Template talk:MoSElement

Date format

Date formats are decided by the user's preferences - that is why they are linked. They do not have to be decided. Awadewit | talk 05:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the time? Don't we decide when we're writing whether to use 7 December or December 7? Or does WP automatically standardize it either way? – Scartol · Talk 14:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we decide when we're writing - see explanation MOS:DATE#Autoformatting and linking. Awadewit | talk 21:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. I'll take it out. Tomorrow. – Scartol · Talk 01:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling out of numbers

In my opinion, the spelling out of numbers > 10 is contextual. Sometimes it is a good idea and sometimes it is not. Awadewit | talk 05:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think you're right. I'll remove it. – Scartol · Talk 14:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other options

Possible fields:

BC/AD or BCE/CE?
Primary system of measurement?
Reference style of bibliography? Awadewit | talk 05:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good ideas. I've added them. – Scartol · Talk 14:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about "Not applicable" as a choice as well? Awadewit | talk 21:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For all of them, or just one of the choices? Doesn't "No consensus" give the same information? I don't know that we'd need "Not applicable". Maybe we could make it say "No consensus/not applicable"? – Scartol · Talk 01:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me "no consensus" means "it hasn't been decided" and "not applicable" means "it doesn't need to be decided". For many articles, for example, the BC/AD vs. BCE/CE debate will never have to happen. Awadewit | talk 01:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see what you mean. I'm actually going to make it blank if nothing is specified. I also made "na" an option for all items. (Or do you think there are some for which this shouldn't be an option (like citation format))? – Scartol · Talk 20:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - some should not have the "NA" option. Even most of them. Awadewit | talk 20:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Okay, I left it in for em/en dashes, BC/BCE, and measurement. Please tell me there's nothing else I should fix before I start using it and telling other folks about it. =) – Scartol · Talk 22:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if we can just start using talk page templates without proposing them to the community first. Since wikipedia works by consensus, some sort of consensus might have to be reached. I really don't know, though. You might look at the pages on templates and try to figure that out. Also, I would ask MOS gurus about the template - people like User:SandyGeorgia and User:Tony1. They might have additional suggestions. I would also really try to find some math/science people to offer input. Remember how we both advised that other editor to step back and take some time? :) I think the same applies here. MOS issues can explode on a page, so we should carefully consider every nuance before we release Version 1.0. Awadewit | talk 22:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's quite rude of you to constantly inject rationality and calm logic into these threads, when it's quite clear that I'm hyperactively eager and irrationally exuberant. You are, as usual, right. I'll put some feelers out tomorrow and see what we can get. I didn't realize that talk page templates needed approval, but of course I'm still something of a greenhorn. Thanks as ever for your wise guidance. – Scartol · Talk 23:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am teaching logic right now in my argumentative writing class, so I guess I am trying to practice what I preach. :) I don't want to dampen your enthusiasm, though!

I really have no idea if templates have to be approved, but its seems like they might have to be. (Do you watch the community portal? I just saw discussions posted there about changing templates - that's why I am thinking maybe they do.)

I am just as much of a novice as you are (really, more, since I have no idea how to create these templates). You seem to know much more about wiki-code than I do - where did you learn it? I've been looking for some pages, but, alas, no luck. Awadewit | talk 23:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding on your talk page so as to keep from getting too far off-topic here. – Scartol · Talk 13:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

What about Chicago style and wikitemplates a reference choices? Awadewit | talk 21:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but each of the three I've listed (Harvard, footnotes, and embedded) list it as "one of three standard methods used on Wikipedia" or some such. So I think it's best to stick to those three. – Scartol · Talk 01:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant for the list of references, sorry, not the citations. You only listed MLA and APA. Awadewit | talk 01:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. Done and done. – Scartol · Talk 20:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what kinds of science and math options we're missing. Awadewit | talk 21:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they'll yell at us or add them on their own. Or they can make their own freakin' template! =) – Scartol · Talk 01:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image

This is silly, but can we find an image more related to the MOS? I don't want editors to associate glorious books with the tiresome MOS! Awadewit | talk 05:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'll see what I can find. – Scartol · Talk 14:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced it with

. Look good? I also considered

and

. I'm flexible. – Scartol · Talk 15:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it - just wish it were in a contrasting color. :) Awadewit | talk 21:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I tried that third one up there but I worry about the implications of the check mark. Since aesthetics are the only concern, let's leave the drawing board. Contrasts be darned! – Scartol · Talk 01:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

issues

I appreciate the work that has gone into this template, but there are problems with most points.

I myself use serial commas only to disambiguate or when the items are long or complex, because in much text there are already quite enough commas. Some people would say that's inconsistent, but there's a method behind it. MOS allows the option, but this will funnel people into one or the other. Especially if "no" is chosen, there will probably be problems of ambiguity.

Many Americans insist on "the U.S." but use no dots for other acronyms (I hate "you dot es dot", but there you are). We'll have people forced into dotting every acronym if they follow their preference on "the U.S.". MOS explicitly says Ph.D. and the like are outmoded, yet it's an option here. I don't want to encourage dots.

"Unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes for interruptors", it would neet to be. And then I bet we have people using em dashes for ranges if the first option is chosen.

American or British English: there are other varieties, too (Canadian, Australian, etc.). Either cite all major varieties or make it "Variety of English (e.g., AmEng, BrEng, AusEng, CanEng). "Pedwalk" I've never ever heard of; "footpath" is BrEng. And it's laid down for country-related articles; will people understand that it's only the others that provide arbitrary choice? They really need to read the nicely laid out guidlines at MOS. And won't this just encourage miscreants to sneak in and change the choice here on the template, especially where the variety is not immediately clear in the article text? And what about "ise", "isa" and "isi" vs "ize", "iza" and "izi", which, to a minor extent, cut across non-North-American varieties?

"BC/AD or BCE/CE" is fine, but AD can go before the year, I think, which doesn't appear in your example (it's in MOS, which isn't linked to for this one).

Main units might be OK, but see MOSNUM and MOSNUM talk and its archives for all of the complications and exceptions. Some of them are beyond me. Forcing one of only two systems is going to cause problems in some technical and scientific topics, especially physics. The example of "kilometres" will be wrongly spelt if AmEng is used.

Citation style: fine, I think.

Bib. I don't deal with, but SandyGeorgia will know about this (and the previous one).

There are so many other options that need to be chosen in the first place and then consistent (12- or 24-hour clock, whether am/pm is dotted, whether imperial conversions are given in science articles, whether main units are abbreviated after the first occurrence, whether .... there are tonnes of them.)

My advice is to strip it right back to the trouble-free major ones, and use just links to the relevant MOS section(s) rather than providing examples. We want to encourage people to consult MOS. And put them in order of importance.

- Variety of English:
- Citation style:
- Bibliographic style:
- Era:

Tony (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your input, Tony. I agree that stripping it to the barebones is a good idea. And if you think not including examples is better, I'll defer (although as a user, I would prefer to have them).

However, I will still advocate for em/en dashes (with the qualifier "for interruptors") and serial commas, as these were the original impetus for me making the box in the first place. I hate trying to figure out which to use based on a sample I'm editing (especially if I have to go back and scan the rest of the article).

I'm going to make the other changes now. Thanks again for your comments. – Scartol · Talk 15:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The MoS section on citing sources is pretty messy. While the three options I've made available in the template list themselves as "one of three citation styles recommended for Wikipedia", there is no such statement in the MoS. Thus, I've linked to WP:CS for the item before the colon (even though it's not very clear in this regard either). I have no idea what to link to for Bibliography style.

It's clear to me that these two areas are standardized in most of WP, but the MoS hasn't caught up. Seems like editing MoS is just a nightmare these days – see gendered language. I think what we've got here in this template is good. – Scartol · Talk 16:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Math and science options

I'm not aware of any math or science options that should be included, although you might want to poke the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics and perhaps others listed at Category:Science WikiProjects - or maybe just Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding, etc.

I think the hiding might deflect edit wars over nothing to a degree, but I wonder if the bold statement "Please maintain consistency through the article with these methods" might be a little too English-teacherish. It seems like something I would write on my students' papers. How about "Please help us maintain consistency in the article by following these standards" or something like that - something with "we" in it. Awadewit | talk 03:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no sweat. I'm very much aware of my English-teacher bias (or should I use biases here?). Done and done. Thanks for the feedback. I've gotten no response about an official release process for talk page templates, so I've started using it on Chinua Achebe. They're also using it on Harold Pinter. – Scartol · Talk 11:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]