:
If MoS does not already have a rule on something, then it almost certainly doesn't need one.
212:
429:
394:
268:
243:
129:
471:
189:
An analogy: The highest courts of many nations generally refuse to rule on an issue until
481:
smeared-out puddles which then freeze over and cause all kinds of slipping and grumbling.
239:
encyclopedia's accuracy, clarity, technical needs, and other principles summarized below.
200:
If MOS does not need a rule on something, then it needs to not have a rule on that thing.
157:
Editor time has been, and continues to be, spent litigating the same issue over and over
928:
874:
768:(Did you know, for example, that in the ancient Olympic games, years and days competed
584:
567:
317:
989:
503:
457:
900:
In the last 48 hr I've become aware of a simmering dispute over whether the text of
48:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
181:
articles should be a gating requirement for adding anything to MOS is that without
790:
During all this the neighbors cower in their homes with the lights out, glad that
140:
Something belongs in MOS only if (as a necessary but not sufficient test) either:
613:
A fourth good reason is that there's zero evidence that it matters to the reader.
417:
514:
Prescribing one form would have an adverse impact on the quality of the prose.
421:
390:
194:
same thinking should apply to any consideration of adding a provision to MOS.
923:
869:
432:; and please examine your own motivations before suggesting a change to MOS.
171:
being worth making in light of the large amount of editor time to be saved.
659:
Do what you think best, using your wit and sense for the English language.
401:
for how to write encyclopedic prose. If you argue to change MoS to match
413:
231:
not in its exact choice of advice about any particular style peccadillo.
603:
One good reason is that... there is no one clear correct or better way.
235:
However, MOS's rule selections are not random. They are guided by this
996:
Knowledge (XXG) essays and information pages about the Manual of Style
839:
immorality, open homosexuality, interracial marriage, and baby murder.
345:. The primary inspiration for MOS's specific decisions comes from the
655:
Since there isn't a rule, I believe that the operative procedure is:
430:
Knowledge (XXG) is not a blog, magazine, social-media site, or forum
107:
doesn't really need a rule about some particular nit-pick, then it
572:
558:
116:
981:
Knowledge (XXG):Why Manual of Style talk pages have so much churn
805:
AT NIGHT, KNOWING THAT SOMEWHERE OUT THERE, EDITORS ARE DECIDING
851:
Rigid prescription in the few cases for which truly appropriate.
725:
On December 25, 2001 (which was Christmas Day), we all went ...
89:
18:
976:
Knowledge (XXG):Why Manual of Style discussions are so awful
854:
Clear direction where experience shows people often go wrong
420:
wording in pop-culture topics, then veer into the ponderous
206:
Closely related principles understood by experienced editors
751:
both of whom are actually engaged on a particular article,
800:
But privately they're thinking, "CAN'T YOU JUST LEAVE US
692:
Why every goddam thing needn't be micromanaged in a rule
263:"style warrior" advocacy perspective to MOS discussions
242:
MOS's job is simply to help us present a consistent and
128:
is an especially serious problem with Knowledge (XXG)'s
892:
857:
Enumeration of alternatives where choices are available
461:
77:
70:
63:
439:
exemptions for particular topics. Participants in a
860:
Universal advice to use common sense no matter what
809:THE PLACEMENT OF COMMAS? MUST YOU DICTATE FUCKING
489:Other important and respected editors weighing in
389:In particular, Knowledge (XXG) is not written in
227:The value of MOS is in its provision of stability
477:
470:An observation from our esteemed fellow editor
956:Knowledge (XXG):Don't stuff beans up your nose
474:
443:agitating for "their own rules" is counter to
215:
783:order has been restored and choas beaten back
662:And give other editors the same courtesy. Do
649:
597:
267:. MOS discussions are covered by the "block
8:
971:Knowledge (XXG):Lies Miss Snodgrass Told You
966:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style extended FAQ
736:Not everything has to be rigidly prescribed
371:Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage
145:
337:MOS is based on style guides for academic-
837:societal decay sets in and soon there is
713:On September 11, 2001, several planes ...
688:For want of a comma, the clause was lost
687:
426:specialists writing for other specialists
708:the final comma in constructions like --
676:if we write this two different ways....
42:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
951:Knowledge (XXG):Avoid instruction creep
835:every detail of usage and punctuation
724:
712:
634:
513:
479:
464:
303:
295:
219:
844:. Or perhaps I've misunderstood you?
683:privilege in minor matters like this.
407:The Guardian and Observer style guide
362:
7:
343:across genres and intended audiences
320:applies to all of Knowledge (XXG)'s
961:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style/FAQ
275:regime, because of such disruption.
46:thoroughly vetted by the community
14:
946:Knowledge (XXG):Asshole John rule
93:
22:
16:Essay on editing Knowledge (XXG)
595:<- - - - versus - - - -: -->
121:Only YOU can prevent MOS bloat.
909:in American or British English
883:A rolling stone gathers no MOS
1:
518:Variety is the spice of life.
346:
211:The "already" corollary, per
177:A further reason disputes on
785:, which is what's important.
456:Some additional wisdom from
271:first, ask questions later"
934:09:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
409:, you are making a mistake.
383:Scientific Style and Format
352:The Chicago Manual of Style
1014:
256:about any style nit-pick.
53:
566:(right) with portraitist
524:The Herostratus Manifesto
316:" is a real problem. The
244:well-written encyclopedia
704:over whether MOS should
502:Very true point made by
101:This page in a nutshell:
772:, without even a comma
358:New Oxford Style Manual
322:policies and guidelines
833:prescribe and control
685:
632:
587:
570:
493:
484:
377:Garner's English Usage
349:2000–2015 editions of
162:
146:
122:
576:
562:
326:off-site style guides
286:consensus discussions
273:WP:Contentious topics
120:
44:, as it has not been
627:work of the project
159:on numerous articles
144:There is a manifest
621:, paraphrased from
248:actually here to do
588:
571:
534:(slightly adapted)
435:MOS does not make
123:
831:Yes, if we can't
652:hockey player".)
583:with portraitist
550:in image captions
535:
393:, as a matter of
126:Instruction creep
115:
114:
88:
87:
1003:
770:completely naked
623:Deuteronomy 25:4
578:Albert Namatjira
564:Albert Namatjira
533:
494:Hawkeye's Truism
437:special-pleading
366:New Hart's Rules
364:
348:
149:
97:
96:
90:
80:
73:
66:
26:
25:
19:
1013:
1012:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1002:
1001:
1000:
986:
985:
942:
885:
840:
694:
596:
536:from a post by
526:
496:
491:
269:battlegrounders
222:
208:
138:
130:Manual of Style
105:Manual of Style
94:
84:
83:
78:WP:NONEEDNORULE
76:
69:
62:
58:
50:
49:
23:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1011:
1010:
1007:
999:
998:
988:
987:
984:
983:
978:
973:
968:
963:
958:
953:
948:
941:
938:
937:
936:
898:
897:
896:
895:
884:
881:
880:
879:
862:
861:
858:
855:
852:
838:
829:
828:
807:FOR THEMSELVES
759:some harmless
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
717:
716:
715:
693:
686:
669:
668:
660:
648:
647:
646:
645:
631:
630:
619:1 Timothy 5:18
614:
611:
607:
604:
594:
592:
591:
590:
585:William Dargie
568:William Dargie
557:
556:
555:
554:
525:
522:
511:
510:
509:
508:
495:
492:
490:
487:
486:
485:
468:
454:
450:
449:
448:
433:
410:
344:
335:
334:
333:
318:KISS principle
310:
309:
308:
278:
277:
276:
261:WP:GREATWRONGS
253:
252:
251:
240:
224:
218:
207:
204:
192:
184:
180:
175:
174:
173:
172:
168:
160:
155:
137:
134:
113:
112:
110:
98:
86:
85:
82:
81:
74:
67:
59:
54:
51:
39:
38:
29:
27:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1009:
1008:
997:
994:
993:
991:
982:
979:
977:
974:
972:
969:
967:
964:
962:
959:
957:
954:
952:
949:
947:
944:
943:
939:
935:
932:
931:
927:
926:
922:
921:
920:
918:
912:
910:
906:
903:
894:
893:
889:
888:
887:
886:
882:
878:
877:
873:
872:
868:
867:
866:
859:
856:
853:
850:
849:
848:
845:
843:
842:
841:
826:
825:
824:
821:
820:
815:
814:
810:
806:
801:
797:
796:
791:
787:
786:
784:
777:
775:
771:
766:
765:
760:
755:
752:
747:
745:
741:
737:
726:
723:
722:
721:
718:
714:
711:
710:
709:
705:
703:
698:
697:
696:
695:
691:
684:
682:
681:stare decisis
677:
674:
665:
661:
658:
657:
656:
653:
644:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
628:
624:
620:
615:
612:
610:interactions.
608:
605:
602:
601:
600:
593:
586:
582:
579:
575:
569:
565:
561:
553:
551:
549:
545:
539:
530:
529:
528:
527:
523:
521:
519:
515:
507:
505:
500:
499:
498:
497:
488:
483:
482:
475:
473:
469:
467:
462:
459:
455:
451:
446:
442:
438:
434:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
408:
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
387:
385:
384:
379:
378:
373:
372:
367:
360:
359:
354:
353:
342:
340:
336:
331:
330:
327:
323:
319:
315:
311:
306:
301:
297:
293:
290:
289:
287:
283:
279:
274:
270:
266:
265:is disruptive
262:
258:
257:
254:
249:
245:
241:
238:
234:
233:
232:
228:
225:
221:
216:
214:
210:
209:
205:
203:
202:
201:
195:
190:
187:
182:
178:
169:
167:
163:
158:
156:
154:
148:
143:
142:
141:
133:
131:
127:
119:
108:
106:
102:
99:
92:
91:
79:
75:
72:
68:
65:
61:
60:
57:
52:
47:
43:
37:
34:
28:
21:
20:
929:
924:
916:
913:
904:
899:
890:
875:
870:
863:
846:
836:
834:
832:
830:
822:
817:
816:
812:
808:
803:
799:
798:
793:
789:
788:
782:
779:
778:
773:
769:
767:
762:
757:
756:
750:
748:
743:
739:
735:
733:
719:
707:
699:
689:
680:
678:
672:
670:
663:
654:
650:
642:
633:
626:
598:
589:
580:
547:
543:
531:
517:
512:
501:
478:
422:jargon-laden
418:fandom-style
406:
403:AP Stylebook
402:
399:not reliable
395:clear policy
381:
375:
369:
365:
356:
350:
300:WP:PGCHANGES
230:
226:
199:
198:In summary:
197:
196:
188:
176:
165:
152:
139:
124:
100:
30:
811:EVERYTHING?
538:Herostratus
445:WP:CONLEVEL
441:wikiproject
259:Bringing a
213:SMcCandlish
71:WP:MOSBLOAT
64:WP:MOSCREEP
31:This is an
907:should be
795:yourself."
702:discussion
472:Randy Kryn
424:habits of
391:news style
314:Rule creep
161:, either:
744:sometimes
414:bombastic
305:confusion
292:WP:WPEDIT
109:shouldn't
56:Shortcuts
990:Category
940:See also
823:You say
764:history.
746:happen.
720:and even
667:warring.
532:Excerpt
504:Hawkeye7
458:Remsense
339:register
302:policy:
294:policy:
217:, 2017:
191:multiple
179:numerous
147:a priori
774:between
706:require
700:From a
673:setting
671:As for
581:(right)
548:(right)
460:, 2023
447:policy.
103:If the
905:itself
544:(left)
516:(AKA:
380:, and
363:a.k.a.
282:is not
237:online
183:actual
36:again.
802:ALONE
740:might
540:in a
466:now".
33:essay
917:2001
891:See
792:they
761:2001
552:e.g.
546:and
280:MOS
930:Eng
902:MOS
876:Eng
690:aka
664:not
416:or
405:or
368:),
992::
742:,
520:)
463::
374:,
355:,
347:c.
298:.
166:or
153:or
925:E
871:E
813:"
361:(
312:"
250:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
