Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

'Aluminium'

I'd like some opinions on this. You see, the word is aluminium here at Wikipedia, despite that most English speaking people (Alright, so we're all Americans and we just outnumber the rest) pronounce it 'aluminum'. The numbers favor 'aluminum', but the Manual of Style does not - it favors the official version, which is 'aluminium'. Admittedly, somebody's going to wind up in the cold, but which would be better: the official version, or the version more people use? Everyone on Talk:Aluminum - including me - is so entrenched in their own opinions that it really isn't possible to get anywhere with this anymore. -Litefantastic 23:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I am British and believe that the official spelling of the word should be conserved as I have personally never heard of the apparently more popular pronunciation. Simply because some people pronounce the word differently than how it is intended to be pronounced should not warrant changing its spelling in order to adapt to the expectations of people oblivious of it. At most, make aluminum a redirection to the aluminium article. Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 00:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC).

Actually, "how it is intended to be pronounced" is related to how it is spelled, and there's an interesting story involved. (It's explained in the article under "spelling".) Apparently the person who named it originally did call it aluminum (and then changed his mind). Personally, I feel that it is apppropriate to use aluminium in scientific contexts, since it is technically a scientific standard, but in other contexts it should be left to the editor to choose, like other words that are spelled differently in different varieties of English. (To talk about "aluminium cans" in an article about recycling the United States would be as strange as talking about the "United States Department of Defence".) But if it's an article about chemistry, let the chemists decide. -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Given IUPAC's preference for aluminium (altho aluminum is an officially accepted variant) chemistry articles would be best written using the second 'i' in my opinion. Outside that usage, the spelling preferred by the subject of the article should predominate following the usual Wikipedia mixed spelling conventions. Caerwine 00:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

IUPAC's preferences shall have no bearing on Wikipedia policy. We are beholden to no external entity dictating how to spell ordinary things like aluminum. The only policy that applies is the one that makes articles consistent within the national writing style used for that article, which is based primarily on the subject matter, but if that is not sufficient to decide the national style, then the style used by the first major contributor shall be used. I don't see any valid reason or justification for preferring the IUPAC spelling because IUPAC prefers it. They hold no jurisdiction over the spelling of an ordinary word, even in scientific articles. Nohat 02:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

That's awfully harsh. Certainly, Wikipedia should not be bound by any external medium. However, I think it is logical that if we wish to claim scientific credibility, the article on the element should be located at the spelling as used in the scientific community. That the 'i' spelling is also used in the ROW can't hurt either. Same goes for sulfur. However, like Aranel, I don't necessarily see a problem with the national variants (ie, US "aluminum" and ROW "sulphur") being used outside the actual element's article. When used in a scientific context though, the internationally accepted form should be used.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Cyberjunkie. I think we should go the status quo: aluminium for the article on the element, and for any other article discussing it in a scientific context, and aluminum for articles on ordinary objects using the metal, where the articles were first created by Americans (like aluminum can).

It's not as though the entire scientific community uses the aluminium spelling exclusively. The vast majority of American chemists, and there are many of them, do use the spelling aluminum. There is no reason that articles they were the first primary contributor to should have the non-American spelling imposed upon them. Furthermore, IUPAC explicitly permits the spelling aluminum, so it's not like the spelling aluminum is in any way "wrong", it's just not "preferred" (whatever that means) by IUPAC. Nohat 03:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's cut the misleading nonsense such as "as used in the scientific community" as if aluminium were universal in the scientific community. Just Google "aluminum site:iupac.org" 220 hits, and for example, and "aluminum site:nist.gov" 31,300 hits. Aluminum is an official IUPAC spelling too.

Furthermore, aluminum is one of those commodities in which the "scientific community" usage is a minority of the overall usage. Gene Nygaard 12:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, I want to note to GrumpyTroll that there is no such thing as an "official English spelling" of anything, and if there were, the British would have no more claim to deciding what it is than anyone else. The spelling and pronunciation of aluminum is just as valid as that for aluminium. The fact that IUPAC prefers the latter over the former is of zero import to Wikipedia's policies. Nohat 03:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I did not state there was an "official English spelling" of the word, albeit I took the term given by the question's submitter (i.e. "official version"). I pointed out that I was British to explain not having heard the apparently more popular pronunciation. Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 03:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC).

Red flags get raised that there is a misunderstanding of how language works when I read statements like "how it is intended to be pronounced", as though words have intention. A plurality of English speakers are American, and the spelling and pronunciation aluminum is standard (for "standard" read "conventional" not "correct") in American English. I don't necessarily advocate changing all "aluminium" to "aluminum", just that the American spelling is perfectly legitimate, and there is no reason to show intolerance towards it, as long as it is used within existing Wikipedia policies. Nohat 04:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Please excuse me, for I was hitherto oblivious of the existence of aluminium being pronounced aluminum, let alone being spelt aluminum. Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 13:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC).

For chemistry articles, WP has decided, after long discussions, to compromise on IUPAC spellings. For example, although our chemistry articles use the Commonwealth English forms "aluminium" and "caesium", they also use the distinctly American "sulfur". And in this regard, IUPAC spellings are relevant. This style choice only applies in practice to chemistry-related articles - in other articles a spelling appropriate to the style of the article should be used, jguk 05:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Jguk, and (as a NZer) I haven't heard of "aluminum" except from Americans. I think it's fair in chemistry to follow official spelling, remember that this is still an encyclopedia whichever way looked at, and in non-science articles to follow the of-the-first-major-contributor convention. That makes perfect sense. Neonumbers 11:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, the first-major-contributor convention is a bit of a non-guideline. The MoS says to consider using it as a last resort - but, of course, you never get to the last resort, or alternatively, if you disagree with it, consider it and decide, after that consideration, that it isn't appropriate in that case. Besides, we should be writing with our readers in mind (our potential readers being anyone searching the web for information in English, and our actual readers being a broad subset of that), meaning that the question to be asked is "What is best for our readers?" rather than "What do the editors, or the first editor, want?", jguk 18:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Calling it a "non-guideline" is a bit disingenuous. The only other criterion to determine what dialect an article should be written in is whether the topic is inherently related to one English-speaking nation in a particular way. The vast majority of topics are not inherently related to a single country, so the only way to determine what dialect spellings should use is to look at what the first major contributor did. I'm not sure in what cases where "inherently-related to one English speaking nation" doesn't apply that one shouldn't necessarily apply the "first major contributor" criterion. Can you give an example where someone could "disagree with it, consider it and decide, after that consideration, that it isn't appropriate in that case"? Nohat 08:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

There are plenty of reasons why the "first major contributor" guideline is effectively meaningless.

1. You only use it as a last resort - the circumstances that lead to even discussing the point are likely to be contentious. That means that there must be arguments for at least two different styles taking priority. They will have conflicting merits - and the disputants will expect the issue to be decided on its merits.

2. You would then have to decide who was the "first major contributor" to an article - something which is often far from clear.

3. Next is to decide what style the first major contributor used. In most cases this may be difficult if not impossible. Despite all these arguments we keep having on this page and elsewhere, the vast majority of WP articles are not in any one particular form of English. For example, my comments in this somewhat long post read equally well in American, British, Australian and Indian English.

4. An article often has many editors who most often contribute in the style of English to which they are accustomed. This can make articles all higgledy-piggledy - not through any malice, just through the normal editing process. When an article has developed like this, do we really care that the first major contributor in one instance twelve months ago wrote "color" rather than "colour" - especially when it so easily could have been a typo?

5. It is extremely difficult to copyedit to a style to which you are unaccustomed. OK, we can all see that "color" is North American and "colour" not and copyedit the odd word to a style to which we are unaccustomed. But it's very difficult if you have a reasonbly large article written by lots and lots of editors from different backgrounds and which now has lots of inconsistent styles. It's better for WP (as it will create a much better flow for the article) if the article is copyedited so that it reads better. If we have a willing volunteer, let's welcome them, not damn them for apparently changing the article to something different from which a "first major contributor" chose.

6. Do we really want a trouble-maker who has found out that an article which is stable and is consistent in its style now, two years ago used a different style, to be allowed to come in and change it to their preferred style? Isn't it more to the point that if an article is already consistent, we should leave it as is?

There are other problems too, both with the practical side of things and the theoretical side of things. On the theory side, we are all warned that our articles will be edited mercilessly, and we all know that no-one owns any article. Giving the first contributor a veto say in how an article develops (even to a minor extent) goes against this.

It would be far better to restate the whole section along the lines of (1) put the readers first - use a style that they will like; (2) don't change style without good reason. Of course, as we all know, unfortunately on WP, if you ask people just to use common sense you soon end up finding someone who has none:) jguk 19:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, sulfur is now the official UK spelling (the Royal Society of Chemistry made the change a few years back, after the IUPAC agreement, and an exam board followed, with quite some hoo-ha surrounding it). Frankly, I don't see why we can't just split the difference. I guess the issue is that this affects pronunciation, not just spelling. \\ Wooster

If I may summarise jguk's suggestion as "follow the relevant authority where one exists", then I can support that whole-heartedly. Thus: chemistry articles follow IUPAC style (Aluminium); industry and other non-national articles also follow IUPAC style (Deville process); American articles follow American style (Charles Martin Hall); and Commonwealth articles follow Commonwealth style (can't think of any examples). Wooster 17:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

(It would seem we must be careful using this word "official". A particular spelling cannot really become "official" in any variant of English. English, and language at large, doesn't work like that; not even the académie française can force a change to popular spelling. So I doubt very much that "sulfur" is now THE spelling in the UK. But, I stray too far...)--Cyberjunkie | Talk 17:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with the requirement to follow IUPAC style in industry and other non-national styles. By all means stick with IUPAC for chemistry-related articles, but don't let the prescriptivism spread, jguk 17:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Cyberjunkie: Fair enough, sort of. "Official", really, was being used to mean "in government and educational documents", which is about as "official" as one gets.  : )

jguk: I guess my "principal principle" is consistency -- so that a reader reading up on the various processes for the manufacture of aluminium isn't being bombarded with changes in style and spelling all the time, make all articles fitting into a broad category follow a broadly similar policy. That suggestion just seemed the most appropriate. I would apply that for all chemicals, including aluminium sulfate, which I note exists, both chemically and encyclopaedically.  : D

In any case, Litefantastic's original question could even be a non-choice -- here's an heretical thought: what if Commonwealth English speakers (remember Africa...) outnumbered American English speakers? Wooster 17:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

On a practical level, WP:Chem has enough trouble keeping to IUPAC style in chemistry-related articles, without trying to impose the prescripivism elsewhere. When I remember, I do check "what links here" for these articles, and have changed some spellings, but I agree that it would be incongrous to have "aluminium" in an article which is obviously US-styled. In those cases I leave the US spelling: there are redirects from alternative spellings to the relevant chemistry articles. Physchim62 08:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

My problem with this is that if you go aluminum, then it is plain wrong for British speaking, whereas if you go aluminium it is correct, so you can have a spelling which is correct in both languages. Wikipedia does not seem to have resolved the basic language issue - it is not an American encyclopedia nor a British encyclopedia. However, there are some terribly American-centric and Anglo-centric articles (or at least POVs) in there. I don't think you can resolve this unless there is a better policy on:

• American
• British
• World view
• Variants

Having just been considering the double quote article in which apparently American authors assert an American POV on how the British use the language this does become an irritation to the British reader. There clearly is an underlying tendency on both sides to try and claim the language in some posts - the assumption by various posters that either American view or British view is right. The answer is that they are both right, and sometimes they are adequate for both views, sometimes they are wrong. I think it would be agreed that two versions would not be productive, but I don't think that there is yet a sensible rule on how to co-habit. If we try and co-habit, then if there is a reasonable common term then surely that should be preferred, in spite of national preferences. Spenny 15:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure the observation at the beginning is accurate. "Aluminium" is just as "wrong" to Americans as "Aluminum" is to the British. Nohat 16:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, technically correct, but in common usage wrong - does that put it better? I would still say that alumimium would be found in a pure American dictionary whereas Aluminum would not be found in a pure British English dictionary (it only comes in the one I have with an American tag). I am happy to be wrong on this, but hopefully you see the underlying point. Petty though the spelling point is, it ought to establish what the fundamental principle is. So basically, both versions need to be there because for one group of people or another it will be wrong. I don't think a "I started it, so that is how it should be" rule fits. That is only good enough for general text rather than the technical detail of an article. So we can say color or colour and not have edit wars, but automobile would be wrong in the UK to describe a motor car, it just is not British Englsih, and even after years of American films, would be considered very odd indeed.

There are tons of examples around: in the UK gramophone is so old fashioned as to be really obsolete, it really only means an old wind-up player and trying to use it as an encyclopedia entry is like insisting on horseless carriage for automobiles, yet we gain the impression that gramophone is current usage from Wikipedia. Is the view from the talk pages that Gramophone would be considered current usage for a record player/stereo? From the UK perspective, it leads the articles to read as oddly rooted in the past. Spenny 17:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

No. "Fair enough, technically correct, but in common usage wrong - does that put it better?" is not correct. Aluminium is not a spelling used at all in American English. It just is not American Englsih, and even after years of British films, would be considered very odd indeed. Rmhermen 17:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

All American dictionaries label "aluminium" as chiefly British or similar: American Heritage Dictionary Merriam-Webster Random House Encarta Dictionary, etc.

As far as I know, there are redirects for all dialectically-named articles from the other names, and the articles should (and most do) mention all the names used to describe a thing. For the actual title of an article, I think everyone just has to get used to some articles having slightly odd names because for many topics there is no one single name that is equally ordinary for all speakers of English. Yoghurt and anapaest and abseil and Caesium all look funny to me, but I just accept them because this is an international project and that is what those articles are called, and it clearly gives the spelling/word I'm familiar with at the top of all those articles. I'm not sure what you mean with "gramophone"; the title of the article in question is phonograph. Nohat 17:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, that gramophone was indeed phonograph, and I have to say that off the top of my head it was the archaic word I recalled. Phonograph is equally archaic in British English and is not a word that would ever come to mind to describe a record player (and I don't know enough American to know if phonograph is archaic in American and record player is a sensible term which is less archaic). To me it seems that someone was worried that record player was casual or informal and therefore wanted to use a complicated word to try and be techincally correct. With the language barrier I cannot tell.

The point in this context is that it is not just a title issue, it is that potentially the article is in a foreign language and is unhelpful - use it for school work and you will loose marks - you could write an article which was not in your native language, and blaming Wiki is not a sound excuse. Aluminium is a simple case as the word is similar and once this has been established one can get over it, it is a simple mental find/replace. However, the principle remains: if Wikipedia is to be a reference work for both American English speakers and British English speakers, then it does not seem to be correct to get by, the reference is misleading to one party or another. Put another way, we can debate this because we know: how does an uninformed reader cope? I found the phonograph article unsatisfactory as it was fairly technical and the differing (to me, obsolete) technical terms pervaded the article. Elsewhere there are pedantic arguments over getting minute detail correct, yet an issue which leads a number of articles to be substantially incorrect to one group or another is left in the too tricky heap.

I am sure this has been debated thoroughly before and I am sure we are rehashing old ground, but I think that this will continue to resurface unless a better solution which resolves the "wrongness" of articles is found, even if it is only by having a standard banner to highlight significant problem pages. Spenny 10:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

My intuition is that yes, it is true that "phonograph" is archaic-sounding compard to "record player", but I don't think it's quite as old-fashioned as you think. Consider that most audio input jacks for record players are still to this day labeled "phono"—short for "phonograph". Additionally, a quick Google search shows that "phonograph" gets more results than "record player". On the other hand, when one restricts the search to "site:.uk", "record player" gets more hits, so maybe there is a dialectical difference at play here vis a vis "phonograph" vs. "record player". Regardless, I think the term "turntable" is in fact the most common name used for these devices, and this intuition is borne out by Google: "turntable" get almost double the results for "phonograph", and when restricted to "site:.uk", almost ten times as many results!. The article should probably be renamed. If that article has other weaknesses you think need addressing, just bring it up on the talk page there and improve the article. I don't think that the article's weaknesses have anything to do with dialectical differences.

I don't think it is a good idea to describe American and British English as separate languages—we have no difficulty at all understanding each other's writing, and that is because we are writing in the same language. There are different dialects, yes, and there are differences between the dialects, but I'm not sure what else there is to be done other than noting in the articles where there are multiple spellings, and which dialects, if any in specific, are associated with each spelling. This is already done—for example, aluminium has an extended section on the history of the various spellings. I don't think that describing the usage of forms that differ by dialect as "wrong" is a particularly helpful approach either. A reasonable person wouldn't describe prose that contains the spelling "aluminum" as wrong if it is understood that the prose is written in American English—it's just written in a different dialect. The only "solution" is to expose people to writing in dialects with which the are not familiar so they become aware of the differences between dialects and can better appreciate the diversity of their language.

There have been proposals (from me even!) to provide a way to set a preference for dialect and automatically "translate" articles from one set of spellings to the other, but they have been generally rejected by the community in favor of accepting and embracing diversity instead of trying to hide it. Nohat 16:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Decapitalisation

Shouldn't this page be properly named Manual of style? Phaunt 09:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Added later: I wrote this based on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). It seems odd that the manual of style doesn't conform to what it preaches. Phaunt 13:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more; let's lose the old typewriter mind-set, please. Computers, and the numerous devices for highlighting titles, have been around for long enough. Tony 09:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

This page has long been here. As with Main Page it's just best kept as it is, jguk 14:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Hhmm, I know the line can sometimes be fuzzy between proper nouns and regular nouns, but I feel like the Wikipedia: Manual of Style is enough of a specific thing to merit being a proper noun. The title describes what the page is not just what's on it (i.e. "This page is the Manual of Style"). Similarly, Wikipedia: Naming conventions (capitalization) isn't so much describing what the page is as what's on it (i.e. you wouldn't say "this page is the Naming Conventions (Capitalization)", you would instead say "this page describes/contains the naming conventions (capitalization)").

Frankly the same holds true for the Main Page. That title is not being used to describe/define what main pages are in general, nor is it being used purely descriptively - its the Main Page.

Just thought of an example: If I gave you a copy of the New York Times, I might tell you to turn to page three. But if I gave you a copy of the The Sun, I would tell you to turn to Page Three. Chuck 21:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

My reasoning behind the capitalization in the article title is that in most cases a Manual of Style would be a book. Although the Wikipedia MOS is not a book, it was created as an equivalent to, or replacement for, a book MOS. BlankVerse ∅ 18:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization of link lists

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#"See also" and "Related topics" sections states that lists of links like the See also sections should be lowercased (with the exception of proper nouns). This Manual of Style section is clearly against the common use - I have never ever seen this being done on Wikipedia before. Moreover, lowercase link lists look very ugly :-) Therefore I suggest to change this paragraph so that lists of links should be capitalized. Cacycle 23:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

That Manual_of_Style paragraph references to Wikipedia:Lists where it says "as a matter of style, do not capitalize list items". However, this has never been discussed on the talk page Wikipedia_talk:Lists and is not even followed in the article itself. Cacycle 23:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It is often done on Wikipedia (as are capitalized lists). I like it, and think it should be the rule. That gives us information we cannot get from the title of the article, with initial capitalization still turned on. But the ugliest thing is when some are one way and some the other. Gene Nygaard 09:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

There might indeed be a few lowercase lists out there, but I have yet to find them:

• NONE of 116 checked random articles contained only lowercased list entries, 5 contained mixed style, 48 contained only capitalized list entries starting with non-proper nouns.
• NONE of about 40 checked Navigational templates contained lowercased lists.
• NONE of about 50 checked List of ... articles contained lowercased lists.
• The link lists on the Wikipedia user interface are ALL capitalized.

The Manual_of_Style and the Wikipedia:Lists guidelines clearly have to be changed to accomodate for this overwhelming consensus.

Cacycle 22:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Here are a few for you:

• British thermal unit
• competition (one miscapitalized)
• compiler
• crime
• gamma ray
• gold prospecting
• ice
• intermediate-mass black hole
• invariant mass
• kerosene
• manifold
• mathematics
• measurement
• newton
• semantics
• society

Gene Nygaard 04:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The new lowercasing rule on Manual_of_Style was invented by Lowellian August 16 2005 without any discussion before and after. The new lowercasing rule on Wikipedia:Lists was invented by Patrick March 23 2005 without any discussion before and after. Cacycle 22:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Your claim is false. I did not "invent" some new rule. The rule already existed on Wikipedia:Lists, and furthermore, the rule matched the example already given on Wikipedia:Manual of Style. —Lowellian (reply) 07:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I wrote down what was already customary in Wikipedia, and what I think makes most sense. Note that that is about capitalization in arbitrary lists, which is a separate discussion. However, also in "see also" lists I am in favor of not capitalizing, but, again, except if a list item is accompanied by one or more full sentences.--Patrick 08:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't we just follow typical lowercase/uppercase rules used elsewhere:

See also: flaming, fire, Internet troll

or

==See also==

* [[Flaming]] or [[fire]]

* [[Internet troll]]

Basically, everything is lowercase unless its the first letter in a sentence, the first letter in a bullet, or the first letter of any word of a proper noun (except for a, an, of, etc.).

Looking at the Wikipedia:Lists page, I can't for the life of me figure out why that is the guidance on that page. I'm making a suggestion over there that we change it. Chuck 22:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Can we please leave the typewriter era behind? Computers can highlight and format so easily that we just don't need to capitalise and underline any more. The layer of meaning conveyed by upper-case letters should be preserved in lists, rather than covered by overusing upper-case, word-initial letters. Tony 22:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what this has to do with a typewriter. Among the things that the Wikipedia is not is a a forum for advocacy. There is no reason it should be the vehicle for your crusade to change the conventions of written English. (You really should see someone about your hatred of typewriters ... I kid.) Chuck 23:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

You personalise it, but at issue is a significant change in formatting culture wrought by the replacement of typewriters with computers. With a typewriter, highlighting could be achieved in a severely limited number of ways, i.e., by capitalising and/or underlining. These methods reduce a level of meaning, and are hard to read and ugly, respectively. Their use is now declining because computers allow a much wider range of highlighting techniques that do not have these disadvantages. And this is precisely the forum where this issue should be raised. Tony 00:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, the Wikipedia is not a medium to advocate changing the conventions of written English, it is a reference source. Hard to read and ugly is subjective, anyway. I find it ugly and hard to read to have a list switch from capitalized to uncapitalized. Also, title caps and capitalizations in lists predate typewriters. This has nothing to do with changing technology. Here is one example and another. Chuck 01:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with just about everything you say. 'Hard to read and ugly is subjective, anyway.'—Everything's subjective, isn't it? Pre-typewriter capitalisation served the same ends in the absence of the computer's rich highlighting resources. It has everything to do with changing technology. Tony 02:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

No, "everything" is not subjective. There's plenty of things that are not subjective. I'll give you just a few examples of non-subjective points that I've seen used in recent MoS discussions: ß is not a letter used in English. Even though ß is not used in English, it is a member of the same broader Latin alphabet that English is. Johann Strauss spelled his name Strauß. Some early browsers show a square instead of curly quotes. The current version of Firefox shows curly quotes correctly.

Did you even look at those links I attached? The first uses no fewer than 11 different typefaces (different shape, size, style or weight) and the second uses no fewer than 10. (And that doesn't even include places such as the word "Illustrated" where they could have gotten away with just making that one word in one cast, rather than doing a whole font.) I don't think they were starving for "rich highlighting resources". They already use a separate typeface for chapter titles, for example, but still use title caps. Chuck 03:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

One more comment. Even our table of contents (the one automatically generated for pages with multiple sections) capitalizes each item. There is nothing special about that table, it is merely an automatically generated list. Chuck 04:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't lie. It does not automatically capitalize them, it prints the lines in the table of contents just the way they appear in the section headers. Gene Nygaard 14:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Being wrong and lying are two different things, jackass. Regardless, the result is that the most common form of table in articles uses leading caps. Chuck 18:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Moreover, the Wikipedia Main Page contains ONLY capitalized link lists. Cacycle 19:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The list of lowercase examples above provided by Gene Nygaard is very interesting. Several of the mentioned lists have been lowercased by Gene Nygaard himself! Others are left-overs from editing comma-separated See also sentences or they are mixed lists. In some articles the See also list is the only lowercased list beside 8 or 10 capitalized lists in the article! [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

The diff-links obove clearly show that a small group of users including Gene Nygaard and especially Eequor is actively engaged in lowercasing See also sections. The contributions of Eequor and the contributions of Gene Nygaard are impressing in this respect... Cacycle 19:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

If nobody (rationally) objects I will make the appropriate changes to the Manual of Style. Cacycle 10:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

At least four people, User:Gene Nygaard, User:Eequor, User:Tony1, and me, object to you changing the Manual of Style. There is no consensus to make such a change. —Lowellian (reply) 07:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The rantings and trickeries of some of these four users stand against the overwhelming consensus of the Wikipedia community. While we have collected tons of argument for uppercasing link lists above, you and your friends did not provide a single rational argument to this discussion. Moreover, you are the person who has arbitrarily sneaked in that contentious issue into the Manual of Style without any previous discussion. So you are really in a very, very bad position to object. Cacycle 23:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm with you, Cacycle. Change it back! —Wahoofive (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

"Change it back"? You are trying to force some new rule on the community, and you are calling it "chang[ing] it back"? —Lowellian (reply) 04:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

And what "overwhelming consensus" is there? You keep using words like that without showing any such "overwhelming consensus". Calling an argument not "rational" is not a counterargument; it just shows lack of a counterargument. —Lowellian (reply) 04:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)