478:(including the MoS). The vast majority of style-related strife on Knowledge (XXG) results from attempts to ignore an MoS point someone subjectively doesn't like (especially as applied to some particular subject), or to directly fight against others' MoS-compliant editing. These behaviors disregard consensus, the negative effect of disputation on other editors, and the confusion readers experience when idiosyncratic style is used in our articles, or our articles are retitled to suit whims.
864:, and this style is used on Knowledge (XXG) because: A) most mainstream publications have accepted this convention (along with the capitalization of the genus name and the italicization of genus and species); B) it is consistently done across all of biology, and is a part of the ICZN, ICN, and other international nomenclature standards; and C) readers are fairly familiar with it and usually know the italics aren't semantic emphasis and that it shouldn't be "corrected" to
256:(not just topically specific to) various kinds of high-quality published sources: other modern reference works, nonfiction books from major publishers, national newspapers. However, MoS is not altered to match what is said in a particular journalistic style guide, a national government one, an employer's or a particular journal publisher's stylesheet, a high school or college textbook, a manual for business writing, or the monograph of a pundit.
60:
218:"Style" is defined broadly, and includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, tone, colloquialisms, abbreviation, formatting and layout, image usage, how to summarize an article in its lead section, accessibility concerns, markup, and many other factors, some of which overlap categorically with content. There is no bright-line "style versus substance" distinction here.
605:
otherwise. Put another way, if one can imagine some doubt, leave it to someone else with a bee in their bonnet about it to make the case that the doubt is well-founded and that an exception applies or should be made. Don't do the work for them (it is a thankless task, since such propositions nearly always meet with objection from others).
24:
854:
Example: Knowledge (XXG) is never, ever going to accept the idea that, say, the names of rocks and minerals should be presented in boldface type, because: A) this is not typical in mainstream publications; B) it is only found in field guides, which simply use typographic effects like that as a visual
797:
Like all style guides, MoS exists so that a roster of writers can get to work following a consistent set of rules, and not fritter their time away squabbling over minutiae that all vary widely from style guide to style guide, field to field, generation to generation, area to area, genre to genre (and
604:
Broad advice that serves well on virtually all style questions: If there's any doubt, presume it's poorly founded and just follow the most applicable basic MoS guideline, as a default. When the guideline is skirted based on subjective doubt, it invites unnecessary dispute which would likely not arise
493:
Everyone who writes for a living or does a lot of professional-grade writing in their work is already familiar and comfortable with the idea that different publishers have different style requirements, and that they must either comply with the publisher's house style, or expect to have their material
174:
The rationale for making exceptions is usually one of the following: the need of a particular subject for clarity; the technical limitations of our format as applied to a particular subject; and the strongly predominant usage of all writers on a particular subject, at least at a level similar to that
883:", "gibibytes", etc., are found in a technical standard but are neither common in mainstream sources nor typically understood by readers. Another example is that Knowledge (XXG) follows scientific standards to separate numerical values and units in measurements and to use standardized unit symbols (
823:). Much of MoS, especially in its more technical and topical subpages, does consist of particular variances from general, blanket axioms. These variances have been codified into MoS after consensus discussion (or sometimes have been added as common-sense edits and survived later editorial scrutiny).
906:
of alleged language change. We'll know the time is right when most academic publishers like Oxford
University Press, University of Chicago Press, and other encyclopedias, are reflecting the change. (An example is the dropping of the comma before "Jr." in a name like "Robert Downey Jr.", a process
826:
Knowledge (XXG) has over 5 million articles. By now, most imaginable style disputes have been identified and hashed out, repeatedly. If you are a new editor, please see the talk page archives of the MoS and any of its relevant subpages (these archives are searchable). If a proposed change elicits
801:
A large number of style matters are simply arbitrary, and fighting over them is a pointless waste of time. Many principles in MoS, however, are not arbitrary within the context of
Knowledge (XXG), but have been arrived at over years of discussion and careful consideration. Where MoS does have an
998:
What is more common, though, is improper insistence that how some off-site publications choose to write about a subject is the only "proper" way to do it, even when confronted with evidence of in-field inconsistency and (more importantly) a lack of adoption of the style quibble in question by
768:
Style is applied as consistently as possible, as a benefit to both readers and editors. Trying at an article talk page to get an MoS "exception", is usually misguided, and this is why such efforts usually do not achieve consensus, but cause lots of rancor and mutual frustration (the exception
284:
New material is not required to be in perfect MoS style. We do not actually expect new editors to read it or even know the guideline exists, nor are long-term editors expected to memorize it all. The central expectation of editors is just to write encyclopedically. MoS is primarily used for
247:
MoS is based almost entirely on the leading style guides for academic book publishing, customized to WP's needs through nearly two decades of cautious consensus building to counterbalance many competing approaches, editorial demands, reader expectations, and technical needs. MoS and the
178:
In deciding on a style matter, the various factors involved need balancing and will often be a matter of judgement. As always at
Knowledge (XXG), subject only to technical limitations, the basis for decisions is consensus on usage and clarity, not theoretical structural or philosophical
899:) is true but immaterial – Knowledge (XXG) does not use them because they are inconsistent, not universally understood, and may be ambiguous or otherwise confusing. Concerns such as these are often behind why MoS has selected one particular option from all the variants "in the wild".
214:
across articles, as a dispute-resolution mechanism, and by many editors as a quick reference ("cheat sheet") guide while they are writing here (especially if they are deeply steeped in some other style guide, such as that of a particular organization or field).
582:
Long-term "style warring" against MoS recommendation has resulted in blocks, topic bans, and other actions. The fact that consensus can sometimes change does not entitle anyone to re-re-re-propose the same change over and over again in hopes of eventually
264:
to a style question, so that dispute ceases (or, hopefully, is prevented) and encyclopedic work continues. In some cases the answer provided is an arbitrary choice from among many options, but in most cases the answer has been selected as a particular
987:, and other voluntary processes are somehow empowered to confer permanent immunity from guideline compliance on any article they "elevate" with a Featured or Good Article label. All of these are routes to pointless strife and cannot be defended under
648:
that take this stylization by convention; it does not somehow generalize to applying either style to things someone would like to think of as a "work" in a sense and "creative" in a sense, such as mountain-climbing routes or concepts/methods like
523:
guidelines against each other, disrupting RfCs and other proposals that don't suit one's preferences, and misrepresenting the nature and rationale of a particular guideline (or lack of one). MoS is still here. Editors who have focused on
1043:
1017:
805:
MoS does not tell the world how to write or decide what is "correct", only how to get on with producing consistent content here, with an eye to encyclopedic tone and clarity for readers. It does not exist for linguistic
678:
Any argument for an exception is highly likely to turn into a protracted debate (that is very unlikely to conclude in favor of an exception). Almost all of these digressions are wastes of time, and too many of them turn
489:
that exist to prevent inviduals or small groups of editors (in wikiprojects or otherwise) from imposing their own "rules" in particular topics, since these would amount to a requirement that all others obey them in that
935:
itself, or at the talk page of the MoS subpage to which the matter is most germane plus a notice about the discussion posted at WT:MOS. If it will potentially affect a large number of articles, also notify editors in
459:, Knowledge (XXG)'s guideline and policy pages, including MoS, are subject to an elevated expectation of consensus formation, and must not be subjected to drive-by viewpoint pushing, much less tendentious editwarring.
259:
MoS is composed of only those line-items that consensus has deemed necessary to include because the matters they address have repeatedly been the source of productivity-draining disputes. I.e., MoS exists to provide
145:
Facilitate editing for the contributors so they don't have to figure out these questions each time – and to avoid repeated arguments over details. Editors are helped by having a fixed form for trivial matters.
74:(MoS). They address concerns, questions, and misconceptions which have repeatedly arisen at MoS talk pages, article talk pages, etc. Please feel free to change this material in light of new discussion.
252:
that shape it take into consideration the aggregate recommendations of style guides in many fields and genres. We also consider the demonstrably dominant and long-term usage patterns that are found
624:
has an exception to capitalize one if it is the first word of a compound preposition (two or more prepositions back-to-back forming a multi-word preposition with its own synergistic meaning, as in
232:
and does not serve as or get written like anything else, such as a science journal, a newspaper, a novel, a blog, a textbook, etc. It is written in a dispassionate and educational but not how-to
164:
The general principle is that the MoS should be uniform across all of
Knowledge (XXG) unless there is good reason otherwise. The simpler it is, the fewer exceptions, the easier it is to follow.
148:
Improve the perceived quality of
Knowledge (XXG). The reader and critical perception of Knowledge (XXG) is improved by it looking to some extent like a professional, copy-edited publication.
782:, both at the article level and by adding new but unneeded micro-rules to MoS. We've been over it all before, in almost every case. Because of MoS's nature and the nature of style itself,
587:". No style guide can please everyone all the time about every point, and editors must accept that they will not get to remake every Knowledge (XXG) consensus in their own personal idiom.
440:) talk page (or that of the relevant MoS sub-guideline). Knowledge (XXG) resolves disputes and questions through discussions; MoS is not somehow exempt from standard Knowledge (XXG)
273:. There are many, many style issues that MoS does not directly address, because they do not generate noteworthy dispute, and these are left to editorial discretion at each article.
500:
resistance against any guideline's applicability to a particular article or category can be disruptive, especially when it takes the form of switching to an adjacent topic and
802:
occasional arbitrary prescription, it is because experience has taught us that a rule of one kind or another is needed, to stop continual dispute about that particular matter.
200:
The Manual of Style exists primarily to ensure a consistent reading experience for our audience, and secondarily to prevent and resolve recurrent disputes over style matters.
855:
scanning aid regardless of topic, and there is no standard in geology to do such a thing generally; and C) it would be mistaken by most readers for strong semantic emphasis.
967:
Some MoS (and article title) disputation appears results from persistent article-by-article resistance against guideline application, out of a proprietary sentiment about
907:
that has taken about 30 years, with the comma-free usage becoming dominant even in US English some time after around 2005, and MoS making the change several years later.)
675:
It is not productive to spend time (much of which will not be one's own) actively looking for potential exceptions to advocate against any MoS (or other) guideline.
398:
MoS's value is in its stability as a set of rules we agree to follow so we can get the work done, not in what it specifically recommends in any particular line-item.
407:
MoS is already long, and its purpose is not to address every imaginable style question, but only recurrent style disputes that affect our editorial productivity.
682:
The chief area in which this kind of pointless and circular-turning disputation exists is unnecessary capitalization on a per-topic basis (i.e., "capitalize this
872:
584:
528:
but fight about nitpicks" behavior have tended not to last. Such behavior does not help
Knowledge (XXG) achieve its mission, and is drain on editorial goodwill.
773:
an article or a topic/category of articles; no category is even within the scope of only a single wikiproject. We have CONLEVEL policy, and MoS, for a reason.
370:
trying to gradually force MoS to say something different, or to stylistically fork a particular article or subject area away from
Knowledge (XXG) standards.
620:
narrow and cannot be generalized beyond their explicit scope (or we would not have the basic guideline to begin with). For example, our basic criterion of
229:
462:
Due to long-term disruptive editing, the MoS pages, the article titles policy, the naming conventions guidelines, and their talk pages are all subject to
525:
690:
within the subject area". There is no greater source of editorial conflict about style than this. Please do not contribute to this recurrent problem.
469:
See the next section for suggestions on what to do if you think that some kind of variance is needed from a general MoS guideline, for solid reasons.
270:
156:
746:, week after week, month after month, year after year to retain a variant style that random other editors keep returning to MoS compliance, the
742:
That doesn't mean just a consensus of the three editors who've primarily edited a particular article so far. If they find themselves constantly
949:
787:
687:
189:
As a rule, individual preferences are irrelevant, except to the extent they are backed by objective reasons and become accepted by consensus.
957:
546:
520:
743:
542:
327:
241:
237:
39:
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
953:
917:
233:
186:
composing the
English Knowledge (XXG). Traditionally, we do not favor any one of them but permit them all, despite the lack of uniformity.
40:
858:
A counter-example (one of many): proper names are not capitalized when used as elements of species epithets; "Smith" becomes "smith" in
228:, not random styles or differing levels of formality. A common initial difficulty in understanding MoS is to not clearly recognize that
210:, nor intended as a general-public reference work about how to write English for all purposes. It is primarily used as a blueprint for
976:
961:
923:
If a usual, informal talk page discussion doesn't resolve a proposed MoS exception or addition (which it often does), use the standard
941:
644:). Similarly, we have a rule to use italics (for major works) or quotation marks (for minor works) for specific categories of things
968:
924:
791:
770:
482:
441:
433:
739:) claim is supported by sufficient evidence, policy-based argument, and common-sense reasoning that the variance gains consensus.
554:
535:
about something and is insistent on "correcting" it, even after failing to get consensus repeatedly, they are making a mistake.
1011:
751:
665:, and so on. If it's not on the list, then it's not. If you think the list should change, the place to propose such a change is
550:
497:
367:
538:
331:
508:
363:
236:. Knowledge (XXG) is also international, written for a general not specialist audience, and is an electronic work that is
783:
732:
404:
MoS is already pretty much as complete as we need it to be, and as well-negotiated as it can be, after about two decades.
650:
142:
Make things easier for the reader. The reader is helped by receiving content in a consistent, clear, and familiar style.
1033:
972:
721:
568:
374:
109:
71:
224:
992:
666:
612:
If some MoS-codified exception to a basic guideline could conceivably apply but it's not certain, presume it doesn't.
117:
724:(which rarely should be done on an individual article basis), whether to pursue one at all, and pitfalls to avoid.
827:
an "ugh, not this again" reaction, it is because the proposal is perennial and has been rejected many times before.
769:
proponent doesn't get they want, and everyone else is annoyed by the attempt). It is not the right process. No one
729:
At the article level, exceptions are made to that guideline under the same circumstances as exceptions to any other
1038:
699:
Knowledge (XXG) only capitalizes that which is capitalized across the vast majority of independent source material
697:
and many others, is following the very strong trend in contemporary
English away from unnecessary capitalization.
354:
206:
guideline for Knowledge (XXG) editing only. It is not a mandatory policy that editors must assiduously follow. It
830:
The successful "imports" of specialized rules into the MoS all share the three A, B, and C points outlined below.
341:
765:
When a one-article variance is needed, it will generally be self-evident, and not require continual "defense".
337:
658:
314:
988:
903:
807:
755:
501:
427:
345:
249:
44:
662:
654:
123:
The short-form FAQ about the MoS, which only addresses a handful of perennial matters in summary, is at
932:
820:
759:
747:
516:
486:
437:
391:
307:
168:
152:
80:
920:, the process for codifying a special case is to get consensus on the guideline's talk page to do so.
317:
over time and through experience, and this includes most editors' familiarity and compliance with MoS.
871:
For numerous other examples, see all the special (usually scientific and mathematical) guidelines in
572:
167:
The desire of those working on a particular topic to make exceptions is subject to the oversight and
151:
Facilitate technical development of the project. The correction of errors, the working of tools like
960:
and also "advertised" at WP:VVPOL (or vice-versa), with additional notice at WT:MOS, and perhaps at
937:
786:-based claims about style matters are usually not defensible, but based on personal preference, the
632:); this does not somehow extend to capitalizing the first words of chains of prepositional phrases (
456:
452:
295:
207:
448:
32:
860:
843:
they're applied consistently in more specialized ones (especially if they are formal standards),
945:
504:
after it previously failed to gain consensus. This tends to a long-term waste of editorial time.
408:
303:
211:
519:) attempt to circumvent the guidelines by fomenting other editors to dispute them, trying to
463:
564:
984:
980:
928:
736:
706:
702:
113:
948:), as well as relevant wikiprojects. For a major change, like elevation of a wikiproject
600:
Just follow the applicable basic guideline by default, absent a consensus to the contrary.
576:
750:
at the article clearly do not have consensus, just a personal and un-wiki agreement to
266:
324:
However, certain behaviors with regard to MoS (and article titles) are not acceptable.
1027:
1014:– summary of a few questions even more frequently asked about MoS than the ones above
494:
conformed to that house style by later editors. Knowledge (XXG) is such a publisher.
298:
policy is clear that anyone can dive right in and begin to edit the encyclopedia, we
47:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
896:
892:
244:
for details about how Knowledge (XXG) differs from other publications and websites.
888:
884:
683:
622:
lower-casing the first letter of short prepositions in title-case titles of work
621:
560:
108:
This is an extended "frequently asked questions and answers" page regarding the
1018:
Category:Knowledge (XXG) essays and information pages about the Manual of Style
280:
No one has to read and follow, much less memorize, MoS to edit Knowledge (XXG).
645:
330:
and cannot be re-sculpted in every detail to suit personal preferences. Some
183:
851:
they do not conflict with everyday style in a way that may confuse readers.
594:
What if an MoS guideline's applicability to some case isn't entirely clear?
880:
698:
512:
511:
tactic, which has caused sometimes years of unproductive conflict, is a "
291:
cleanup by other editors, and for resolving style disputes among editors.
171:, though the community may give reasonable deference to specialist views.
876:
810:
of any kind: not personal, professional, socio-political, or otherwise.
129:
The questions addressed in this page are not in MOS:FAQ, or vice versa.
124:
1044:
Knowledge (XXG) essays and information pages about the Manual of Style
373:"Move-warring" an article between competing page names. Use standard
705:
for advancing prescriptive personal preferences about English usage,
395:, and have usually been hashed over and rejected many times already.
914:
There is already a long-established process for altering guidelines.
616:
Where MoS outlines narrow exceptions to basic principles, these are
432:
Start by opening an informal discussion about your concerns, at the
567:
material; the view that any language has fixed, absolute rules is
466:(which amounts to "block disruptors first, ask questions later").
720:
Here's a tutorial of sorts on how to create a variance from the
593:
401:
Changes to MoS can affect thousands, even millions, of articles.
817:
MoS already has virtually all the variances and detail it needs
879:), just for starters, and note which ones are missing. E.g., "
716:
How (and why) is a variance from an MoS guideline established?
476:
It is not appropriate to campaign against site-wide guidelines
67:
54:
18:
377:
process to propose moving a page from one title to another.
351:
Going around changing existing content to be non-compliant
837:
Variances are usually accepted into MoS if and only if: A)
411:
should be avoided. If we don't actually need a rule then
931:) process to seek a variance from a general guideline at
902:
Sometimes real-world language usage shifts. MoS should
531:
When someone has become convinced that MoS is literally
364:"relentlessly pushing a viewpoint while posing as civil"
95:
88:
754:
resist site-wide consensus, an approach prohibited by
891:); that there are other styles in existence (such as
839:they are common in general-audience publications,
701:, and this is not going to change. Remember that
184:expectations of the different dialect communities
313:Editors absorb other policies, guidelines, and
194:Why does MoS exist, and do I have to follow it?
169:consensus of the editorial community as a whole
116:, or "MoS") guideline, and also touches on the
424:– if you're sure you want to proceed anyway –
8:
999:general-audiecnce publishers across English.
384:What if I don't agree with something in MoS?
383:
302:expect that contributors will abide by the
286:
139:The purpose of the Manual of Style is to:
821:should not keep any that it does not need
182:There is often a need to accommodate the
571:. Knowledge (XXG) is not the place for
430:through normal discussion and proposals.
159:are aided by uniformity of presentation.
41:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
952:into an MoS guideline subpage, use the
693:The fact is that Knowledge (XXG), like
348:" the content into compliance with MoS.
208:is not part of the encyclopedia content
120:("AT") policy and other related pages.
780:Most proposed variances are poor ideas
646:defined as published or creative works
502:trying again to get the desired result
1020:– more editorial viewpoints about MoS
971:articles, a territorial stance about
7:
873:WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
434:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style
1012:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style/FAQ
575:advocacy (most especially not on a
559:Try also reading some introductory
238:not bound to all print conventions
230:Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia
45:thoroughly vetted by the community
14:
526:not here to build an encyclopedia
134:What principles underlie the MoS?
157:reuse of Knowledge (XXG) content
58:
22:
16:Essay on editing Knowledge (XXG)
904:not leap suddenly on bandwagons
464:"contentious topic" designation
110:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style
72:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style
798:about which few readers care).
515:" (a.k.a. "slow edit-war" and
269:based on a review of relevant
242:WP:What Knowledge (XXG) is not
118:Knowledge (XXG):Article titles
1:
973:"this wikiproject's articles"
956:process, typically posted at
392:changes to MoS are poor ideas
355:Knowledge (XXG):Fait accompli
651:neuro-linguistic programming
175:of Knowledge (XXG) articles.
958:WP:Village pump (proposals)
536:
352:
334:that have been sanctioned:
1060:
78:
68:frequently asked questions
962:WP:Centralized discussion
788:specialized-style fallacy
707:nor a debate battleground
686:and often capitalized in
942:WP:Village pump (policy)
979:notion that editors at
918:policies and guidelines
695:Chicago Manual of Style
688:specialist publications
659:Comic-Con International
483:WP:Ownership of content
296:Knowledge (XXG):Editing
223:encyclopedic style and
1034:Knowledge (XXG) essays
684:because it's important
328:not a personal website
287:
709:about writing quirks.
663:Newport Folk Festival
655:evacuating proctogram
557:), and related pages.
428:consensus will change
304:core content policies
250:consensus discussions
221:Knowledge (XXG) uses
66:Below are answers to
43:, as it has not been
1039:Knowledge (XXG) FAQs
925:requests-for-comment
792:common-style fallacy
573:prescriptive grammar
481:We have policies at
332:disruptive behaviors
212:routine cleanup work
977:"wiki class system"
756:levels-of-consensus
517:"civil PoV-pushing"
413:we need to not have
326:Knowledge (XXG) is
950:style advice essay
916:As with all other
915:
861:Brachypelma smithi
850:
846:
842:
838:
818:
781:
733:"ignore all rules"
730:
722:WP:Manual of Style
613:
601:
477:
431:
426:is to see whether
423:
422:The proper process
394:
375:WP:Requested moves
325:
281:
240:. See the policy
201:
913:
848:
844:
840:
836:
816:
779:
728:
703:WP is not a forum
611:
599:
475:
425:
421:
389:
323:
279:
199:
106:
105:
53:
52:
1051:
975:, or a mistaken
898:
894:
890:
886:
565:sociolinguistics
558:
358:
306:and our central
290:
271:reliable sources
98:
91:
62:
61:
55:
26:
25:
19:
1059:
1058:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1024:
1023:
1008:
989:consensus-level
938:neutral wording
718:
596:
386:
315:community norms
196:
179:considerations.
136:
102:
101:
94:
87:
83:
59:
49:
48:
23:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1057:
1055:
1047:
1046:
1041:
1036:
1026:
1025:
1022:
1021:
1015:
1007:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
996:
993:editing policy
965:
911:
910:
909:
908:
900:
869:
856:
834:
833:
832:
831:
828:
814:
813:
812:
811:
803:
799:
777:
776:
775:
774:
766:
763:
717:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
691:
680:
673:
672:
671:
670:
657:, events like
619:
609:
608:
607:
606:
595:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
580:
551:WP:GREATWRONGS
543:WP:NOT#SOAPBOX
534:
529:
505:
495:
491:
473:
472:
471:
470:
467:
460:
419:
418:
417:
416:
414:
405:
402:
399:
390:Most proposed
385:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
371:
360:
349:
321:
320:
319:
318:
311:
301:
292:
277:
276:
275:
274:
263:
257:
255:
245:
227:
219:
205:
195:
192:
191:
190:
187:
180:
176:
172:
165:
162:
161:
160:
149:
146:
143:
135:
132:
104:
103:
100:
99:
92:
84:
79:
76:
63:
51:
50:
38:
37:
29:
27:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1056:
1045:
1042:
1040:
1037:
1035:
1032:
1031:
1029:
1019:
1016:
1013:
1010:
1009:
1005:
997:
994:
990:
986:
982:
978:
974:
970:
966:
963:
959:
955:
951:
947:
943:
939:
934:
930:
926:
922:
921:
919:
912:
905:
901:
882:
878:
874:
870:
867:
863:
862:
857:
853:
852:
847:– not "or" –
835:
829:
825:
824:
822:
815:
809:
804:
800:
796:
795:
793:
789:
785:
778:
772:
767:
764:
761:
757:
753:
752:tendentiously
749:
745:
741:
740:
738:
734:
727:
726:
725:
723:
715:
708:
704:
700:
696:
692:
689:
685:
681:
677:
676:
674:
668:
664:
660:
656:
652:
647:
643:
641:
637:
631:
629:
623:
617:
615:
614:
610:
603:
602:
598:
597:
586:
581:
578:
577:nationalistic
574:
570:
569:pseudoscience
566:
562:
556:
552:
548:
544:
540:
532:
530:
527:
522:
518:
514:
510:
509:system-gaming
506:
503:
499:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
479:
474:
468:
465:
461:
458:
454:
450:
446:
445:
443:
439:
435:
429:
420:
412:
410:
406:
403:
400:
397:
396:
393:
388:
387:
376:
372:
369:
368:tendentiously
365:
361:
356:
350:
347:
343:
342:later editors
339:
336:
335:
333:
329:
322:
316:
312:
309:
305:
299:
297:
293:
289:
283:
282:
278:
272:
268:
267:best practice
261:
258:
253:
251:
246:
243:
239:
235:
231:
226:
222:
220:
217:
216:
213:
209:
203:
198:
197:
193:
188:
185:
181:
177:
173:
170:
166:
163:
158:
154:
150:
147:
144:
141:
140:
138:
137:
133:
131:
130:
126:
121:
119:
115:
111:
97:
93:
90:
86:
85:
82:
77:
75:
73:
69:
64:
57:
56:
46:
42:
36:
34:
28:
21:
20:
865:
859:
719:
694:
667:WT:MOSTITLES
639:
635:
633:
627:
625:
128:
122:
107:
65:
30:
969:"one's own"
760:WP:CONLEVEL
642:f the World
561:linguistics
521:policy-fork
498:Tendentious
487:WP:CONLEVEL
366:pattern of
338:Editwarring
31:This is an
1028:Categories
731:: when an
630:ut of Mind
555:WP:FANATIC
457:WP:EDITWAR
453:WP:EDITING
415:that rule.
409:Rule creep
96:WP:MOSFAQ2
70:about the
881:kibibytes
790:, or the
762:) policy.
618:genuinely
513:long-game
449:WP:POLICY
262:an answer
202:It is an
81:Shortcuts
1006:See also
954:proposal
946:WP:VPPOL
944:(a.k.a.
808:activism
744:battling
634:Sitting
547:WP:TRUTH
490:subject.
340:against
308:civility
288:post hoc
225:register
204:internal
153:Wikidata
89:MOS:FAQ2
877:MOS:NUM
748:faction
679:heated.
661:or the
585:winning
579:basis).
442:process
310:policy.
125:MOS:FAQ
985:WP:GAN
981:WP:FAC
933:WT:MOS
929:WP:RFC
866:Smithi
737:WP:IAR
638:n top
539:WP:1AM
455:, and
438:WT:MOS
294:While
254:across
155:, and
114:WP:MOS
893:3kilo
889:32 ft
819:(and
626:Time
533:wrong
353:(see
346:gnome
344:who "
33:essay
885:3 kg
771:owns
563:and
537:See
485:and
447:Per
234:tone
991:or
940:at
897:32'
895:or
845:and
784:IAR
653:or
1030::
983:,
887:,
849:C)
841:B)
794:.
553:,
549:,
545:,
541:,
507:A
451:,
444:.
362:A
300:do
127:.
995:.
964:.
927:(
875:(
868:.
758:(
735:(
669:.
640:o
636:o
628:O
583:"
524:"
436:(
359:.
357:)
112:(
35:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.