Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:49, 22 February 2011

What consensus?

The fundamental problem with this essay is the assertion that any provision of MOS has been inserted by consensus. Most of them haven't; two or three flakes invent a rule, and then (as individual editors come up to object) edit-war for it. The habit of revert-warring for existing text, whether there is any evidence of consensus or not, only assists this process. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A problem recognized to some extent here. Even so, the Manual of Style represents the consensus better than any alternative I can think of. Remember when you sided somewhat with User:Kraxler, and he responded by telling you you don't know how to use a talk page? If that experience doesn't show the benefit of a guideline, I don't know what would. OK, so the Manual of Style represents an imperfect consensus. It still represents the consensus much better than the individuals for whom I wrote this page. How would you determine the consensus? Would you just count how many pages spell the past tense of "lead" as "lead" instead of "led", and decide that was at least an alternate style? Would you count style manuals in your favor or something? Manual of Style regulars claim they already account for such things. I never have figured out what your alternative is. Art LaPella (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Even so, the Manual of Style represents the consensus better than any alternative I can think of. By that standard, any other congeries of half-educated original research would represent consensus equally well.

As far as I can tell, the Manual of Style doesn't actually pronounce on any matter on which there is consensus (with one exception, which is uncontroversial, and which I'll get to). While it's been a while since I've surveyed the whole wilderness of subpages, where does it say anything about led? But if somebody types Eisenhower lead the Allied Armies into Normandy, someone else will fix it, without MOS being invoked. Similarly, it doesn't say Sentences should end with punctuation. No straw men please.

The exception is ENGVAR - and when has there last been anybody protesting it on WT:MOS? It is uncontroversial because it does three things:

1. It describes actual English (in our desired register).
2. It gives a rationale for its advice on what to do about the situation.
3. It is consensus - as high-schoolers pushing "the right way to spell" routinely find - note that I mean consensus beyond the usual half-dozen MOS regulars.

What other provision can claim these? Most can't claim any of these.

And the way forward is clear.

1. Describe what English actually does about quotes and punctuation - or about dashes and hyphens - on the same authority our articles on those subjects.
2. Provide a rationale for what we choose to do about them. (For dahses, consensus of style guides - if there is one; for quote marks, perhaps the present one about exact quotation).
3. Convince a consensus that we should do #2. This will be very difficult with most of these rules; since we routinely modernize quotations, I don't believe "logical quotation" has any real support outside that half of anglophones who learnt in at school.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know of any such "congeries" that represents as many Wikipedians as the MoS does, even if you are correct to count "the usual half-dozen". Usually, we encounter one person's unsupported opinion, not half a dozen.
  • No, MOS encounters dozens of dissentients at many points, but one at a time, so the half-dozen Language Reformers shout them each down.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
    • If so, then my point still stands, until the dissentients can agree on their own competing MoS. Fat chance. Art LaPella (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• I once surveyed the wilderness of subpages to encode them into my AWB software. "led" isn't there; it was an extreme example of making the MoS strictly descriptive, as I believe you have advocated concerning dashes. Even though it isn't in the MoS, it proves there are limits to being descriptive (assuming you don't object to the tyranny of the dictionary).
  • No, I have not advocated entirely anything. I have suggested that mandating forms which are vanishingly rare is not helpful; even that would be a victory for common sense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't feel like looking it up, so I'll just remember this for next time. Art LaPella (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• I don't see anything unique about ENGVAR. Most of what I found in said wilderness is unknown to the outside world, and hence unprotested. I almost never get protests when I edit referring to them. Most describes "actual English" as far as I know. The main MoS page seldom "gives a rationale", but subpages often do. And "consensus" sounds like a distinction without a difference; discussion of things like dashes in places like Did You Know ordinarily accepts the Manual of Style as authoritative.
  • If it is unknown to the outside world, please put it out of our misery; one of MOS' endemic problems is the provision on some subpage which is routinely referred to by the crank who invented it, because only he knows it's there. (And DYK is not a particularly adept or literate page.) I'd like to see a subpage which gave a (valid) rationale. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
    • You want me to remove rules like writing musical F sharp as F♯ not F#? No thanks, somebody probably though through that rule, and anyway that's more irrational Wikipolitics than I can tolerate. If it's an abuse inserted by some crank, then the chance that someone will remove it exceeds the chance that we can agree on where to get better advice elsewhere. What's the alternative anyway, just do everything your way? Art LaPella (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• "The way forward" resembles the top of the MoS page where it states: "A record of decisions related to this page can be found at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Register, and each section and subsection of Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style with information there has a link to that page, R." That effort was abandoned for lack of interest, not because of objections. If you want to continue that work, I think it would be welcomed. Art LaPella (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Good. MOS is not a court; it should not give "decisions". It ought to be self-explanatory. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Good, so when can you start? If the word "decisions" is a problem, you could change it as part of your project. Art LaPella (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)