User talk:Art LaPella/Because the guideline says so

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)
      • Not what I said: on each of several points, there have been dozens of dissentients who would agree to remove it (and might well agree to modify it); each of them has been separately revert-warred into quiet. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Statistically, that means about one such new dissentient per issue per month; really? I hadn't noticed. Should we try to count how many didn't complain because they like the guideline? Art LaPella (talk) 21:23, 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? "literate page"? Featured articles worship the MoS fervently in theory, if not in practice (they can't read it all). Rationale? The last attempt is at MOS:#General principles. 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 Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register, and each section and subsection of Wikipedia: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)
      • No, the process is a problem. MOS should not incorporate random discussions; it should explain itself. We can discuss links to consensus discussions when there are some. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
        • You said "Provide a rationale for what we choose to do". One way to provide it is to link the discussions that led to our existing guidelines, whether or not those discussions have your approval. Another way would be to summarize those discussions. Another would be to guess what they were really thinking at the time but didn't say, but that would be likely to be wrong. Another would be to demand that MoS authors continue to explain themselves until you are satisfied (if ever), but Wikipedia is written by volunteers, some of whom don't even edit here any more. Another would be to cite style books and other authorities that support our guidelines. I can't think of any other possibilities. How else would the MoS explain itself? Would you really even want any further explanation? Art LaPella (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Remember, I've been in those discussions. When they are not WP:ILIKEIT, they are "because it's the Wave of the Future" (like Wagner), or "because my liberal-arts professors wanted me to do it the other way."
        • What I mean by a rationale is a statement, which when placed in the text of MOS will persuade editors that it is (at least) a reason: such as the claim of a reliable authority, or an advantage to Wikipedia which is patently a consequence of doing things as MOS dictates. I do not insist on agreeing with the reason; if there were consensus for it, that would suffice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Isn't that almost the same as what I said? "The claim of a reliable authority" wouldn't be placed in the text of MoS unless you mean a footnote linking to that claim. "an advantage to Wikipedia ..." isn't in my list in the previous post, but it should have been; of course the problem there is that would be the opinion of whoever wrote that advantage, not whoever wrote the guideline. You don't insist on agreeing with the reason, but it's hard to imagine you agreeing that consensus exists otherwise. But then again, if you're writing it, you can also decide if it has consensus, at least for the parts of MoS you haven't disputed, like "Months, days of the week, and holidays start with a capital letter". So can we get started? Art LaPella (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
      • If there is consensus, one must yield to it; but a couple of semi-literate buffoons are consensus much less often than they claim to be; that's MOS's endemic problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Yes, changes often slip in without any discussion at all. But if they deserve words like "buffoon", it's for basics like civility, not literacy. One point I keep coming back to is, how else would you define a consensus? To deny consensus for a guideline that has existed for years makes you sound like this. Another point I keep coming back to is, what's the solution? Do you really want us to ignore the MoS and re-argue MoS issues separately on every talk page? Do you really want something resembling the MoS Register? Glad you volunteered! Art LaPella (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(left)

• My definition of consensus is "agreement of Wikipedians in general", not just two or three gathered together at some obscure point in the archives. MOS (as a whole) may have that; some of its constituent points do have that; most of them demonstrably lack that.
• If something routinely prevails in discussions on individual talk pages, then it is consensus. (There may be other avenues, but they don't apply to MOS either.) The normal way to compile a guideline page is to see what prevails in discussion often enough that we get tired rephrasing it; has MOS ever been through this stage?
• I have no interest in the MOS Register, except insofar as it helps to prove that there has never been consensus for most of MOS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• So when an editor decides whether to use a hyphen or a dash, or whether to capitalize "Tuesday" as the MoS requires, he should search individual talk pages to find the consensus, not the MoS. I don't thinkthat's practical. If anything, my first Google search demonstrates a consensus that hyphens and dashes are definitely not interchangeable.
  • And it's not what I said. Nothing like it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • OK, the exact quotes were "agreement of Wikipedians in general ... If something routinely prevails in discussions on individual talk pages, then it is consensus". I believe that ordinarily, the only way for editors to know that is to search those talk pages. I believe the simplest way to search them is to Google them as I did above. And I believe that anyone still reading this will come to the same conclusion. Art LaPella (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Your previous answer for an alternative way to determine a consensus included "Provide a rationale for what we choose to do about them", like the Register; hence the discussion of how to proceed. Art LaPella (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The Register includes very few rationales; it is the record of discussion, mostly among the same handful - aside from evidence whether or not any of these decrees ever were consensus (mostly not), it is irrelevant to any of my interests here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • A "record of discussion, mostly among the same handful" is the only practically available record of a rationale. The other alternatives involve guessing what that rationale might have been. Even if you have a different kind of rationale in mind, the Register is evidence that adding rationale would be welcomed, and therefore no one in particular is to blame for that rationale's absence – except perhaps those who complain about it the loudest. Art LaPella (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
      • The Register is not a rationale; it is evidence that most of these changes have been done without one. (Zs I said, WP:ILIKEIT ain't one.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Oh well, I'm out of answers other than repeating myself. Art LaPella (talk) 06:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)