Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:Cloudreaver

2006-09-08T09:53:57Z

Wai Wai: /* Re: User:2005 */

Welcome!

== Thank you ==

Thank you very much. I'm glad to be able to help. --[[User:Ionius Mundus|Ionius Mundus]] 20:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
==Welcome to Wikipedia!!!==

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px" width="100%"
|class="MainPageBG" style="width: 55%; border:1px solid #084080; background-color:#F5FFFA; vertical-align:top;color:#000000;font-size: 85%"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#F5FFFA"
! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#CEF2E0; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #084080; text-align:left; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;"> Hello Cloudreaver! [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|Welcome]] to Wikipedia! Thank you for [[Special:Contributions/Cloudreaver|your contributions]]. If you decide that you need help, check out [[Wikipedia:Where to ask a question]], ask me on my talk page, or place '''<code>{{helpme}}</code>''' on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|sign your name]] on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, Please do your best to '''always fill in the [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]] field'''. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- [[User:Kukini|Kukini]] 05:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
|}
{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px" width="100%"
|class="MainPageBG" style="width: 55%; border:1px solid #FFFFFF; background-color:#F5FFFA; vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#F5FFFA"
! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#E2F9ED; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting Started</div>
|-
|style="color:#000"|
* [[Wikipedia:Tutorial|Wikipedia Tutorial]]
* [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|How to edit a page]]
* [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|The five pillars of Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]]
* [[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages|Be bold in editing]]
* [[Wikipedia:How to write a great article|How to write a great article]]
* [[Wikipedia:List of WikiProjects|WikiProjects]]
|-
! <div style="margin: 0; background:#E2F9ED; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting your info out there</div>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
* [[Wikipedia:Cite your sources|Cite your sources]]
* [[Wikipedia:NPOV|Neutral Point of View]]
* [[Wikipedia:POV|Point of View]]
* [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]]
* [[Wikipedia:Uploading images|Uploading images]]
* [[Wikipedia:Image use policy|Image use policy]]
|-
! <div style="margin: 0; background:#E2F9ED; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting more Wikipedia rules</div>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
* [[Wikipedia:List of policies|Policy Library]]
|-
|}
|class="MainPageBG" style="width: 55%; border:1px solid #FFFFFF; background-color:#F5FFFA; vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#F5FFFA"
! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#E2F9ED; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting Help</div>
|-
|style="color:#000"|
* [[Wikipedia:New contributors' help page|New contributors' help page]]
* [[Wikipedia:Where to ask a question|Where to ask a question]]
* [[Wikipedia:Help desk|Help Desk]]
* [[Wikipedia:FAQ|Frequently Asked Questions]]
|-
! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#E2F9ED; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting along</div>
|-
|style="color:#000"|
* [[Wikipedia:Wikiquette|Wikiquette]]
* [[Wikipedia:Civility|Civility]]
* [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|Sign your posts]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedians]]
* [[Wikipedia:Conflict resolution|Conflict resolution]]
|-
! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#E2F9ED; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting technical</div>
|-
|style="color:#000"|
[[Image:Wikimedia.png|60px|right]]
* [[Wikipedia:Pages needing attention|Pages needing attention]]
* [[Wikipedia:Peer review|Peer review]]
* [[Wikipedia:Utilities|Utilities]]
* [[Wikipedia:Village pump|Village pump]]
|-
|}
|}
|}

== Re: [[User:2005]] ==

Hi Cloudreaver-

:It took me a minute to go back and find where we had a run in, but I remember clearly not. He does do things his own way from what I saw. I haven't been watching him lately, so I don't know what's he's been up to. I think you, if you're willing to, should get something started, since you seem to have the most recent conflicts with him. If you need help in the process, you know how to reach me; I'll be willing to help.
:: [[User:JP06035|→'''&ensp;JARED]]'''&ensp;[[User_talk:JP06035|(t)]]&ensp; 13:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd very seriously consider participating in an RfC or some other action to curb this user's inappropriate editing. I'm not putting my name to anything before I see it, of course, but I'd be happy to put some work into this. Please keep me updated. [[User:Grindingteeth|Grindingteeth]] 01:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

----
Just leave a message here because I have replied to your question in my user talk page. Here's my reply:
:Yes, it is sometimes hard to get messages over to [[User:2005]]. The [[WP:3RR|3 revert rule]] is a strict rule. It must be obeyed. If someone revert '''4 times or more''' a day, I suggest reporting the incident in [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR]], so the admin will take actions, including warning, temporarily ban and permanent ban at the worst case.—[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 09:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

==Rake Free deletion==
Put what you want on the discussion page for the deletion. Any changes you make to the main article will be deleted. [[User:Essexmutant|Essexmutant]] 23:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make any further edits to this page. If you do, I will be forced to [[Wikipedia:block|block]] you from editing Wikipedia. [[User:Essexmutant|Essexmutant]] 23:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipolicy prevents editing a closed deletion debate. If you wish to contest it, raise a [[Wikipedia:deletion review|deletion review]]. I assure you I have read [[WP:IAR|IAR]] on numerous occasions, and I see no reason why an exception should be made just because you are unable or unwilling to progress through the review. Going through the process will allow your voice to be heard. I have removed the [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|personal attack]] that you placed on my talk page. [[User:Essexmutant|Essexmutant]] 23:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Wai Wai

2006-09-08T09:50:41Z

Wai Wai:

{{user CVU1-en}}
{{User CSB}}
{{Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Userbox}}
{{Userboxtop|Info Checker}}
I'm a member of '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check]]'''
{{Userboxbottom}}
 
 
 
 
Hello.
I'm Wai Wai. 
I have been contributing to this website anonymously for years. 
Finally I was tempted to joined this big family on the last day of May in 2006. 
{{Userboxtop}}
{{Babel|en-2|french spacing:no|singular they:No|past sneak:Sneaked|split infinitive|prepositions|Whom:No|serial comma|}}
'''My-Interests'''
{{user go}}
{{user cvg-2}}
{{user gamedev}}
{{user ubxlove}}
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User Humour}}
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User Humour2}}
'''My-Habits'''
'''My-Status'''
{{Userboxbottom}}

==My English usage==

===General===
# I am not a hyper-correct person. Life is already hard. Don't make it harder!
# I prefer rule simplicity to complication. Why complicate matters?
# Strict rules are stupid. What does it hurt to simplify things?
# Be flexible. Let your writing style go, let your own personality go.
# Facilitate communications, '''not''' facilitate rules and stubbornness.

===Specific===
# I prefer hyphen: 2-words, then 2 words, then 2words. Hyphen can visibly show the linking between 2 words and avoid possible confusion in some situations.
# I like numerical over text numbers: 2, not two. Don't you think it is easier to read numbers, especially when it grows large?
# [[Singular they]] is not good because it is still confusing. Do you mean singular or plural they? Why not simply use "it" - a perfect candidate of a simple, gender-neutral, and singular [[pronoun]]?
# Does it hurt to write '''childs & wifes''', '''comparision''' or '''curiousity''', '''breaked''' or '''more happy'''?

==My workshop==

===Working place===
#[[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types]]
#[[Wikipedia:Redirect]]
#[[Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup]] - inc. many useful editing tags
#[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]]
#[[Wikipedia:Browse]] -- Category
#[[:Category:Lists]] 
#[[Special:Upload]]
#[[Wikipedia:Village_pump]] -- discussion of technical issues, policies & operations of Wikipedia
#[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~essjay/edit_count/Count.php Essjay's edit counter]

#[[Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol]] -- monitor suspicious recent changes and new page creations
#[[Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit]] -- counter-vandalism!

#[[m:Help:Editing]]
#http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Help:Signature

#[[Special:Linksearch]]
#[[Special:Whatlinkshere/user:Wai_Wai]] -- what links to page of User:Wai_Wai
#[[Special:Linksearch/*Wai_Wai]] -- search links containing text of "Wai_Wai" (exc quotes)
#[[Special:Contributions/user:Wai_Wai]] -- check contributions made by User:Wai_Wai

===How-to===
* [[Wikipedia:How to use tables]]
* [[Wikipedia:Image markup]]

{{Template:h:f Help}}

===My interesting templates===
{|
|-style="vertical-align:top"
|{{Template messages}}
|{{Style}}
|}

==My bookmarks (interesting sites)==
#[[Wikipedia:Reference_desk]] -- Ask questions
#[[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias]] -- wiki-system-related bias (eg wikipedians tend to be tech-inclined)
#[[Wikipedia:MediaWiki]] -- the script used by Wikipedia
#[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Emoticons]]
#[[Wikipedia:Userboxes]] -- have some nice user banners :)
#[[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Computing#P2P_File_Sharing_Clients]] Wow! Many P2P.

#[[User:BaseballBaby]] -- detailed analysis on [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Institute_of_Management|article for deletion - International Institute of Management]]
#[[MeatBall:FightingIsBoring]] -- Article on Fighting is boring

==Wiki Specialities==

===Other areas of Wikipedia===
{{WikipediaOther}}

===Wiki family===
#http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page -- Fake Wikipedia (for comedy). Hehe...
#http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Wikia -- a collection of communities with websites editable for anyone
#http://wikitravel.org/en/Main_Page -- travel guide
#http://egamia.com/wiki/Main_Page -- gaming wikipedia
#http://strategywiki.org/wiki/Main_Page -- gaming strategy

{{WikipediaSister}}

===Wikipedia languages===
{{Wikipedialang}}

===Special===
* [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]]
* [[Wikipedia:External links]]
** [[Wikipedia:describe external links]]
** [[m:When should I link externally]]
---
* [[Special:Listusers/Sysop]] (Admins)
* [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]]
** [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]]
** [[Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism]]
** [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR]] (3 revert rules)
* [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Opentask]]
* [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Suggestions for mediators]]
---
* [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion]] (CSD)
* [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion]] (PROD)
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion]] (AFD)
** [[Wikipedia:Guide to deletion]]
---
* [[Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers]]
* [[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages]]

==My useful tags==
Template: <nowiki> </nowiki>

===Citing and sources===
*{{tl|Citequote}}, tagging a request for citation, used for information that needs citations to make it complete, but not for seemingly doubtful or false texts
*{{tl|Fact}}, another version of {{tl|Citequote}}
*{{tl|Request quote}}, tagging a request for quoting inaccessible source, used for requesting a direct quote from the cited source for verification
*{{tl|Verify source}}, tagging a request for source verification, used for information that is doubtful or appears false.
*{{tl|Verify credibility}}, a tag which has the same purpose of {{tl|Verify source}} but with a different wording.

*{{tl|Citecheck}}, popping up a box saying an article or section may have inappropriate or misinterpreted citations
*{{tl|Not verified}}, popping up a box saying an article or section has not been verified and may not be reliable
*{{tl|Unreferenced}}, popping up a box saying an article or section has no citation or reference for its information

===Wiki tags links===
* [[m:Help:Magic words|Magic words]] -- Special wiki tags (eg TOC, sections tags)
* [[Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace]] -- all sorts of user warnings tags
* [[Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup]] -- all sorts of cleanup tags

===Others===
* <s>Strikethrough</s> | <nowiki><s>Strikethrough</s> </nowiki>
* superscript text | <nowiki> superscript text </nowiki>
* subscript text | <nowiki> subscript text </nowiki>
* {{main|delete}} | <nowiki> {{main|delete}} </nowiki>
* {{Current-section}} <center>| <nowiki> {{Current-section}} </nowiki></center>
* {{unsigned|forgetful person}}| <nowiki> {{unsigned|forgetful person}} </nowiki>

*{{cquote| (put your quotation here)
}} <center>| <nowiki> {{cquote|
}}</nowiki></center>

* Sample table
{| class=wikitable
!Width=50|
!Width=100| Row 1
!Width=200| Row 2
!Width=300| Row 3
|-
!Col
|
|
|
|-
!Col
|
|
|
|-
!Col
|
|
|
|-
!Col
|
|
|
|-
!Col
|
|
|
|-
!Col
|
|
|
|}

* <nowiki>__notoc__  </nowiki>
* <nowiki>
 </nowiki>
* <nowiki>

</nowiki>

User talk:Wai Wai

2006-09-08T09:21:09Z

Wai Wai: /* About User:2005 */

==computer programs playing Go==
With reference to your recent edits of the [[Deep Blue]] article, I think it is misleading to say that Go programs are still at beginner levels. A "beginner level" suggests someone who has recently learned the game. The main [[Go]] article gives 30-25 kyu as typical beginner rankings, while the GnuGo program, for example, is thought to be around 9 kyu. - [[User:Hayne|Hayne]] 04:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

: Read and replied in your user page. :-) --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] 22:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
:: I have added my response on that page. Summary: I think you are using the word "beginner" in a different (perhaps Go-specific) sense than it is usually used. In usual usage, "beginner" = "newbie". -[[User:Hayne|Hayne]] 03:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
::: Replied. Enjoy! :-) --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] 13:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

== Backgammon infobox ==

Thanks for adding the infobox template. I have filled it in. --[[User:Ptkfgs|Ptkfgs]] 04:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
: You are very welcome. :) As to age range, it might be better if you can specify the age range (instead of saying ''any''). Like [[Go (board game)]], it is about 5+. --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] 04:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
:: Good idea. 5+ sounds reasonable. I've also wikified a couple of other links. --[[User:Ptkfgs|Ptkfgs]] 05:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
::: Thanks. You are very fast and, after all, well done! :D --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] 05:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

== Backgammon duplication into [[:Category:Board games]] ==

Thanks for looking into that! It seemed like a good idea, but I only pursued it for a couple of minutes. Should be easier to find now :-) —[[User:Ptkfgs|ptk]]✰[[User_talk:Ptkfgs|fgs]] 06:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks. Unfortunately [[User:2005]] said he is going to change it back and clear up the mess in a few weeks. I'm pretty sure his understanding of the policy is flawed/wrong. Anyway, I hope he would discuss the discrepancy first and make mututal agreement before undoing changes arbitrarily. Also I hope he would respect others' opinions after a decision is made (even if he still does not agree). By the way, I have added you towards the vote of my approach.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 08:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

== [[Bus Uncle]] ==
Can you give me a reason why character is better?{{unsigned|Q5 den}}

----
There's no compulsory reasons for that section heading, but the reasons why it is better are as follows:
#'''Concise''': it is shorter while keeping the same meaning
#'''Consistency''': I see other articles using this word "characters" when they introduce the subjects involved in the scene, so I picked this word.
For details, please see [[WP:MOS]] and [[:Category:Internet memes]]. 

It would be great if you could sign your comment next time. To sign your comment, simply type <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki>, the system will auto-generate the signature. Thanks for your co-operation.

By the way, you should use "Involved persons" instead of "Involved '''P'''ersons" (capital '''P'''). It is because wiki policy has stated we should capitalise the first letter only of the first word and of any proper nouns in a heading, and leave all of the other letters in lowercase. See [[WP:MOS#Headings]] for details.

As to your concerned whether "Characters" make it sound like it was a staged act, I'm not in a better position to answer this question since I am not a English native speaker. It may carry such connotation. Anyway, someone else may give you a better answer.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

== Backgammon ==
I have made significant changes to [[Backgammon]], and I would appreciate your comments if you care to review the article. —[[User:Ptkfgs|ptk]]✰[[User_talk:Ptkfgs|fgs]] 10:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
----
Definitely. It's my pleasure to do so. I will review immediately after I have finished a few of my current tasks.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC){{user Very Happy}}{{clear}}

----
But should I wait before you finish your edit? 
If so, tell me if you've completely finished the article. --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 11:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

:I think I'm done for now. :-) —[[User:Ptkfgs|ptk]]✰[[User_talk:Ptkfgs|fgs]] 11:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

----
OK. A preliminary review (for several hours X-D) is done. Well done, especially the efforts on dividing sections, cleanup langauge and style, and reducing complex language structures. Many articles have very long paragraphs with even a sub-section or even a section, which is bad. This makes it harder to read, browse and get the frame and meaning of the article.

Several comments are made on how to expand some parts of the backgammon. As to the section of Chouette, some users (including me) are interested to know this word, so I think the information about the meaning of the word "Chouette" is not vanity. I may suggest a move of contents to the main article because:
#the main article is large.
#Provided that there's a sub-article (ie [[Backgammon Chouette|Chouette]]) to the main (ie [[Backgammon]]), it provides a good opportunity to move most contents to that sub-article.
#the sub-article needs expanding too. Moving these contents help to enrich the sub-article.
Any further discussions and comments are welcome.
 --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks! I've cleaned a few things up, mostly to improve grammar. I think the section on go was a bit long, as backgammon and go software aren't particularly comparable. I've added it along with [[nine men's morris]] as examples of games where either computers or humans have a clear advantage. I will work on merging the chouette section into the chouette article; I also think there should be a separate article for the variants, as that section reads as enormously long right now. —[[User:Ptkfgs|ptk]]✰[[User_talk:Ptkfgs|fgs]] 15:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
::I think, if the section is left, there are good stuff to be written to compare the differences between backgammon and go in computing sense, eg why does it make such a big difference between computer backgammon and go? Why do the skills and tactics used in backgammon cannot be applied to Go? Someone which is good in this area can expand the section in a meaningful way. Thus you may think of leaving this sub-section, perhaps with a stub on it.
::Yes, you can go ahead if you think the "variants" part grow large to qualify itself as a separate page.
::I changed the section heading of "Internet backgammon" since I think there are other uses of computer (not just Internet). The section alone may restrict what aspect can be expanded. See [[Go#Computer_as_Go_assistant]] for some ideas.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 16:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
::I think '''some mentioning about champion backgammon players is helpful'''. I see no section mentioning this (except the "see also" section which make this topic receive too little attention)--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 16:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
:::I'm not aware of any software that is not primarily used for play/evaluation, or for interactive play on the internet. If we get more info about this I think we can change that section back to other. But for the moment the "internet" heading is more precise.
:::After a discussion with [[User:JocK]], I think we need to use another notation format. I am going to put up a <nowiki>{{inuse}}</nowiki> and take care of it. Should't take long. —[[User:Ptkfgs|ptk]]✰[[User_talk:Ptkfgs|fgs]] 17:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Thanks for your response. 1) Yes, this heading is the most suitable at this moment. 2) Tell me what you feel about the inclusion of famous backgammon players. 3) It would be great if you group your small changes and save as one next time. (When I read the edit history of backgammon, I barely get misled it is the history of your user homepage X-D) 4) If you prefer another review after your major edit, please tell me and I will be more happy to do so. --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 17:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::I do think it would be worthwhile to link to the list of backgammon world champions, but that article is pretty bad right now. It's not clear what championship it's talking about, and there is a note on the talk page that makes me question whether it is compiled from an established world championship.
:::::I do apologize for the many separate edits; I wanted to avoid [[Help:Edit_conflict|edit conflicts]], and I hadn't intended to make so many changes when I'd first started. —[[User:Ptkfgs|ptk]]✰[[User_talk:Ptkfgs|fgs]] 17:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::How about opening a new section (about backgammon players) in the main first?
::::::Never mind :). You may use <nowiki>{{inuse}}</nowiki> next time. It will tell people you are editing. If you are going to edit for a long time, you may leave message either in edit summary or talk page about how long approximately you will finish your major edit. (Note: but you have used it for this time, so you should know it ;) ). As to edit conflicts, the wiki has implemented a check, so if your edit conflicts with another, a notice will be issued when you try to save the edit. --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 17:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Yeah, I will definitely use <nowiki>{{inuse}}</nowiki> next time. I really don't like the edit conflict resolution system. I've opened a thread on the talk page regarding &ndash; for ranges; its use in the infobox is in line with [[WP:MoS]] so unless there's a significant objection, I'd prefer to stick with it. —[[User:Ptkfgs|ptk]]✰[[User_talk:Ptkfgs|fgs]] 17:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::::I don't like the edit conflict resolution system either. Some other systems will auotmatically warn new coming editors when someone is in the process of editing.
::::::::I'm fine with the &ndash; changes. The reasons why I wish to change is newbie editors may have difficulty understanding this unreadable code ['''major reason'''], and I don't see any real benefits of distinguishing short dash (-) and long dash (–) ['''minor reason''']. Anyone can read whether it's meant to be a range or not from the context anyway. To me, this is a hypercorrection. After all, I don't mind and will leave the change.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 17:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

== [[Day trading]] ==

On section heading:
mine "Very Risky"

Yours "Can be very profitable but is very risky"

The expected return from daytrading (versus investing overnight) is zero. Can you come up with any sort of reference that says in any
meaningful way that daytrading can be very profitable?

"In any meaningful way" means showing that the expected return is high, not just the risk (otherwise why make a meaningless distinction?) [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]
----
Why do you think the expected return from [[daytrading]] is '''zero'''? Please respond each of my point before concluding day trading is a necessarily losing game:
#Remember trading is a [[zero-sum]] game excluding transaction costs. If day traders lose money, guess where these money goes? it goes to the winners.
#The statement says '''most''' (not 80-90%) daytraders are losing. What does it imply? Where is the rest (10%)? They are winning, some winning big.
#Although day trading is (very) risky, as said by SEC. It does not mean it is '''never''' profitable, or '''no one will be a day trader'''. Tell me why there are over billions of money traded every day.
#day traders, who trade full time and on behalf of their own accounts, are responsible for between 17-18% of daily volume of NASDAQ and NYSE (study performed by Bear Stearns). If day traders are definite losers, why are there so many day traders?
#And where are all these money go (17-18% amount spent on daily trading volume)? They will not vanish in the air.

Daytrading is very risky since the cycle is very quick: Money in, money out within the same day. This is the disadvantage to most people since they just wish to "get rich quick" without the idea of how to "get rich quick". If they have poor money management, money can flow away like waterfall.

If one manages to play well, day trading can make you a fortune. Some day traders can manage to earn millions per year solely by day trading. You may subscribe any trading magazines. Some of the successes are revealed in these magazines. For example, Paul Rotter's success is profiled in Trader Monthly. He is a very successful day trader and scalper. The reference has already been put in the day trading article. You seem to miss reading the '''Notes and references''' section.

By the way, day trading is said to be very risky, but it is only true for general public who don't know how to play this game. If you know what it is really about, it can be a safe game. Great day traders can manage to control their drawdown to very low level. They may even get extremely high no of daily winning streak of several months to a year or more. It is not someone who involves in long-term investment can do, not to say they are deadly slow in returns. Anyway this is another story. Forget it if you don't get it.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 16:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

== Moving Pages ==
Please do not "move" pages by cutting-n-pasting the content. Wikipedia has built in functionality to move pages. This needs to be used instead so that the history is maintained with the content. See [[Help:Moving a page]] for instructions. I have fixed you move of [[Moving average (finance)]] to [[Moving average (technical analysis)]]. Let me know if you have questions. Thanks. --[[User:JLaTondre| JLaTondre]] 12:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
:Forget to leave a message here. Thank you so much for your help. :) --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 20:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

== [[Democracy (disambiguation)]] ==

Hello there, Wai Wai. I completely understand your want to conform [[Democracy (disambiguation)]] to the standards of the [[MoS:DP]]. I work with disambiguation pages very often, and there are few things more satisfying than a cleanly organized disambiguation page. However, as you can see by the very lengthy discussion on the talk page and the MedCab case, there has been lots of discussion on how the disambiguation page should be. The disambiguation page used to contain a large list of links, and it has been shortened down to what it is now; even with that, it is still somewhat in dispute. With complex topics, there will always be disambiuation pages that require some ignoring of the rules (even that is mentioned in the MoS!), so until any more disputes are resolved, please leave the page as it is. Thanks, and feel free to let me know if you have any question. -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly]][[User:Natalya/Esperanza|a]] 23:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

:OK! --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 05:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

== Can you please help ?==
Hi Wai Wai! I found you through [[Wikipedia: WikiProject Fact and Reference Check]].
I was wondering if you'd mind lending me a helping hand with [[International Institute of Management]] article . On August 10 an unknown person (no signature) marked it for deletion. Then [[User:BenFrantzDale|—Ben FrantzDale]] conducted a good faith google search for “international institute of management” and it did not return a top result. – Which led him to support the deletion marking. Two other users followed saying that the website was not notable and the institute claims non-verifiable international connections. However, I have conducted a detailed research on IIM website, including IIM research section, press-releases, events and photos, as well as other independent websites and provided evidence of notability and verifiable references. However, my concern is that I’m only one vote against 4 vote and I do not know if any of them will change their mind (human nature!). Therefore, I kindly ask you to verify the links provided in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Institute_of_Management and help verify the notability. I’m not asking for anything less than an ethical vote. I’m willing to return the favor and review a similar article.[[User:Miro.gal|Miro.gal]]
----
OK! I'm willing to help. However my opinion may be against your favour.

First, don't be too worried about that. [[WP:WWIN#Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy|Wikipedia is not a democracy]]. The deletion process is not polling/voting process. Read it first:
* {{tl|afdanons}}

Please read [[Wikipedia:Notability]] and {{tl|notability}}. If you feel your article is notable enough (qualify for a page in Wikipedia), please try to explain why your article is in accordance to [[Wikipedia:Notability]], but NOT '''your opinion''' about notability.

Make as many valid points as possible. If your points are valid, the article will be kept even if there are more votes for '''deletion''' than for '''keep'''.

I will try to give my opinions as soon as possible after I have done the research.

After all, '''I'm very happy that you ask me to help'''.
I like to help people. You have found the right person. :) --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 16:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

{{user very happy}}{{clear}}
----
After a few hour of research, it seems the institution does not come up as a clearly notable institution (according to the standards here). You may need more proofs to show this institution is notable (eg having news in major newspaper or other media). Since the people over there has discussed the points in depth as to why it should be deleted. The article is going to be deleted soon. If you wish to keep that article, you may try to improve the main article by including more stuff, reference them, and give more links to prove its notability.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 19:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

== WikiProject Board and table games ==

You may be interested in joining [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games]]. —[[User:Ptkfgs|ptk]]✰[[User_talk:Ptkfgs|fgs]] 06:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks for the mentioning. However I don't know if I am going to focus my work on "board and table games". I am a person who do a wide range of things, not particularly to some articles or projects. By the way, very nice work on [[Backgammon]].--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 19:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

== WP:STUB ==
If you get a chance, could you discuss a question about the changes made to WP:STUB a couple weeks ago? (see [[Wikipedia talk:Stub#Stub tag removal]]) Thanks... --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 03:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

: Replied! —[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 09:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

== About User:2005 ==
I see that you've had trouble with this User:2005 in the past. Lately he has been disrupting me as well. His main behavioral problem is that he is an unscrupulous editor, who does not think about others before editing, reverting, or deleting their work. He is quite inconsiderate, and usually it's "his way or the highway". Plus, he never abides by the "3 revert rule". Should we do something about this? [[User:Cloudreaver|Cloudreaver]] 05:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, it is sometimes hard to get messages over to [[User:2005]]. The [[WP:3RR|3 revert rule]] is a strict rule. It must be obeyed. If someone revert '''4 times or more''' a day, I suggest reporting the incident in [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR]], so the admin will take actions, including warning, temporarily ban and permanent ban at the worst case.—[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 09:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Wai Wai

2006-09-08T09:08:58Z

Wai Wai: /* WP:STUB */

Wikipedia talk:Stub

2006-09-08T09:07:54Z

Wai Wai: /* Stub tag removal */ comment+

[[Image:Stub-stub.png|thumb|250px|'''Warning:''' Stubitis!]]
==how to find or fix a stub==

Help: There are over 1000 Wikipedia links to "Find or fix a stub", which now redirect to this page. But this page does not tell you how to find or fix a stub. [[User:Tempshill|Tempshill]] 23:29, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
:"Finding stubs" section was added, as per request. --[[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] 23:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
::Excellent, thank you. [[User:Tempshill|Tempshill]] 20:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Great.And now where's the help for fixing a stub? I'm a n00b at wiki, it would really be helpful.[[User:Gray62|Gray62]]
:The whole of the article addresses that. Also, pleas sign your comments with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) --[[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] 01:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Oops, sry. Hmm, obviously, I'm a total doofus, but reading this article I still have a very fuzzy picture of the difference between a 'real ' article and a stub. For instance, should the stub template be removed at some point? And what happens if I remove it? It would be really gr8 if someone would make an article on this that someone not so familiar with wiki could understand. [[User:Gray62|Gray62]] 14:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
:Catagorizing stubs is much easier if the contributor has at least marked them as {stub} at all, I propose changing the Project page stub directions to let new contributors know that it is better to mark the article {stub} then to not mark it at all [[User:Xaosflux|Xaosflux]] 05:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

:When the article no longer qualifies as a stub, the stub tag should be removed. That is why the page says "Once a stub has been properly expanded and becomes an article rather than just a stub, you or any editor may remove the stub tag from it. No admin action or formal permission is needed." Is that unclear? When the stub tag is removed, the article is no longer listed in the stub category, and the stub notice no longer appears at the bottom of the article. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 15:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Hmm sry, some misunderstanding here on my part. I'm looking for info how to properly expand a stub. What is the necessary minimum for an article? Checking 'Wikipedia:What is an article' now. Maybe someone could take a look at [[The Hurricane (1999 movie)]] and tell me if there's anything missing, pls?
[[User:Gray62|Gray62]] 15:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
:A stub can be expanded by adding any relevant information that is not already present. What that might be depends on the article in question. Basically any article with enough content not to be a stub is an article, albiet perhaps a short one. What it takes to be a "full" or "complete" article is another matter -- for the other extreme, see [[WP:FAC]]. One important thing that articels should have but many stubs lack is cited sources. See [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]] for more on this, and see [[Wikipedia:Footnote3]] for one tool some editors use for this purpose. Another thing is a proper category -- pretty much every article should be in at least one category, and the stub category will be removed when the stub tag is removed. Beyon that there are no particualr rules -- the more reliable, relevant, sourced, [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]] content the better, IMO. Happy editing. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 15:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

==removal of images==

Where can I find the discussion about the removal of images from various stub templates? [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 02:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
:[[Wikipedia:Suspend use of stub icons]]. Cheers. --[[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] 01:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
::I've added a line discouraging the use of icons at [[Wikipedia:Stub#Creating_the_stub_template]]. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?'']] 13:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Stubbing]] ==

I considered altering and adding stub tags to articles stubbing. Should we make an article with that name? --[[User:SuperDude115|SuperDude]] 15:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
:I didn't quite understand what you meant, but creating such entry would be the same as shooting our own foot, as the intention of this page is reuniting all information about stubs in one place. The term ''stubbing'' is somewhat of a [[neologism]], also. That page would be better off redirecting to here. --[[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] 19:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

== stub template position ==

This page says
<blockquote>These stub templates should invariably be placed at the bottom of the article.</blockquote>
Is that strictly required? I prefer to put the stub template above headings such as '''External links''' or '''References''', and succession boxes or related concept boxes. This way readers will realise the article is incomplete (and consider adding to it) before they get to the "boring" stuff at the bottom of the page. An alternate wording might be ''These stub templates should be placed at the bottom of the text of the article.'' --[[User:ScottDavis|ScottDavis]] 04:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:As things stand, what is said on the article is the rule. Invariably means invariably. However, you might want to bring this discussion up at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting]]. --[[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] 04:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting#stub_template_position He took your advice]. As [[User:Grutness|Grutness]] pointed out in that discussion, the stub template basically says "this is all we have, and we need more", implying there's nothing beyond it when in fact there is. --[[User:Elembis|Elembis]] 13:43, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
:I agree with Scott's reasoning - I used to place all my stub msgs above those section, after main body. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]] 11:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Has the policy changed, or did someone unilatterally change it? The page now says, "By convention, these stub templates should be placed near the bottom of the article." Much weaker than "invariably". Stub template placement is something that really does cry out for standardization. I see stub templates all over the place; some look like the last entry in a list of links or references, and do not stand out. Enclosing them in a shaded box might help; centering might help. [[User:Finell|Finell]] 05:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

== Boilerplate index ==

I've added a line pointing at this page to the end of the See Also list @ [[WP:BPT]] [[User:Ceyockey|Courtland]] 17:35, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

== Ethno-stub died? ==

[[Template:Ethno-stub]] seems to have disappeared for no good reason I can ascertain...any help? [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]] [[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]] 04:49, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
:For reasons best known to himself, Stevertigo decided to delete the template. It's been restored. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?'']] 06:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::Thanky kindly, good sir. [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]] [[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]] 08:18, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

==[[Wikipedia:Stub]]==
Given that the category is now [[:Category:Stubs]], should this page be similarly named? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?'']] 06:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Sounds reasonable, provided appropriate redirects. [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]] [[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]] 08:17, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

== Stubsensor cleanup project ==

Hello,

Would anyone mind if I added a blurb about the [[User:Triddle/stubsensor|Stubsensor]] cleanup project (example: [[User:Triddle/stubsensor/20050516]])? Perhaps we can also consolidate and try to come up with good criteria for judging when an article is no longer a stub? [[User:Triddle|Triddle]] 21:58, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
*Hey there, Triddle. Indeed, your Stubsensor would make a nice addition to this page. I will include it right away. Stub size, on the other hand, is a different matter entirely. Our main problem comes from the fact that there isn't much to say about certain subjects and that there is too much to say about others. There are also articles with little content and huge tables/lists which give very little useful information. So the whole discussion becomes a mess most of the time. But please give your opinion on this matter, either here or on the [[WP:WSS]]. Cheers. --[[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] 01:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
**Yes indeed it is hard to tell what is a stub and what is not. I've attacked this on two levels: in my software and in the organization of the cleanup projects. I believe the proper solution is proper and good communication. Here is what my take is on the matter: A stub is short enough to contain an interesting point or two but overall does not contain enough detail to be a full article but only if it can be expanded by an average person. If its already reached the level of requiring extensive research or college courses it should probably have the <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:expand|expand]]}} tag put on it and list why. Additionally if the article has glaring omissions it should have the expand tag put on it and list the omissions and how to fix it. The more we can improve the signal to noise ratio on the stub tags I believe the more we can let them do their intended job: make it easy for your average person to improve Wikipedia. Thats just my philosophy though. [[User:Triddle|Triddle]] 05:09, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
***We must be on the right track then, since that's more or less what is already being said on the article, but the expansion tag is something that hadn't been considered so far. The only problem I see is that this would be a great guideline for [[WP:WSS]], but I don't see the average user "getting" the spirit of the idea. --[[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] 17:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==Rationale for stub types==
<nowiki>Please excuse if this is covered somewhere in voluminous texts covering the art of stubbing. I haven't read them all, but it humbly seems to me that this question should have an answer somewhere prominent within the documentation. It seems to me that whether an article is a stub or not is a characteristic orthoginal to its categorization(s) within the "[[Category:*]]" hierarchy, and it is semantically sufficient to tag an article as (say) "{{tl|stub}}" and "[[Category:Communications satellites]]". For the use case of "Show me all stubs in the category 'communications satellites'" (which seems to have been the motivation for stub categories), it seems to me that this would best be handled by the MediaWiki software — not for it to specifically support the "{{tl|stub}}" tag, but generally to support queries involving arbitrary combinations of text content, tags (and absence of tags), and category membership (and for that matter any of the other metadata maintained by the MediaWiki software). Further, it seems to me that the stub hierarchy, and whatever other tag hierarchies are on the horizon (e.g. {{com-cleanup}}, {{com-POV}}, etc.) will plunge Wikipedia into a massive infinite-monkey ontological cross product. Thanks. —</nowiki>[[User:Fleminra|Fleminra]] June 28, 2005 09:41 (UTC)
* It is absolutely true that the cross-product of label-stub with label-category-X should be sufficient to alert persons to articles that are stubs in their area of interest. However, there is not a way in which these cross-products can be visualized at the category level for a particular article (to the best of my knowledge). The current visualization tools available in "preferences" are not up to the task. If advances in the WikiMedia software would address this, for instance adding ability to rank on a scale of 1-to-3 or 1-to-5 the "completeness" of an article and accomodate this as a poll for each article and have the running avg-count and median-count and count-of-voters viewable at the category level, that would make the stub-typing going on here obsolete. I just today outlined another solution type to '''potentially allow the eradication of small stubtype categories''' (thereby allowing true implementation of the 100+ article guideline) in the discussion around deletion of {{tl|Nickelodeon-stub}} (see [[Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion#.7B.7Btl.7CNickelodeon-stub.7D.7D]]). Still another way to try to reduce the proliferation of stubtypes is by '''double-stubbing''', adding two different stub templates that are orthogonal; where there are many articles that would need double-stubbing, new stubtypes are being created according to '''area classes''', such as ''geo'' for geography class, ''bio'' for biography class, etc. where a double-stubbed article to {{tl|Canada-stub}} and {{tl|Bio-stub}} now can go to {{tl|Canada-bio-stub}}. Cross-products are useful but usually only when they are instantiated then then usually when they are only instantiated partially. Thus, what would be quite useful is to modify the MediaWiki software to all the '''instantiation of cross-product nodes between stub and category at will''' from within any particular category, so that a pseudo-category would be created that would be ''category-x-stub'' which would not be creatable by a human, but would be created on the fly each time a category is accessed and would appear as a sub-category containing a subset of articles in the real category. However, in the end the easiest way to do away with the stub-type solution is to have '''comprehensive coverage of WikiProjects''' for areas of active interest, those WikiProjects maintaining interest-area lists of articles in need of attention for use by participants in the project. The primary social reason for the existence of stubtypes is the univeral editing nature of how Wikipedia has grown; the assumption is that anyone walking in off the street who might be interested in an area should find it easy to find a stub in her area of interest ... and the easiest way of accomplishing that to date is via stubtypes. I hope this goes some way toward addressing your questions. I'm sure that I've not related all options or considerations here, in which case others adding to this is necessary to give you the whole picture. [[User:Ceyockey|Courtland]] July 1, 2005 00:00 (UTC)

==Request==
Can the page have a few "links outwards" (especially for those of us coming from the Community portal page, who want to be helpful and find a few stubs to cure).
:I don't think I understand what you mean. Could you try elaborating a little? --[[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] 1 July 2005 00:36 (UTC)

== stubbers and stub-sorters ==

There may be people who are not interested in stub sorting and would only perform generic stubbing using only the tag, {{tl|stub}}. Because there are so many stubs to choose from, it can be a barrier to complete the whole stubbing process. Therefore, it is adequate that one can just perform only one step of generic stubbing with its purpose of bringing attention to the newly discovered stub article. Thus there are two roles, ''stubbers'' and ''stub-sorters'', whom work together to efficiently meet Wikipedia's stubbing goals.
Comments? -- [[User:Zondor|Zondor]] 2 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)

== Somewhat radical suggestion about stub templates ==

I just got done unloading some word at [[Wikipedia_talk:Template_standardisation]] and that got me to thinking ... I am considering whether the categorisation of a stub-article via affixing a specific stub type need be reflected on the article page as it currently is. The current anatomy of a stub-template message looks like

(optional image) (topic message) (entreaty to expand the article)

A large part of the template standardisation discussion revolves around making template messages unobtrusive but noticable and clearly distinguishing them from the article content. There is a suggestion to have ''all'' templates in boxes with certain characteristics across all Wikipedia. I don't think that would fly in fully open discussion, but at present the group involved is implementing a standard across templates without discussion or notice on the talk pages, the notion being that they'll deal with it when someone complains or reverts.

In order to head off this wave without making a federal case of it (blowing it out of proportion), we might take the initiative in doing some stub-type-wide changes ourself. Here is my proposal:

# the stub-template message be contracted down to a combination of the old "stub" image and a topic-specific image - no text except that might appear as part of the image
# the stub-template be placed at the top, to the far left of the page
# markup the stub-template image to go to the topical stub category
# the stub-type category be listed in the category listing, preferably last, but would be added as part of the template addition as it now is
# all existing stub categories and stub type processes be kept the same

The point of all this is doing away with the perceived user requirement that the topic of the stub-template be included in the template message. In point of fact, the topic is related redundantly and in some cases confusingly by appearing 3 times ... as part of the stub-template title, as the name of the stub-type category, and in the text of the stub-template message. Also, the help-request in the stub template message is redundant with the "edit this page". All articles can use help in some way; the stub template just emphasizes that maybe this article needs more help than others in the same topic area.

This is a rather radical suggestion and I'm not aggresively supportive of it, but I do think that considering it in the light of how to improve the stub-associated experience for ''readers'' and ''contributers'' (not in this case for ''stubbers'' .. though all 3 can be instantiated in one person).

Thanks for listening. [[User:Ceyockey|Courtland]] July 4, 2005 14:37 (UTC)
:If I understood what you mean, you are proposing that the template would be converted to something similar to what the Wikiportal template is, right? A simple box with an image defining that it is a stub (the old "puzzle piece" image) and an indicator of what stub category it belongs to, floating at the upper-left corner of the article.

:I do find the idea to be interesting, but I fear that the scope of the changes might result in a sizable amount of article-breaking. Nevertheless, it ''could'' be implemented, but it would probably be best if a mockup version of the template was made and put somewhere on the Wikipedia namespace, so that all parties interested could evaluate and discuss it. --[[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] 4 July 2005 15:18 (UTC)

== Another suggestion about stub definitions ==

There has been much discussion about what constitutes a stub.

Could we consider adding to the "identifying a stub" section something like:

:It is sometimes unclear to the reader why an article has been given the label of "stub". When putting on a stub-template consider starting a discussion thread on the article's talk page that indicates what you, as the person who labelled the article as a stub or who altered the stub-type, believe is missing from the article. This provides a further assistance to potential contributors by not only highlighting that the article needs expansion, but also ''what'' is needed.

This is far too wordy, but something along these lines of sentiment might be useful to add somewhere, either here or in one of the pages related to the [[WP:WSS]].

[[User:Ceyockey|Courtland]] 15:44, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

This might be an useful guideline for, say, "stubbers", who seem to think that they are making a great contribution to the Wikipedia by sending every damn article which has a slight flaw to [[:Category:Stubs]] by means of placing a generic stub tag on them. As of late, it's becoming very hard to understand ''why'' certain articles are being tagged as a stub. Unwikified articles shouldn't be sent to the stub cat, in the same way copyvios should not, in the same way articles with no cateogry should not. So I would love an explanation in these cases. But on a general basis, this does not serve much purpose. Pretty much all of the time, it is fairly clear what a stub lacks. --[[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] 17:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

== at what point is a stub no longer a stub? ==

At what point is a stub entry no longer a stub but an actual article? I've been working on the [[Sam Seder]] article, and don't feel it's finished, but it's certainly more fleshed out then when I came across it. I even added his filmography, and figured out how to include his picture. However, I've pretty much exhausted my research for the time being. I'm sure others can later improve upon what I've done.

I don't know if it's okay for me to remove the '''bio-stub''' reference that was included on the page when I found it, or if I'm supposed to let other people do that? Maybe y'all vote.. or something..? Or can I just remove it? Thanks ahead of time for any responses.
[[User:ZachsMind|ZachsMind]] 02:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

:Well the rule of thumb on [[WP:STUB]] is "10 fairly short sentances or three paragraphs" but it warns that that is jsut a rule of thumb. In genral a stub is, IMO, an article so short as to be obviously lacking key info needed to cover the subject, so short that people must be exorted to expand it, and the reader cautioned not to rely on it to include adequate coverage. An article doesn't need to be so tagged can just have the stub tag removed -- no vote or approval is needed. I have done some stubsorting recently, mostly in book-stub, and found several articles that didn't look like stubs to me. I checked the history to see the state of the article when the stub tag was applied. if here had been significant expansion, and the article didn't feel like a stub to me, I removed the tag. This is just my view, nothing official, of course. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] 04:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The article you mention - [[Sam Seder]] - is no longer a stub, as it goes beyond defining the subject and giving general information about it. It also goes beyond "3 to 10 short sentences", which is a metric which, despite not absolute, is generally agreed upon by the members of the [[WP:WSS]]. Removing the stub tag is the best action to take, I believe. Cheers. --[[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] 05:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

:Good. I'll remove the stub tag. Thanks for the input. =) -- [[User:ZachsMind|ZachsMind]] 11:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I came to the Stub article with the same question, and went to this talk to ask it if nobody else had. I suggest putting some mention of this in the main article. It's one thing to know what a stub is; it's another to know when/how to remove the stub tag. :) --[[User:DragonHawk|DragonHawk]] 03:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

:Done, in the "Identifing a stub" section. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 03:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
::I still had trouble finding it -- maybe a subheading that says 'Protocol for Removing a Stub'?[[User:Todfox|Kit]] 23:17:38, 2005-08-25 (UTC)
:::Done. See the new section "No longer a stub?" [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 00:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I note that my previous text, in the "Identifing a stub" section, was removed without discussion by [[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub&diff=21238055&oldid=21197623 this edit] with an edit summary saying that consensus should be reached first. I was under the impression that there is consensus for the principle that when an article has been developed beyond the stub level, any editor may remove the stub tag. Is this not the case? [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 00:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

:Until recently, a sentence covering that had been on the article, but it was removed at some point for no apparent reason. --[[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] 22:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

::I don't think converting the small separate section I had inserted on this into a single sentence in the middle of a paragrpah that otherwise talks about the naming conventions for stub tags makes it easier to find, and from the above comments some users found this info hard to find in the past. I have moved this to what seems to me a more logical place (under identifing rather than categorising) and made it a short 2-sentence paragraphs, but not a sepaeate section. I would apprieciate the views of an editor other than [[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] on the merits of this placement, and of the longer version which I wrote up the other day, and [[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] converted to a single sentence. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 22:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

:::Since you also brought this up at "Alternate stub standard", I would ask that this discussion was resumed there for a matter of organisation. --[[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] 22:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
::::To my way of thinking these are two quite separate issues, and I would prefer to keep them separate. Also, I think you misinterpreted my comment below -- I did not intend to refer to this in the "Alternate stub standard" thread. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 23:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
:::-[[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] wrote (in a section below): ''"Can you please read that paragraph once more and see that the first three sentences say exactly the same thing?" --Sn0wflake 22:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)'' They are somewhat redundant, and perhaps needed improvement. they were intended to say 1) when an article is no longer a stub, the stub tag should be removed. 2) An editor who has just expanded a stub may remove the tag. 3) an editor who discovefrs a former stub still tagged may also remove the tag. This was written to empahsize the point, and in light of the comments by [[User:ZachsMind|ZachsMind]], [[User:DragonHawk|DragonHawk]], and [[User:Todfox|Kit]] in this section, and of other users elsewhere, that they felt the guideline did not help editors unsure when it was permissable and expected to remove a stub tag. in light of this I thought a full section was desireable. At the least I think a separate short paragraph, not a sentence in the middle of a paragraph on a different subject, is needed. Does anyone else have an opnion? [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 23:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

== Stub position ==

Aren't stub templates supposed to be put right after the article text, but before the ''See also'' and ''External links''? I made that change but it was reverted. - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 00:20, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
:That is the usual procedure, yes. However, due to varying opinions on the issue, we left this open to interpretation. I personally think that <s>is</s> ''is not'' the best procedure. '''Sorry, I had misread your message. I believe that the stub tag should come just before the Category links and inwikis, in order to avoid clutter, since stubs are supposed to be unobstrusive metadata.''' But again, it's open to interpretation. Cheers. --[[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] 00:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

:The discussion can be found [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting#stub_template_position|here]]. Personally, I'm in favour of the "right at the bottom, before the cats and interwiki links" approach. But unless consensus is reached on a particular approach, it's probably best to leave it open to interpretation. --[[User:TheParanoidOne|TheParanoidOne]] 00:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Options are fine, but new users get confused if they don't have more specific information. I placed an explanation of the usual placement in the "Categorizing stubs" section. --[[User:Blainster|Blainster]] 20:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

One advantage of placing stub templates after category tags is that the stub categories will then appear after the substantive categories in the rendered page. [[User:Pissant|Pissant]] 00:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

== minimum stub size ==

[[User:Loganberry]] recently added text to the page that says that a one sentance stub is acceptable, at least in the view of some users. I know that some people do think thsi, but is there still a consensus on something like the 3 sentance minimum for a "good" stub? [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 20:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
* Well, the only "good" stub is a "dead" stub [|:). Beyond that, though, and avoiding the ''one sentence can be as long as a paragraph'' problem, I think that if a person can't write 100 words, then that person is just making a post-it-note contribution. For instance, right about '''HERE''' is 50 words. I would contend that a stub should contain more information than typically found on a post-it-note. [[User:Ceyockey|Courtland]] 03:23, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
* Which is true: it ''is'' acceptable in the view of some users. As for my own view, I don't think that a one-sentence stub is a ''desirable'' thing, but nor do I think a short stub is necessarily worse than nothing. If person A writes a "Post-it note contribution" and then person B comes across it (maybe via "Random article") and expands it a bit, and then this process gradually continues, then Wikipedia is working as it should; whereas a non-existent article would not turn up in the Random search in the first place. I think an article saying something like "Exampleton is a town in Worcestershire, England. At the 2001 census it had a population of around 12,000." is far from perfect, but better than having nothing at all. [[User:Loganberry|Loganberry]] ([[User talk:Loganberry|Talk]]) 03:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

:You've at least provided enough info for disambiguation and establishing notability. I've found some articles that looked more like "Exampleton is in England." or "Exampleton is a town." There's no point having the stub if it isn't long enough to identify and establish notability of the intended subject. It should also be in the right category(ies), as people watch their favourite categories for new articles appearing in them. --[[User:ScottDavis|Scott Davis]] [[User talk:ScottDavis|Talk]] 10:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
::"Exampleton is a town" does establish notability. One sentence is fine as a start. [[User:Carina22|Carina22]] 22:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

== Stub club? ==

We could really use a stub club because there are so many stubs and actually I find them useful because they're short enough to read quickly you can learn alot from stubs. Maybe we could start one on yahoo groups because they probably won't let us have one at wikipedia.com or we could use google groups because that may be better they have better software. If you want to start a stub club let me know thanks.

:[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting]] more or less is the stub club here. Drop by. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 22:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

==Alternate stub standard==
I just added (or rather re-added) a paragraph to the "Identifing a stub" section thqt starts with "Another standard". I think this is a useful way to make the "debth of coverage" notion of a stub (as opposed to the "length" notion expressed in the 3-10 sentances rule of thumb) clear. I had added this paragraph soem time ago, and it was removed without discussion. If anyone thinks this is improper, please discuss the matter here. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 00:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
:I will try to be objective here. First, we don't need a standard which is based on what you believe should be the standard. This is a guideline article built through consensus. Your paragraph was removed without discussion? Maybe because it was ''added'' without discussion? Are you sure all agree with your version of the standard? Second, the wording is not very good. How much is "little or nothing"? What is a "knowledgeble user"? How long does one take to make "significant research", ten minutes? Articles have varying degrees of information avaliablity. Not finding meaningful content in 10 minutes may mean nothing. Please, don't try to push what you think into the guideline. I am reverting it out. --[[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] 21:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
::Fine. I would note this is not simply soemthing i invented -- It was an attempt to distill comment I had seen made here, on the stubsorting page, and I think on the pump. I was under the strong impression that, in a general way, what I was expressing was already the consensus, it had just never been properly codified and written up. So I was [[Wikipedia:Be bold|bold]] and added it to the guideline page. Note that it was phrased as a rough rule of thumb, not as mandatory policy. If the wording needs improvement let's improve it rather than just delete it. But since you obviosuly object, I'll put the text here and ask for suggestions and views, and see if there is a consensus for something along these lines, or if one will develop. okay? [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 22:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
::I also object to your labeling the removal of a paragraph of text, after i gave my reasons for inserting it here, as a minor edit. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 22:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
:::''Regarding the alternative definition'': You may do whatever you find to be of the project's best interest. I will not object to the discussion of an alternative definition in case people actually find it to be of need. ''Regarding the removal of the paragraph'': Can you please read that paragraph once more and see that the first three sentences say exactly the same thing? --[[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] 22:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
::::I was referring here to to the removal of the "alternative definition" paragraph. I have responded to your comments on the "when to remove the stub tag" paragraph above. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 23:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

==Proposed "depth of coverage" standard==
I think that most editors here agree that a mere mechanical counting of words, sentances, or paragraphs does not suffice to identify a stub. A topic completeluy covered in eight sentances is not a stub, and an article with twenty sentances but that barely is a skeleton coverage of its subject is clearly a stub. (For example, can you imagine the article on [[Freedom of speech]] reduced to twenty sentances not being a stub?) of course there is a wide gap between stub and featured article, indeeed most articles exist in that gap.

I attempted to capture a rough rule of thumb for this concept of what makes a stub. [[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] objected that I had no consenssu and that what I wrote was poorly written. So I am asking for coments on the merits of this idea, and how to improve my expression of it. I am hoping to achieve consensus on a revised version of this text, which would then go onto the project page. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 22:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

inital draft of proposed text:
''Another way to define a stub is that an article so incomplete that a user who knows little or nothing about the topic could improve its content after a superficial internet search or 10 minutes in a reference library is quite probably a stub. One that can only be improved by a rather knowledgeable user, or after significant research, may not be a stub.''

Comments and sugestions, please. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 22:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

:Sounds smart to me. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] [[User_talk:Maurreen|(talk)]] 02:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

::I'd substitute "internet" instead of "google" (thereby allowing the user to choose their preferred search tool). Otherwise looks OK. Perhaps add something like ''Of course, even a stub must contain enough information to adequately identify the subject intended by its author'' to avoid the ""Exampleton is a town" problem described above. --[[User:ScottDavis|Scott Davis]] [[User talk:ScottDavis|Talk]] 05:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

:Looks good - I suggest you post a comment about ths discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting]], since its WSS who deal most with these things. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?'']] 06:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Done, and at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals]], too. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 17:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

:: Nice -- I welcome some stub definitions. I remember I had an revert argument about this, the arguments which can be seen on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dorotea_Municipality&action=history history of Dorotea Municipality].
:: I'd change the wording of the second sentense of your proposition. I think that an article that needs, say 30 minutes of research to expand, and when it is believed by the writer that no major subjects are left out, then it is ''not'' a stub anymore.
:: [[User:Fred chessplayer|Fred]]-[[User_talk:Fred chessplayer|Chess]] 13:08, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
::: Would this system would require ''stub-sorters'' to spend half an hour checking if the article can be improved on? I tend to re-tag at '''least''' fifty stubs per day with more accurate tags when I'm working on the project. Would I be required to spend half an hour on each one? [[User:GeeJo|GeeJo]] [[User talk:GeeJo|(talk)]] 15:54, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
::::No, that would be foolish. First of all this is an alternative standard, not a replacement. My idea is that when you say to yourself "hmm, it's got 12 sentances, but it still feels stubby" or "only six sentances, but seems complete" you cna ask yourself "do i think a random editor could probably improve this with just a quick google or other net search?" if the answer is yes, it is a stub. if the answer is no, then it isn't a stub. This is something for people to think about when deciding whether to inseret, keep, or remove a stub tag, not something to be measure with a stop watch. It is at best a rule of thumb. If something is clearly a stub, this standard is irrelevant. This is mostly for borderline cases. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 17:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::I was planning on not interfering, but seriously, isn't that exactly what the sentence "Note that a longer article may be a stub if the topic is complex enough; conversely, a short article on a topic which has a very narrow scope may not be a stub" covers? --[[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] 17:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::Basically, which is why I didn't origianlly think I needed to seek explicit consensus for this paragraph. This is intended to be an expansion and clarification of the idea in that sentance, to try to give a rough operational test for when it applies. Also, that senatance has often been overlooked and people have argued about whether something is or isn't a stub based purely on length (in words or sentances, usually). I wanted there to be something clearer and more prominent to convety that idea, and something to point at when justifing a decision. I didn't think i was really introducing a new idea, or changing the estalished consensus, merely rewriting to better convey that consensus. That most comments have been positive makes me tend to think that I was right about the idea. The wording may be a different matter. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 17:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::::But why bother creating time-based definitions and such when the concept is already there? The guideline does not need to take people by the hand and show them exactly what to do, especially on an area as inconceivably hazy as stub-sorting. The whole size matter has never been something which was set in stone. The general consensus, up to this point, was: "Follow the 3-10 sentences guideline in a general manner, but USE GOOD SENSE, DAMMIT!". Any serious stub-sorter grasps that concept, eventually. Just let people use good sense. It rarely fails. --[[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] 02:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
: just my two cents here....I think that the guys who take stub-sorting serious have always been conscious of the pertaining question, and have been removing stub-notices all the way...although I appreciate the effort gone into this here, I simply don't see people reacting to it; they will continue to stubsort according to the length of the article, and (here I go again) stub sorting isn't, in the first place, about judging the quality and content of the article, but to get it where it will be noticed (or so we all hope), and there, "specialists" can take care of whether it is to be considered a stub or not...[[User:Lectonar|Lectonar]] 08:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
::This was aimed not so much at the experienced stub-sorters, the people who deal with inserting, changing, and removing stub tags all the time, as at the more casual editor who needs to decide whenther the article s/he has just created is a stub, or whether the one s/he has just expanded is still a stub. I am trying more to put into words what the expereinced stub-sorters already know and do than to change existing practice. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 16:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

:: Responding to GeeJo:
:: I think you and I are referring to opposite things. Because you seem to tag articles as stub -- whereas I often de-stub pages, and then have people come and stub them again.
:: There will probably always be this problem. When I write about very small municipalities in Sweden, I find it very hard to find any relevant information. I may spend an hour searching, in vain, just to try and get rid of the "stub" tag. Naturally, if I fail, it seems unlikely "any one" could "easily" expand the article. For instance, I dare you to expand on [[Haquin Spegel]]... or an even better example would by [[Folke Johansson Ängel]] where there just isn't any more information that I know... as I said on the history-article page I provided for Dorotea Municipality above, it is just be a waste of time tagging such articles as "stubs", because eventhough they are short, they will probably remain short for years, until a professor or similar knowledgeable person comes along. [[User:Fred chessplayer|Fred]]-[[User_talk:Fred chessplayer|Chess]] 17:15, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I see several editors respondign favorably to this, and only one who seems strongly opposed, and more on the grounds of redundancy than anything else, If I understand [[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]]'s comments correctly. I take that as sufficient support for this change, and i am goign to isneret the text above in the page. it can always be removed if the consensus shifts. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 16:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

==Source of content==
Hi there, having a minor dispute with another editor as to whether [[Marlborough, Massachusetts]] (and several others) should be considered a stub. Are articles whose content is 95% derived from bots considered stubs? As to this example, it has exactly one line of information not added by a bot or a template. [[User:Rhymeless|Tim Rhymeless]] [[User talk:Rhymeless| (Er...let's shimmy)]] 02:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

:IMO, the source of the content doesn't matter, teh length and depth does. I don't think i would call [[Marlborough, Massachusetts]] a stub, although it is marginal on depth IMO, I don't care whetehr a bot added content or a human did. If a bot can add enough content to an artilce to take it beyond the stub stage, then it isn't a stub. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 19:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

::I think i've seen a lot of these articles about (to be honest) smaller US-communities, and they all follow up the same scheme; and I agree with DES here, that isn't a stub anymore...[[User:Lectonar|Lectonar]] 07:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

:::Pity, that's not quite the answer I wanted to hear, though I'll go with it. It just troubles me to think that they might receive less attention without a stub tag. [[User:Rhymeless|Tim Rhymeless]] [[User talk:Rhymeless| (Er...let's shimmy)]] 01:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
::::It's certainly a stub. Most of the bot information is useless stuff that human's wouldn't bother to write. Almost everything about the town of 36,000 is still missing months later. [[User:Carina22|Carina22]] 22:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Here's my personal take on the issue: Awhile back there was a project to check all the articles that were marked as stubs. If they were too large, the stub templates were removed. As far as I can tell, stub templates were removed from ALL the [[User:Rambot]]-generated articles. I felt that was very, very wrong at the time, and still feel the same today. When I am decided if an article is a stub, I do not count any of the Rambot-generated Demographic or Geography data. If a US city, community, or [[census-designated place]] article has only a few sentences that were not created by Rambot, then the article is still very much a stub and needs a geo-stub template. This issue should probably be addressed in the [[Wikipedia:Stub|Stub]] article.

[[Marlborough, Massachusetts]] only has three sentences that were not created by [[User:Rambot]]. IT IS A STUB! [[User:BlankVerse|''Blank''''Verse'']] [[User talk:BlankVerse|∅]] 07:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

== Color change ==

The project page was just edited to but some of the prototype code on a red background. I think this makes it harder to read. What was the reason for this change? [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 16:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

:It was edited by an anon with only that one edit. I have reverted it as vandalism. --[[User:TheParanoidOne|TheParanoidOne]] 19:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

== Phillipine writers ==

The stub <nowiki>{{phil-lit-stub}}</nowiki> somehow ends up linking to [[:Category:Stubs]], making it appear that a load of phillipine literature is in need of classification. Could someone sort this out? [[User talk:Thelb4|It's... Thelb4!]] 16:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

== Includeonly for stub categories on templates ==

Since includeonly tags have been added, some stub templates have been edited to use them around the category link, while most haven't. While I see the point of using them (the template itself isn't a stub), it does make it harder to navigate from the template to the category (or tell that the template even has a matching category). Perhaps if includeonly is to be used, a link to the category could be put in noinclude tags? (altho I'd rather leave the templates as they were before) Either way, it'd be nice if there was some consistency and consensus... --[[User:Mairi|Mairi]] 00:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
: I just did this (noinclude) on {{tl|Malta-stub}} .. the category template does include a link to the template itself. Should this be an official part of the documentation? [[User:Srl|Srl]] 19:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
::Looks good to me. I'd suggest perhaps rolling this style out on a few stub types gradually, and seeing if people yelp on the one hand, or applaud and adopt on the other. (Or remain profoundly unmoved either way, indeed.) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 06:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

== Addition ==

Further to some discussions on [[Wikipedia talk:Schools]], I added ''Having an interwiki link, or at least one relevant picture also lends weight to it's claim to be a stub.'' to the definition of a stub. The purpose of this is to help define the minimum criteria that an article should have in order not to be merged automatically up into a parent article. The implication is that having a picture, or an article on another language wiki, makes it more likely that the stub will expand, or less convenient and useful to merge. Thoughts? [[User:Trollderella|Trollderella]] 09:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
:I would like to see some logical basis for this criteria, as in the whole of my experience with stub-sorting and related activities, I have never noticed that as being meaningful. The article becomes more likely to expand if its text is compreensive. That's it. If you include this criteria, 70% of the stub articles will get merged, which is just a bad idea. --[[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] 16:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
::If this is changed, I'd like to suggest that the criteria from [[WP:CORP]] concerning not counting self promotional sources of data not be considered in the content being counted. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 19:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
:::I'm sorry, I think I was unclear, these things are 'ors', not 'ands', I am suggesting that, in addition to the current definition of having 3-8 sentences, we say 'either 3-8 sentences, an interwiki link, or a picture' are the things that make the difference between a sub-stub to be merged and a stub to be kept. I believe it broadens the scope of acceptable stubs. Thoughts? Vegaswikian, I'm sort of confused, because what I added to this was that if an article had an interwiki lnk or a picture then we should count it as a stub - the criteria about text was already there. [[User:Trollderella|Trollderella]] 19:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
:To reitterate, I was proposing adding "''Having an interwiki link, or at least one relevant picture also lends weight to its claim to be a stub.''". The reason being that having an interwiki link to an actual article on another language wiki means that an article has been written, and implies that there is a possibility to write one in english, and having a picture makes it more difficult to merge, because of the size. [[User:Trollderella|Trollderella]] 19:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
::I presume that you are arguign that such links make an article more properly a stub, rather than a sub-stub that may be fit only for merging or deletion. But much of the Stub page is more concerned with distinguising between stubs and non-stub, but short, articles. To say that a feature "makes something be counted as a stub" can incorrectly be seen as part oc the upper boundery rather than the lower unless the wording is quite clear. Besides, we don't formally recognize sub-stubs, and the normal answer for soemthing below the lower boundry is expansion rather than deeltion or merger, so i don't think this addition has much value. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 19:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
:My primary motivation for wanting to add it is related to a discussion that is current on [[Wikipedia talk:Schools]], where a lot of users are concerned about the point at which a school article is suitable to be merged, and at what point is should be kept as a stub. It's a real, and acrimonious, debate, and adding these two (fairly incocuous, I think) criteria to the stub definition is a rare point of concensus that looks like it may provide peace on the school deletion wars. Are there concerns you have about practical implications of this? Thanks, [[User:Trollderella|Trollderella]] 19:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
::What can I say other than "please don't drag the stub sorting project into the schools-on-Wikipedia mess"? The fact is that merger is not the general rule, but rather the exception. We hardly merge anything, instead expanding the article by a bit, turning it into a small stub. Now, for schools, the rules you are proposing seem quite logical, but that should be dealt with within the schoold project, instead of being generalized. Regards, --[[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] 22:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

== section stub ==

I remember seeing a stub marker for just a section of an atricle, rather the whole thing. This page doesn't mention it though. Is it supposed to be used? (unsigned comment by [[User:67.165.96.26|67.165.96.26]] at 17:57, 30 November 2005 --[[User:Bigbluefish|BigBlueFish]] 19:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC))

== Triple-stubbing considered anathema? ==

Does anyone else feel the current wording, that "using more than two [stub tags] is strongly discouraged" is far too strong? This just doesn't take into consideration the practicalities of the categorisation scheme, and the stub categories in particular, where we try to avoid "over-splitting" categories in such a way as to make them overly small. If someone is, for example, an American sports journo, we're up to three equally applicable stub categories already, even if the subject isn't also equally notable for something else. I'd prefer a weaker wording, or better still, one rates to areas of notability, as above, and not raw numbers of tags. If people find more than one or two inlined images and template messages excessive, it might be worth considering the use of a "silently stub-categorise" template for the equally applicable additional tags, though that's complicating matters somewhat. And surely the object isn't to make stubs visually acceptable anyway, it's to make them non-stubs! [[User:Alai|Alai]] 05:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

:As you put it, "it's to make them non-stubs!" In the case that you give, of the American sports journalist, it much more likely that it will be sports fans that will improve the article, so in my opinion only a {{tl|Sportbio-stub}} is necessary. In many other cases, there are now appropriate combo stubs so that, for example, a Japanese writer no longer needs both a Japanese stub and a writer stub, but instead gets a {{tl|Japan-writer-stub}}. Every case where I've seen three stubs it's been overkill and at least one of the stubs was was so general or so loosely connected to the article that it wasn't needed. If you really think that a third ''category'' might be appropriate, it is easy enough to add just the category without the stub template by hand. [[User:BlankVerse|''Blank'']][[User talk:BlankVerse|''Verse'']] 11:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

::This isn't always clear; indeed, I'm not sure it's even clear in my example instance. An Argentinian soccer fan isn't very likely to be be interested in writers on US baseball, say, so what's to say the general sportsbio cat is more likely to lead to expansion than a USA-specific one? (Even within the same sport this may be often true, though writers aren't even necessarily going to be so particular.) I certainly don't see how that would rise to being "so general or so loosely connected to the article". Making it a judgement call as to which one or two is the "most important" is just going to lead to needless confusion, and to arbitrary omission from entirely applicable categories. Obviously where there's a "combo stub" there's no problem. Adding by hand is possible, but not actually quite so easy to do, since even if one knows the stub template off the top of one's head, the text of the category may be less evident. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 02:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
:AFAIC the more stub templates on an article the better, since it increases the chance that appropriate editors will see and expand an article. In any case, it's often impossible to accurately put an article into one - or even two - neat little pigeon-hole(s). If a mountain is at the point that three countries meet, what are you going to do? Ignore one country? Or just use "geo-stub" and hope that an editor will stumble across it by accident? If someone was a politician and novelist and came from a small country that doesn't have its own politician-stub or writer-stub then do you ignore the country-stub? No - you triple stub. I'll 'fess up - I put that "strongly discouraged" line there - it used to read "not permitted", which went against normal stubbing practice. But as the number of available stub types has increased, so the ability to use several far finer descriptions of an article has improved, and more stubs are now more the norm. Perhaps if we bump it up one and say that ''four'' stubs in strongly discouraged, it would better reflect current practice. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]'' 07:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

== -related ==

This page and things it links to refer to "-related" categories, i.e. France-related.. apparently this is against [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Naming_guidelines|current guidelines]]. Can the examples be improved? Thanks [[User:Srl|Srl]] 22:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
: I fixed France-related. OK to remove ''road-related''? any reason to keep it? [[User:Srl|Srl]] 22:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

== How does this work?==

Hi every body, i'm new here and just wanted to ask if there was a manual or something for writing, and also have a few ideas for the site.

Thank you.

Adham
:Hi there [[User:Cpt Adham|Adham]]. I have added a welcome messages to your [[User talk:Cpt Adham|talk page]] that has some useful links. You might also want to have a look through [[Wikipedia:Your first article]]. --[[User:TheParanoidOne|TheParanoidOne]] 19:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

== Addition of "cite your sources" ==

{{User|Jengod}} has been adding "and citing the source of your information." to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&offset=0&limit=50&target=Jengod&namespace=10 a number of stub templates], such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInsect-stub&diff=33203287&oldid=21196918 insect-stub] and others. Does this seem necessary? It seems to just make the stub notice longer than needed, by adding redundant instructions. --[[User:TheParanoidOne|TheParanoidOne]] 12:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

:As far as I know, it has not been discussed on stubsorting or anywhere else. Now, the same bloody line is added twice or three times whenever an article is double-stubbed. That looks very much like vandalism to me. It should be removed at once. --[[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] 14:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
::I agree they should be removed, stub notices are not the place to nag people for sources since the same thing applies equally to any substantive edit. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 14:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

:::Yes, but if we suddenly expect every featured article candidate to have a full slate of citations and hope the same thing for every article on down, I think it's only fair that we alert people from the get-go. And truth be told, I think Wikipedia has enough momentum that we no longer have gently grovel for edits. Ideally everything that goes into the 'pedia in the post-Siegenthaler era should be verifiable. I know it's not going to happen—this is a vernacular, populist document—but we simply have to push that way if we are to protect ourselves and/or be taken seriously. Also, it's soooo much easier to cite things as you go along, rather than go back and cite later, and going forward, we really, really ought to encourage it. [[User:Jengod|jengod]] 18:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

::::First of all, couldn't you have discussed this with the stub sorting community beforehand? If citing sources is important to the Wikipedia, then what about consensus? I think it is at least twice as important! Second, I find it rather unlikely that this short sentence at the end of every stub tag will make any difference. People already know that they have to cite, they just either forget or do not have the time/patience to do it. If this was a formal vote of any kind, I'd vote for the sentence to be removed. --[[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] 18:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::I was being bold. Of course you should do whatever you want with your usual stub notices and I'm sorry I didn't seek consensus beforehand. I'll go back tonight and revert all my changes. [[User:Jengod|jengod]] 18:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

::::Note that [[MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning]] appears underneath the text box every time you hit the "edit" link and it contains the [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] link that you have added to the stub templates. --[[User:TheParanoidOne|TheParanoidOne]] 18:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::I kind of think repetition isn't a sin when you're trying to get a message across, but never mind. Anyway, I think I got them all, let me know if I missed any. [[User:Jengod|jengod]] 18:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No offence to jengod, but - as one of those heavily involved in stub sorting - I don't think it's a particularly good idea for a number of reasons: 1) there are already specific templates for this sort of thing; 2) a lot of stubs ''are'' sourced and externally linked; 3) changing heavily used templates makes for server trouble. Also, it would have been nice if WP:WSS had been at least told of what was going to happen. Of these points, the most important is the second one. Why indiscriminately add a "cite your sources" message to all stubs when a lot of them ARE cited? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]'' 23:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

== Stubs obsoleted in German Wikipedia ==
Maybe some food for thought... As of December 28, 2005, the German Wikipedia community has decided to get rid of all stub categories (see [[de:Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Stubs]]). The poll ended 106:68 in favor of "killing" the stub categories. The reason given was that stub categories have proven to be simply not working out and do not make sense at all regarding srticle quality. --[[User:Pmkpmk|Pmkpmk]] 17:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
:Stub categories in the German Wikipedia came and went very fast. I remember that by the time we were rewriting the Stub policy (mid-2005), they were starting to implement the first stub categories. So that means they didn't notice an enormous change in a short timeframe and deemed the proccess useless. Sound more like imediatism than good sense to me. --[[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] 20:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

==The color of stubs==

I think we need to change to the colour of stubs. Blank articles are red, full articles are blue, stubs should be yellow or brown or something; featured articles can be in somekind of elite green color. what do you think? [[Col Our]] 12:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC-5)

:You can already do something like this with the [[Special:Preferences|Misc preference]] "Threshold for stub display". I find 800 is a good number to set it to to highlight obviously short articles. It colours based on article size, not whether they are tagged as stubs, but it's close. --[[User:ScottDavis|Scott Davis]] [[User talk:ScottDavis|Talk]] 03:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not a member, to set perference I have to be a member. I think wikipedia should be for the general public. I really think some stubs should have different color. If I clicked on a stub and it doesn't tell me much; I wouldn't have clicked on in the first place. I'll just research it on google (though I'll be sure to add infomation to the stub from 'google' if I have the time or feel like it.)As for the coloring of featured articles a different colour, I would be more inclined to click on featured articles links in an article, if I knew it was a feature article (and vis versa for stubs). Different colours would allow readers and editors to better know which ones to avoid, work on or click on. Doesn't registering take up valuable wikipedia memory room? I also think wikeypeedia should have a spell check for the search, spell checking something via google takes time and should be unnecessary. (I am sure we could copy the gramma check from microsoft word without infringing copyright laws, hehe, if it does we could just ask Bill) [[Col Our]] 10:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC-5)
:If you have a username you are a member. But I agree that member's only systems are often inadequate as a huge majority of members are not registered. But I think that having three colours of text is distracting enough as it is, so I don;t support a change in this case. [[User:Carina22|Carina22]] 22:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

== Usefulness of multiple stub tags ==
I have a few times added quality markers to articles, but was reverted with the message that material intended for editors, such as notes of the article being a Featured Article, should only be put on the talk page.

However, with stub-tags the situation is obviously a different one. Perhaps it is just the [[status quo]] that makes it eligible to put three or four stub-tags on an article? In an article such as [[Adolf Fredrikskyrkan]], I question whether all the stub tags are indeed useful for the ''reader''.

[[User:Fred chessplayer|Fred]]-[[User_talk:Fred chessplayer|Chess]] 13:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:Three or four stub tags on an article is definitely not good for the reader. It's very irritating- enough that some people tend to go on sprees of simply removing all but one from the article, which is unfortunate, as then they lose categorization. I think it should be set as a rule that an article should only ever have one visible stub template, with any other applicable types as categories only. -- [[User:Jake Nelson|Jake]] 21:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
*Multiple stub tags are useful for readers because they help editors to find articles and improve them. They only show up at the bottom of articles, so they aren't getting in the way of anything. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 21:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

::How does it help editors find the articles more easily than the category alone? And a fairly large number of people have commented that they find numerous stub tags very irritating and visually unappealing. What benefit does the second, third, or fourth tag give over just adding categories for those? -- [[User:Jake Nelson|Jake]] 21:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

:::I'm not sure it's good practice to add stub categories without the corresponding stub template, as it adds to maintenance, and increases the chances that the category might be left in place accidentally even after the article itself is destubbed. I don't think we should mix manual and automatic (via template) category population. – [[User:Seancdaug|Seancdaug]] 04:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

::::That definitely is a problem; I have run across articles that had stub categories added directly that shouldn't have been there anymore. Maybe if there was some way of doing <nowiki>{{bio-stub|hide}}</nowiki> for ones after the second or so, such that it added the article to the category but didn't display anything? --[[User:Mairi|Mairi]] 04:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::That'd be a good fix, it is (or if it were to become) technically feasible. In theory this would keep everyone happy (he said, hedging through long experience of disappointment of such expectations), as it'd prevent both "under-categorisation" and "over-tagging". I hadn't thought of making it a template parameter, that's worth a go -- though of course it'd then mean recoding every existing stub template... [[User:Alai|Alai]] 04:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

:Ok, I got it to work with <nowiki>{{whatever-stub|hidden}}</nowiki> instead (there ought to be some way similar to the [[:Category:If Templates|if templates]] (but without using one of them directly) so that the exact text doesn't matter, but I can't figure out how). It's a relatively minor coding change, just adding <nowiki>{{{1|}}}Structure</nowiki> to the class part of the div tag. (See [[User:Mairi/Demonstration-stub]].) Changing every existing template would be a pain, but it'd be doable -- probably by bot. --[[User:Mairi|Mairi]] 06:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

::I'm impressed, I didn't know there was a parametric default mechanism in wiki markup. *makes 'we're not worthy' obeisance to Mairi* It seems like an entirely good idea, then. I'd suggest floating the idea as widely, and trialing as gently, as is possible, in anticipation of the next round of flames asserting we're all OCDish/trolls/[[WP:OWN]]ers, etc, etc. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 17:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Don't forget to throw the word cabal in there somewhere. ;) --[[User:TheParanoidOne|TheParanoidOne]] 22:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

::::*facepalm* My bad on that. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 02:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

::Hey, nice work! If we can get that in the stub templates across the board, that would help a lot. Probably best to put it in metastub first and make sure it gets in any new templates for certain, then apply it to existing templates (might be handy to make sure they're all 100% standardized too while doing so)... would want to run it past the majority of [[WP:WSS]] before going ahead with the mass change, of course, but I don't see that as a problem. -- [[User:Jake Nelson|Jake]] 07:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
:I'd ''tentatively'' support this, although the word "metastub" does make me wonder whether we'll be back to the "don't use metatemplates" row. I'm also a little concerned because you find stub templates on articles in all sorts of unlikely places. It often takes a bit of hunting to find where a stub template is in an article - remove the stub message and it makes it harder still, especially when (in one case I dealt with a couple of days ago), an article was in three different stub categories, with templates in three different places in the article! I have one final nagging question, too - how would we stop people from hiding ''all'' the stub templates (which would definitely NOT be desirable)? Is there some way of rigging the parameters to ensure that one template is automatically shown, even if all of them say "hidden"? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]'' 11:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

::1. "metastub" I referred to is an existing template used to create a new stub template. It's described in the "Creating the stub template" section of [[WP:STUB]]. 2. Except for section-stub, which should never be hidden, stubs should always be at the bottom of the article, after everything except categories and interlanguage links (and the persondata commented section, where it exists). When people put them elsewhere, that's already something being done wrong, no new ruling is needed there. 3. If people add the |hidden parameter to all the stub notices... change one back? It's not feasible to make one template automatically be shown. It might be possible, but complex template work like that is bad for the servers. -- [[User:Jake Nelson|Jake]] 21:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
:::1, ok, point taken, I misunderstood originally. 2, that doesn't answer the question. At the moment, you can easily tell where the stub templates are because that's where they appear in the text. If they're hidden, it will greatly slow down stub-sorting and removal work for those which are not correctly stubbed (and, from sorting them for a long time, I'd say that's around 20% of stub articles). As to 3, saying "change one back" doesn't help at all. As soon as it becomes obvious that stub templates can be hidden, there is a dedicated group of editors (I'm sure everyone at WSS will be able to name several of them) who will systematically go around deliberately hiding every stub template they can. unless there is some practical way to ensure that one stub template will not be hidden in every multi-stubbed article, then I am pretty firmly against the idea. WSS will have a full-time job in its hands reverting hidden stubs, where it should be busy sorting stubs. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]'' 02:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
::::I'd be surprised if this were to be a major problem in practice. This is exactly the situation with categories anyway, and I haven't heard many (well, any!) complaints about it being excessively difficult; and stubs being stubs, it's generally not going to be ''that'' hard. If all else fails, fire up a browser with a searchable edit box. Suggestions for methods of remonstration with anyone who hides a stub-tag in the middle of a 5,000 word article gratefully accepted. (Or see Mairi's comment below about "unhiding" such stub-tags.) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 04:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

:I've mentioned it on the talk of [[WP:WSS]]; it might be worth mentioning it on the [[Wikipedia:Village Pump|Village Pump]] as it could affect plenty of people. The concerns about stubs being in odd places and preventing people from hiding all stub template are reasonable. I don't know of any good code solution to always show the first template (althought it's possible one exists), other than what Jake said. It'd also be possible for an individual logged-in user to have all [well-formed] stubs always displayed, regardless of whether they're marked hidden or not (see [[User:Mairi/monobook.css|my monobook.css]]). Similarly, a user could decide to always hide stub templates, if they don't care about them at all (which they could do at present anyway). [[User:Mairi|Mairi]] 04:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

::That might be overkill, but one suspects that if you don't, the Usual Suspects will yelp about it. (Come to that, they'll probably yelp anyway.) AFAICS, the issues are:
::*Should we change any stubs, and/or the metastub template, to facilitate making this technically possible in the first place;
::*Should the guidelines be changed to suggest a change in ''usage'' of the hidden parameter;
::*Does this then have implication for the 'don't use more than two templates' advice.
::The first of these seems relatively harmless to me, and the second two a positively good idea. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 22:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, it would be straightforward to produce some simple stats from the db dumps of "heavily stubbed" articles. Or indeed lists of the offending articles themselves. I don't want to alarm anyone, but we could probably pretty safely start with articles with six stub types (i.e., more than some stub types have articles...). Some of these may be sheer excess (marginal categories applied, or redundant supecats), but equally some might be suitable substrates for hidden stub templates... [[User:Alai|Alai]] 06:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

== WikiProject links in stub templates ==

What's the general policy on having links to WikiProjects in stub tags? [[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AWarof1812-stub&diff=37968515&oldid=36138362 removed] them from a number of stubs, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACarnildo&diff=38042896&oldid=38036784 citing] what he considers to be inappropriate advertising and claims of article ownership; but since nobody else had ever complained, I'm curious about what the general consensus on such links is. —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|s]][[User:Kirill Lokshin|hin]] 21:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:I tend to stick to the project tags that are put on talk pages because one article could easily fall under several projects (the same way that it could be listed under several stub types); for example, [[Wisconsin and Southern Railroad]] has both {{tl|TrainsWikiProject}} and {{tl|WikiProject Wisconsin}} on the talk page. I've seen others that have three project banners on the talk page. We try to limit the number of stub templates on an article to two, but there is no limit imposed on the talk page banners. [[User:Slambo|Slambo]] [[User talk:Slambo|(Speak)]] 17:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

:I see nothing wrong with placing a link to a project's ''article guidelines'' in a stub template, since that's useful information to someone working to expand an article. Placing a link to the project's main page is another matter: it gives no useful information to the casual editor, while giving the impression of article ownership, or with some wordings, the impression that the WikiProject is more important than Wikipedia as a whole. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 08:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

::What if the article guidelines are ''on'' the project's main page? ;-) —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|s]][[User:Kirill Lokshin|hin]] 16:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

:::Then link to the appropriate section. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 22:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

::::Fair enough. Is there some particular wording you think would be best? —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|s]][[User:Kirill Lokshin|hin]] 22:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::I can't find any specific examples, but {{tl|MEP-stub}} has a good example of how to provide resources for expanding an article, and {{tl|Colombia-geo-stub}}'s wording would be good if the WikiProject actually had something on their project page. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 10:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::Thanks! —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|s]][[User:Kirill Lokshin|hin]] 14:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

:You are creating yourt own POV policy against consensus. The intention of linking to wikiproject pages in stubs is to encourage collaboration across a range of related topics. Suddenly deciding this is ''bad'' is an opinion you are welcome to share, but who gave you the right to make it policy? [[User:Garglebutt|Garglebutt]] / [[User_talk:Garglebutt|(talk)]] 02:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

::I resent Carnildo continuing to remove these links and pointing to the discussion here as proof of consensus, when it is obviously no such thing. I see no harm in the wikiproject links, when the whole stub template itself is a self reference. --[[User:Martyman|Martyman]]-[[User_Talk:Martyman|(talk)]]

:Just a note of agreement with [[User:Garglebutt]] and [[User:Martyman]] - [[User:SoM|SoM]] 02:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::All the above is true... I've confronted him and reverted on this before, and he still keeps doing it... plus the fact that the road WP pages have the article specifications on them. If it was external "advertising" I would be against it, but it is internal "advertising" encouraging others to help with the WikiProjects. What is the problem with that? See {{tl|Kentucky-road-stub}} 's history for an example. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]] ([[User_talk:Rschen7754|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|contribs]]) ''' 02:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I am moving discussion on this issue to [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]]. [[User:Garglebutt|Garglebutt]] / [[User_talk:Garglebutt|(talk)]] 05:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't we all just agree that Wikiprojects can be valuable resources, and that linking to a relevant one is good- but linking to a Wikiproject's guidelines on writing a good article is even better? --[[User:Marudubshinki |maru]] [[User talk:Marudubshinki| (talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Marudubshinki | contribs]] 05:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

== UK Geo-stub emblems ==

I recently made the mistake of altering emblems on a number of UK geo-stubs, for instance, [[Template:Berkshire-geo-stub]], [[Template:Dorset-geo-stub]], [[Template:Manchester-geo-stub]].

I was informed of the error of my ways at [[User_talk:Lozleader#Geo-stubs]] and these are mostly reverted, and the images listed for deletion.

I have since come across the following statement at[[Wikipedia:Stub#Creating_the_stub_template]]:

"Wikipedia policy is that fair use images are not to be used in any templates and that of course includes stub templates."

As most of the images use the ''coatofarms'' copyright tag they are fair use - should they not be taken off the stubs?

(As I have stated before, my own opinion is that the arms of modern local authorities are not appropriate as they are not the "county arms" and are sometimes anchronistic, but I accept the rulings made earlier).

Better to have no images at all?

[[User:Lozleader|Lozleader]] 12:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

== Coding of {{tl|metastub}} ==

This was earlier today changed to:

:''<nowiki>
<div class="notice metadata" id="stub" style="clear:both;">''This {{{article}}} is a [[Wikipedia:Stub|stub]]. You can [[Wikipedia:Stub|help]] Wikipedia by [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} expanding it]''.</div><includeonly>[[Category:{{{category}}} stubs]]</includeonly>
</nowiki>''

The noinclude seems to be against what's been decided in the past; I've removed it. Coding of some actual stub templates does seem to be getting more "exotic", though: noinclude is common, and sometimes mini-essays in includeonly -- and lots and lots of "stub template categories", which I've put on CFD (their parent is already gone). The rest I dunno about, but clearly it needs to synch up with the discussion on this page, one way or another. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 23:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

:Whatever you decide, {{tl|metastub}}, {{tl|stub}} and the tempate on the project page should be synchronized with each other because all are cited as templates for stub creation.--'''[[User:TheFarix|TheFarix]]''' ([[User talk:TheFarix|Talk]]) 00:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

==What's smaller than a stub but bigger than a bad article idea?==
Sounds like a setup for a punchline. I wish I had one!
What I'm asking is, [[WP:STUB]] states "In general, ''[a stub]'' must be long enough to at least define the article's title, which generally means 3 to 10 short sentences." [[WP:BAI]] states a ''bad article idea'' is "Anything which you cannot be bothered to write one complete sentence about." What then is an article of one or two sentences classified as, or isn't there a formal name for them?

Other things on the project page that aren't stubs but don't seem to be defined are "a short article on a topic of narrow scope" and "An article that can be improved by only a rather knowledgeable editor, or after significant research." What are they? Thanks, [[User:Schizombie|Esquizombi]] 09:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
:I guess they had been called "substubs," but now there's no name or policy on them...? [[Wikipedia talk:Substub]]. [[User:Schizombie|Esquizombi]] 05:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

::Both of the above are "only" guidelines, of course, so "must" should really be "should". I suppose a one or two sentence article is "shorter than is desirable", but not quite "bad" enough to be formally deprecated. Essentially substubs were removed as there was no separate "action plan" for them; substubhood was never grounds for deletion, etc, and it was counterproductive to have a separate substub ''category'', as it tended to become big enough to require sorting itself, thereby potentially leading to parallel "stub-sorting" and "substub-sorting", double-handling in movement between the two, etc.
::The other things are to deal with the case of "small articles on small topics", as opposed to clearly incomplete articles on more substantial ones. I tend to work on the presumption that if an article is of "stub length", but is difficult to significantly expand, it's probably a merger candidate. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 18:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

:: I have been accused of writing "Microstubs" when I create articles which I intend to go back and expand greatly. From where I access www it is very tempermental .... [[User:GarrieIrons|Garrie]] 04:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

== Stub identification bot ==

Does anyone know if there is a bot that can detect (or suggest) that an article is of stub length? I imagine it would be human-assissted in some way. If there is such a bot, a link to it would be helpful.

==Feature request: Random stub==
Who/how does one ask to have a [[Special:Specialpages|Special Page]] created? It'd be awsome if there was a special page that'd take you to a randomly selected stub. I don't want to crawl through the inordinate amount of interrelated categories to find something to work on. Most users probably have something of value to add to ~20-25% of all stubs, and could just click through the random link generator 4 or 5 times to find one. [[User:Mrzaius|Mrzaius]] 16:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

:The idea sounds pretty good. [[WP:VPT|Village pump (technical)]] might be a more suitable place to talk baout it, though. --[[User:TheParanoidOne|TheParanoidOne]] 17:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

::Done. Also, submitted to Bugzilla. http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5589 Thanks for the pointer. [[User:Mrzaius|Mrzaius]] 21:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
:::You could achieve pretty much the same thing by just browsing the stub list, clicking randomly, then clicking a random article in the category. The other advantage is you can work on stubs in your favourite field. [[User Talk:Stevage|Stevage]] 22:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
::::Actually, the main advantage to a random-stub special page would be that it would bypass the catagorization. Many individual contributors can contribute to many categories. This would also help with uncategorized or miscategorized content. Beyond that, it's just nice to be able to click a link and, bam, be taken to a page you've never seen before. However, unlike with SpecialPages:Random Page, all pages linked to under Random Stub need work. Think of it as a working man's Random Page link. [[User:Mrzaius|Mrzaius]] 15:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
:::::The Village Pump mention has timed out, but the issue still stands. Any idea how best to take care of this? I'd be happy to help, if it were possible to do this within the wiki rather than having to hack the wikimedia code. [[User:MrZaius|'''MrZaius''']][[User talk:MrZaius|'''talk''']] 21:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

==Many stubs ARE articles==
I've made a few changes as I couldn't recognise this as a desciption of reality. There are vast numbers of stubs which are perfectly good articles, often longer than the article on the same article in other encyclopedia and longer than the average article in either Britannica or Wikipedia. "Stub" is effectively a form of expansion request and I think that people are so slow to remove them that the number of them is out of control and the range of articles which carry the tag bears no relation to what the page said when I found it. [[User:ReeseM|ReeseM]] 03:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

==Which Stub?==
I recently created an article on [[Customs racketeering]], but am wondering which stub to mark it with. Temporarilly I put the Law and Politics stub on it, but I have a strong feeling thats the wrong stub. Could somebody look over the article and tell me which stub to use? I'd like any responses to be posted on my user page as I often forget where this page is. Thanks! [[User:Socom49|Socom49]] 16:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

== Double-stubbing rewrite ==

I've changed the "strongly discouraged" stuff, as per my comments above of many months ago, and basically every discussion I've had on WSS on the topic. Obviously we don't want to encourage the [[Ambrosius Stub]] sextuple-stubbing treatment, but surely it's better to advise people what ''to'' do (indicate primary notability, and in the case of people and such like, nationality), rather than giving stern admonitions on what ''not'' to do. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 07:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

== Coding of stub templates ==

What level of significance attaches to the precise coding of stub templates? Personally I'm happy to do ye olde cut'n'paste of some other stub template and modify as required, but I've been noticing increasing incidence of templates coded entirely differently, for example as tables, with none of the html tag stuff prescribed by this page. Does that ultimately matter, or is this just down to nuances of visual appearance, and preferences thereon? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 21:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

:I think perhaps tables have been used at some point in order to get long text to not wrap under an image being used, which can look a little unpleasant.

:Using just a single div:
<div style="width:700px; border:thin dashed gray;">[[Image:Synaptic.png|24px]] ''Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.''</div>

:Using a table with two cells:
<div style="width:700px; border:thin dashed gray;">
{|style="background:transparent"
|[[Image:Synaptic.png|24px]]||''Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.''
|}
</div>
:It could of course be argued that a stub notice shouldn't be long enough for wrapping to be an issue ...
:Anyway, I think that as long as the outermost div maintains the <code>class="boilerplate"</code> (and possibly <code>id="stub"</code>) and visibly they appear the same, then it doesn't matter how the internals are coded. --[[User:TheParanoidOne|TheParanoidOne]] 09:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
::That does appear to be the rationale. It's hard to ''guarantee'' no wrapping, since a large image (or small screen, or large font size) could cause it even where the text isn't "normally" a whole line long. But what if they don't, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:US-stadium-stub&oldid=50738170 like this]? I've noticed a number changed in this manner, and they seem to interact strangely with the "normal" kind as regards vertical spacing, other than that I have Not Clue One. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 00:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I've been using <nowiki>[[Image:YourImageHere.jpg|30px|left]]</nowiki> to make the text line up nicely, viz: 
[[Image:Synaptic.png|24px|left]] ''Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.'' 
Not a table, and it doesn't center the image vertically, but very simple, give it a try. &hearts; [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]]&hearts; 19:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

== Definition of stub ==

This article doesn't define what a stub is, when it should be tagged, and when it could be untagged, making it fairly useless. I'd hate to think it was stub also. [[User:Gene Ward Smith|Gene Ward Smith]] 20:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

== Stub positioning decision ==

This has been brought up before, but never resolved: We need to come to some consensus on where stub templates should be located, for the sake of consistency. Some articles have stub categories first, others last. Personally, I have an opinion on the matter, but I don't even care — just as long as we can agree on something. ~ [[User:Booyabazooka|Booyabazooka]] 00:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
:Why does it matter? I rather thought that SPUI was only editing the text to get that "less important" poke in: is there an on-going bunfight about the order? I'd think that this is in theory a MoS matter, as it goes to overall formatting of the whole article, rather than just the stub-tags in isolation. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 22:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
::There is no great stub-location war, but SPUI and I were just [[User_talk:Booyabazooka#Lakes-to-Sea_Highway|at odds]] on the matter, and I'm hoping we can decide on an answer. ~ [[User:Booyabazooka|Booya Bazooka]] 22:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
:They should definitely go last. As stub places are left in place in tens of thousands of perfectly good little articles they are always going to be with us in vast numbers, but they are much less useful to the reader than the "real" categories.

==Stubbing is out of control==
Stubbing is completely out of control. Tens of thousands of perfectly good articles are labelled as stubs, whereas so far as I can see the concept was originally intended to apply to articles so inadequate as to be almost useless in their present form. Most of the articles in Encyclopedia Britannica would probably be labelled as stubs in Wikipedia. Does that mean that they should be removed from the next edition? Often you see articles which are in a stub category, but not a "real" category. I think this shows a poor sense of priorities. A vast amount of time must be spent on stubbing, but when there are hundreds of thousands of them clearing them is not a viable project, and there are so many of them (and so many of those aren't really that bad) that they aren't even of much use in identifying articles to work on in a specific field. I would like to suggest that people should stop participating in the stub system and focus their efforts on improving wikipedia in other ways. [[User:Golfcam|Golfcam]] 12:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

==False dichotomy==
Most articles tagged "stub" are very much "real" articles in my opinion. I think the rigid distinction between "stub" and "article" is false. Britannica makes no such distinction. It doesn't say, "Our Macropaedia is an encyclopedia is full of real articles, but the stuff in Micropaedia isn't articles", but most of the Micropaedia articles would rapidly attract "stub" notices if posted in Wikipedia. Frankly, I think that stating that stubs are NOT articles, is offensive to all the people who write perfectly decent short articles, which get stubbed. The guideline says that stubs are usually three to ten short sentences, but vast numbers of them are longer than that, and people are far too slow to remove the tag. We really shouldn't be telling people who have written a good 800 word article that it isn't really an "article" at all, but something of much less value. [[User:Golfcam|Golfcam]] 13:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

== Before or after category? ==

Should the stub be placed before or after the category? I always place it before the category, but bots often move it and place it after the category. I feel it should be before the category.
How should it be? And I think it would be good if there was an unified way that all followed... -- [[User:Frap|Frap]] 12:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
:I don't think many of the "stub regulars" greatly care either way, though apparently some of the stub detractors do, given a couple of the comments earlier on this page (in synopsis, "stubs suck, therefore put them last"). Perhaps ask at [[Wikipedia:Categorisation]], since one might argue it's in effect a special case of the issue of what order to place categories in, in general. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 19:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
::I'd prefer to put categories right before interwiki links. It really doesnt matter where you put categories. It is recomended however to put categories after everything but interwiki links. Any change to categories will be much easier to impliment. --[[User:Cool Cat|Cat]] [[User talk:Cool Cat|out]] 15:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

== Question on Apperance of Triple Stubs ==

Topic says it all, in [[Siege of Faenza]] the three stubs make the page ugly. Should they be split, or sectioned off? Thoughts?

[[User:Wslack|Wslack]] 20:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

:I would say that the Gemany-related and Italy-related stub notices are not needed. The stub is not about Germany or Italy. It is about a historical battle. -- '''[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]([[User talk:Dalbury|Talk]])''' 21:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
::Agreed, and done. --[[User:TheParanoidOne|TheParanoidOne]] 22:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. Stub-tagging isn't about the beautification of one-line articles, it's about maximising the chances of them being expanded. Battles, strangely enough, often involve two (or more) countries, and thus can very readily be tagged with three stub templates (battle-stub, and a country-stub or country-hist-stub). Had every triple-stubbed battle article been de-tagged in the way that's happened here, we'd now have a single unmanageably large {{cl|battle stubs}} category (or at any rate, splitting it would have been made more troublesome), without further differentiation. While there are obviously many editors with some sort of interesting in editing battle-related articles, I don't think that's the only axis they're likely to be expanded on. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 00:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
:My question was more on asthetics then whether the stub sshould be there. They look unprofessional. What if one stub catagory was visible with a picture, and the otehrs remain only as catagories? Is that possible? --[[User:Wslack|Wslack]] 00:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
::I have no objection to that, but I don't think it's likely to become standard practice, as it would be highly inconvenient to implement on a wide scale. I repeat my earlier answer: aethetics, and a pretense at "professionalism" are besides the point, when what we're dealing with is a manifestly incomplete article. If making such articles look ugly encourages people to do something about the missing content, so much the better. Now, having said all that (again)... I did make a proposal [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals#Not_the_face.21|here]] for using existing stub types, but tidying up their appearance somewhat, for such cases. Mind you, a lot of it is caused simply by the use of inappropriately large images in the templates. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 05:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

:I would question most strongly the Germany-history-stub. This was not a battle in a German-Italian war. This was a battle between the Emperor and one of his subject states. The Empire does not equate to Germany. -- '''[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]([[User talk:Dalbury|Talk]])''' 11:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, but the {{tl|Germany-hist-stub}} is linked to [[History of Germany]], and at least this article includes the time-span mentioned in this battle-stub. Mind, I don't want to start a discussion about what is ''Germany'' (we've had those before), but the pertaining hist-stubs for Germany and Italy wouldn't be wrong in ways of getting attention to the stub. [[User:Lectonar|Lectonar]] 11:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

== Lists of stats ==

Many stubs have lengthy lists of stats for certain athletes and events, but not much else other information. Is this a stub? --[[User:Lunar Jesters|Lunar Jesters]] ([[User talk:Lunar Jesters|talk]]) 00:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
*IMO, yes: if there's three sentences of article body, and 5K of wikimarkup, stats, filmography, publication list, etc, I'd consider that to be a stub. OTOH, if a given wikiproject has decided that that's a complete article for their purposes (a lot of album articles seem to be that way), or it's evidently scoped to be essentially just a "list article", then it may not be. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 01:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
**Thank you very much, I will take these comments into consideration. --[[User:Lunar Jesters|Lunar Jesters]] ([[User talk:Lunar Jesters|talk]]) 01:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

== Concern over this guideline: [[Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Concern_over_this_guideline.2Fpolicy|Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)]] ==

I think [[Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)]] guideline is discouraging stubs and now is being used primarily to mass merge/delete stub articles and hence is a violating this (Wikipedia:Stub) policy.

Please see [[Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)]] for discussion.

--[[User:Cool Cat|Cat]] [[User talk:Cool Cat|out]] 11:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This was confusing and not at all helpful

== Stub tag removal ==

[[Image:W per mghits.png|thumb|300px|Plot of article size (# words) versus Google hits {{legend|#000080|non-stubs}}{{legend|#ff00ff|stubs}}]]
The definition of a stub was changed a couple weeks ago from an article with "3 to 10 short sentences" to something far less definitive. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AStub&diff=68375968&oldid=68142859] I agree with keeping policies from getting in the way of doing the right thing, but there are times when two editors disagree on whether a stub tag should be removed, but still the article is ''so'' large that it may be beyond most people's ideas of the maximum size of a stub. The definition now seems to be:
:''Even a long article on a complicated topic may be a stub; conversely, a short article on a topic of narrow scope may not be a stub.''
If there's disagreement over whether a stub should be removed, is there any firmer criteria that could be used?

One possible rough heuristic might be based on the [[Wikipedia:search engine test|search engine test]]. Basically, you calculate the number of words in an article, and divide by number of million google hits for the article. Then you compare that article's ratio to the ratio for related stub and non-stub articles. If the ratio is significantly larger than all other related stubs, and is equal or greater to related non-stubs, then the stub tag should be removed, because it's larger than similar topics (while still taking into account article scope).

W/mghits vary quite a bit across different subjects, of course; we write articles based on how much encyclopedic information there is, not on how popular an article is. So unpopular academic articles get fairly high w/mghits (the stub [[bicomplex number]] has 187500 w/mghits), while articles about very popular unacademic topics get lower w/mghits ([[Shinjuku]] has 200 w/mghits). Nonetheless, comparing a stub to closely-related articles can give an approximate indication of an upper-limit for stub sizes, as an indication for when to remove a stub tag. Does this seem reasonable? --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 04:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I hate "rewrite everything at once for no real reason" edits like the one you mention, since they hide substantiative and "grammar-worsening" changes in among all the needless rearranging. It should probably just have been reverted at the time, and the editor enjoined to break down the changes into more manageable chunks to more sensibly gauge consensus for them. (Possibly we should still do so: did anything much happen in the meantime aside from the usual vandalism reverts?) I think the "absolute size" test is essentially sound. That's in terms of ''sentences'', as the old text said, not counting raw article length in characters, which can be inflated by lists, tables, and other non-main-body-text markup. I don't aggressively remove stub tags on the basis of their being 11 sentences, but there's a point past which "expand" or "sectstub" would be more appropriate, even if it is a "complicated" topic. (After all, if it's complex but obscure, that could be a recipe for Eternally Stub-Tagged.) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 00:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

: There haven't been any real changes since Wai Wai's changes. I'm fine with reverting to the Aug 7 version, or with clarifying the changes and getting at least minimal support for them. And yes, I'd be happy to see some sort of limit added back in, especially since there's {{tl|sectstub}} and {{tl|expansion}} for more complicated topics. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 12:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

----
Here's the definition of stubs (I simply extracted it from the previous edition):
# A stub is an article that is too short to be genuinely useful, but not so short as to be useless. In general, it must be long enough to at least define the article's title, which generally means 3 to 10 short sentences. Note that even a longer article on a complicated topic may be a stub; conversely, a short article on a topic of narrow scope may not be a stub.
# A stub is an article so incomplete that an editor who knows little or nothing about the topic could improve its content after a superficial Web search or a few minutes in a reference library. An article that can be improved by only a rather knowledgeable editor, or after significant research, may not be a stub.

My understanding: 
There's no clear-cut rule what is regarded as "stub". It is not defined simply by sentences. The indication of 3-10 sentences is just a comment. The original passage itself even says '''Note that even a longer article on a complicated topic may be a stub; conversely, a short article on a topic of narrow scope may not be a stub.'''

How about if the passage has 11 sentences but is still too short or incomplete to be useful to a reader? Should we remove the stub?

Quotation from The Chicago Manual of Style which is worth considering:
: {{cquote|Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity.}}

Your suggestion about using search engine as a test is good.

When deciding whether the passage is a stub, search engine would help. You would search for articles which discuss on these topics. then compare between your article and third-party articles, if the article doesn't not cover most basic information which other third-party articles cover, it should be regarded as stub.

It's similar to how one determines notability of a person, organization etc. There's no strict rules but it's still working.

Another question we may consider is if the article has a section stub, should we place a general stub too if the article in general does not cover most basic stuff?—[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 09:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

== On writing subst ==

Is it obvious to wikipedia users who read this guide what [[Wikipedia:Template_substitution|subst]] means? I did not know, and would have found it very helpful to have had a link to it's page from the following sentence - which is emphasised - in the article:

Please note that stub templates should NEVER be "subst'ed".

I had assumed it meant substituted; and that I should not replace one stub for another, more appropriate, stub. A google search put me right on that, but it may just save others the trouble of searching for it's meaning if it was linked to from the emphasised sentence. What are your thoughts? [[User:Fuzzyslob|Fuzzyslob]] 23:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
:I've added a link to [[WP:SUBST]]. --[[User:TheParanoidOne|TheParanoidOne]] 05:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Data conferencing

2006-09-02T23:53:52Z

Wai Wai: stub

{{computer-stub}}

'''Data Conferencing''' refers to a communication session among two or more participants sharing computer data in real time. Interaction and presentation devices such as a screen, keyboard, mouse, camera, etc. can be shared or be able to control each other computer. It is used to distinguish from video conferencing and audio conferencing.

The data can include screen, documents, graphics, drawings and applications that can be seen, annotated or manipulated by participants.

== Some products ==
Data Conferencing can be done with software such as [[Netspoke]], Microsoft LiveMeeting® or Net Meeting®, Lotus Sametime Connect®, Centra Symposium®, Timbuktu®, or WebEx®.

== See also ==
* [[Virtual Network Computing]] (VNC) - A desktop protocol to remotely control another computer by sending screen content, keyboard and mouse events.
* Redianet - A real-time media presentation, control and collaboration application for learning in networked classrooms.

== External links ==
*[http://www.realvnc.com Real VNC]
*[http://www.redianet.com/en/products/index.htm Redianet class]
*[http://www.infiniteconferencing.com/articles/FindingTheRightOnlineMeetingSolution.pdf Finding the Right Online Meeting Solution (PDF)]
[[Category:Groupware]]

Collaborative software

2006-09-02T23:50:27Z

Wai Wai: /* Electronic conferencing tools */ copyedit

[[Skip Ellis]] defined '''groupware''' as "computer-based systems that support groups of people engaged in a common task (or goal) and that provide an interface to a shared environment". It is also known as '''[[Collaborative]] [[software]]'''. It is the basis for [[computer supported cooperative work]].

Such software systems as mail, calendaring, chat, [[wiki]] belong into this category. It has been suggested that [[Metcalfe's law]] -- the more people who use something, the more valuable it becomes -- applies to such software.

The more general term [[social software]] applies to systems used outside the workplace, for example, [[online dating service]]s and [[social network]]s like [[Friendster]]. The study of [[computer-supported collaboration]] includes the study of this software and social phenomena associated with it. ''These are covered in other articles.''

==Overview==
Collaboration, with respect to information technology, seems to have many definitions. Some are defensible but others are so broad they lose any meaningful application. Understanding the differences in human interactions is necessary to ensure the appropriate technologies are employed to meet interaction needs.

There are three primary ways in which humans interact: conversations, transactions, and collaborations.

''Conversational interaction'' is an exchange of information between two or more participants where the primary purpose of the interaction is discovery or relationship building. There is no central entity around which the interaction revolves but is a free exchange of information with no defined constraints. Communication technology such as telephones, [[instant messaging]], and e-mail are generally sufficient for conversational interactions.

''Transactional interaction'' involves the exchange of transaction entities where a major function of the transaction entity is to alter the relationship between participants. The transaction entity is in a relatively stable form and constrains or defines the new relationship. One participant exchanges money for goods and becomes a customer. Transactional interactions are most effectively handled by transactional systems that manage state and commit records for persistent storage.

In ''collaborative interactions'' the main function of the participants' relationship is to alter a collaboration entity (i.e., the converse of transactional). The collaboration entity is in a relatively unstable form. Examples include the development of an idea, the creation of a design, the achievement of a shared goal. Therefore, real collaboration technologies deliver the functionality for many participants to augment a common deliverable. Record or document management, threaded discussions, audit history, and other mechanisms designed to capture the efforts of many into a managed content environment are typical of collaboration technologies.

An extension of groupware is ''collaborative media'', [[software]] that allows several [[concurrent user]]s to create and manage information in a [[website]]. Collaborative media models include wiki and [[Slash (weblog system)|Slashdot models]].
Some sites with publicly accessible content based on collaborative software are: [[WikiWikiWeb]], Wikipedia and [[Everything2]].

By method used we can divide them in:
*Web-based collaborative tools ( for example : free tool : www.jhatak.com )
*Software collaborative tools

By area served we can divide them in:
*[[Knowledge management]] tools
*[[Knowledge creation]] tools
*Information sharing tools

==Three levels of collaboration==
Groupware can be divided into three categories depending on the level of [[collaboration]]—[[communication]] tools, [[conferencing]] tools and collaborative management (Co-ordination) tools.


===Electronic communication tools===
Electronic communication tools send [[message]]s, [[Computer file|file]]s, [[data]], or [[document]]s between people and hence facilitate the sharing of information. Examples include:
*[[e-mail]]
*[[Instant Messaging]]
*[[fax]]ing
*[[voice mail]]
*[[Web publishing]]

=== Electronic conferencing tools ===
Electronic conferencing tools facilitate the sharing of information, but in a more interactive way. Examples include:
*[[Internet forum]]s (also known as message boards or discussion boards) — a virtual discussion platform to facilitate and manage online text messages
*[[Chatting]] — a virtual discussion platform to facilitate and manage real-time text messages
*[[Telephony]] — [[telephone]]s allow users to interact
*[[Video conferencing]] — networked PCs share video and audio signals
*[[Data conferencing]] — networked PCs share a common [[whiteboard]] that each user can modify
*[[Application sharing]] — users can access a shared document or application from their respective computers simultaneously in real time
*[[Electronic meeting system]]s (EMS) — a conferencing system built into a room. The special purpose room will usually contain a large [[video projector]] interlinked with numerous PCs.

===Collaborative management tools===
Collaborative management tools facilitate and manage group activities. Examples include:
*[[electronic calendar]]s (also called [[time management]] software) — schedule events and automatically notify and remind group members
*[[project management]] systems — schedule, track, and chart the steps in a project as it is being completed
*[[workflow system]]s — collaborative management of tasks and documents within a knowledge-based business process
*[[knowledge management]] systems — collect, organize, manage, and share various forms of information
*[[extranet]] systems (sometimes also known as 'project extranets') — collect, organize, manage and share information associated with the delivery of a project (eg: the construction of a building)
*[[social software]] systems — organize social relations of groups

Collaborative software can be either web based (such as [[UseModWiki]] or [[Scoop (software)|Scoop]]), or desktop systems (such as [[Concurrent Versions System|CVS]] or [[Revision Control System|RCS]]).

==Implementation==
The biggest hurdle in implementing groupware is convincing people to use it. Training is required to make people comfortable using it, and if people don't feel comfortable with the software, they won't use it. Employees should be given incentives to contribute: the rewards could be either financial or psychological.

In many cases collaboration is at odds with the company's corporate culture so implementation will be disruptive. Shifting a corporate culture from being competitive to being cooperative is no small undertaking. It will require changes at all levels of the organization, including the [[CEO]].

One of the biggest hurdles is the typical large enterprise desire to standardise knowledge practice across that enterprise and to implement tools and processes which support that aim. Much greater value and quicker implementation can be achieved by avoidance of the "one size fits all" meme. Driving people to adopt the same active role (for example: contribution measured by number of uploads) only produces the behaviour driven by the metric - "the game exists of the rules by which it is played". Cultivate the practice of collaboration where it flourishes of its own volition to gain the quickest return.

==Voting methods==
Voting has many uses in collaboration software.
[[Condorcet voting]] offers input from multiple experts or perspectives and may reduce [[intransitivity]] problems in [[decision making]]. In [[recommendation system]]s, rating or voting on many items can be used to formulate profiles for highly successful recommendations; and in document collaboration, such as Wikipedia, voting methods help to guide the creation of new pages.

Use of voting to order lists of ''sections'' such as this one remains largely unexplored.
This also pertains to [[collective intelligence]].

==See also==
*[[List of collaborative software]]
*[[Electronic business]]
*[[Information technology management]]
*[[Intranet]]
*[[Knowledge management]]
*[[EIES]]
*[[Management]]
*[[Management information systems]]
*[[Enterprise content management]]
*[[Content management system]]
*[[Online consultation]]
*[[Online deliberation]]
*[[Project management]]
*[[Web conferencing]]
*[[Organizational Memory System]]

==External links==
*Information and Collaboration Technologies (see Chapter 5): [http://www.axiopole.com/pdf/Managing_collective_intelligence.pdf Managing Collective Intelligence, Toward a New Corporate Governance]
*Messaging & Collaboration Resource Site: [http://www.messagingtalk.org/ MessagingTalk.org]
*[http://blog.centraldesktop.com/comments.php?y=06&m=05&entry=entry060501-194015 The Bad In Email (or Why We Need Collaboration Software)]
*[http://eies.net/wiki/index.php/EIES%20Legacy Electronic Information Exchange System (EIES) Legacy]
*[http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/kmc_what/index.html What is a C.M.S?]
[[Category:Collaboration]]
[[Category:Groupware]]
[[Category:Multimodal interaction]]
[[Category:Information technology]]

[[ca:Groupware]]
[[cs:Groupware]]
[[de:Groupware]]
[[es:Groupware]]
[[fr:Groupware]]
[[ko:협업 소프트웨어]]
[[it:Groupware]]
[[nl:Groupware]]
[[ja:グループウェア]]
[[no:Gruppevare]]
[[ru:Groupware]]
[[tl:Tulungang software]]
[[zh:群件]]

Firewall (computing)

2006-09-02T23:42:35Z

Wai Wai: copyedit

In [[computer science]], a '''firewall''' is a piece of [[hardware]] and/or [[software]] which functions in a [[computer network|networked environment]] to prevent some communications forbidden by the [[computer security|security]] policy, [[analogous]] to the function of [[firewall (construction)|firewalls]] in building construction. A firewall is also called a '''Border Protection Device''' ('''BPD'''), especially in [[NATO]] contexts, or '''packet filter''' in [[BSD]] contexts.
A firewall has the basic task of controlling traffic between different zones of trust. Typical zones of trust include the [[Internet]] (a zone with no trust) and an [[intranet|internal network]] (a zone with high trust). The ultimate goal is to provide controlled connectivity between zones of differing trust levels through the enforcement of a security policy and connectivity model based on the [[least privilege]] principle.

Proper configuration of firewalls demands skill from the [[system administrator|administrator]]. It requires considerable understanding of network protocols and of computer security. Small mistakes can render a firewall worthless as a security tool.
==History of Firewalls==
Firewall technology first began to emerge in the late 1980s when the Internet was still a fairly new technology in terms of its global usage and connectivity. The original idea was formed in response to a number of major internet security breaches, which occurred in the late 1980s. In 1988 an employee at the NASA Ames Research Center in California sent a memo by email to his colleagues that read, "We are currently under attack from an Internet VIRUS! It has hit Berkeley, UC San Diego, Lawrence Livermore, Stanford, and NASA Ames." This virus known as the [[Morris Worm]] was carried by e-mail and is now a common nuisance for even the most innocuous domestic user. The Morris Worm was the first large scale attack on Internet security, which the online community neither expected, nor were prepared for. The internet community made it a top priority to combat any future attacks from happening and began to collaborate on new ideas, systems and software to make the internet safe again.

The first paper published on firewall technology was in 1988, when Jeff Mogul from Digital Equipment Corp. developed filter systems known as packet filter firewalls. This fairly basic system was the first generation of what would become a highly evolved and technical internet security feature. From 1980-1990 two colleagues from [[AT&T]] Bell Laboratories, Dave Presetto and Howard Trickey, developed the second generation of firewalls known as circuit level firewalls. Publications by Gene Spafford of Purdue University, Bill Cheswick at AT&T laboratories and Marcus Ranum described a third generation firewall known as application layer firewall, also known as proxy-based firewalls. Marcus Ranum's work on the technology spearheaded the creation of the first commercial product. The product was released by Digital Equipment Corporation's (DEC) who named it the SEAL product. DEC’s first major sale was on June 13, 1991 to a chemical company based on the East-Coast of the USA.

At [[AT&T]] Bill Cheswick and Steve Bellovin were continuing their research in packet filtering and developed a working model for their own company based upon their original 1st generation architecture. In 1992, Bob Braden and Annette DeSchon at the [[University of Southern California]] were developing their own fourth generation packet filter firewall system. The product known as “Visas” was the first system to have a visual integration interface with colours and icons, which could be easily implemented to and accessed on a computer operating system such as [[Microsoft]]'s [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]] or Apple's [[Mac OS|Mac/OS]]. In 1994 an Israeli company called Check Point Software Technologies built this in to readily available software known as FireWall-1.
A second generation of proxy firewalls was based on Kernel Proxy technology. This design is constantly evolving but its basic features and codes are currently in widespread use in both commercial and domestic computer systems. [[Cisco]], one of the largest internet security companies in the world released the product to the public in 1997.

The new [[Next Generation Firewall]]s leverage their existing [[deep packet inspection]] engine by sharing this functionality with an [[Intrusion-prevention system]].

==Types of firewalls==
There are three basic types of firewalls depending on:
* Whether the communication is being done between a single node and the network, or between two or more networks.
* Whether the communication is intercepted at the network layer, or at the application layer.
* Whether the communication state is being tracked at the firewall or not.

With regard to the scope of filtered communications there exist:
* [[Personal firewall]]s, a software application which normally filters traffic entering or leaving a single computer.
* Network firewalls, normally running on a dedicated network device or computer positioned on the boundary of two or more networks or DMZs ([[Demilitarized zone (computing)|demilitarized zones]]). Such a firewall filters all traffic entering or leaving the connected networks.

The latter definition corresponds to the conventional, traditional meaning of "firewall" in networking.

In reference to the layers where the traffic can be intercepted, three main categories of firewalls exist:
* [[Network layer firewall]]s. An example would be [[iptables]].
* [[Application layer firewall]]s. An example would be [[TCP Wrappers]].
* [[Application firewall]]s. An example would be restricting ftp services through /etc/ftpaccess file
These network-layer and application-layer types of firewall may overlap, even though the personal firewall does not serve a network; indeed, single systems have implemented both together.

There's also the notion of [[application firewall]]s which are sometimes used during [[wide area network]] ([[WAN]]) networking on the world-wide web and govern the system software. An extended description would place them lower than application layer firewalls, indeed at the [[Operating System]] layer, and could alternately be called operating system firewalls.

Lastly, depending on whether the firewalls keeps track of the state of network connections or treats each packet in isolation, two additional categories of firewalls exist:
* [[Stateful firewall]]s
* [[Stateless firewall]]s

==Network layer firewalls==
: ''Main article: [[network layer firewall]]''

'''Network''' layer firewalls operate at a (relatively) low level of the [[Internet protocol suite|TCP/IP]] [[protocol stack]] as IP-packet filters, not allowing packets to pass through the firewall unless they match the rules. The firewall administrator may define the rules; or default built-in rules may apply (as in some inflexible firewall systems).

A more permissive setup could allow any packet to pass the filter as long as it does not match one or more "negative-rules", or "deny rules". Today network firewalls are built into most computer operating systems and network appliances.

Modern firewalls can filter traffic based on many packet attributes like source [[IP address]], source [[TCP and UDP port|port]], destination IP address or port, destination service like [[World Wide Web|WWW]] or [[File transfer protocol|FTP]]. They can filter based on protocols, [[Time to live|TTL]] values, [[netblock]] of originator, [[Domain Name System|domain name]] of the source, and many other attributes.

==Application-layer firewalls==
: ''Main article: [[application layer firewall]]''

Application-layer firewalls work on the application level of the TCP/IP stack (i.e., all browser traffic, or all [[telnet]] or [[ftp]] traffic), and may intercept all packets traveling to or from an application. They block other packets (usually dropping them without acknowledgement to the sender). In principle, application firewalls can prevent all unwanted outside traffic from reaching protected machines.

By inspecting all packets for improper content, firewalls can even prevent the spread of the likes of [[computer viruses|virus]]es. In practice, however, this becomes so complex and so difficult to attempt (given the variety of applications and the diversity of content each may allow in its packet traffic) that comprehensive firewall design does not generally attempt this approach.

The [[XML firewall]] exemplifies a more recent kind of application-layer firewall.

==Proxies==
: ''Main article: [[Proxy server]]''

A proxy device (running either on dedicated hardware or as software on a general-purpose machine) may act as a firewall by responding to input packets (connection requests, for example) in the manner of an application, whilst blocking other packets.

Proxies make tampering with an internal system from the external network more difficult and misuse of one internal system would not necessarily cause a security breach exploitable from outside the firewall (as long as the application proxy remains intact and properly configured). Conversely, intruders may [[wiktionary:Hijack|hijack]] a publicly-reachable system and use it as a proxy for their own purposes; the proxy then [[Spoofing attack|masquerade]]s as that system to other internal machines. While use of internal address spaces enhances security, [[security cracking|crackers]] may still employ methods such as ''[[IP spoofing]]'' to attempt to pass packets to a target network..

==Network address translation==
Firewalls often have [[network address translation]] (NAT) functionality, and the hosts protected behind a firewall commonly use so-called "private address space", as defined in RFC 1918. Administrators often set up such scenarios in an effort (of debatable effectiveness) to disguise the internal address or network. See also [[Port address translation]].

==Management==
The Middlebox Communication (midcom) Working Group of the [[Internet Engineering Task Force]] is working on standardizing protocols for managing firewalls and
other [[middlebox]]es. See, e.g.,
[ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3989.txt Middlebox Communications (MIDCOM) Protocol Semantics].

==Sample scenario==
[[Image:Redundancy_firewall.svg|right|thumb|450px|A redundancy firewall reduces the possibility of an Internet connection Outage.]]

'''The simplest form could be like this:'''
*node 1 and node 2 running an OS with a Linux kernel ([[SUSE]] GNU/Linux or [[Debian]] GNU/Linux for example)
*To create a [[redundancy (engineering)|redundancy]] firewall we could choose to build a [[high-availability cluster]]. Therefore we need to connect those nodes (at least two are necessary) to each another in a way they could "see" each other. The software to do so could be [http://www.linux-ha.org/HeartbeatProgram Heartbeat] which is part of [[Linux-HA]] Project
*The most critical task in such a scenario is to ensure that all nodes share the same data at all times, better known as [[data integrity]]. This could be done with [[DRBD]] which is roughly speaking nothing else than a network [[Redundant array of independent disks|RAID 1]].
*Finally we need firewalling capabilities for the redundancy firewall. A packet filter like [[iptables]] helps here.
{{clear}}
==Online firewall check==
These sites offer free online portscan services to check your firewall security.
Please note that online port probes are not foolproof, as they always check the ''public'' IP address, which may be a proxy server.
Online portscans are easy to use and offer basic insights, but to ensure network security, use tools like [[Nmap]].
*[https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2 ShieldsUP (Gibson Research Corporation)] Quick and easy to use
*[http://scan.sygate.com/ Sygate Online Scan] Extended security check, concise (Stealth Scan, Trojan Scan)
*[http://www.planet-security.net/index.php?xid=%F7%04T%BDP%92nD Planet Security Firewall-Check] Quick, extended security check, checks current endangered ports, clearly laid out, TCP Scan

==Implementations==
*Software
** [[phion netfence]] Connectivity Gateways - [http://www.phion.com phion Information Technologies].
** [http://www.mwti.net/products/firewall/econceal_std/econceal_std.asp eConceal Firewall] (eConceal)
** [http://www.astaro.com/ Astaro Security Linux]
** [http://firewall.trustix.com/small/ Trustix Enterprise Firewall]
** [http://www.mcsstudios.com MCS Firewall]
** [[Check Point]] [[VPN-1]] (formerly Firewall-1)
** [[SC Gauntlet]] (discontinued, but still in use)
** [[ipfirewall|ipfw]]
** [[ipfwadm]]
** [[ipchains]]
** [[Iptables]]
** [[IPFilter]] (ipf)
** [[Netfilter/iptables]]
** [[PF (firewall)|PF]]
** [[Microsoft]] [http://www.microsoft.com/isa/ Internet Security and Acceleration (ISA) Server]
** [[WinGate (computing)|WinGate]] [http://www.wingate.com Proxy / NAT Firewall]
** [http://www.lsli.com/portus.html PORTUS Application Protection System]
** [[Symantec]]
** [http://www.visonys.com/Solutions_5.de.html visonys AirLock]
** [http://www.tetrade.ch/tt/de/competence/si/ses.html tetrade secure entry server]
** [http://www.binarysec.com BinarySEC web firewall]
*Appliances
** [[ActionTEC]] (a DSL Modem packaged by Qwest with new [[Digital Subscriber Line|DSL]] customer orders)
** [http://www.arkoon.net Arkoon FAST360]
** [http://www.bluereef.com.au Blue Reef Sonar]
** [[Celestix Networks|Celestix]] [[MSA Series]][http://www.celestix.com Celestix Inc].
** [[Cisco PIX]] and Cisco ASA
** [[Clavister]] [http://www.clavister.com]
** [[CyberGuard]]
** [[DataPower]]
** [http://www.dlink.com/ D-Link ]
** [[FortiGate]] by [[Fortinet]]
** [[Global Technology Associates, Inc.]]
** [[NetASQ]]
** [[Juniper Networks|Juniper]] NetScreen
** [[Lightning MultiCom]] VPN Firewall - [http://www.lightning.ch]
** [[Lucent]] VPN Firewall - [http://www.lucent.com/security]
** [[Nortel]] Stand-alone and Switched Firewall - [http://products.nortel.com/go/product_content.jsp?parId=0&segId=0&catId=-9460&prod_id=36220&locale=en-US]
** PORTUS-APS Appliance
** [https://www.presinet.com PresiNET VPN/Network Visibility]
** [[Sarvega]]
** [[Secure Computing Corporation|Sidewinder]] and [[Sidewinder G2]]
** [http://www.securepoint.de/ Securepoint ]
** [[SofaWare Technologies]]
** [[SonicWall]]
** [[Watchguard]]
** [[MultiTech Systems - RouteFinder]]
* Free software distributions 
** [http://www.efw.it Endian Firewall] (GPL)
** [[IPCop]] (GPL)
** [[m0n0wall]] (BSD-style license)
** [[pfSense]] (BSD-style license) (m0n0wall fork)
** [[Devil-Linux]] (GPL)
** [[SmoothWall]] Express (GPL)
** [[eBox|eBox Platform]] (GPL)
** [http://www.brazilfw.com.br/forum/portal.php BrazilFW Firewall and Router] (GPL) - Formerly Coyote Linux - This runs from a floppy disk or hard disk, and is configured through a Windows or Linux program.

*[[Personal firewall]]s — see that article

==See also==
*[[Next Generation Firewall]]
*[[Middlebox]]
*[[Windows Firewall]]
*[[Firewall pinhole]]
*[[End-to-end connectivity]]
*[[Access control list]]
*[[Bastion host]]
*[[Demilitarized zone (computing)|Demilitarized zone]] (DMZ)
*[[Internet censorship in mainland China|Great Firewall of China]]

==External links==
*[http://www.faqs.org/faqs/firewalls-faq/ Matt Curtin and Marcus J. Ranum Internet Firewalls: Frequently Asked Questions]
*[http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/iaabu/centri4/user/scf4ch3.htm Evolution of the Firewall Industry] - Discusses different architectures and their differences, how packets are processed, and provides a timeline of the evolution.

[[Category:Computer network security]]
[[Category:Network-related software]]
[[Category:Packets]]

[[ar:جدار ناري]]
[[bs:Hardverski firewall]]
[[cs:Firewall]]
[[da:Firewall]]
[[de:Firewall]]
[[es:Cortafuegos (informática)]]
[[eo:Fajromuro]]
[[eu:Suhesi (informatika)]]
[[fa:فایروال]]
[[fr:Pare-feu]]
[[gl:Devasa]]
[[hr:Vatrozid]]
[[it:Firewall]]
[[he:חומת אש]]
[[hu:Tűzfal (számítástechnika)]]
[[nl:Firewall]]
[[ja:ファイアーウォール]]
[[no:Brannmur]]
[[pl:Zapora sieciowa]]
[[pt:Firewall]]
[[ro:Zid de foc]]
[[ru:Межсетевой экран]]
[[sl:Požarni zid]]
[[fi:Palomuuri]]
[[sv:Brandvägg]]
[[th:ไฟร์วอลล์]]
[[tr:Ateş duvarı]]
[[zh:防火墙 (网络)]]

Application sharing

2006-09-02T23:38:37Z

Wai Wai: cat+

'''Application Sharing''' is an element of [[remote access]], falling under the [[collaborative software]] umbrella, that enables two or more users to access a shared application or document from their respective computers simultaneously in real time. Generally, the shared application or document will be running on a host computer, and remote access to the shared content will be provided to other users by the host user.

== Granting Access ==

Access is typically granted in one of two ways, depending on the architecture of the Application Sharing software.

1. If the software allows the shared content to be accessed from the web, the host user will usually define and provide a username/password combination to the remote users he/she wishes to grant access to; they can then enter the log-in information on the appropriate website and access the shared material. One example of software that features Application Sharing in this manner is [[Qnext]].

2. If the software is required on both ends to access the shared content, granting access will be governed by the mechanisms of that particular software, but will usually require some sort of user authentication as well. One example of software that features Application Sharing in this manner is [[MSN Messenger]].

== Type of Access ==

Once the applications or documents to be shared and whom they are to be shared with have been determined, there are generally two types of access that can be granted to remote users.

1. Control Access – the host user allows remote users to actually control, edit, and manipulate the shared content; most Application Sharing software allows the host to revoke Control Access at any time.

2. View Access – the host user only allows remote users to passively view the shared content; remote users have no ability to edit or effect change in the shared content whatsoever.

== Applications of… ==

There are two primary applications of Application Sharing, each contingent on the Type of Access granted.

1. Control Access – this configuration is most widely used to facilitate collaboration by [[virtual team]]s. Team members can collaborate on the same document, making instantly apparent changes in [[real-time]].

2. View Access – this configuration is most suitable to a training scenario. The remote user (trainee) can passively view the actions of the host (trainer) without being able to interrupt or manipulate the shared content.

== See also ==
* [[groupware|Collaborative Software]]
* [[remote access|Remote Access]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.qnext.com/ Qnext]
*[http://www.hermix.ro/ Hermix]
*[http://www.webex.com/ WebEx]
*[http://www.webasyst.net/ WebAsyst]
*[http://www.elluminate.com/ Elluminate]

[[Category:Collaboration]]
[[Category:computing]]

Application sharing

2006-09-02T23:37:44Z

Wai Wai: fix link

'''Application Sharing''' is an element of [[remote access]], falling under the [[collaborative software]] umbrella, that enables two or more users to access a shared application or document from their respective computers simultaneously in real time. Generally, the shared application or document will be running on a host computer, and remote access to the shared content will be provided to other users by the host user.

== Granting Access ==

Access is typically granted in one of two ways, depending on the architecture of the Application Sharing software.

1. If the software allows the shared content to be accessed from the web, the host user will usually define and provide a username/password combination to the remote users he/she wishes to grant access to; they can then enter the log-in information on the appropriate website and access the shared material. One example of software that features Application Sharing in this manner is [[Qnext]].

2. If the software is required on both ends to access the shared content, granting access will be governed by the mechanisms of that particular software, but will usually require some sort of user authentication as well. One example of software that features Application Sharing in this manner is [[MSN Messenger]].

== Type of Access ==

Once the application(s) or document(s) to be shared and whom they are to be shared with have been determined, there are generally two types of access that can be granted to remote users.

1. Control Access – the host user allows remote users to actually control, edit, and manipulate the shared content; most Application Sharing software allows the host to revoke Control Access at any time.

2. View Access – the host user only allows remote users to passively view the shared content; remote users have no ability to edit or effect change in the shared content whatsoever.

== Applications of… ==

There are two primary applications of Application Sharing, each contingent on the Type of Access granted.

1. Control Access – this configuration is most widely used to facilitate collaboration by [[virtual team]]s. Team members can collaborate on the same document, making instantly apparent changes in [[real-time]].

2. View Access – this configuration is most suitable to a training scenario. The remote user (trainee) can passively view the actions of the host (trainer) without being able to interrupt or manipulate the shared content.

== See also ==
* [[groupware|Collaborative Software]]
* [[remote access|Remote Access]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.qnext.com/ Qnext]
*[http://www.hermix.ro/ Hermix]
*[http://www.webex.com/ WebEx]
*[http://www.webasyst.net/ WebAsyst]
*[http://www.elluminate.com/ Elluminate]

[[Category:Collaboration]]

Application sharing

2006-09-02T23:37:06Z

Wai Wai: /* See also */ bulleting

'''Application Sharing''' is an element of [[remote access]], falling under the [[collaborative software]] umbrella, that enables two or more users to access a shared application or document from their respective computers simultaneously in [[real-time]]. Generally, the shared application or document will be running on a host computer, and remote access to the shared content will be provided to other users by the host user.

== Granting Access ==

Access is typically granted in one of two ways, depending on the architecture of the Application Sharing software.

1. If the software allows the shared content to be accessed from the web, the host user will usually define and provide a username/password combination to the remote users he/she wishes to grant access to; they can then enter the log-in information on the appropriate website and access the shared material. One example of software that features Application Sharing in this manner is [[Qnext]].

2. If the software is required on both ends to access the shared content, granting access will be governed by the mechanisms of that particular software, but will usually require some sort of user authentication as well. One example of software that features Application Sharing in this manner is [[MSN Messenger]].

== Type of Access ==

Once the application(s) or document(s) to be shared and whom they are to be shared with have been determined, there are generally two types of access that can be granted to remote users.

1. Control Access – the host user allows remote users to actually control, edit, and manipulate the shared content; most Application Sharing software allows the host to revoke Control Access at any time.

2. View Access – the host user only allows remote users to passively view the shared content; remote users have no ability to edit or effect change in the shared content whatsoever.

== Applications of… ==

There are two primary applications of Application Sharing, each contingent on the Type of Access granted.

1. Control Access – this configuration is most widely used to facilitate collaboration by [[virtual team]]s. Team members can collaborate on the same document, making instantly apparent changes in [[real-time]].

2. View Access – this configuration is most suitable to a training scenario. The remote user (trainee) can passively view the actions of the host (trainer) without being able to interrupt or manipulate the shared content.

== See also ==
* [[groupware|Collaborative Software]]
* [[remote access|Remote Access]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.qnext.com/ Qnext]
*[http://www.hermix.ro/ Hermix]
*[http://www.webex.com/ WebEx]
*[http://www.webasyst.net/ WebAsyst]
*[http://www.elluminate.com/ Elluminate]

[[Category:Collaboration]]

Collaborative software

2006-09-02T23:36:29Z

Wai Wai: /* Three levels of collaboration */

[[Skip Ellis]] defined '''groupware''' as "computer-based systems that support groups of people engaged in a common task (or goal) and that provide an interface to a shared environment". It is also known as '''[[Collaborative]] [[software]]'''. It is the basis for [[computer supported cooperative work]].

Such software systems as mail, calendaring, chat, [[wiki]] belong into this category. It has been suggested that [[Metcalfe's law]] -- the more people who use something, the more valuable it becomes -- applies to such software.

The more general term [[social software]] applies to systems used outside the workplace, for example, [[online dating service]]s and [[social network]]s like [[Friendster]]. The study of [[computer-supported collaboration]] includes the study of this software and social phenomena associated with it. ''These are covered in other articles.''

==Overview==
Collaboration, with respect to information technology, seems to have many definitions. Some are defensible but others are so broad they lose any meaningful application. Understanding the differences in human interactions is necessary to ensure the appropriate technologies are employed to meet interaction needs.

There are three primary ways in which humans interact: conversations, transactions, and collaborations.

''Conversational interaction'' is an exchange of information between two or more participants where the primary purpose of the interaction is discovery or relationship building. There is no central entity around which the interaction revolves but is a free exchange of information with no defined constraints. Communication technology such as telephones, [[instant messaging]], and e-mail are generally sufficient for conversational interactions.

''Transactional interaction'' involves the exchange of transaction entities where a major function of the transaction entity is to alter the relationship between participants. The transaction entity is in a relatively stable form and constrains or defines the new relationship. One participant exchanges money for goods and becomes a customer. Transactional interactions are most effectively handled by transactional systems that manage state and commit records for persistent storage.

In ''collaborative interactions'' the main function of the participants' relationship is to alter a collaboration entity (i.e., the converse of transactional). The collaboration entity is in a relatively unstable form. Examples include the development of an idea, the creation of a design, the achievement of a shared goal. Therefore, real collaboration technologies deliver the functionality for many participants to augment a common deliverable. Record or document management, threaded discussions, audit history, and other mechanisms designed to capture the efforts of many into a managed content environment are typical of collaboration technologies.

An extension of groupware is ''collaborative media'', [[software]] that allows several [[concurrent user]]s to create and manage information in a [[website]]. Collaborative media models include wiki and [[Slash (weblog system)|Slashdot models]].
Some sites with publicly accessible content based on collaborative software are: [[WikiWikiWeb]], Wikipedia and [[Everything2]].

By method used we can divide them in:
*Web-based collaborative tools ( for example : free tool : www.jhatak.com )
*Software collaborative tools

By area served we can divide them in:
*[[Knowledge management]] tools
*[[Knowledge creation]] tools
*Information sharing tools

==Three levels of collaboration==
Groupware can be divided into three categories depending on the level of [[collaboration]]—[[communication]] tools, [[conferencing]] tools and collaborative management (Co-ordination) tools.


===Electronic communication tools===
Electronic communication tools send [[message]]s, [[Computer file|file]]s, [[data]], or [[document]]s between people and hence facilitate the sharing of information. Examples include:
*[[e-mail]]
*[[Instant Messaging]]
*[[fax]]ing
*[[voice mail]]
*[[Web publishing]]

=== Electronic conferencing tools ===
Electronic conferencing tools facilitate the sharing of information, but in a more interactive way. Examples include:
*[[application sharing]] — users can access a shared document or application from their respective computers simultaneously in [[real-time]]
*[[data conferencing]] — networked PCs share a common "[[whiteboard]]" that each user can modify
*[[Telephony|voice conferencing]] — [[telephone]]s allow users to interact
*[[Video teleconference|video conferencing]] (and audio conferencing) — networked PCs share video or audio signals
*[[Internet forum]]s (also known as message boards or discussion boards) — a virtual discussion platform to facilitate and manage online text messages
*[[chat room]]s — a virtual discussion platform to facilitate and manage real-time text messages
*[[electronic meeting system]]s (EMS) — a conferencing system built into a room. The special purpose room will usually contain a large [[video projector|screen projector]] interlinked with numerous PCs.

===Collaborative management tools===
Collaborative management tools facilitate and manage group activities. Examples include:
*[[electronic calendar]]s (also called [[time management]] software) — schedule events and automatically notify and remind group members
*[[project management]] systems — schedule, track, and chart the steps in a project as it is being completed
*[[workflow system]]s — collaborative management of tasks and documents within a knowledge-based business process
*[[knowledge management]] systems — collect, organize, manage, and share various forms of information
*[[extranet]] systems (sometimes also known as 'project extranets') — collect, organize, manage and share information associated with the delivery of a project (eg: the construction of a building)
*[[social software]] systems — organize social relations of groups

Collaborative software can be either web based (such as [[UseModWiki]] or [[Scoop (software)|Scoop]]), or desktop systems (such as [[Concurrent Versions System|CVS]] or [[Revision Control System|RCS]]).

==Implementation==
The biggest hurdle in implementing groupware is convincing people to use it. Training is required to make people comfortable using it, and if people don't feel comfortable with the software, they won't use it. Employees should be given incentives to contribute: the rewards could be either financial or psychological.

In many cases collaboration is at odds with the company's corporate culture so implementation will be disruptive. Shifting a corporate culture from being competitive to being cooperative is no small undertaking. It will require changes at all levels of the organization, including the [[CEO]].

One of the biggest hurdles is the typical large enterprise desire to standardise knowledge practice across that enterprise and to implement tools and processes which support that aim. Much greater value and quicker implementation can be achieved by avoidance of the "one size fits all" meme. Driving people to adopt the same active role (for example: contribution measured by number of uploads) only produces the behaviour driven by the metric - "the game exists of the rules by which it is played". Cultivate the practice of collaboration where it flourishes of its own volition to gain the quickest return.

==Voting methods==
Voting has many uses in collaboration software.
[[Condorcet voting]] offers input from multiple experts or perspectives and may reduce [[intransitivity]] problems in [[decision making]]. In [[recommendation system]]s, rating or voting on many items can be used to formulate profiles for highly successful recommendations; and in document collaboration, such as Wikipedia, voting methods help to guide the creation of new pages.

Use of voting to order lists of ''sections'' such as this one remains largely unexplored.
This also pertains to [[collective intelligence]].

==See also==
*[[List of collaborative software]]
*[[Electronic business]]
*[[Information technology management]]
*[[Intranet]]
*[[Knowledge management]]
*[[EIES]]
*[[Management]]
*[[Management information systems]]
*[[Enterprise content management]]
*[[Content management system]]
*[[Online consultation]]
*[[Online deliberation]]
*[[Project management]]
*[[Web conferencing]]
*[[Organizational Memory System]]

==External links==
*Information and Collaboration Technologies (see Chapter 5): [http://www.axiopole.com/pdf/Managing_collective_intelligence.pdf Managing Collective Intelligence, Toward a New Corporate Governance]
*Messaging & Collaboration Resource Site: [http://www.messagingtalk.org/ MessagingTalk.org]
*[http://blog.centraldesktop.com/comments.php?y=06&m=05&entry=entry060501-194015 The Bad In Email (or Why We Need Collaboration Software)]
*[http://eies.net/wiki/index.php/EIES%20Legacy Electronic Information Exchange System (EIES) Legacy]
*[http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/kmc_what/index.html What is a C.M.S?]
[[Category:Collaboration]]
[[Category:Groupware]]
[[Category:Multimodal interaction]]
[[Category:Information technology]]

[[ca:Groupware]]
[[cs:Groupware]]
[[de:Groupware]]
[[es:Groupware]]
[[fr:Groupware]]
[[ko:협업 소프트웨어]]
[[it:Groupware]]
[[nl:Groupware]]
[[ja:グループウェア]]
[[no:Gruppevare]]
[[ru:Groupware]]
[[tl:Tulungang software]]
[[zh:群件]]

CU-SeeMe

2006-09-02T23:33:28Z

Wai Wai: broken link, ref

'''CU-SeeMe''' is an internet [[video-conferencing]] client written by Tim Dorcey of the Information Technology department at [[Cornell University]]<ref>[http://myhome.hanafos.com/~soonjp/dorcey.html Cu-SeeMe article by Tim Dorcey in March 1995 Connexions]</ref>. It was first developed for the [[Apple Macintosh|Macintosh]] in 1992 and later for the [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]] platform in 1994. Originally it was video-only with audio added in 1994 for the Macintosh and 1995 for Windows. CU-SeeMe's audio came from Maven, an audio only client developed at the [[University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign]].<ref>[http://myhome.hanafos.com/~soonjp/project.html History of CU-SeeMe Project]</ref>

The commercial licensing rights were bought by [[White Pine Software]] in December 1998 and the product was then released a commercial product. Unfortunately, White Pine Software ignored the original hobby market of CU-SeeMe users and attempted to compete against hardware assisted video-conferencing companies. They were too early for acceptance as audio/video quality was an issue at the time (excessive latency) and thus the product was only useful to hobbyists.

White Pine Software was subsequently bought by [[First Virtual Communications]] and at some point the client was renamed simply '''CU''' and was made part of a fee-based video chat service called [http://www.cuworld.com/ CUworld]. The client evolved further, was renamed "Click To Meet" and became the major offering of First Virtual.

First Virtual filed for bankruptcy on January 20, 2005 and the assets were acquired by [[Radvision Ltd.|RADvision]] on March 15, 2005. RADvision continues to offer the product through [http://www.clicktomeet.com/ clicktomeet.com].

There is still a small but active community of users who continue to use CU-SeeMe. Although there had been no releases of software from the various incarnations of White Pine since around 2000, there are freeware alternatives available for both Windows and Macintosh platforms. A search of the web will quickly locate the CU-SeeMe "reflectors" that are still operational.

==Notes and references==

===Specific references===
<references/>

===Other general references===
# [http://www.macosx.com/articles/The-History-of-Video-Conferencing-%96-Moving-Ah.html The history of videoconferencing] (from MacosX.com)
# [http://dmsweb.badm.sc.edu/mgsc890/videoconference/history.htm A brief timeline of videoconferencing]
# [http://securities.stanford.edu/1032/FVCCPK04-01/200571_r04t_04CV3585.pdf (PDF) First Virtual Securities Litigation]

==External links==
* [http://x.webring.com/hub?ring=cuseeme CU-SeeMe web ring]
* [http://www.cuseeme.de German cuseeme reflector]
* [http://www.linc.or.jp/~hamano/CU-SeeMe/PMRef/index.html Free Cuseeme Java reflector]
* [http://hoople_ny.tripod.com/reflectors.htm active Cuseeme reflectors]
* [http://www.ilovereality.com/Yikes/links.html Yikes CU-SeeMe links]
* [http://www.ambitweb.com/cuseeme/cuseeme.html Ambit's Cu-SeeMe page]
* [http://www.radvision.com/EnterpriseSolutions/VideoconferencingProducts/ClickToMeet/ RADvision Click to Meet page]

[[Category:Groupware]]

Yahoo Messenger

2006-09-02T23:08:20Z

Wai Wai: /* See also */ rm meaningless text

{{Infobox_Software
| name = [[Image:Yahoo! Messenger.gif|200px]]
| logo = [[Image:Yahoo! Messenger.png|48px]]
| screenshot = [[Image:Yahoo!_Messenger_7.0.0.426.png|200px]]
| caption = Yahoo! Messenger 7.0.0.426 Contact List under Windows
| developer = [[Yahoo!]]
| latest_release_version = 8.0.0.701 
| latest_release_date = [[August 10]], [[2006]]
| operating_system = [[Microsoft Windows|Windows 98/Me, 2000, and XP]], [[Mac OS X]], [[Mac OS 9]], [[Mac OS 8]], [[Unix]]
| genre = [[Instant messaging]] [[client]]
| license = [[Proprietary software|Proprietary]]
| website = [http://messenger.yahoo.com/ messenger.yahoo.com]
| }}
'''Yahoo! Messenger''' is a popular [[instant messaging]] [[client (computing)|client]] and protocol provided by [[Yahoo!]]. Yahoo! Messenger is provided free of charge and can be downloaded and used with a generic "Yahoo! ID" which also allows access to other Yahoo! services, such as [[Yahoo! Mail]], where users can be automatically notified when they receive new email. Yahoo! offers PC to PC telephone, file transfers, webcam hosting, text messaging service, and chat rooms in various categories. For several years Yahoo! also provided a very popular service of allowing user-created customized chat rooms, however, has suspended that service since May, 2005, because of the expense relative to insufficient advertising revenues, and also because of lawsuits alleging the abuse of user-generated Yahoo! chat rooms by predators seeking contact with underage teenagers.

In addition to instant messaging features similar to those offered by [[ICQ]] and [[AOL Instant Messenger]], it also offers (on the [[Windows operating system]]) some unique [http://messenger.yahoo.com/features.php features] such as: IMVironments (customizing the look of Instant Message windows) and Custom Status Messages. Another recently added feature is customized [[Avatar (virtual reality)|avatars]]. However, none of these features are available on other platforms, such as [[Mac OS X]].

Yahoo! Messenger 2.5.3 for Mac, released in 2003, is the current stable version for Mac, and offers drastically fewer features than the Windows release. It has been reported to be quite buggy when run on the latest version of [[Mac OS X]], and it is very primitive when compared to other messenging applications for Macintosh. However, in June of 2006, Messenger for Mac 3.0b1 was released as a beta, with a final version due later. This beta has a modernized interface when compared to the 2003 application which includes Avatars and display image viewing, BUZZ facility, and other similar features with the Yahoo! Messenger in Windows. However, it is still lacking advanced features like PC-to-PC call and address book capabilities.

Yahoo! has announced a partnership with [[Microsoft]] to join their instant messaging networks. This would make Yahoo! Messenger compatible with Microsoft's [[.NET Messenger Service]]. It would also make Microsoft's [[Windows Live Messenger]] compatible with Yahoo!'s Network. This change has taken effect. As of July 13, 2006, Yahoo! Messenger has integrated instant messaging with [[Windows Live Messenger]] users, and is fully functional.

Yahoo! Messenger replaced access to Yahoo! [[Java programming language|Java]]-based chat rooms in May 2006.

British Telecommunications' BT Communicator software is based on Yahoo! Messenger.<ref>http://www.bt.com/btcommunicator</ref>

Surprisingly, the BBC reported on [[August 5]] [[2006]] that "Download Yahoo messenger" was the sixth most likely search term to return links to malware.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4765199.stm BBC News: Warning on search engine safety]</ref>

==Chat Rooms==
Unlike most instant messenger components, Yahoo! Messenger contains various chat rooms for certain categories, such as interests, hobbies, featured rooms, and even current controversial issues. Most chat rooms have more than one (ex: Rap & Hip-Hop 1, Rap & Hip-Hop 2), since the limit for each separate room is usually somewhere between 45 and 50. In chat rooms, people can enter as an alias or their usual screenname. There is no limit of how long someone can stay in a single room.

Yahoo! chat rooms are sometimes critizied. While very popular and highly-rated, Yahoo! chat rooms are known as the easiest chat rooms to install boot codes. Some people can log-on through as many screennames as possible (only using these boot codes and programs) and can crash someone's computer by IMing up to over 5,000 times. Someone however can block this by selecting "allow only messenges from people in my buddy list", but this can be an annoyance in chat rooms, although Yahoo! is working hard to resolve this issue.

==Latest Releases==
[[Image:Yahoo_Messenger_for_Mac.jpg|thumb|A screenshot of Yahoo! Messenger 3.0b1 for Mac OS X]]


* '''Windows''' - [http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 8.0.0.701].
* '''Mac OS X''' - [http://messenger.yahoo.com/messenger/mac.php 3.0b1] / [[June 28]], [[2006]]
** Several third-party clients exist that can connect to the Yahoo! Messenger network, such as, [[Fire (instant messenger)|Fire]], [[Adium]], and [[Proteus (instant messenger)|Proteus]]
* '''Unix''' - [http://messenger.yahoo.com/unix.php 1.0.4]
** The [[Unix]] version looks different from the Windows version.
** Version 1.0.6.1 is available for [[Gentoo Linux]] (masked as ~x86).
** Anybody can download version 1.0.6 from the Unix Beta page: http://public.yahoo.com/~mmk/
** Feature-rich [[open source]] [[Linux]] clients are available for Yahoo! Messenger such as [[Gaim]] and [[gyach]].
* [[BlackBerry]] - [[Research In Motion]] and Yahoo! offer a free Yahoo! Messenger client for modern BlackBerry devices. Note that this is not supported on the [[Cingular]] network.

==Feature & Release History==
===Windows===
There are many versions between those listed here and prior to last version listed here. These are "major releases". See one of several sites listed in external links to find other, older versions of the product.

* 8.0.0.701 = [[August 10]], [[2006]] - The release date signifies the release of a beta version. This is not clearly documented on the Yahoo site.
**
* 8.0.0.508 — [[July 13]], [[2006]]
**Interoperability between Yahoo! and Windows Live Messenger contacts.
* 8.0.0.505 — [[June 20]], [[2006]]
** Plugins possible
* 7.0.0.426 — [[August 8]], [[2005]]
**Renamed to "Yahoo! Messenger with Voice"
**Drag-and-drop photo sharing
**Drag-and-drop file sharing
**PC-to-PC calling
**[[Voicemail]]
**[[Ringtones]]
**[[Yahoo! 360°]] integration
**Pop-up Contact Cards
**[[Messaging spam|Spam]] Reporting
**New tabs
**New [[emoticons]]
**Archive updates
**LiveWords (Beta)
* 7.0.0.437 — [[August 30]], [[2005]]
* Prior Releases — Undocumented

===Mac===

* Prior Releases - Undocumented
* 3.0 beta 1 - [[June 28]], [[2006]]
** New UI
** Display Images
** Avatars Support
** Stealth Settings
**Interoperability between Yahoo! and Windows Live Messenger contacts.

* 2.5.3 - [[September 24]], [[2003]]
** Chat
** [[Webcam]]
** Conference chat

==References==
<div class="references-small"><references /></div>

==See also==
* [[List of instant messaging clients]]
* [[Comparison of instant messaging clients]]
* [[Yahoo! Messenger Protocol]]
* [[YMSG]]

==External links==
* [http://messenger.yahoo.com Yahoo! Messenger With Voice] - It's free!
* [http://help.yahoo.com/att/tour/dsl.html Yahoo! Services Video Tour]
* [http://www.old-versions.net/show/Yahoo_Messenger/9/ Old Versions of Yahoo Messenger] (not all on the site above)

[[Category:Mac OS instant messaging clients]]
[[Category:Windows instant messaging clients]]
[[Category:Yahoo!]]
[[Category:VoIP software]]

[[bn:ইয়াহু! মেসেঞ্জার]]
[[cs:Yahoo! Messenger]]
[[de:Yahoo! Messenger]]
[[es:Yahoo! Messenger]]
[[fr:Yahoo! Messenger]]
[[nl:Yahoo! Messenger]]
[[no:Yahoo Messenger]]
[[pl:Yahoo! Messenger]]
[[pt:Yahoo! Messenger]]
[[ru:Yahoo Messenger]]
[[sk:YIM]]
[[ta:யாகூ தூதுவன்]]
[[vi:Yahoo! Messenger]]
[[zh:Yahoo! Messenger]]

Direct access

2006-09-02T17:55:37Z

Wai Wai: /* Stock Exchanges */ wikify link

This term has different meanings in different scopes:

==Telecommunication==
In [[telecommunication]]:
# The capability to obtain [[data]] from a [[storage]] device, or to enter data into a storage device, in a [[sequence]] independent of their relative positions by means of addresses that indicate the physical location of the data.
# Pertaining to the organization and [[access]] method that must be used for a storage structure in which locations of records are determined by their keys, without reference to an index or to other records that may have been previously accessed.
(Source: [[Federal Standard 1037C]])

==Stock Exchanges==
[[Direct access trading]] is a technology in which a client can trade '''directly''' to the special people at the exchange, without any [[stock broker|brokerage]] interference with your orders. The special people refer to [[market makers]] or specialists who trade with you directly on the floor of an exchange.

The firm who supplies this service is direct-access brokerage firms. The trading using direct access technology is called [[direct access trading]]. This trading style is primarily for [[daytraders]] or [[scalpers]] who value speed of execution and minimize [[slippage]]. [[Direct access trading]] is not necessary for people like [[investors]] who does not mind to lose a few dollars on [[slippage]]. See [[direct access trading]] for details.

==Motorcycle==
In motorcycle training in the [[United Kingdom]]:
* The Direct Access Scheme allows a person over the age of 21 to avoid the two year/25 kW restriction by taking the practical test on a machine of at least 35 kW (46.6 bhp); you may ride any size of bike if you pass this test. Before taking the practical test you must have successfully completed Compulsory Basic Training (CBT), the Motorcycle Theory Test and have the correct provisional entitlement - allowing you to ride a motorcycle as a learner - on your driving license.

{{Disambig}}

[[Category:Disambiguation]]
[[Category:Computer data]]
[[Category:finance]]
[[Category:Financial services]]
[[Category:stock market]]
[[Category:Sports]]

Foreign exchange market

2006-08-23T20:35:07Z

Wai Wai: /* Trading characteristics */ ref

{{Foreign Exchange}}

The '''foreign exchange''' ('''currency''' or '''forex''' or '''FX''') '''market''' exists wherever one [[currency]] is traded for another. It is by far the largest market in the world, in terms of cash value traded, and includes trading between large banks, central banks, currency speculators, multinational corporations, governments, and other financial markets and institutions. Retail traders (small speculators) are a small part of this market. They may only participate indirectly through brokers or banks and may be targets of [[forex scams]].
==Market size and liquidity==
The foreign exchange market is unique because of:
:*its trading volume,
:*the extreme [[liquidity]] of the market,
:*the large number of, and variety of, traders in the market,
:*its geographical dispersion,
:*its long trading hours - 24 hours a day (except on weekends).
:*the variety of factors that affect [[exchange rate]]s,

Average daily international foreign exchange trading volume was $1.9 trillion in April 2004 according to the [[Bank for International Settlements|BIS]] study [http://www.bis.org/publ/rpfx05.htm Triennial Central Bank Survey 2004]
*$600 billion spot
*$1,300 billion in [[derivative security|derivatives]], ie
**$200 billion in [[forward contract|outright forwards]]
**$1,000 billion in [[forex swap]]s
**$100 billion in [[FX option]]s.

{| border="1" align="right" style="text-align:center;"
|+ '''Top 10 Currency Traders'''
|+ % of overall volume, May 2005
| Rank || Name || % of volume
|-
| 1 || [[Deutsche Bank]] || 17.0
|-
| 2 || [[UBS]] || 12.5
|-
| 3 || [[Citigroup]] || 7.5
|-
| 4 || [[HSBC]] || 6.4
|-
| 5 || [[Barclays plc|Barclays]] || 5.9
|-
| 6 || [[Merrill Lynch]] || 5.7
|-
| 7 || [[J.P. Morgan Chase]] || 5.3
|-
| 8 || [[Goldman Sachs]] || 4.4
|-
| 9 || [[ABN AMRO]] || 4.2
|-
| 10 || [[Morgan Stanley]] || 3.9
|}

Exchange-traded forex [[futures contracts]] were introduced in 1972 at the [[Chicago Mercantile Exchange]] and are actively traded relative to most other futures contracts. Forex futures volume has grown rapidly in recent years, but only accounts for about 7% of the total foreign exchange market volume, according to The [[Wall Street Journal| Wall Street Journal Europe]] (5/5/06, p. 20).

The ten most active traders account for almost 73% of trading volume, according to The[[Wall Street Journal| Wall Street Journal Europe]], (2/9/06 p. 20). These large international banks continually provide the market with both bid (buy) and ask (sell) prices. The [[bid/ask spread]] is the difference between the price at which a bank or [[market maker]] will sell ("ask", or "offer") and the price at which a market-maker will buy ("bid") from a wholesale customer. This spread is minimal for actively traded pairs of currencies, usually only 1-3 [[pip]]s. For example, the bid/ask quote of EUR/USD might be 1.2200/1.2203. Minimum trading size for most deals is usually $1,000,000.

These spreads might not apply to retail customers at banks, which will routinely mark up the difference to say 1.2100 / 1.2300 for transfers, or say 1.2000 / 1.2400 for banknotes or travelers' cheques. Spot prices at market makers vary, but on EUR/USD are usually no more than 5 pips wide (i.e. 0.0005). Competition has greatly increased with pip spreads shrinking on the majors to as little as 1 to 1.5 pips.

==Trading characteristics==
There is no single unified foreign exchange market. Due to the [[over-the-counter]] (OTC) nature of currency markets, there are rather a number of interconnected marketplaces, where different currency [[Financial instrument|instruments]] are traded. This implies that there is no such thing as ''a single'' dollar rate - but rather a number of different rates (prices), depending on what bank or market maker is trading. In practice the rates are often very close, otherwise they could be exploited by [[arbitrage| arbitrageurs]].

{| border="1" align="right" style="text-align:center;"
|+ '''Top 6 Most Traded Currencies'''
| Rank || Currency || [[ISO 4217]] Code || Symbol
|-
| 1 || [[United States dollar]] || USD || $
|-
| 2 || [[Eurozone]] [[euro]] || EUR || €
|-
| 3 || Japanese [[yen]] || JPY || ¥
|-
| 4 || British [[pound sterling]] || GBP || £
|-
| 5-6 || [[Swiss franc]] || CHF || -
|-
| 5-6 || [[Australian dollar]] || AUD || $
|}

The main trading centers are in London, New York, and Tokyo, but banks throughout the world participate. As the Asian trading session ends, the European session begins, then the US session, and then the Asian begin in their turns. Traders can react to news when it breaks, rather than waiting for the market to open.

There is little or no '[[Insider trading|inside information]]' in the foreign exchange markets. Exchange rate fluctuations are usually caused by actual monetary flows as well as by expectations of changes in monetary flows caused by changes in GDP growth, inflation, interest rates, budget and trade deficits or surpluses, and other macroeconomic conditions. Major news is released publicly, often on scheduled dates, so many people have access to the same news at the same time. However, the large banks have an important advantage; they can see their customers' order flow. Trading legend [[Richard Dennis]] has accused central bankers of leaking information to [[hedge funds]]. <ref>http://www.traders.com/Documentation/FEEDbk_docs/Archive/042005/Abstracts_new/Interview/interview.html</ref>

Currencies are traded against one another. Each pair of currencies thus constitutes an individual product and is traditionally noted XXX/YYY, where YYY is the [[ISO 4217|ISO 4217 international three-letter code]] of the currency into which the price of one unit of XXX currency is expressed. For instance, EUR/USD is the price of the [[euro]] expressed in [[US dollar]]s, as in 1 euro = 1.2045 dollar.

On the [[spot]] market, according to the BIS study, the most heavily traded products were:
* EUR/USD - 28 %
* USD/JPY - 18 %
* GBP/USD (also called ''cable'') - 14 %
and the US currency was involved in 89% of transactions, followed by the euro (37%), the yen (20%) and sterling (17%). (Note that volume percentages should add up to 200% - 100% for all the sellers, and 100% for all the buyers).

Although trading in the euro has grown considerably since the currency's creation in January [[1999]], the foreign exchange market is thus still largely dollar-centered. For instance, trading the euro versus a non-European currency ZZZ will usually involve two trades: EUR/USD and USD/ZZZ. The only exception to this is EUR/JPY, which is an established traded currency pair in the interbank spot market.

==Market participants==
According to the [[Bank for International Settlements|BIS]] study [http://www.bis.org/publ/rpfx05.htm Triennial Central Bank Survey 2004]
*53% of transactions were strictly interdealer (ie interbank);
*33% involved a dealer (ie a bank) and a fund manager or some other non-bank financial institution;
*and only 14% were between a dealer and a non-financial company.

===Banks===

The interbank market caters for both the majority of commercial turnover and large amounts of speculative trading every day. A large bank may trade billions of dollars daily. Some of this trading is undertaken on behalf of customers, but much is conducted by proprietary desks, trading for the bank's own account.

Until recently, foreign exchange brokers did large amounts of business, facilitating interbank trading and matching anonymous counterparts for small fees. Today, however, much of this business has moved on to more efficient electronic systems, such as [[Electronic Broking Services|EBS]], [[Reuters]] Dealing 3000 Matching (D2), the [[Chicago Mercantile Exchange]], [[Bloomberg]] and TradeBook(R). The broker squawk box lets traders listen in on ongoing interbank trading and is heard in most trading rooms, but turnover is noticeably smaller than just a few years ago.

===Commercial companies===

An important part of this market comes from the financial activities of companies seeking foreign exchange to pay for goods or services. Commercial companies often trade fairly small amounts compared to those of banks or speculators, and their trades often have little short term impact on market rates. Nevertheless, trade flows are an important factor in the long-term direction of a currency's exchange rate. Some multinational companies can have an unpredictable impact when very large positions are covered due to exposures that are not widely known by other market participants.

===Central banks===

National central banks play an important role in the foreign exchange markets. They try to control the money supply, inflation, and/or interest rates and often have official or unofficial target rates for their currencies. They can use their often substantial foreign exchange reserves, to stabilize the market. [[Milton Friedman]] argued that the best stabilization strategy would be for central banks to buy when the exchange rate is too low, and to sell when the rate is too high - that is, to trade for a profit. Nevertheless, central banks do not go bankrupt if they make large losses, like other traders would, and there is no convincing evidence that they do make a profit trading.

The mere expectation or rumor of central bank intervention might be enough to stabilize a currency, but aggressive intervention might be used several times each year in countries with a [[managed float regime|dirty float]] currency regime. Central banks do not always achieve their objectives, however. The combined resources of the market can easily overwhelm any central bank. Several scenarios of this nature were seen in the 1992-93 ERM collapse, and in more recent times in South East Asia.

===Investment management firms ===
Investment Management firms (who typically manage large accounts on behalf of customers such as pension funds, endowments etc.) use the Foreign exchange market to facilitate transactions in foreign securities. For example, an investment manager with an international equity portfolio will need to buy and sell foreign currencies in the spot market in order to pay for purchases of foreign equities. Since the forex transactions are secondary to the actual investment decision, they are not seen as speculative or aimed at profit-maximisation.

Some investment management firms also have more speculative specialist [[Currency Overlay|currency overlay]] units, which manage clients' currency exposures with the aim of generating profits as well as limiting risk. Whilst the number of this type of specialist firms is quite small, many have a large value of assets under management (AUM), and hence can generate large trades.

===Hedge funds===

[[Hedge fund|Hedge funds]], such as [[George Soros]]'s Quantum fund have gained a reputation for aggressive currency speculation since 1990. They control billions of dollars of equity and may borrow billions more, and thus may overwhelm intervention by central banks to support almost any currency, if the economic fundamentals are in the hedge funds' favor.

===Retail forex brokers===

Retail forex brokers or [[market maker]]s handle a minute fraction of the total volume of the foreign exchange market. According to CNN, one retail broker estimates retail volume at $25-50 billion daily, [http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/10/news/international/bc.financial.currencies.retail.reut/]which is about 2% of the whole market. CNN also quotes an official of the National Futures Association "Retail forex trading has increased dramatically over the past few years. Unfortunately, the amount of [[forex scams|forex fraud]] has also increased dramatically."

All firms offering foreign exchange trading online are either market makers or facilitate the placing of trades with market makers.

In the retail forex industry market makers often have two separate trading desks- one that actually trades foreign exchange (which determines the firm's own net position in the market, serving as both a proprietary trading desk and a means of offsetting client trades on the interbank market) and one used for off-exchange trading with retail customers (called the "dealing desk" or "trading desk").

Many retail FX market makers claim to "offset" clients' trades on the interbank market (that is, with other larger market makers), e.g. after buying from the client, they sell to a bank. Nevertheless, the large majority of retail currency speculators are novices and who lose money [http://webreprints.djreprints.com/1276711190447.html], so that the market makers would be giving up large profits by offsetting. Offsetting does occur, but only when the market maker judges its clients' net position as being very risky.

The dealing desk operates much like the currency exchange counter at a bank. Interbank exchange rates, which are displayed at the dealing desk, are adjusted to incorporate spreads (so that the market maker will make a profit) before they are displayed to retail customers. Prices shown by the market maker do not necessarily reflect interbank market rates. Arbitrage opportunities may exist, but retail market makers are efficient at removing arbitrageurs from their systems or limiting their trades.

Most retail forex brokers do not offer their customers direct access to the interbank forex market because of the limited number of clearing banks willing to process small orders. More importantly, the dealing desk model can be far more profitable, as a large portion of retail traders' losses are directly turned into market maker profits. While the income of a marketmaker that offsets trades or a broker that facilitates transactions is limited to transaction fees (commissions), dealing desk brokers can generate income in a variety of ways because they not only control the trading process, they also control pricing which they can skew to maximize profits.

The rules of the game in trading FX are highly disadvantageous for retail speculators. Most retail speculators in FX lack trading experience and capital (account minimums at some firms are as low as 250-500 USD). Large minimum position sizes, which on most retail platforms ranges from $10,000 to $100,000, force small traders to take imprudently large positions using extremely high leverage. Professional forex traders rarely use more than 10:1 leverage, yet many retail forex firms allow client leverage of 100:1 or even 200:1, without disclosing that this is highly unusual for currency traders. This drastically increases the risk of a margin call (which, if the speculator's trade is not offset, is pure profit for the market maker).

According to the [[Wall Street Journal]] (''Currency Markets Draw Speculation, Fraud'' July 26, 2005) "Even people running the trading shops warn clients against trying to time the market. 'If 15% of day traders are profitable,' says Drew Niv, chief executive of [[FXCM]], 'I'd be surprised.' " [http://webreprints.djreprints.com/1276711190447.html]

In the US, "it is unlawful to offer foreign currency futures and option contracts to retail customers unless the offeror is a regulated financial entity" according to the [[Commodity Futures Trading Commission]] [http://www.cftc.gov/opa/press01/opaadv06-01.htm]. Legitimate retail brokers serving traders in the U.S. are most often registered with the [[CFTC]] as "futures commission merchants" (FCMs) and are members of the National Futures Association (NFA). Potential clients can check the broker's FCM status at [http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/ the NFA]. Retail forex brokers are much less regulated than [[stock broker]]s and there is no protection similar to that from the [[Securities Investor Protection Corporation]]. The CFTC has noted an increase in [[forex scams]] [http://www.cftc.gov/enf/enfforex.htm].

==Speculation==

Controversy about currency [[speculation|speculators]] and their effect on currency devaluations and national economies recurs regularly. Nevertheless, many economists (e.g. [[Milton Friedman]]) argue that speculators perform the important function of providing a market for [[hedge]]rs and transferring risk from those people who don't wish to bear it, to those who do. Other economists (e.g. [[Joseph Stiglitz]]) however, may consider this argument to be based more on politics and a free market philosophy than on economics.

Large [[hedge funds]] and other well capitalized "position traders" are the main professional speculators.

Currency speculation is considered a highly suspect activity in many countries. While investment in traditional financial instruments like bonds or stocks often is considered to contribute positively to economic growth by providing capital, currency speculation does not, according to this view. It is simply [[gambling]], that often interferes with economic policy. For example, in 1992, currency speculation forced the Central Bank of Sweden to raise interest rates for a few days to 150% per annum, and later to devalue the krona. Former Malaysian Prime Minister [[Mahathir Mohamad]] is one well known proponent of this view [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2059518.stm]. He blamed the devaluation of the Malaysian ringgit in 1997 on [[George Soros]] and other speculators.

Gregory Millman reports on an opposing view, comparing speculators to "vigilantes" who simply help "enforce" international agreements and anticipate the effects of basic economic "laws" in order to profit.

In this view, countries may develop unsustainable financial [[bubbles]] or otherwise mishandle their national economies, and forex speculators only made the inevitable collapse happen sooner. A relatively quick collapse might even be preferable to continued economic mishandling. Mahathir Mohamad and other critics of speculation are viewed as trying to deflect the blame from themselves for having caused the unsustainable economic conditions.

==Reference==
Gregory J. Millman, ''Around the World on a Trillion Dollars a Day,'' Bantam Press, New York, 1995.

==See also==
* [[Forex scams]]
* [[Bretton Woods system]]
* [[Balance of trade]]
* [[FXMarketSpace]]

==External links==

*[http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/fds/hi/business/market_data/currency/default.stm BBC cross rates]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/currencies/fxc.html Bloomberg]
*[http://www.cftc.gov/enf/enfforex.htm CFTC] fraud warning
*"[http://webreprints.djreprints.com/1276711190447.html Currency Markets Draw Speculation, Fraud] ", from [[The Wall Street Journal]], July 26, 2005
*[http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h10/update/ Federal Reserve daily update]
*[http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h10/hist Federal Reserve daily history since 2000]
*[http://app.ny.frb.org/education/addpub/usfxm/ Federal Reserve] educational material
*[http://www.ny.frb.org/markets/foreignex.html Foreign Exchange] related material from the [[Federal Reserve]]
*[http://fx.sauder.ubc.ca/etc/USDpages.pdf Foreign Currency Units per 1 U.S. Dollar, 1948 - 2004]
*[http://www.marketprices.ft.com/markets/currencies/ab Financial Times - currency market data]


{{Financial markets}}
[[category:foreign exchange market]]

[[de:FOREX]]
[[es:Forex]]
[[fr:Forex]]
[[id:Valuta asing]]
[[he:שוק המטבע העולמי]]
[[lt:FOREX]]
[[ja:外国為替市場]]
[[pl:Forex]]
[[pt:Forex]]
[[ru:Форекс (валютный рынок)]]
[[uk:Валютний ринок]]

Spyware

2006-08-20T19:53:09Z

Wai Wai: same as below

''"Antispyware" redirects here. For anti-spyware programs, see the section [[#Remedies and prevention|Remedies and prevention]].''
[[Image:Benedelman-spyware-blogspot-2a.png|right|300px|thumb|Malicious websites may attempt to install spyware on readers' computers. In this screenshot a [[spam blog|spamblog]] has triggered a pop-up that offers spyware in the guise of a security upgrade.]]

In the field of [[computing]], the term '''spyware''' refers to a broad category of [[malware|malicious software]] designed to intercept or take partial control of a [[computer]]'s operation without the [[informed consent]] of that machine's owner or legitimate user. While the term taken literally suggests software that surreptitiously monitors the user, it has come to refer more broadly to software that subverts the computer's operation for the benefit of a third party.

In simpler terms, spyware is a type of [[program]] that watches what users do with their computer and then sends that information over the [[internet]]. Spyware can collect many different types of information about a user. More benign programs can attempt to track what types of websites a user visits and send this information to an advertisement agency. More malicious versions can try to [[Keystroke logging|record what a user types]] to try to intercept passwords or credit card numbers. Yet other versions simply launch [[Pop-up ad|popup advertisements]].

==History and development==
The first recorded use of the term ''spyware'' occurred on [[October 17]], [[1994]] in a [[Usenet]] post that poked fun at [[Microsoft]]'s [[business model]]. ''Spyware'' later came to refer to [[espionage]] equipment such as tiny cameras. However, in early 2000 the founder of [[Zone Labs]], Gregor Freund, used the term in a [http://www.zonelabs.com/store/content/company/aboutUs/pressroom/pressReleases/2000/za2.jsp press release] for the [[ZoneAlarm|ZoneAlarm Personal Firewall]]. <ref name="wienbar">Wienbar, Sharon. "[http://news.com.com/2010-1032-5307831.html The Spyware Inferno]". ''News.com''. August 13, 2004.</ref> Since then, computer-users have used the term in its current sense.

In early 2000, [[Steve Gibson]] of [[Gibson Research]] realized that advertising software had been installed on his system, and he suspected that the software was stealing his personal information. After analyzing the software he determined that they were adware components from the companies Aureate (later Radiate) and Conducent. He eventually retracted his claim that the ad software collected information without the user's knowledge, but still chastised the ad companies for covertly installing the spyware and making it difficult to remove.

As a result of his analysis in 2000, Gibson released the first anti-spyware program, OptOut, and many more software-based antidotes have appeared since then. <ref name="wienbar" /> [[International Charter]] now offers software developers a Spyware-Free Certification program. <ref>"[http://www.icharter.org/certification/software/spyware_free/index.html Spyware Certification]". ''International Charter''. Retrieved July 10, 2005.</ref>

According to a November 2004 study by [[AOL]] and the [[National Cyber-Security Alliance]], 80% of surveyed users' computers had some form of spyware, with an average of 93 spyware components per computer. 89% of surveyed users with spyware reported that they did not know of its presence, and 95% reported that they had not given permission for the installation of the spyware. <ref name="aolstudy">"[http://www.staysafeonline.info/pdf/safety_study_v04.pdf AOL/NCSA Online Safety Study]". ''America Online'' & ''The National Cyber Security Alliance''. October 2004.</ref>

[[As of 2006]], spyware has become one of the preeminent security threats to computer-systems running [[Microsoft Windows]] [[operating system|operating-system]]s (and especially to users of [[Internet Explorer]] because of that browser's collaboration with the Windows operating system).{{fact}} Some malware on the [[Linux]] and [[Mac OS X]] platforms has behavior similar to Windows spyware,{{fact}} but to date has not become anywhere near as widespread. In an estimate based on customer sent scan logs, Webroot Software, makers of [[Spy Sweeper]], said that 9 out of 10 computers connected to the internet are infected and 86% of those surveyed suffered a monetary loss due to spyware.<ref>[http://www.webroot.com/resources/spywareinfo/ Spyware Info and Facts that All Internet Users Must Know]</ref>

==Comparison==

===Spyware, adware, and tracking===
The term ''[[adware]]'' frequently refers to any software which displays advertisements, whether or not it does so with the user's consent. Programs such as the [[Eudora (e-mail client)|Eudora]] mail client display advertisements as an alternative to [[shareware]] registration fees. These classify as "adware" in the sense of advertising-supported software, but not as spyware. Adware in this form does not operate surreptitiously or mislead the user, and provides the user with a specific service.

Many of the programs frequently classified as spyware function as ''adware'' in a different sense: their chief observed behaviour consists of displaying advertising. [[Claria Corporation]]'s Gator Software and [http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/exact-advertisers/ Exact Advertising's BargainBuddy] provide examples of this sort of program. Visited Web sites frequently install Gator on client machines in a surreptitious manner, and it directs revenue to the installing site and to Claria by displaying advertisements to the user. The user experiences a large number of [[pop-up advertisement]]s.

Other spyware behaviours, such as reporting on websites the user visits, frequently accompany the displaying of advertisements. Monitoring web activity aims at building up a marketing profile on users in order to sell "targeted" advertisement impressions. The prevalence of spyware has cast suspicion upon other programs that track Web browsing, even for statistical or research purposes. Some observers describe the [[Alexa Toolbar]], an [[Internet Explorer]] plug-in published by [[Amazon.com]], as spyware (and some anti-spyware programs report it as such) although many users choose to install it.

===Spyware, virus and worm===
Spyware differs from [[computer virus|viruses]] and [[computer worm|worms]] in that it does not usually self-replicate. Like [[e-mail spam#Using other people's computers|many recent viruses]], however, spyware — by design — exploits infected computers for commercial gain. Typical tactics furthering this goal include delivery of unsolicited pop-up advertisements; theft of personal information (including financial information such as [[credit card number]]s); monitoring of Web-browsing activity for [[marketing]] purposes; or routing of [[HTTP]] requests to advertising sites.

==Routes of infection==
Spyware does not directly spread in the manner of a computer virus or worm: generally, an infected system does not attempt to transmit the infection to other computers. Instead, spyware gets on a system through deception of the user or through exploitation of software vulnerabilities.

The most direct route by which spyware can infect a computer involves the user installing it. However, users tend not to install software if they know that it will disrupt their working environment and compromise their privacy. So many spyware programs deceive the users, either by [[piggybacking]] on a piece of desirable software such as [[Kazaa]], or by tricking the users to do something that installs the software without them realising. Recently, spyware has come to include [http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm "rogue anti-spyware"] programs, which masquerade as security software while actually doing damage.

Classically, a [[Trojan horse]], by definition, smuggles in something dangerous in the guise of something desirable. Some spyware programs get spread in just this manner. The distributor of spyware presents the program as a useful utility — for instance as a "Web accelerator" or as a helpful [[software agent]]. Users download and install the software without immediately suspecting that it could cause harm. For example, [[Bonzi Buddy]], a spyware program targeted at children, claims that:

:''He will explore the Internet with you as your very own friend and sidekick! He can talk, walk, joke, browse, search, e-mail, and download like no other friend you've ever had! He even has the ability to compare prices on the products you love and help you save money! Best of all, he's FREE!'' <ref>''Bonzi.com''. http://www.bonzi.com/bonzibuddy/bonzimail.asp. Retrieved July 10, 2005.</ref>

Spyware can also come bundled with [[shareware]] or other downloadable software, as well as music CDs. The user downloads a program (for instance, a music program or a file-trading utility) and installs it, and the installer additionally installs the spyware. Although the desirable software itself may do no harm, the bundled spyware does. In some cases, spyware authors have paid shareware authors to bundle spyware with their software. In other cases, spyware authors have repackaged desirable free software with installers that add spyware.

A third way of distributing spyware involves tricking users by manipulating security features designed to prevent unwanted installations. The [[Internet Explorer]] Web browser, by design, prevents websites from initiating an unwanted download. Instead, a user action (such as clicking on a link) must normally trigger a download. However, links can prove deceptive: for instance, a [[pop-up ad]] may appear like a standard Windows [[dialog box]]. The box contains a message such as "Would you like to optimise your Internet access?" with links which look like buttons reading ''Yes'' and ''No''. No matter which "button" the user presses, a download starts, placing the spyware on the user's system. Later versions of Internet Explorer offer fewer avenues for this attack.

Some spyware authors infect a system by attacking security holes in the Web browser or in other software. When the user navigates to a Web page controlled by the spyware author, the page contains code which attacks the browser and forces the download and installation of spyware. The spyware author would also have some extensive knowledge of commercially-available anti-virus and firewall software. This has become known as a "[[drive-by download]]", which leaves the user a hapless bystander to the attack. Common [[browser exploit]]s target security vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer and in the Microsoft [[Java programming language|Java]] runtime.

The installation of spyware frequently involves Microsoft's Internet Explorer. As the most popular Web browser, and with an unfortunate history of security issues, it has become the largest target. Its deep integration with the Windows environment and its scriptability make it an obvious point of attack into Microsoft Windows operating systems. Internet Explorer also serves as a point of attachment for spyware in the form of [[browser helper object]]s, which modify the browser's behaviour to add toolbars or to redirect traffic.

In a few cases, a [[Computer worm|worm]] or [[Computer Virus|virus]] has delivered a payload of spyware. For instance, some attackers used the [[Spybot worm|W32.Spybot.Worm worm]] to install spyware that popped up pornographic ads on the infected system's screen. <ref>"[http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.spybot.worm.html Security Response: W32.Spybot.Worm]". ''Symantec.com''. Retrieved July 10, 2005.</ref> By directing traffic to ads set up to channel funds to the spyware authors, they can profit even by such clearly illegal behaviour.

==Effects and behaviors==
{{unreferenced|section}}
[[Image:Spyware infestation.png|thumb|300px|Many Internet Explorer add-on toolbars monitor the user's activity. When installed and run without the user's consent, such add-ons count as spyware. Here multiple toolbars (including both spyware and innocuous ones) overwhelm an Internet Explorer session.]]

A piece of spyware rarely "lives" alone: an affected computer can rapidly become infected with large numbers of spyware components. Users frequently notice unwanted behavior and degradation of system performance. A spyware infestation can create significant unwanted CPU activity, disk usage, and network traffic which thereby slows down legitimate uses of these resources. Stability issues, such as application or system-wide crashes, are also common. Spyware which interferes with networking software commonly causes difficulty connecting to the Internet.

In some cases of spyware infection, the user has no awareness of spyware and assumes that the system performance, stability, and/or connectivity issues relate to hardware, to Microsoft Windows installation problems, or to a virus. Some owners of badly infected systems resort to contacting [[technical support]] experts, or even buying an entire new computer system because the existing system "has become too slow." Badly infected systems may require a clean reinstall of all their software in order to restore the system to working order. This can become a time-consuming task, even for experienced users.

Only rarely does a single piece of software render a computer unusable. Rather, a computer rarely has only one infection. As the 2004 AOL study noted, if a computer has any spyware at all, it typically has dozens of different pieces installed. The cumulative effect, and the interactions between spyware components, typically cause the stereotypical symptoms reported by users: a computer which slows to a crawl, overwhelmed by the many parasitic processes running on it. Moreover, some types of spyware disable software [[firewall (networking)|firewall]]s and anti-virus software, and/or reduce browser security settings, thus opening the system to further [[opportunistic infection]]s, much like an [[immune deficiency]] disease. Documented cases have also occurred where a spyware program disabled other spyware programs installed by its competitors.

Some other types of spyware (Targetsoft, for example) modify system files to make themselves harder to remove. (Targetsoft modifies the "[[Winsock]]" Windows Sockets files. The deletion of the spyware-infected file "inetadpt.dll" will interrupt normal networking usage.) Unlike users of many other operating systems, a typical Windows user has administrator privileges on the system, mostly for convenience. Because of this, any program which the user runs (intentionally or not) has unrestricted access to the system. Spyware, along with other threats, has led some Windows users to move to other platforms such as [[Linux]] or [[Apple Macintosh]], which such [[malware]] targets far less frequently.

===Advertisements===
Many spyware programs reveal themselves visibly by displaying advertisements. Some programs simply display [[pop-up ad]]s on a regular basis; for instance, one every several minutes, or one when the user opens a new browser window. Others display ads in response to specific sites that the user visits. Spyware operators present this feature as desirable to advertisers, who may buy ad placement in pop-ups displayed when the user visits a particular site. It is also one of the purposes for which spyware programs gather information on user behaviour. Hence, pop-up advertisements lead to some of users' most common complaints about spyware.

Many users complain about irritating or offensive advertisements as well. As with many [[Web banner|banner ads]], many spyware advertisements use animation or flickering banners which are visually distracting and annoying. Pop-up ads for [[pornography]] often display indiscriminately, including when children use the computer (possibly in violation of anti-pornography laws).

A further issue in the case of some spyware programs has to do with the replacement of banner ads on viewed web sites. Spyware that acts as a [[web proxy]] or a [[Browser Helper Object]] can replace references to a site's own advertisements (which fund the site) with advertisements that instead fund the spyware operator. This cuts into the margins of advertising-funded Web sites.

=== "Stealware" and affiliate fraud ===
A few spyware vendors, notably [[180 Solutions]], have written what the [[New York Times]] has dubbed "[[stealware]]", and what spyware-researcher Ben Edelman terms ''affiliate fraud'', also known as [[click fraud]]. These redirect the payment of affiliate marketing revenues from the legitimate affiliate to the spyware vendor.

[[Affiliate marketing]] networks work by tracking users who follow an advertisement from an "affiliate" and subsequently purchase something from the advertised Web site. [[Electronic commerce|Online merchants]] such as [[eBay]] and [[Dell, Inc.|Dell]] are among the larger companies which use affiliate marketing. In order for affiliate marketing to work, the affiliate places a tag such as a cookie or a session variable on the user's request, which the merchant associates with any purchases made. The affiliate then receives a small commission.

Spyware which attacks [[affiliate network]]s does so by placing the spyware operator's affiliate tag on the user's activity—replacing any other tag, if there is one. This harms just about everyone involved in the transaction other than the spyware operator. The user is harmed by having their choices thwarted. A legitimate affiliate is harmed by having their earned income redirected to the spyware operator. Affiliate marketing networks are harmed by the degradation of their reputation. Vendors are harmed by having to pay out affiliate revenues to an "affiliate" who did not earn them through a contractual agreement. <ref>[http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/180-affiliates/ The Effect of 180solutions on Affiliate Commissions and Merchants]</ref>

Affiliate fraud is a violation of the [[terms of service]] of most affiliate marketing networks. As a result, spyware operators such as 180 Solutions have been terminated from affiliate networks including LinkShare and ShareSale.

=== Identity theft and fraud ===
One case has closely associated spyware with [[identity theft]]. <ref>Ecker, Clint (2005). ''[http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050805-5175.html Massive spyware-based identity theft ring uncovered]''. August 5, 2005.</ref> In August 2005, researchers from security software firm Sunbelt Software believed that the makers of the common [[CoolWebSearch]] spyware had used it to transmit "chat sessions, user names, passwords, bank information, etc." <ref>[http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/massive-identity-theft-ring.html "Massive identity theft ring" at Sunbelt]</ref>, but it turned out that "it actually is its own sophisticated criminal little trojan that’s independent of CWS." <ref>[http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/identity-theft-what-to-do.html "Identity Theft? What to do?" at SunBelt]</ref> This case is currently under investigation by the [[FBI]].

Spyware has principally become associated with identity theft in that [[keyloggers]] are routinely packaged with spyware. John Bambenek, who researches information security, estimates that identity thieves have stolen over $24 billion US dollars of account information in the United States alone <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/27/technology/27hack.html (link to nytimes, but only subscribers can access)]</ref>.

Spyware-makers may perpetrate another sort of fraud with ''[[dialer]]'' program spyware: [[wire fraud]]. Dialers cause a computer with a [[modem]] to dial up a long-distance telephone number instead of the usual [[Internet service provider|ISP]]. Connecting to these suspicious numbers involves long-distance or overseas charges which invariably result in massive telephone bills that the user is liable for. Dialers are somewhat less effective today, now that fewer Internet users use dialup [[modem]]s.{{citeneeded}}

===Digital rights management===
Some copy-protection schemes, while they do serve the purpose of attempting to prevent piracy, also behave similarly to spyware programs. Some [[digital rights management]] technologies (such as [[Sony BMG Music Entertainment|Sony]]'s [[XCP]]) actually use trojan-horse tactics to verify a user as the rightful owner of the media in question.

[[Sony BMG Music Entertainment|Sony]] has been sued for using virus-like techneques to prevent users from copying its CDs. A [[Rootkit]] technique was used to embed Sony's software deep inside the [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]] operating system to make it hard to find by [[antispyware]] software and difficult to uninstall.

===Spyware and cookies===
Anti-spyware programs often report Web advertisers' [[HTTP cookie]]s as spyware. Web sites (including advertisers) set cookies — small pieces of data rather than software—to track Web-browsing activity: for instance to maintain a "shopping cart" for an online store or to maintain consistent user settings on a search engine.

Only the Web site that sets a cookie can access it. In the case of cookies associated with advertisements, the user generally does not intend to visit the Web site which sets the cookies, but gets redirected to a cookie-setting third-party site referenced by a [[banner ad]] image. Some Web browsers and privacy tools offer to reject cookies from sites other than the one that the user requested.

Advertisers use cookies to track people's browsing among various sites carrying ads from the same firm and thus to build up a marketing profile of the person or family using the computer. For this reason many users object to such cookies, and anti-spyware programs offer to remove them.

===Typical examples of spyware===
A few examples of common spyware programs may serve to illustrate the diversity of behaviors found in these attacks.

''Caveat:'' As with computer viruses, researchers give names to spyware programs which frequently do not relate to any names that the spyware-writers use. Researchers may group programs into "families" based not on shared program code, but on common behaviours, or by "following the money" of apparent financial or business connections. For instance, a number of the spyware programs distributed by [[Claria]] are collectively known as "Gator". Likewise, programs which are frequently installed together may be described as parts of the same spyware package, even if they function separately.


*'''[[CoolWebSearch]]''', a group of programs, installs through the exploitation of Internet Explorer vulnerabilities. The programs direct traffic to advertisements on Web sites including ''coolwebsearch.com''. To this end, they display pop-up ads, rewrite [[search engine]] results, and alter the infected computer's [[hosts file]] to direct [[Domain Name System|DNS]] lookups to these sites. <ref name="doxdb">"[http://www.doxdesk.com/parasite/database.html Parasite information database]". ''Doxdesk.com''. Retrieved July 10, 2005.</ref>

*'''[[Internet Optimizer]]''', also known as '''DyFuCa''', redirects Internet Explorer error pages to advertising. When users follow a broken link or enter an erroneous URL, they see a page of advertisements. However, because password-protected Web sites (HTTP Basic authentication) use the same mechanism as HTTP errors, Internet Optimizer makes it impossible for the user to access password-protected sites. <ref name="doxdb" />

*'''[[180 Solutions]]''' transmits extensive information to advertisers about the Web sites which users visit. It also alters HTTP requests for [[affiliate marketing|affiliate]] advertisements linked from a Web site, so that the advertisements make unearned profit for the 180 Solutions company. It opens pop-up ads that cover over the Web sites of competing companies. [http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/180-affiliates/]

*'''[[HuntBar]]''', aka '''WinTools''' or '''[http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/adware.websearch.html Adware.Websearch]''', is a small family of spyware programs distributed by [http://www.trafficsyndicate.com/ Traffic Syndicate]. <ref name="doxdb" /> It is installed by ActiveX drive-by download at affiliate Web sites, or by advertisements displayed by other spyware programs—an example of how spyware can install more spyware. These programs add toolbars to Internet Explorer, track Web browsing behavior, redirect affiliate references, and display advertisements.

==User consent and legality==
Gaining unauthorised access to a computer is illegal under [[computer crime]] laws in several global territories, such as the United States [[Computer Fraud and Abuse Act]]. Since the owners of computers infected with spyware generally claim that they never authorised the installation, a ''[[prima facie]]'' reading would suggest that the promulgation of spyware would count as a criminal act. Law enforcement has often pursued the authors of other malware programs, such as viruses. Nonetheless, few prosecutions of writers of spyware have occurred, and many such producers operate openly as aboveboard businesses. Some have, however, faced lawsuits.{{citeneeded}}

Spyware producers primarily argue in defense of the legality of their acts that, contrary to the users' claims, users do in fact give [[consent]] to the installation of their spyware. Spyware that comes bundled with shareware applications may appear, for instance, described in the [[legalese]] text of an [[end-user license agreement]] (EULA). Many users habitually ignore these purported contracts, but spyware companies such as Claria claim that these demonstrate that users have consented to the installation of their software.

Despite the ubiquity of EULAs and of [[clickwrap]] agreements, relatively little case law has resulted from their use. It has been established in most [[common law]] jurisdictions that a clickwrap agreements can be a binding contract ''in certain circumstances.'' This does not however mean that every clickwrap agreement is a [[contract]] or that every term in a clickwrap contract is enforceable. It seems highly likely that many of the purported contract terms presented in clickwrap agreements would be dismissed in most jurisdictions as being contrary to public policy. Many spyware clickwrap agreements appear intentionally ambiguous and excessive in length, with key contract terms made inconspicuous. These are all grounds on which similar agreements have been rejected as contracts of adhesion. In Australia, the proprietors of Sharman Newtorks, who own and operate the KaZaa P2P network were sued by the Australian Recording Industry Association for breaching copyright laws as a result of allowing illegal music to be shared and distributed through the KaZaa network. Sharman Networks claimed that the EULA stated that the program was not to be used for illegal activity, however the claim was dismissed on the grounds that the length and ambiguity of the agreement coupled with the fact that few users read it made the agreement inadmissable as a defence.

Nor can a contract possibly exist in the case of spyware installed by surreptitious means, such as in a drive-by download where the user receives no opportunity to either agree to or refuse the contract terms.

Some jurisdictions, including the U.S. states of [[Iowa]] [http://nxtsearch.legis.state.ia.us/NXT/gateway.dll/moved%20code/2005%20MERGED%20IOWA%20CODE%20AND%20SUPPLEMENT/1/26063/26064/26421?f=templates$fn=document-frame.htm$3.0$q=] and [[Washington]] [http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.270], have passed laws criminalizing some forms of spyware. Such laws make it illegal for anyone other than the owner or operator of a computer to install software that alters Web-browser settings, monitors keystrokes, or disables computer-security software.

[[New York]] [[Attorney General]] [[Eliot Spitzer]] has pursued spyware companies for fraudulent installation of software. <ref>"[http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2005/apr/apr28a_05.html State Sues Major "Spyware" Distributor]". ''Office of New York State Attorney General''. April 28, 2005.</ref> In a suit brought in 2005 by Spitzer, the California firm [[Intermix Media, Inc.]] ended up settling by agreeing to pay US$7.5 million and to stop distributing spyware. Intermix's spyware spread via drive-by download, and deliberately installed itself in ways that made it difficult to remove. <ref>Gormley, Michael. "[http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/cpress/20050615/ca_pr_on_tc/spitzer_spyware Intermix Media Inc. says it is settling spyware lawsuit with N.Y. attorney general]". ''[[Yahoo!]] News''. June 15, 2005.</ref>

Another spyware behaviour has attracted lawsuits: the replacement of Web advertisements. In June 2002, a number of large Web publishers sued [[Claria]] for replacing advertisements, but settled out of court. Other spyware apart from Claria's also replaces advertisements, thus diverting revenue from the ad-bearing Web site to the spyware author.

One legal issue not yet pursued involves whether courts can hold advertisers responsible for spyware which displays their ads. In many cases, the companies whose advertisements appear in spyware pop-ups do not directly do business with the spyware firm. Rather, the advertised company contracts with an [[advertising agency]], which in turn contracts with an online subcontractor who gets paid by the number of "impressions" or appearances of the advertisement. Some major firms such as [[Dell Computer]] and [[Mercedes-Benz]] have sacked advertising agencies which have run their ads in spyware. <ref>Gormley, Michael. "[http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8AU8LL81.htm?campaign_id=apn_tech_down Major advertisers caught in spyware net]". ''[[Business Week]]''. June 24, 2005.</ref>

Some spyware companies have threatened websites which have posted descriptions of their products. In 2003, Gator (now known as Claria) filed suit against the website [http://www.pcpitstop.com/ PC Pitstop] for describing the Gator program as "spyware". <ref>Festa, Paul. "[http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-5095051.html See you later, anti-Gators?]". ''News.com''. October 22, 2003.</ref> PC Pitstop settled, agreeing not to use the word "spyware", but continues to publish descriptions of the harmful behaviour of the Gator/Claria software. [http://www.pcpitstop.com/gator/default.asp]

==Remedies and prevention==
As the spyware threat has worsened, a number of techniques have emerged to counteract it. These include programs designed to remove or to block spyware, as well as various user practices which reduce the chance of getting spyware on a system.

Nonetheless, spyware remains a costly problem. When a large number of pieces of spyware have infected a Windows computer, the only remedy may involve backing up user data, and fully reinstalling the operating system.

===Anti-spyware programs===
[[Image:Ad-Aware_Personal.png|thumb|300px|right|Lavasoft's [[Ad-Aware]], one of a few reliable [[freeware]] anti-spyware programs, after scanning the hard drive of an infected Windows XP system.]]

Many programmers and some commercial firms have released products designed to remove or block spyware. Steve Gibson's ''OptOut'', mentioned above, pioneered a growing category. Programs such as Lavasoft's ''[[Ad-Aware SE]]'' and Patrick Kolla's ''[[Spybot - Search & Destroy]]'' rapidly gained popularity as effective tools to remove, and in some cases intercept, spyware programs. More recently [[Microsoft]] acquired the ''[[GIANT AntiSpyware]]'' software, rebadging it as ''Windows AntiSpyware beta'' and releasing it as a free download for [[Windows XP]], [[Windows 2000]], and [[Windows 2003]] users. In early spring, 2006, [[Microsoft]] renamed the beta software to [[Windows Defender]], currently "beta 2." The renamed software for now exists as a time-limited [[beta test]] product that will expire (beta 1 in July 2006, and beta 2 in December, 2006). Microsoft has also announced that the product will ship (for free) with [[Windows Vista]]. Other well-known anti-spyware products include Webroot [[Spy Sweeper]], [[Trend Micro]]'s Anti-Spyware, PC Tools' [[Spyware Doctor]], ParetoLogic's XoftSpy, iS3's STOPzilla and Sunbelt's CounterSpy (which uses a forked codebase from the GIANT Anti-Spyware product).

Major anti-virus firms such as [[Symantec]], [[McAfee]] and [[Sophos]] have come later to the table, adding anti-spyware features to their existing anti-virus products. Early on, anti-virus firms expressed reluctance to add anti-spyware functions, citing lawsuits brought by spyware authors against the authors of web sites and programs which described their products as "spyware". However, recent versions of these major firms' home and business anti-virus products do include anti-spyware functions, albeit treated differently from viruses. Symantec Anti-Virus, for instance, categorizes spyware programs as "extended threats" and now offers real-time protection from them (as it does for viruses).

[[Image:Alwaysupdate-adware-winspy.PNG|thumb|225px|Real-time protection blocks spyware in the process of installing itself. Here, Windows AntiSpyware blocks an instance of the AlwaysUpdateNews spyware.]]

Anti-spyware programs can combat spyware in two ways:
#''real-time protection'', which prevents the installation of spyware
# ''detection and removal'' of spyware.
Writers of anti-spyware programs usually find detection and removal simpler, and many more programs have become available which do so. Such programs inspect the contents of the Windows registry, the operating system files, and installed programs, and remove files and entries which match a list of known spyware components. Real-time protection from spyware works identically to real-time anti-virus protection: the software scans incoming network data and disk files at download time, and blocks the activity of components known to represent spyware. In some cases, it may also intercept attempts to install start-up items or to modify browser settings.

Earlier versions of anti-spyware programs focused chiefly on detection and removal. Javacool Software's [[SpywareBlaster]], one of the first to offer real-time protection, blocked the installation of [[ActiveX]]-based and other spyware programs. To date, other programs such as Ad-Aware and Windows AntiSpyware now combine the two approaches, while SpywareBlaster remains focused on prevention.

Like most anti-virus software, many anti-spyware/adware tools require a frequently-updated database of threats. As new spyware programs are released, anti-spyware developers discover and evaluate them, making "signatures" or "definitions" which allow the software to detect and remove the spyware. As a result, anti-spyware software is of limited usefulness without a regular source of updates. Some vendors provide a subscription-based update service, while others provide updates gratis. Updates may be installed automatically on a schedule or before doing a scan, or may be done manually. Not all programs rely on updated definitions. Some programs rely partly (for instance Windows Defender) or entirely ([http://www.winpatrol.com BillP's WinPatrol], and certainly others) on historical observation. They watch certain configuration parameters (such as the Windows registry or browser configuration) and report any change to the user, without judgment or recommendation. Their chief advantage is that they do not rely on updated definitions. Even with a subscription, a "critical mass" of other users have to have, and report a problem before the new definition is characterized and propagated. The disadvantage is that they can offer no guidance. The user is left to determine "what did I just do, and is this configuration change appropriate?"

If a spyware program is not blocked and manages to get itself installed, it may resist attempts to terminate or uninstall it. Some programs work in pairs: when an anti-spyware scanner (or the user) terminates one running process, the other one respawns the killed program. Likewise, some spyware will detect attempts to remove registry keys and immediately add them again. Usually, booting the infected computer in [[safe mode]] allows an anti-spyware program a better chance of removing persistent spyware.

===Fake anti-spyware programs===
Malicious programmers have released a large number of fake anti-spyware programs, and widely distributed Web [[banner ad]]s now spuriously warn users that their computers have been infected with spyware, directing them to purchase programs which do not actually remove spyware — or worse, may add more spyware of their own. <ref>Roberts, Paul F. "[http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1821127,00.asp Spyware-Removal Program Tagged as a Trap]". ''[[eWeek]]''. May 26, 2005.</ref> <ref>Howes, Eric L. "[http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm The Spyware Warrior List of Rogue/Suspect Anti-Spyware Products & Web Sites]". Retrieved July 10, 2005.</ref>

The [[as of 2005|recent]] proliferation of fake or spoofed antivirus products has occasioned some concern. Such products often bill themselves as antispyware, antivirus, or registry cleaners, and sometimes feature popups prompting users to install them. This is called [[Rogue software]].

Known offenders include:
* [[Malware Wipe]]
* [[Pest Trap]]
* [[SpyAxe]]
* [[AntiVirus Gold]]
* [[SpywareStrike]]
* [[SpyFalcon]]
* [[WorldAntiSpy]]
* [[WinFixer]]
* [[SpyTrooper]]
* [[Spysheriff|Spy Sheriff]]
* [[SpyBan]]
* [[SpyWiper]]
* [[PAL Spyware Remover]]
* [[Spyware Stormer]]
* [[PSGuard]]
* [[AlfaCleaner]]
For details, please see [http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm "Rogue/Suspect Anti-Spyware Products & Web Sites"]

On [[2006-01-26]], [[Microsoft]] and the Washington state attorney general filed suit against Secure Computer for its Spyware Cleaner product. <ref>[http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,124508,00.asp Antispyware Company Sued Under Spyware Law]</ref>

=== Virtual Machines ===
Using a [[virtual machine]] (such as a pre-built Browser Appliance for [[VMware]] Player) can inhibit infection by spyware, malware, and viruses. Virtual machines provide separate environments, so if spyware enters the virtual environment, the host computer remains unaffected. One can also use snapshots to remove one's private information, transporting the snapshot of the VM.

This environment resembles a [[sandbox (computer security)|sandbox]]. It has drawbacks in that it uses more memory (compared to a standalone browser) and it uses a lot of disk space.

===Security practices===
To deter spyware, computer users have found a number of techniques useful in addition to installing anti-spyware software.

Many system operators install a [[web browser]] other than Microsoft's Internet Explorer (IE), such as [[Opera (web browser)|Opera]] or [[Mozilla Firefox]]. Though such web browsers have also suffered from some security vulnerabilities, because most users that are likely to fall for spyware aren't using them, these browsers are not targeted as much as Internet Explorer. Not a single browser ranks as safe, because in the case of spyware the security comes with the person who uses the browser.

Some Internet Service Providers — particularly colleges and universities — have taken a different approach to blocking spyware: they use their network [[firewall (networking)|firewall]]s and [[Web proxy|web proxies]] to block access to Web sites known to install spyware. On [[March 31]], [[2005]], [[Cornell University]]'s Information Technology department released a report detailing the behavior of one particular piece of proxy-based spyware, ''Marketscore'', and the steps the university took to intercept it. <ref>Schuster, Steve. "[http://www.cit.cornell.edu/computer/security/marketscore/MarketScore_rev2.html Blocking Marketscore: Why Cornell Did It]". Cornell University, Office of Information Technologies. March 31, 2005.</ref> Many other educational institutions have taken similar steps against Marketscore and other spyware. Spyware programs which redirect network traffic cause greater technical-support problems than programs which merely display ads or monitor users' behavior, and so may attract institutional attention more readily.

Some users install a large [[hosts file]] which prevents the users computer from connecting to known spyware related web addresses. However, by connecting to the numeric IP address, rather than the domain name, spyware may bypass this sort of protection.

Spyware may get installed via certain [[shareware]] programs offered for download. Downloading programs only from reputable sources can provide some protection from this source of attack. Recently, [[CNet]] revamped its download directory: it has stated that it will only keep files that pass inspection by Ad-Aware and Spyware Doctor.

==Notable programs distributed with spyware==
*[[Messenger Plus!]] (only if you agree to install their "sponsor" program)
*[[Bonzi Buddy]] <ref>"[http://sarc.com/avcenter/venc/data/adware.bonzi.html Symantec Security Response - Adware.Bonzi]". ''Symantec''. Retrieved July 27, 2005.</ref>
*[[DivX]] (except for the paid version, and the "standard" version without the encoder). DivX announced removal of GAIN software from version 5.2. <ref>"[http://www.pcpitstop.com/gator/Confused.asp How Did I Get Gator?]". ''PC Pitstop''. Retrieved July 27, 2005.</ref>
*[[Dope Wars]] <ref>Edelman, Ben (2005). "[http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/installations/dopewars-claria/ Claria's Misleading Installation Methods - Dope Wars]". Retrieved July 27, 2005</ref>
*[[ErrorGuard]] <ref>"[http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/pest/pest.aspx?id=453094197 eTrust Spyware Encyclopedia - ErrorGuard]". ''Computer Associates''. Retrieved July 27, 2005.</ref>
*[[FlashGet]] (free version) <ref>"[http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/pest/pest.aspx?id=453077947 eTrust Spyware Encyclopedia - FlashGet]". ''Computer Associates''. Retrieved July 27, 2005</ref>
*[[Grokster]] <ref>Edelman, Ben (2004). "[http://www.benedelman.org/news/100904-1.html Grokster and Claria Take Licenses to New Lows, and Congress Lets Them Do It]". Retrieved July 27, 2005</ref>
*[[Kazaa]] <ref>Edelman, Ben (2004). "[http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/claria-license/ Claria License Agreement Is Fifty Six Pages Long]". Retrieved July 27, 2005.</ref>
*[[Morpheus (computer program)|Morpheus]] <ref name="p2p">Edelman, Ben (2005). "[http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/p2p/ Comparison of Unwanted Software Installed by P2P Programs]". Retrieved July 27, 2005.</ref>
*[[RadLight]] <ref>"[http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/pest/pest.aspx?id=54732 eTrust Spyware Encyclopedia - Radlight 3 PRO]". ''Computer Associates''. Retrieved July 27, 2005</ref>
*[[WeatherBug]] <ref>"[http://www.doxdesk.com/parasite/WeatherBug.html doxdesk.com: database: WeatherBug]". ''Doxdesk.com''. Retrieved July 27, 2005.</ref>
*[[EDonkey2000]] <ref name="p2p" />

[[Sony]]'s [[Extended Copy Protection]] involved the installation of spyware from audio [[compact disc]]s through [[autorun]]. This practice sparked [[2005 Sony CD copy protection scandal|considerable controversy]] when it was discovered.

===Notable programs formerly distributed with spyware===
*[[AOL Instant Messenger]] <ref name="sunbelt-wild">"[http://research.sunbelt-software.com/threat_display.cfm?name=WildTangent&threatid=14225 WildTangent]". ''Sunbelt Software''. Retrieved July 27, 2005.</ref> (AOL Instant Messenger still packages Viewpoint Media Player)
*[[EDonkey2000]] <ref name="p2p" />
*[[LimeWire]] (all free Windows versions up to 3.9.3) <ref name="p2p" />
*[[WildTangent]] <ref name="sunbelt-wild" />

==See also==
*[[Antivirus software]]
*[[OpenAntivirus]]
*[[Computer virus]]
*[[Adware]]
*[[Computer worm|Worms]]
*[[Trojan horse (computing)|Trojan horse]]
*[[Computer insecurity]]
*[[malware]]
*[[virus hoax]]
*[[List of computer viruses]]
*[[List of computer virus hoaxes]]
*[[List of trojan horses]]
*[[Timeline of notable computer viruses and worms]]
*[[Turing completeness]]
*[[Black hat]]
*[[Security through obscurity]]
*[[Spam (electronic)|Spam]]
*[[Melissa (computer worm)|Melissa worm]], [[ILOVEYOU]]
*[[Cryptovirology]]
*[[:Category:Spyware removal]] — Programs that find and remove spyware
*[[Palm OS Viruses]]
*[[Anonymous web browsing]]
*[[Computer security audit]]
*[[Exploit (computer science)|Exploit]]
*[[Keystroke logging]]
*[[Stopping e-mail abuse]]
*[[Phone Home]]
*[[Hosts file]]
*[[Comparison of P2P applications]]

==Notes and references==
<div class="references-small">
<references/>
</div>

==External links==

===Guide===
* [http://guides.radified.com/magoo/guides/spyware/remove_spyware_01.htm Magoo's Guide to Eliminating Spyware] - Information on how to get rid of spyware and keep it from returning
* [http://spywarewarrior.com/asw-features.htm The Spyware Warrior Guide to Anti-Spyware Programs] at Spyware Warrior
* [http://www.firewallguide.com/spyware.htm Anti-spyware Guides] - a page listing a lot of spyware guides

===Removal===
* [http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/forum55.html Spyware & Malware Removal Self-Help Guides] - Self-help guides on preventing and removing different types of Spyware and Malware
* [http://members.ispwest.com/polygons/spyware.shtml Spyware Removal Guide] - A quick and easy guide to removing spyware using free tools such as HiJackThis

===Prevention===
* [http://www.pcreview.co.uk/articles/Windows/Protection_against_Adware_and_Spyware/ Protection against Adware and Spyware] - Beginners guide to preventing the installation of spyware
* [http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Spyware-Evolving.html How Spyware And The Weapons Against It Are Evolving] - Article discussing causes and possible remedies of the spyware problem

===Testing and comparison===
* [http://www.malware-test.com/test_reports.html Malware Test] - non-profit website publishing detailed anti-spyware tests and reports periodically
* [http://www.consumersearch.com/www/software/anti-spyware-reviews/reviews.html Consumer Search] - a third-party ratings and comments on different reviews in other websites, in which the ratings are based on credibility in testing, evaluating and identifying the best Anti-Spyware

===Spyware list===
* [http://kppfree.altervista.org/spylist.html The Spyware Infested Filesharing Programs List] - Daily updated list about spyware infested p2p programs

===Organization===
* [http://www.antispywarecoalition.org/ Anti-Spyware Coalition] - A group developing formal definitions and [[best practice|best-practice]]s
* [http://www.stopbadware.org/ StopBadware.org] - A non-profit group (sponsored by Google, Lenovo, and Sun) that aims to provide "reliable, objective information about downloadable applications"

{{featured article}}

[[Category:Computer network security]]
[[Category:Malware]]
[[Category:Internet advertising and promotion]]
[[Category:Spyware|*]]

[[bs:Spyware]]
[[ca:Programari espia]]
[[da:Spyware]]
[[de:Spyware]]
[[es:Programa espía]]
[[fa:جاسوس‌افزار]]
[[fr:Logiciel espion]]
[[ko:스파이웨어]]
[[it:Spyware]]
[[he:רוגלה]]
[[ku:Spyware]]
[[nl:Spyware]]
[[ja:スパイウェア]]
[[no:Spionprogramvare]]
[[pl:Spyware]]
[[pt:Spyware]]
[[ru:Spyware]]
[[sk:Spyware]]
[[fi:Vakoiluohjelma]]
[[sv:Spionprogram]]
[[vi:Phần mềm gián điệp]]
[[zh:間諜軟體]]

Spyware

2006-08-20T19:52:27Z

Wai Wai: put links & notes into ref section

''"Antispyware" redirects here. For anti-spyware programs, see the section [[#Remedies and prevention|Remedies and prevention]].''
[[Image:Benedelman-spyware-blogspot-2a.png|right|300px|thumb|Malicious websites may attempt to install spyware on readers' computers. In this screenshot a [[spam blog|spamblog]] has triggered a pop-up that offers spyware in the guise of a security upgrade.]]

In the field of [[computing]], the term '''spyware''' refers to a broad category of [[malware|malicious software]] designed to intercept or take partial control of a [[computer]]'s operation without the [[informed consent]] of that machine's owner or legitimate user. While the term taken literally suggests software that surreptitiously monitors the user, it has come to refer more broadly to software that subverts the computer's operation for the benefit of a third party.

In simpler terms, spyware is a type of [[program]] that watches what users do with their computer and then sends that information over the [[internet]]. Spyware can collect many different types of information about a user. More benign programs can attempt to track what types of websites a user visits and send this information to an advertisement agency. More malicious versions can try to [[Keystroke logging|record what a user types]] to try to intercept passwords or credit card numbers. Yet other versions simply launch [[Pop-up ad|popup advertisements]].

==History and development==
The first recorded use of the term ''spyware'' occurred on [[October 17]], [[1994]] in a [[Usenet]] post that poked fun at [[Microsoft]]'s [[business model]]. ''Spyware'' later came to refer to [[espionage]] equipment such as tiny cameras. However, in early 2000 the founder of [[Zone Labs]], Gregor Freund, used the term in a [http://www.zonelabs.com/store/content/company/aboutUs/pressroom/pressReleases/2000/za2.jsp press release] for the [[ZoneAlarm|ZoneAlarm Personal Firewall]]. <ref name="wienbar">Wienbar, Sharon. "[http://news.com.com/2010-1032-5307831.html The Spyware Inferno]". ''News.com''. August 13, 2004.</ref> Since then, computer-users have used the term in its current sense.

In early 2000, [[Steve Gibson]] of [[Gibson Research]] realized that advertising software had been installed on his system, and he suspected that the software was stealing his personal information. After analyzing the software he determined that they were adware components from the companies Aureate (later Radiate) and Conducent. He eventually retracted his claim that the ad software collected information without the user's knowledge, but still chastised the ad companies for covertly installing the spyware and making it difficult to remove.

As a result of his analysis in 2000, Gibson released the first anti-spyware program, OptOut, and many more software-based antidotes have appeared since then. <ref name="wienbar" /> [[International Charter]] now offers software developers a Spyware-Free Certification program. <ref>"[http://www.icharter.org/certification/software/spyware_free/index.html Spyware Certification]". ''International Charter''. Retrieved July 10, 2005.</ref>

According to a November 2004 study by [[AOL]] and the [[National Cyber-Security Alliance]], 80% of surveyed users' computers had some form of spyware, with an average of 93 spyware components per computer. 89% of surveyed users with spyware reported that they did not know of its presence, and 95% reported that they had not given permission for the installation of the spyware. <ref name="aolstudy">"[http://www.staysafeonline.info/pdf/safety_study_v04.pdf AOL/NCSA Online Safety Study]". ''America Online'' & ''The National Cyber Security Alliance''. October 2004.</ref>

[[As of 2006]], spyware has become one of the preeminent security threats to computer-systems running [[Microsoft Windows]] [[operating system|operating-system]]s (and especially to users of [[Internet Explorer]] because of that browser's collaboration with the Windows operating system).{{fact}} Some malware on the [[Linux]] and [[Mac OS X]] platforms has behavior similar to Windows spyware,{{fact}} but to date has not become anywhere near as widespread. In an estimate based on customer sent scan logs, Webroot Software, makers of [[Spy Sweeper]], said that 9 out of 10 computers connected to the internet are infected and 86% of those surveyed suffered a monetary loss due to spyware.<ref>[http://www.webroot.com/resources/spywareinfo/ Spyware Info and Facts that All Internet Users Must Know]</ref>

==Comparison==

===Spyware, adware, and tracking===
The term ''[[adware]]'' frequently refers to any software which displays advertisements, whether or not it does so with the user's consent. Programs such as the [[Eudora (e-mail client)|Eudora]] mail client display advertisements as an alternative to [[shareware]] registration fees. These classify as "adware" in the sense of advertising-supported software, but not as spyware. Adware in this form does not operate surreptitiously or mislead the user, and provides the user with a specific service.

Many of the programs frequently classified as spyware function as ''adware'' in a different sense: their chief observed behaviour consists of displaying advertising. [[Claria Corporation]]'s Gator Software and [http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/exact-advertisers/ Exact Advertising's BargainBuddy] provide examples of this sort of program. Visited Web sites frequently install Gator on client machines in a surreptitious manner, and it directs revenue to the installing site and to Claria by displaying advertisements to the user. The user experiences a large number of [[pop-up advertisement]]s.

Other spyware behaviours, such as reporting on websites the user visits, frequently accompany the displaying of advertisements. Monitoring web activity aims at building up a marketing profile on users in order to sell "targeted" advertisement impressions. The prevalence of spyware has cast suspicion upon other programs that track Web browsing, even for statistical or research purposes. Some observers describe the [[Alexa Toolbar]], an [[Internet Explorer]] plug-in published by [[Amazon.com]], as spyware (and some anti-spyware programs report it as such) although many users choose to install it.

===Spyware, virus and worm===
Spyware differs from [[computer virus|viruses]] and [[computer worm|worms]] in that it does not usually self-replicate. Like [[e-mail spam#Using other people's computers|many recent viruses]], however, spyware — by design — exploits infected computers for commercial gain. Typical tactics furthering this goal include delivery of unsolicited pop-up advertisements; theft of personal information (including financial information such as [[credit card number]]s); monitoring of Web-browsing activity for [[marketing]] purposes; or routing of [[HTTP]] requests to advertising sites.

==Routes of infection==
Spyware does not directly spread in the manner of a computer virus or worm: generally, an infected system does not attempt to transmit the infection to other computers. Instead, spyware gets on a system through deception of the user or through exploitation of software vulnerabilities.

The most direct route by which spyware can infect a computer involves the user installing it. However, users tend not to install software if they know that it will disrupt their working environment and compromise their privacy. So many spyware programs deceive the users, either by [[piggybacking]] on a piece of desirable software such as [[Kazaa]], or by tricking the users to do something that installs the software without them realising. Recently, spyware has come to include [http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm "rogue anti-spyware"] programs, which masquerade as security software while actually doing damage.

Classically, a [[Trojan horse]], by definition, smuggles in something dangerous in the guise of something desirable. Some spyware programs get spread in just this manner. The distributor of spyware presents the program as a useful utility — for instance as a "Web accelerator" or as a helpful [[software agent]]. Users download and install the software without immediately suspecting that it could cause harm. For example, [[Bonzi Buddy]], a spyware program targeted at children, claims that:

:''He will explore the Internet with you as your very own friend and sidekick! He can talk, walk, joke, browse, search, e-mail, and download like no other friend you've ever had! He even has the ability to compare prices on the products you love and help you save money! Best of all, he's FREE!'' <ref>''Bonzi.com''. http://www.bonzi.com/bonzibuddy/bonzimail.asp. Retrieved July 10, 2005.</ref>

Spyware can also come bundled with [[shareware]] or other downloadable software, as well as music CDs. The user downloads a program (for instance, a music program or a file-trading utility) and installs it, and the installer additionally installs the spyware. Although the desirable software itself may do no harm, the bundled spyware does. In some cases, spyware authors have paid shareware authors to bundle spyware with their software. In other cases, spyware authors have repackaged desirable free software with installers that add spyware.

A third way of distributing spyware involves tricking users by manipulating security features designed to prevent unwanted installations. The [[Internet Explorer]] Web browser, by design, prevents websites from initiating an unwanted download. Instead, a user action (such as clicking on a link) must normally trigger a download. However, links can prove deceptive: for instance, a [[pop-up ad]] may appear like a standard Windows [[dialog box]]. The box contains a message such as "Would you like to optimise your Internet access?" with links which look like buttons reading ''Yes'' and ''No''. No matter which "button" the user presses, a download starts, placing the spyware on the user's system. Later versions of Internet Explorer offer fewer avenues for this attack.

Some spyware authors infect a system by attacking security holes in the Web browser or in other software. When the user navigates to a Web page controlled by the spyware author, the page contains code which attacks the browser and forces the download and installation of spyware. The spyware author would also have some extensive knowledge of commercially-available anti-virus and firewall software. This has become known as a "[[drive-by download]]", which leaves the user a hapless bystander to the attack. Common [[browser exploit]]s target security vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer and in the Microsoft [[Java programming language|Java]] runtime.

The installation of spyware frequently involves Microsoft's Internet Explorer. As the most popular Web browser, and with an unfortunate history of security issues, it has become the largest target. Its deep integration with the Windows environment and its scriptability make it an obvious point of attack into Microsoft Windows operating systems. Internet Explorer also serves as a point of attachment for spyware in the form of [[browser helper object]]s, which modify the browser's behaviour to add toolbars or to redirect traffic.

In a few cases, a [[Computer worm|worm]] or [[Computer Virus|virus]] has delivered a payload of spyware. For instance, some attackers used the [[Spybot worm|W32.Spybot.Worm worm]] to install spyware that popped up pornographic ads on the infected system's screen. <ref>"[http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.spybot.worm.html Security Response: W32.Spybot.Worm]". ''Symantec.com''. Retrieved July 10, 2005.</ref> By directing traffic to ads set up to channel funds to the spyware authors, they can profit even by such clearly illegal behaviour.

==Effects and behaviors==
{{unreferenced|section}}
[[Image:Spyware infestation.png|thumb|300px|Many Internet Explorer add-on toolbars monitor the user's activity. When installed and run without the user's consent, such add-ons count as spyware. Here multiple toolbars (including both spyware and innocuous ones) overwhelm an Internet Explorer session.]]

A piece of spyware rarely "lives" alone: an affected computer can rapidly become infected with large numbers of spyware components. Users frequently notice unwanted behavior and degradation of system performance. A spyware infestation can create significant unwanted CPU activity, disk usage, and network traffic which thereby slows down legitimate uses of these resources. Stability issues, such as application or system-wide crashes, are also common. Spyware which interferes with networking software commonly causes difficulty connecting to the Internet.

In some cases of spyware infection, the user has no awareness of spyware and assumes that the system performance, stability, and/or connectivity issues relate to hardware, to Microsoft Windows installation problems, or to a virus. Some owners of badly infected systems resort to contacting [[technical support]] experts, or even buying an entire new computer system because the existing system "has become too slow." Badly infected systems may require a clean reinstall of all their software in order to restore the system to working order. This can become a time-consuming task, even for experienced users.

Only rarely does a single piece of software render a computer unusable. Rather, a computer rarely has only one infection. As the 2004 AOL study noted, if a computer has any spyware at all, it typically has dozens of different pieces installed. The cumulative effect, and the interactions between spyware components, typically cause the stereotypical symptoms reported by users: a computer which slows to a crawl, overwhelmed by the many parasitic processes running on it. Moreover, some types of spyware disable software [[firewall (networking)|firewall]]s and anti-virus software, and/or reduce browser security settings, thus opening the system to further [[opportunistic infection]]s, much like an [[immune deficiency]] disease. Documented cases have also occurred where a spyware program disabled other spyware programs installed by its competitors.

Some other types of spyware (Targetsoft, for example) modify system files to make themselves harder to remove. (Targetsoft modifies the "[[Winsock]]" Windows Sockets files. The deletion of the spyware-infected file "inetadpt.dll" will interrupt normal networking usage.) Unlike users of many other operating systems, a typical Windows user has administrator privileges on the system, mostly for convenience. Because of this, any program which the user runs (intentionally or not) has unrestricted access to the system. Spyware, along with other threats, has led some Windows users to move to other platforms such as [[Linux]] or [[Apple Macintosh]], which such [[malware]] targets far less frequently.

===Advertisements===
Many spyware programs reveal themselves visibly by displaying advertisements. Some programs simply display [[pop-up ad]]s on a regular basis; for instance, one every several minutes, or one when the user opens a new browser window. Others display ads in response to specific sites that the user visits. Spyware operators present this feature as desirable to advertisers, who may buy ad placement in pop-ups displayed when the user visits a particular site. It is also one of the purposes for which spyware programs gather information on user behaviour. Hence, pop-up advertisements lead to some of users' most common complaints about spyware.

Many users complain about irritating or offensive advertisements as well. As with many [[Web banner|banner ads]], many spyware advertisements use animation or flickering banners which are visually distracting and annoying. Pop-up ads for [[pornography]] often display indiscriminately, including when children use the computer (possibly in violation of anti-pornography laws).

A further issue in the case of some spyware programs has to do with the replacement of banner ads on viewed web sites. Spyware that acts as a [[web proxy]] or a [[Browser Helper Object]] can replace references to a site's own advertisements (which fund the site) with advertisements that instead fund the spyware operator. This cuts into the margins of advertising-funded Web sites.

=== "Stealware" and affiliate fraud ===
A few spyware vendors, notably [[180 Solutions]], have written what the [[New York Times]] has dubbed "[[stealware]]", and what spyware-researcher Ben Edelman terms ''affiliate fraud'', also known as [[click fraud]]. These redirect the payment of affiliate marketing revenues from the legitimate affiliate to the spyware vendor.

[[Affiliate marketing]] networks work by tracking users who follow an advertisement from an "affiliate" and subsequently purchase something from the advertised Web site. [[Electronic commerce|Online merchants]] such as [[eBay]] and [[Dell, Inc.|Dell]] are among the larger companies which use affiliate marketing. In order for affiliate marketing to work, the affiliate places a tag such as a cookie or a session variable on the user's request, which the merchant associates with any purchases made. The affiliate then receives a small commission.

Spyware which attacks [[affiliate network]]s does so by placing the spyware operator's affiliate tag on the user's activity—replacing any other tag, if there is one. This harms just about everyone involved in the transaction other than the spyware operator. The user is harmed by having their choices thwarted. A legitimate affiliate is harmed by having their earned income redirected to the spyware operator. Affiliate marketing networks are harmed by the degradation of their reputation. Vendors are harmed by having to pay out affiliate revenues to an "affiliate" who did not earn them through a contractual agreement. <ref>[http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/180-affiliates/]</ref>

Affiliate fraud is a violation of the [[terms of service]] of most affiliate marketing networks. As a result, spyware operators such as 180 Solutions have been terminated from affiliate networks including LinkShare and ShareSale.

=== Identity theft and fraud ===
One case has closely associated spyware with [[identity theft]]. <ref>Ecker, Clint (2005). ''[http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050805-5175.html Massive spyware-based identity theft ring uncovered]''. August 5, 2005.</ref> In August 2005, researchers from security software firm Sunbelt Software believed that the makers of the common [[CoolWebSearch]] spyware had used it to transmit "chat sessions, user names, passwords, bank information, etc." <ref>[http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/massive-identity-theft-ring.html "Massive identity theft ring" at Sunbelt]</ref>, but it turned out that "it actually is its own sophisticated criminal little trojan that’s independent of CWS." <ref>[http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/identity-theft-what-to-do.html "Identity Theft? What to do?" at SunBelt]</ref> This case is currently under investigation by the [[FBI]].

Spyware has principally become associated with identity theft in that [[keyloggers]] are routinely packaged with spyware. John Bambenek, who researches information security, estimates that identity thieves have stolen over $24 billion US dollars of account information in the United States alone <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/27/technology/27hack.html (link to nytimes, but only subscribers can access)]</ref>.

Spyware-makers may perpetrate another sort of fraud with ''[[dialer]]'' program spyware: [[wire fraud]]. Dialers cause a computer with a [[modem]] to dial up a long-distance telephone number instead of the usual [[Internet service provider|ISP]]. Connecting to these suspicious numbers involves long-distance or overseas charges which invariably result in massive telephone bills that the user is liable for. Dialers are somewhat less effective today, now that fewer Internet users use dialup [[modem]]s.{{citeneeded}}

===Digital rights management===
Some copy-protection schemes, while they do serve the purpose of attempting to prevent piracy, also behave similarly to spyware programs. Some [[digital rights management]] technologies (such as [[Sony BMG Music Entertainment|Sony]]'s [[XCP]]) actually use trojan-horse tactics to verify a user as the rightful owner of the media in question.

[[Sony BMG Music Entertainment|Sony]] has been sued for using virus-like techneques to prevent users from copying its CDs. A [[Rootkit]] technique was used to embed Sony's software deep inside the [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]] operating system to make it hard to find by [[antispyware]] software and difficult to uninstall.

===Spyware and cookies===
Anti-spyware programs often report Web advertisers' [[HTTP cookie]]s as spyware. Web sites (including advertisers) set cookies — small pieces of data rather than software—to track Web-browsing activity: for instance to maintain a "shopping cart" for an online store or to maintain consistent user settings on a search engine.

Only the Web site that sets a cookie can access it. In the case of cookies associated with advertisements, the user generally does not intend to visit the Web site which sets the cookies, but gets redirected to a cookie-setting third-party site referenced by a [[banner ad]] image. Some Web browsers and privacy tools offer to reject cookies from sites other than the one that the user requested.

Advertisers use cookies to track people's browsing among various sites carrying ads from the same firm and thus to build up a marketing profile of the person or family using the computer. For this reason many users object to such cookies, and anti-spyware programs offer to remove them.

===Typical examples of spyware===
A few examples of common spyware programs may serve to illustrate the diversity of behaviors found in these attacks.

''Caveat:'' As with computer viruses, researchers give names to spyware programs which frequently do not relate to any names that the spyware-writers use. Researchers may group programs into "families" based not on shared program code, but on common behaviours, or by "following the money" of apparent financial or business connections. For instance, a number of the spyware programs distributed by [[Claria]] are collectively known as "Gator". Likewise, programs which are frequently installed together may be described as parts of the same spyware package, even if they function separately.


*'''[[CoolWebSearch]]''', a group of programs, installs through the exploitation of Internet Explorer vulnerabilities. The programs direct traffic to advertisements on Web sites including ''coolwebsearch.com''. To this end, they display pop-up ads, rewrite [[search engine]] results, and alter the infected computer's [[hosts file]] to direct [[Domain Name System|DNS]] lookups to these sites. <ref name="doxdb">"[http://www.doxdesk.com/parasite/database.html Parasite information database]". ''Doxdesk.com''. Retrieved July 10, 2005.</ref>

*'''[[Internet Optimizer]]''', also known as '''DyFuCa''', redirects Internet Explorer error pages to advertising. When users follow a broken link or enter an erroneous URL, they see a page of advertisements. However, because password-protected Web sites (HTTP Basic authentication) use the same mechanism as HTTP errors, Internet Optimizer makes it impossible for the user to access password-protected sites. <ref name="doxdb" />

*'''[[180 Solutions]]''' transmits extensive information to advertisers about the Web sites which users visit. It also alters HTTP requests for [[affiliate marketing|affiliate]] advertisements linked from a Web site, so that the advertisements make unearned profit for the 180 Solutions company. It opens pop-up ads that cover over the Web sites of competing companies. [http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/180-affiliates/]

*'''[[HuntBar]]''', aka '''WinTools''' or '''[http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/adware.websearch.html Adware.Websearch]''', is a small family of spyware programs distributed by [http://www.trafficsyndicate.com/ Traffic Syndicate]. <ref name="doxdb" /> It is installed by ActiveX drive-by download at affiliate Web sites, or by advertisements displayed by other spyware programs—an example of how spyware can install more spyware. These programs add toolbars to Internet Explorer, track Web browsing behavior, redirect affiliate references, and display advertisements.

==User consent and legality==
Gaining unauthorised access to a computer is illegal under [[computer crime]] laws in several global territories, such as the United States [[Computer Fraud and Abuse Act]]. Since the owners of computers infected with spyware generally claim that they never authorised the installation, a ''[[prima facie]]'' reading would suggest that the promulgation of spyware would count as a criminal act. Law enforcement has often pursued the authors of other malware programs, such as viruses. Nonetheless, few prosecutions of writers of spyware have occurred, and many such producers operate openly as aboveboard businesses. Some have, however, faced lawsuits.{{citeneeded}}

Spyware producers primarily argue in defense of the legality of their acts that, contrary to the users' claims, users do in fact give [[consent]] to the installation of their spyware. Spyware that comes bundled with shareware applications may appear, for instance, described in the [[legalese]] text of an [[end-user license agreement]] (EULA). Many users habitually ignore these purported contracts, but spyware companies such as Claria claim that these demonstrate that users have consented to the installation of their software.

Despite the ubiquity of EULAs and of [[clickwrap]] agreements, relatively little case law has resulted from their use. It has been established in most [[common law]] jurisdictions that a clickwrap agreements can be a binding contract ''in certain circumstances.'' This does not however mean that every clickwrap agreement is a [[contract]] or that every term in a clickwrap contract is enforceable. It seems highly likely that many of the purported contract terms presented in clickwrap agreements would be dismissed in most jurisdictions as being contrary to public policy. Many spyware clickwrap agreements appear intentionally ambiguous and excessive in length, with key contract terms made inconspicuous. These are all grounds on which similar agreements have been rejected as contracts of adhesion. In Australia, the proprietors of Sharman Newtorks, who own and operate the KaZaa P2P network were sued by the Australian Recording Industry Association for breaching copyright laws as a result of allowing illegal music to be shared and distributed through the KaZaa network. Sharman Networks claimed that the EULA stated that the program was not to be used for illegal activity, however the claim was dismissed on the grounds that the length and ambiguity of the agreement coupled with the fact that few users read it made the agreement inadmissable as a defence.

Nor can a contract possibly exist in the case of spyware installed by surreptitious means, such as in a drive-by download where the user receives no opportunity to either agree to or refuse the contract terms.

Some jurisdictions, including the U.S. states of [[Iowa]] [http://nxtsearch.legis.state.ia.us/NXT/gateway.dll/moved%20code/2005%20MERGED%20IOWA%20CODE%20AND%20SUPPLEMENT/1/26063/26064/26421?f=templates$fn=document-frame.htm$3.0$q=] and [[Washington]] [http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.270], have passed laws criminalizing some forms of spyware. Such laws make it illegal for anyone other than the owner or operator of a computer to install software that alters Web-browser settings, monitors keystrokes, or disables computer-security software.

[[New York]] [[Attorney General]] [[Eliot Spitzer]] has pursued spyware companies for fraudulent installation of software. <ref>"[http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2005/apr/apr28a_05.html State Sues Major "Spyware" Distributor]". ''Office of New York State Attorney General''. April 28, 2005.</ref> In a suit brought in 2005 by Spitzer, the California firm [[Intermix Media, Inc.]] ended up settling by agreeing to pay US$7.5 million and to stop distributing spyware. Intermix's spyware spread via drive-by download, and deliberately installed itself in ways that made it difficult to remove. <ref>Gormley, Michael. "[http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/cpress/20050615/ca_pr_on_tc/spitzer_spyware Intermix Media Inc. says it is settling spyware lawsuit with N.Y. attorney general]". ''[[Yahoo!]] News''. June 15, 2005.</ref>

Another spyware behaviour has attracted lawsuits: the replacement of Web advertisements. In June 2002, a number of large Web publishers sued [[Claria]] for replacing advertisements, but settled out of court. Other spyware apart from Claria's also replaces advertisements, thus diverting revenue from the ad-bearing Web site to the spyware author.

One legal issue not yet pursued involves whether courts can hold advertisers responsible for spyware which displays their ads. In many cases, the companies whose advertisements appear in spyware pop-ups do not directly do business with the spyware firm. Rather, the advertised company contracts with an [[advertising agency]], which in turn contracts with an online subcontractor who gets paid by the number of "impressions" or appearances of the advertisement. Some major firms such as [[Dell Computer]] and [[Mercedes-Benz]] have sacked advertising agencies which have run their ads in spyware. <ref>Gormley, Michael. "[http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8AU8LL81.htm?campaign_id=apn_tech_down Major advertisers caught in spyware net]". ''[[Business Week]]''. June 24, 2005.</ref>

Some spyware companies have threatened websites which have posted descriptions of their products. In 2003, Gator (now known as Claria) filed suit against the website [http://www.pcpitstop.com/ PC Pitstop] for describing the Gator program as "spyware". <ref>Festa, Paul. "[http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-5095051.html See you later, anti-Gators?]". ''News.com''. October 22, 2003.</ref> PC Pitstop settled, agreeing not to use the word "spyware", but continues to publish descriptions of the harmful behaviour of the Gator/Claria software. [http://www.pcpitstop.com/gator/default.asp]

==Remedies and prevention==
As the spyware threat has worsened, a number of techniques have emerged to counteract it. These include programs designed to remove or to block spyware, as well as various user practices which reduce the chance of getting spyware on a system.

Nonetheless, spyware remains a costly problem. When a large number of pieces of spyware have infected a Windows computer, the only remedy may involve backing up user data, and fully reinstalling the operating system.

===Anti-spyware programs===
[[Image:Ad-Aware_Personal.png|thumb|300px|right|Lavasoft's [[Ad-Aware]], one of a few reliable [[freeware]] anti-spyware programs, after scanning the hard drive of an infected Windows XP system.]]

Many programmers and some commercial firms have released products designed to remove or block spyware. Steve Gibson's ''OptOut'', mentioned above, pioneered a growing category. Programs such as Lavasoft's ''[[Ad-Aware SE]]'' and Patrick Kolla's ''[[Spybot - Search & Destroy]]'' rapidly gained popularity as effective tools to remove, and in some cases intercept, spyware programs. More recently [[Microsoft]] acquired the ''[[GIANT AntiSpyware]]'' software, rebadging it as ''Windows AntiSpyware beta'' and releasing it as a free download for [[Windows XP]], [[Windows 2000]], and [[Windows 2003]] users. In early spring, 2006, [[Microsoft]] renamed the beta software to [[Windows Defender]], currently "beta 2." The renamed software for now exists as a time-limited [[beta test]] product that will expire (beta 1 in July 2006, and beta 2 in December, 2006). Microsoft has also announced that the product will ship (for free) with [[Windows Vista]]. Other well-known anti-spyware products include Webroot [[Spy Sweeper]], [[Trend Micro]]'s Anti-Spyware, PC Tools' [[Spyware Doctor]], ParetoLogic's XoftSpy, iS3's STOPzilla and Sunbelt's CounterSpy (which uses a forked codebase from the GIANT Anti-Spyware product).

Major anti-virus firms such as [[Symantec]], [[McAfee]] and [[Sophos]] have come later to the table, adding anti-spyware features to their existing anti-virus products. Early on, anti-virus firms expressed reluctance to add anti-spyware functions, citing lawsuits brought by spyware authors against the authors of web sites and programs which described their products as "spyware". However, recent versions of these major firms' home and business anti-virus products do include anti-spyware functions, albeit treated differently from viruses. Symantec Anti-Virus, for instance, categorizes spyware programs as "extended threats" and now offers real-time protection from them (as it does for viruses).

[[Image:Alwaysupdate-adware-winspy.PNG|thumb|225px|Real-time protection blocks spyware in the process of installing itself. Here, Windows AntiSpyware blocks an instance of the AlwaysUpdateNews spyware.]]

Anti-spyware programs can combat spyware in two ways:
#''real-time protection'', which prevents the installation of spyware
# ''detection and removal'' of spyware.
Writers of anti-spyware programs usually find detection and removal simpler, and many more programs have become available which do so. Such programs inspect the contents of the Windows registry, the operating system files, and installed programs, and remove files and entries which match a list of known spyware components. Real-time protection from spyware works identically to real-time anti-virus protection: the software scans incoming network data and disk files at download time, and blocks the activity of components known to represent spyware. In some cases, it may also intercept attempts to install start-up items or to modify browser settings.

Earlier versions of anti-spyware programs focused chiefly on detection and removal. Javacool Software's [[SpywareBlaster]], one of the first to offer real-time protection, blocked the installation of [[ActiveX]]-based and other spyware programs. To date, other programs such as Ad-Aware and Windows AntiSpyware now combine the two approaches, while SpywareBlaster remains focused on prevention.

Like most anti-virus software, many anti-spyware/adware tools require a frequently-updated database of threats. As new spyware programs are released, anti-spyware developers discover and evaluate them, making "signatures" or "definitions" which allow the software to detect and remove the spyware. As a result, anti-spyware software is of limited usefulness without a regular source of updates. Some vendors provide a subscription-based update service, while others provide updates gratis. Updates may be installed automatically on a schedule or before doing a scan, or may be done manually. Not all programs rely on updated definitions. Some programs rely partly (for instance Windows Defender) or entirely ([http://www.winpatrol.com BillP's WinPatrol], and certainly others) on historical observation. They watch certain configuration parameters (such as the Windows registry or browser configuration) and report any change to the user, without judgment or recommendation. Their chief advantage is that they do not rely on updated definitions. Even with a subscription, a "critical mass" of other users have to have, and report a problem before the new definition is characterized and propagated. The disadvantage is that they can offer no guidance. The user is left to determine "what did I just do, and is this configuration change appropriate?"

If a spyware program is not blocked and manages to get itself installed, it may resist attempts to terminate or uninstall it. Some programs work in pairs: when an anti-spyware scanner (or the user) terminates one running process, the other one respawns the killed program. Likewise, some spyware will detect attempts to remove registry keys and immediately add them again. Usually, booting the infected computer in [[safe mode]] allows an anti-spyware program a better chance of removing persistent spyware.

===Fake anti-spyware programs===
Malicious programmers have released a large number of fake anti-spyware programs, and widely distributed Web [[banner ad]]s now spuriously warn users that their computers have been infected with spyware, directing them to purchase programs which do not actually remove spyware — or worse, may add more spyware of their own. <ref>Roberts, Paul F. "[http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1821127,00.asp Spyware-Removal Program Tagged as a Trap]". ''[[eWeek]]''. May 26, 2005.</ref> <ref>Howes, Eric L. "[http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm The Spyware Warrior List of Rogue/Suspect Anti-Spyware Products & Web Sites]". Retrieved July 10, 2005.</ref>

The [[as of 2005|recent]] proliferation of fake or spoofed antivirus products has occasioned some concern. Such products often bill themselves as antispyware, antivirus, or registry cleaners, and sometimes feature popups prompting users to install them. This is called [[Rogue software]].

Known offenders include:
* [[Malware Wipe]]
* [[Pest Trap]]
* [[SpyAxe]]
* [[AntiVirus Gold]]
* [[SpywareStrike]]
* [[SpyFalcon]]
* [[WorldAntiSpy]]
* [[WinFixer]]
* [[SpyTrooper]]
* [[Spysheriff|Spy Sheriff]]
* [[SpyBan]]
* [[SpyWiper]]
* [[PAL Spyware Remover]]
* [[Spyware Stormer]]
* [[PSGuard]]
* [[AlfaCleaner]]
For details, please see [http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm "Rogue/Suspect Anti-Spyware Products & Web Sites"]

On [[2006-01-26]], [[Microsoft]] and the Washington state attorney general filed suit against Secure Computer for its Spyware Cleaner product. <ref>[http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,124508,00.asp Antispyware Company Sued Under Spyware Law]</ref>

=== Virtual Machines ===
Using a [[virtual machine]] (such as a pre-built Browser Appliance for [[VMware]] Player) can inhibit infection by spyware, malware, and viruses. Virtual machines provide separate environments, so if spyware enters the virtual environment, the host computer remains unaffected. One can also use snapshots to remove one's private information, transporting the snapshot of the VM.

This environment resembles a [[sandbox (computer security)|sandbox]]. It has drawbacks in that it uses more memory (compared to a standalone browser) and it uses a lot of disk space.

===Security practices===
To deter spyware, computer users have found a number of techniques useful in addition to installing anti-spyware software.

Many system operators install a [[web browser]] other than Microsoft's Internet Explorer (IE), such as [[Opera (web browser)|Opera]] or [[Mozilla Firefox]]. Though such web browsers have also suffered from some security vulnerabilities, because most users that are likely to fall for spyware aren't using them, these browsers are not targeted as much as Internet Explorer. Not a single browser ranks as safe, because in the case of spyware the security comes with the person who uses the browser.

Some Internet Service Providers — particularly colleges and universities — have taken a different approach to blocking spyware: they use their network [[firewall (networking)|firewall]]s and [[Web proxy|web proxies]] to block access to Web sites known to install spyware. On [[March 31]], [[2005]], [[Cornell University]]'s Information Technology department released a report detailing the behavior of one particular piece of proxy-based spyware, ''Marketscore'', and the steps the university took to intercept it. <ref>Schuster, Steve. "[http://www.cit.cornell.edu/computer/security/marketscore/MarketScore_rev2.html Blocking Marketscore: Why Cornell Did It]". Cornell University, Office of Information Technologies. March 31, 2005.</ref> Many other educational institutions have taken similar steps against Marketscore and other spyware. Spyware programs which redirect network traffic cause greater technical-support problems than programs which merely display ads or monitor users' behavior, and so may attract institutional attention more readily.

Some users install a large [[hosts file]] which prevents the users computer from connecting to known spyware related web addresses. However, by connecting to the numeric IP address, rather than the domain name, spyware may bypass this sort of protection.

Spyware may get installed via certain [[shareware]] programs offered for download. Downloading programs only from reputable sources can provide some protection from this source of attack. Recently, [[CNet]] revamped its download directory: it has stated that it will only keep files that pass inspection by Ad-Aware and Spyware Doctor.

==Notable programs distributed with spyware==
*[[Messenger Plus!]] (only if you agree to install their "sponsor" program)
*[[Bonzi Buddy]] <ref>"[http://sarc.com/avcenter/venc/data/adware.bonzi.html Symantec Security Response - Adware.Bonzi]". ''Symantec''. Retrieved July 27, 2005.</ref>
*[[DivX]] (except for the paid version, and the "standard" version without the encoder). DivX announced removal of GAIN software from version 5.2. <ref>"[http://www.pcpitstop.com/gator/Confused.asp How Did I Get Gator?]". ''PC Pitstop''. Retrieved July 27, 2005.</ref>
*[[Dope Wars]] <ref>Edelman, Ben (2005). "[http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/installations/dopewars-claria/ Claria's Misleading Installation Methods - Dope Wars]". Retrieved July 27, 2005</ref>
*[[ErrorGuard]] <ref>"[http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/pest/pest.aspx?id=453094197 eTrust Spyware Encyclopedia - ErrorGuard]". ''Computer Associates''. Retrieved July 27, 2005.</ref>
*[[FlashGet]] (free version) <ref>"[http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/pest/pest.aspx?id=453077947 eTrust Spyware Encyclopedia - FlashGet]". ''Computer Associates''. Retrieved July 27, 2005</ref>
*[[Grokster]] <ref>Edelman, Ben (2004). "[http://www.benedelman.org/news/100904-1.html Grokster and Claria Take Licenses to New Lows, and Congress Lets Them Do It]". Retrieved July 27, 2005</ref>
*[[Kazaa]] <ref>Edelman, Ben (2004). "[http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/claria-license/ Claria License Agreement Is Fifty Six Pages Long]". Retrieved July 27, 2005.</ref>
*[[Morpheus (computer program)|Morpheus]] <ref name="p2p">Edelman, Ben (2005). "[http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/p2p/ Comparison of Unwanted Software Installed by P2P Programs]". Retrieved July 27, 2005.</ref>
*[[RadLight]] <ref>"[http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/pest/pest.aspx?id=54732 eTrust Spyware Encyclopedia - Radlight 3 PRO]". ''Computer Associates''. Retrieved July 27, 2005</ref>
*[[WeatherBug]] <ref>"[http://www.doxdesk.com/parasite/WeatherBug.html doxdesk.com: database: WeatherBug]". ''Doxdesk.com''. Retrieved July 27, 2005.</ref>
*[[EDonkey2000]] <ref name="p2p" />

[[Sony]]'s [[Extended Copy Protection]] involved the installation of spyware from audio [[compact disc]]s through [[autorun]]. This practice sparked [[2005 Sony CD copy protection scandal|considerable controversy]] when it was discovered.

===Notable programs formerly distributed with spyware===
*[[AOL Instant Messenger]] <ref name="sunbelt-wild">"[http://research.sunbelt-software.com/threat_display.cfm?name=WildTangent&threatid=14225 WildTangent]". ''Sunbelt Software''. Retrieved July 27, 2005.</ref> (AOL Instant Messenger still packages Viewpoint Media Player)
*[[EDonkey2000]] <ref name="p2p" />
*[[LimeWire]] (all free Windows versions up to 3.9.3) <ref name="p2p" />
*[[WildTangent]] <ref name="sunbelt-wild" />

==See also==
*[[Antivirus software]]
*[[OpenAntivirus]]
*[[Computer virus]]
*[[Adware]]
*[[Computer worm|Worms]]
*[[Trojan horse (computing)|Trojan horse]]
*[[Computer insecurity]]
*[[malware]]
*[[virus hoax]]
*[[List of computer viruses]]
*[[List of computer virus hoaxes]]
*[[List of trojan horses]]
*[[Timeline of notable computer viruses and worms]]
*[[Turing completeness]]
*[[Black hat]]
*[[Security through obscurity]]
*[[Spam (electronic)|Spam]]
*[[Melissa (computer worm)|Melissa worm]], [[ILOVEYOU]]
*[[Cryptovirology]]
*[[:Category:Spyware removal]] — Programs that find and remove spyware
*[[Palm OS Viruses]]
*[[Anonymous web browsing]]
*[[Computer security audit]]
*[[Exploit (computer science)|Exploit]]
*[[Keystroke logging]]
*[[Stopping e-mail abuse]]
*[[Phone Home]]
*[[Hosts file]]
*[[Comparison of P2P applications]]

==Notes and references==
<div class="references-small">
<references/>
</div>

==External links==

===Guide===
* [http://guides.radified.com/magoo/guides/spyware/remove_spyware_01.htm Magoo's Guide to Eliminating Spyware] - Information on how to get rid of spyware and keep it from returning
* [http://spywarewarrior.com/asw-features.htm The Spyware Warrior Guide to Anti-Spyware Programs] at Spyware Warrior
* [http://www.firewallguide.com/spyware.htm Anti-spyware Guides] - a page listing a lot of spyware guides

===Removal===
* [http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/forum55.html Spyware & Malware Removal Self-Help Guides] - Self-help guides on preventing and removing different types of Spyware and Malware
* [http://members.ispwest.com/polygons/spyware.shtml Spyware Removal Guide] - A quick and easy guide to removing spyware using free tools such as HiJackThis

===Prevention===
* [http://www.pcreview.co.uk/articles/Windows/Protection_against_Adware_and_Spyware/ Protection against Adware and Spyware] - Beginners guide to preventing the installation of spyware
* [http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Spyware-Evolving.html How Spyware And The Weapons Against It Are Evolving] - Article discussing causes and possible remedies of the spyware problem

===Testing and comparison===
* [http://www.malware-test.com/test_reports.html Malware Test] - non-profit website publishing detailed anti-spyware tests and reports periodically
* [http://www.consumersearch.com/www/software/anti-spyware-reviews/reviews.html Consumer Search] - a third-party ratings and comments on different reviews in other websites, in which the ratings are based on credibility in testing, evaluating and identifying the best Anti-Spyware

===Spyware list===
* [http://kppfree.altervista.org/spylist.html The Spyware Infested Filesharing Programs List] - Daily updated list about spyware infested p2p programs

===Organization===
* [http://www.antispywarecoalition.org/ Anti-Spyware Coalition] - A group developing formal definitions and [[best practice|best-practice]]s
* [http://www.stopbadware.org/ StopBadware.org] - A non-profit group (sponsored by Google, Lenovo, and Sun) that aims to provide "reliable, objective information about downloadable applications"

{{featured article}}

[[Category:Computer network security]]
[[Category:Malware]]
[[Category:Internet advertising and promotion]]
[[Category:Spyware|*]]

[[bs:Spyware]]
[[ca:Programari espia]]
[[da:Spyware]]
[[de:Spyware]]
[[es:Programa espía]]
[[fa:جاسوس‌افزار]]
[[fr:Logiciel espion]]
[[ko:스파이웨어]]
[[it:Spyware]]
[[he:רוגלה]]
[[ku:Spyware]]
[[nl:Spyware]]
[[ja:スパイウェア]]
[[no:Spionprogramvare]]
[[pl:Spyware]]
[[pt:Spyware]]
[[ru:Spyware]]
[[sk:Spyware]]
[[fi:Vakoiluohjelma]]
[[sv:Spionprogram]]
[[vi:Phần mềm gián điệp]]
[[zh:間諜軟體]]

Spyware

2006-08-20T19:40:58Z

Wai Wai: cleanup links and reorganization

''"Antispyware" redirects here. For anti-spyware programs, see the section [[#Remedies and prevention|Remedies and prevention]].''
[[Image:Benedelman-spyware-blogspot-2a.png|right|300px|thumb|Malicious websites may attempt to install spyware on readers' computers. In this screenshot a [[spam blog|spamblog]] has triggered a pop-up that offers spyware in the guise of a security upgrade.]]

In the field of [[computing]], the term '''spyware''' refers to a broad category of [[malware|malicious software]] designed to intercept or take partial control of a [[computer]]'s operation without the [[informed consent]] of that machine's owner or legitimate user. While the term taken literally suggests software that surreptitiously monitors the user, it has come to refer more broadly to software that subverts the computer's operation for the benefit of a third party.

In simpler terms, spyware is a type of [[program]] that watches what users do with their computer and then sends that information over the [[internet]]. Spyware can collect many different types of information about a user. More benign programs can attempt to track what types of websites a user visits and send this information to an advertisement agency. More malicious versions can try to [[Keystroke logging|record what a user types]] to try to intercept passwords or credit card numbers. Yet other versions simply launch [[Pop-up ad|popup advertisements]].

==History and development==
The first recorded use of the term ''spyware'' occurred on [[October 17]], [[1994]] in a [[Usenet]] post that poked fun at [[Microsoft]]'s [[business model]]. ''Spyware'' later came to refer to [[espionage]] equipment such as tiny cameras. However, in early 2000 the founder of [[Zone Labs]], Gregor Freund, used the term in a [http://www.zonelabs.com/store/content/company/aboutUs/pressroom/pressReleases/2000/za2.jsp press release] for the [[ZoneAlarm|ZoneAlarm Personal Firewall]]. <ref name="wienbar">Wienbar, Sharon. "[http://news.com.com/2010-1032-5307831.html The Spyware Inferno]". ''News.com''. August 13, 2004.</ref> Since then, computer-users have used the term in its current sense.

In early 2000, [[Steve Gibson]] of [[Gibson Research]] realized that advertising software had been installed on his system, and he suspected that the software was stealing his personal information. After analyzing the software he determined that they were adware components from the companies Aureate (later Radiate) and Conducent. He eventually retracted his claim that the ad software collected information without the user's knowledge, but still chastised the ad companies for covertly installing the spyware and making it difficult to remove.

As a result of his analysis in 2000, Gibson released the first anti-spyware program, OptOut, and many more software-based antidotes have appeared since then. <ref name="wienbar" /> [[International Charter]] now offers software developers a Spyware-Free Certification program. <ref>"[http://www.icharter.org/certification/software/spyware_free/index.html Spyware Certification]". ''International Charter''. Retrieved July 10, 2005.</ref>

According to a November 2004 study by [[AOL]] and the [[National Cyber-Security Alliance]], 80% of surveyed users' computers had some form of spyware, with an average of 93 spyware components per computer. 89% of surveyed users with spyware reported that they did not know of its presence, and 95% reported that they had not given permission for the installation of the spyware. <ref name="aolstudy">"[http://www.staysafeonline.info/pdf/safety_study_v04.pdf AOL/NCSA Online Safety Study]". ''America Online'' & ''The National Cyber Security Alliance''. October 2004.</ref>

[[As of 2006]], spyware has become one of the preeminent security threats to computer-systems running [[Microsoft Windows]] [[operating system|operating-system]]s (and especially to users of [[Internet Explorer]] because of that browser's collaboration with the Windows operating system).{{fact}} Some malware on the [[Linux]] and [[Mac OS X]] platforms has behavior similar to Windows spyware,{{fact}} but to date has not become anywhere near as widespread. In an estimate based on customer sent scan logs, Webroot Software, makers of [[Spy Sweeper]], said that 9 out of 10 computers connected to the internet are infected and 86% of those surveyed suffered a monetary loss due to spyware.[http://www.webroot.com/resources/spywareinfo/]

==Comparison==

===Spyware, adware, and tracking===
The term ''[[adware]]'' frequently refers to any software which displays advertisements, whether or not it does so with the user's consent. Programs such as the [[Eudora (e-mail client)|Eudora]] mail client display advertisements as an alternative to [[shareware]] registration fees. These classify as "adware" in the sense of advertising-supported software, but not as spyware. Adware in this form does not operate surreptitiously or mislead the user, and provides the user with a specific service.

Many of the programs frequently classified as spyware function as ''adware'' in a different sense: their chief observed behaviour consists of displaying advertising. [[Claria Corporation]]'s Gator Software and [http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/exact-advertisers/ Exact Advertising's BargainBuddy] provide examples of this sort of program. Visited Web sites frequently install Gator on client machines in a surreptitious manner, and it directs revenue to the installing site and to Claria by displaying advertisements to the user. The user experiences a large number of [[pop-up advertisement]]s.

Other spyware behaviours, such as reporting on websites the user visits, frequently accompany the displaying of advertisements. Monitoring web activity aims at building up a marketing profile on users in order to sell "targeted" advertisement impressions. The prevalence of spyware has cast suspicion upon other programs that track Web browsing, even for statistical or research purposes. Some observers describe the [[Alexa Toolbar]], an [[Internet Explorer]] plug-in published by [[Amazon.com]], as spyware (and some anti-spyware programs report it as such) although many users choose to install it.

===Spyware, virus and worm===
Spyware differs from [[computer virus|viruses]] and [[computer worm|worms]] in that it does not usually self-replicate. Like [[e-mail spam#Using other people's computers|many recent viruses]], however, spyware — by design — exploits infected computers for commercial gain. Typical tactics furthering this goal include delivery of unsolicited pop-up advertisements; theft of personal information (including financial information such as [[credit card number]]s); monitoring of Web-browsing activity for [[marketing]] purposes; or routing of [[HTTP]] requests to advertising sites.

==Routes of infection==
Spyware does not directly spread in the manner of a computer virus or worm: generally, an infected system does not attempt to transmit the infection to other computers. Instead, spyware gets on a system through deception of the user or through exploitation of software vulnerabilities.

The most direct route by which spyware can infect a computer involves the user installing it. However, users tend not to install software if they know that it will disrupt their working environment and compromise their privacy. So many spyware programs deceive the users, either by [[piggybacking]] on a piece of desirable software such as [[Kazaa]], or by tricking the users to do something that installs the software without them realising. Recently, spyware has come to include [http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm "rogue anti-spyware"] programs, which masquerade as security software while actually doing damage.

Classically, a [[Trojan horse]], by definition, smuggles in something dangerous in the guise of something desirable. Some spyware programs get spread in just this manner. The distributor of spyware presents the program as a useful utility — for instance as a "Web accelerator" or as a helpful [[software agent]]. Users download and install the software without immediately suspecting that it could cause harm. For example, [[Bonzi Buddy]], a spyware program targeted at children, claims that:

:''He will explore the Internet with you as your very own friend and sidekick! He can talk, walk, joke, browse, search, e-mail, and download like no other friend you've ever had! He even has the ability to compare prices on the products you love and help you save money! Best of all, he's FREE!'' <ref>''Bonzi.com''. http://www.bonzi.com/bonzibuddy/bonzimail.asp. Retrieved July 10, 2005.</ref>

Spyware can also come bundled with [[shareware]] or other downloadable software, as well as music CDs. The user downloads a program (for instance, a music program or a file-trading utility) and installs it, and the installer additionally installs the spyware. Although the desirable software itself may do no harm, the bundled spyware does. In some cases, spyware authors have paid shareware authors to bundle spyware with their software. In other cases, spyware authors have repackaged desirable free software with installers that add spyware.

A third way of distributing spyware involves tricking users by manipulating security features designed to prevent unwanted installations. The [[Internet Explorer]] Web browser, by design, prevents websites from initiating an unwanted download. Instead, a user action (such as clicking on a link) must normally trigger a download. However, links can prove deceptive: for instance, a [[pop-up ad]] may appear like a standard Windows [[dialog box]]. The box contains a message such as "Would you like to optimise your Internet access?" with links which look like buttons reading ''Yes'' and ''No''. No matter which "button" the user presses, a download starts, placing the spyware on the user's system. Later versions of Internet Explorer offer fewer avenues for this attack.

Some spyware authors infect a system by attacking security holes in the Web browser or in other software. When the user navigates to a Web page controlled by the spyware author, the page contains code which attacks the browser and forces the download and installation of spyware. The spyware author would also have some extensive knowledge of commercially-available anti-virus and firewall software. This has become known as a "[[drive-by download]]", which leaves the user a hapless bystander to the attack. Common [[browser exploit]]s target security vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer and in the Microsoft [[Java programming language|Java]] runtime.

The installation of spyware frequently involves Microsoft's Internet Explorer. As the most popular Web browser, and with an unfortunate history of security issues, it has become the largest target. Its deep integration with the Windows environment and its scriptability make it an obvious point of attack into Microsoft Windows operating systems. Internet Explorer also serves as a point of attachment for spyware in the form of [[browser helper object]]s, which modify the browser's behaviour to add toolbars or to redirect traffic.

In a few cases, a [[Computer worm|worm]] or [[Computer Virus|virus]] has delivered a payload of spyware. For instance, some attackers used the [[Spybot worm|W32.Spybot.Worm worm]] to install spyware that popped up pornographic ads on the infected system's screen. <ref>"[http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.spybot.worm.html Security Response: W32.Spybot.Worm]". ''Symantec.com''. Retrieved July 10, 2005.</ref> By directing traffic to ads set up to channel funds to the spyware authors, they can profit even by such clearly illegal behaviour.

==Effects and behaviors==
{{unreferenced|section}}
[[Image:Spyware infestation.png|thumb|300px|Many Internet Explorer add-on toolbars monitor the user's activity. When installed and run without the user's consent, such add-ons count as spyware. Here multiple toolbars (including both spyware and innocuous ones) overwhelm an Internet Explorer session.]]

A piece of spyware rarely "lives" alone: an affected computer can rapidly become infected with large numbers of spyware components. Users frequently notice unwanted behavior and degradation of system performance. A spyware infestation can create significant unwanted CPU activity, disk usage, and network traffic which thereby slows down legitimate uses of these resources. Stability issues, such as application or system-wide crashes, are also common. Spyware which interferes with networking software commonly causes difficulty connecting to the Internet.

In some cases of spyware infection, the user has no awareness of spyware and assumes that the system performance, stability, and/or connectivity issues relate to hardware, to Microsoft Windows installation problems, or to a virus. Some owners of badly infected systems resort to contacting [[technical support]] experts, or even buying an entire new computer system because the existing system "has become too slow." Badly infected systems may require a clean reinstall of all their software in order to restore the system to working order. This can become a time-consuming task, even for experienced users.

Only rarely does a single piece of software render a computer unusable. Rather, a computer rarely has only one infection. As the 2004 AOL study noted, if a computer has any spyware at all, it typically has dozens of different pieces installed. The cumulative effect, and the interactions between spyware components, typically cause the stereotypical symptoms reported by users: a computer which slows to a crawl, overwhelmed by the many parasitic processes running on it. Moreover, some types of spyware disable software [[firewall (networking)|firewall]]s and anti-virus software, and/or reduce browser security settings, thus opening the system to further [[opportunistic infection]]s, much like an [[immune deficiency]] disease. Documented cases have also occurred where a spyware program disabled other spyware programs installed by its competitors.

Some other types of spyware (Targetsoft, for example) modify system files to make themselves harder to remove. (Targetsoft modifies the "[[Winsock]]" Windows Sockets files. The deletion of the spyware-infected file "inetadpt.dll" will interrupt normal networking usage.) Unlike users of many other operating systems, a typical Windows user has administrator privileges on the system, mostly for convenience. Because of this, any program which the user runs (intentionally or not) has unrestricted access to the system. Spyware, along with other threats, has led some Windows users to move to other platforms such as [[Linux]] or [[Apple Macintosh]], which such [[malware]] targets far less frequently.

===Advertisements===
Many spyware programs reveal themselves visibly by displaying advertisements. Some programs simply display [[pop-up ad]]s on a regular basis; for instance, one every several minutes, or one when the user opens a new browser window. Others display ads in response to specific sites that the user visits. Spyware operators present this feature as desirable to advertisers, who may buy ad placement in pop-ups displayed when the user visits a particular site. It is also one of the purposes for which spyware programs gather information on user behaviour. Hence, pop-up advertisements lead to some of users' most common complaints about spyware.

Many users complain about irritating or offensive advertisements as well. As with many [[Web banner|banner ads]], many spyware advertisements use animation or flickering banners which are visually distracting and annoying. Pop-up ads for [[pornography]] often display indiscriminately, including when children use the computer (possibly in violation of anti-pornography laws).

A further issue in the case of some spyware programs has to do with the replacement of banner ads on viewed web sites. Spyware that acts as a [[web proxy]] or a [[Browser Helper Object]] can replace references to a site's own advertisements (which fund the site) with advertisements that instead fund the spyware operator. This cuts into the margins of advertising-funded Web sites.

=== "Stealware" and affiliate fraud ===
A few spyware vendors, notably [[180 Solutions]], have written what the [[New York Times]] has dubbed "[[stealware]]", and what spyware-researcher Ben Edelman terms ''affiliate fraud'', also known as [[click fraud]]. These redirect the payment of affiliate marketing revenues from the legitimate affiliate to the spyware vendor.

[[Affiliate marketing]] networks work by tracking users who follow an advertisement from an "affiliate" and subsequently purchase something from the advertised Web site. [[Electronic commerce|Online merchants]] such as [[eBay]] and [[Dell, Inc.|Dell]] are among the larger companies which use affiliate marketing. In order for affiliate marketing to work, the affiliate places a tag such as a cookie or a session variable on the user's request, which the merchant associates with any purchases made. The affiliate then receives a small commission.

Spyware which attacks [[affiliate network]]s does so by placing the spyware operator's affiliate tag on the user's activity—replacing any other tag, if there is one. This harms just about everyone involved in the transaction other than the spyware operator. The user is harmed by having their choices thwarted. A legitimate affiliate is harmed by having their earned income redirected to the spyware operator. Affiliate marketing networks are harmed by the degradation of their reputation. Vendors are harmed by having to pay out affiliate revenues to an "affiliate" who did not earn them through a contractual agreement. [http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/180-affiliates/]

Affiliate fraud is a violation of the [[terms of service]] of most affiliate marketing networks. As a result, spyware operators such as 180 Solutions have been terminated from affiliate networks including LinkShare and ShareSale.

=== Identity theft and fraud ===
One case has closely associated spyware with [[identity theft]]. <ref>Ecker, Clint (2005). ''[http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050805-5175.html Massive spyware-based identity theft ring uncovered]''. August 5, 2005.</ref> In August 2005, researchers from security software firm Sunbelt Software believed that the makers of the common [[CoolWebSearch]] spyware had used it to transmit "chat sessions, user names, passwords, bank information, etc." [http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/massive-identity-theft-ring.html], but it turned out that "it actually is its own sophisticated criminal little trojan that’s independent of CWS." [http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/identity-theft-what-to-do.html] This case is currently under investigation by the [[FBI]].

Spyware has principally become associated with identity theft in that [[keyloggers]] are routinely packaged with spyware. John Bambenek, who researches information security, estimates that identity thieves have stolen over $24 billion US dollars of account information in the United States alone [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/27/technology/27hack.html].

Spyware-makers may perpetrate another sort of fraud with ''[[dialer]]'' program spyware: [[wire fraud]]. Dialers cause a computer with a [[modem]] to dial up a long-distance telephone number instead of the usual [[Internet service provider|ISP]]. Connecting to these suspicious numbers involves long-distance or overseas charges which invariably result in massive telephone bills that the user is liable for. Dialers are somewhat less effective today, now that fewer Internet users use dialup [[modem]]s.{{citeneeded}}

===Digital rights management===
Some copy-protection schemes, while they do serve the purpose of attempting to prevent piracy, also behave similarly to spyware programs. Some [[digital rights management]] technologies (such as [[Sony BMG Music Entertainment|Sony]]'s [[XCP]]) actually use trojan-horse tactics to verify a user as the rightful owner of the media in question.

[[Sony BMG Music Entertainment|Sony]] has been sued for using virus-like techneques to prevent users from copying its CDs. A [[Rootkit]] technique was used to embed Sony's software deep inside the [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]] operating system to make it hard to find by [[antispyware]] software and difficult to uninstall.

===Spyware and cookies===
Anti-spyware programs often report Web advertisers' [[HTTP cookie]]s as spyware. Web sites (including advertisers) set cookies — small pieces of data rather than software—to track Web-browsing activity: for instance to maintain a "shopping cart" for an online store or to maintain consistent user settings on a search engine.

Only the Web site that sets a cookie can access it. In the case of cookies associated with advertisements, the user generally does not intend to visit the Web site which sets the cookies, but gets redirected to a cookie-setting third-party site referenced by a [[banner ad]] image. Some Web browsers and privacy tools offer to reject cookies from sites other than the one that the user requested.

Advertisers use cookies to track people's browsing among various sites carrying ads from the same firm and thus to build up a marketing profile of the person or family using the computer. For this reason many users object to such cookies, and anti-spyware programs offer to remove them.

===Typical examples of spyware===
A few examples of common spyware programs may serve to illustrate the diversity of behaviors found in these attacks.

''Caveat:'' As with computer viruses, researchers give names to spyware programs which frequently do not relate to any names that the spyware-writers use. Researchers may group programs into "families" based not on shared program code, but on common behaviours, or by "following the money" of apparent financial or business connections. For instance, a number of the spyware programs distributed by [[Claria]] are collectively known as "Gator". Likewise, programs which are frequently installed together may be described as parts of the same spyware package, even if they function separately.


*'''[[CoolWebSearch]]''', a group of programs, installs through the exploitation of Internet Explorer vulnerabilities. The programs direct traffic to advertisements on Web sites including ''coolwebsearch.com''. To this end, they display pop-up ads, rewrite [[search engine]] results, and alter the infected computer's [[hosts file]] to direct [[Domain Name System|DNS]] lookups to these sites. <ref name="doxdb">"[http://www.doxdesk.com/parasite/database.html Parasite information database]". ''Doxdesk.com''. Retrieved July 10, 2005.</ref>

*'''[[Internet Optimizer]]''', also known as '''DyFuCa''', redirects Internet Explorer error pages to advertising. When users follow a broken link or enter an erroneous URL, they see a page of advertisements. However, because password-protected Web sites (HTTP Basic authentication) use the same mechanism as HTTP errors, Internet Optimizer makes it impossible for the user to access password-protected sites. <ref name="doxdb" />

*'''[[180 Solutions]]''' transmits extensive information to advertisers about the Web sites which users visit. It also alters HTTP requests for [[affiliate marketing|affiliate]] advertisements linked from a Web site, so that the advertisements make unearned profit for the 180 Solutions company. It opens pop-up ads that cover over the Web sites of competing companies. [http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/180-affiliates/]

*'''[[HuntBar]]''', aka '''WinTools''' or '''[http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/adware.websearch.html Adware.Websearch]''', is a small family of spyware programs distributed by [http://www.trafficsyndicate.com/ Traffic Syndicate]. <ref name="doxdb" /> It is installed by ActiveX drive-by download at affiliate Web sites, or by advertisements displayed by other spyware programs—an example of how spyware can install more spyware. These programs add toolbars to Internet Explorer, track Web browsing behavior, redirect affiliate references, and display advertisements.

==User consent and legality==
Gaining unauthorised access to a computer is illegal under [[computer crime]] laws in several global territories, such as the United States [[Computer Fraud and Abuse Act]]. Since the owners of computers infected with spyware generally claim that they never authorised the installation, a ''[[prima facie]]'' reading would suggest that the promulgation of spyware would count as a criminal act. Law enforcement has often pursued the authors of other malware programs, such as viruses. Nonetheless, few prosecutions of writers of spyware have occurred, and many such producers operate openly as aboveboard businesses. Some have, however, faced lawsuits.{{citeneeded}}

Spyware producers primarily argue in defense of the legality of their acts that, contrary to the users' claims, users do in fact give [[consent]] to the installation of their spyware. Spyware that comes bundled with shareware applications may appear, for instance, described in the [[legalese]] text of an [[end-user license agreement]] (EULA). Many users habitually ignore these purported contracts, but spyware companies such as Claria claim that these demonstrate that users have consented to the installation of their software.

Despite the ubiquity of EULAs and of [[clickwrap]] agreements, relatively little case law has resulted from their use. It has been established in most [[common law]] jurisdictions that a clickwrap agreements can be a binding contract ''in certain circumstances.'' This does not however mean that every clickwrap agreement is a [[contract]] or that every term in a clickwrap contract is enforceable. It seems highly likely that many of the purported contract terms presented in clickwrap agreements would be dismissed in most jurisdictions as being contrary to public policy. Many spyware clickwrap agreements appear intentionally ambiguous and excessive in length, with key contract terms made inconspicuous. These are all grounds on which similar agreements have been rejected as contracts of adhesion. In Australia, the proprietors of Sharman Newtorks, who own and operate the KaZaa P2P network were sued by the Australian Recording Industry Association for breaching copyright laws as a result of allowing illegal music to be shared and distributed through the KaZaa network. Sharman Networks claimed that the EULA stated that the program was not to be used for illegal activity, however the claim was dismissed on the grounds that the length and ambiguity of the agreement coupled with the fact that few users read it made the agreement inadmissable as a defence.

Nor can a contract possibly exist in the case of spyware installed by surreptitious means, such as in a drive-by download where the user receives no opportunity to either agree to or refuse the contract terms.

Some jurisdictions, including the U.S. states of [[Iowa]] [http://nxtsearch.legis.state.ia.us/NXT/gateway.dll/moved%20code/2005%20MERGED%20IOWA%20CODE%20AND%20SUPPLEMENT/1/26063/26064/26421?f=templates$fn=document-frame.htm$3.0$q=] and [[Washington]] [http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.270], have passed laws criminalizing some forms of spyware. Such laws make it illegal for anyone other than the owner or operator of a computer to install software that alters Web-browser settings, monitors keystrokes, or disables computer-security software.

[[New York]] [[Attorney General]] [[Eliot Spitzer]] has pursued spyware companies for fraudulent installation of software. <ref>"[http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2005/apr/apr28a_05.html State Sues Major "Spyware" Distributor]". ''Office of New York State Attorney General''. April 28, 2005.</ref> In a suit brought in 2005 by Spitzer, the California firm [[Intermix Media, Inc.]] ended up settling by agreeing to pay US$7.5 million and to stop distributing spyware. Intermix's spyware spread via drive-by download, and deliberately installed itself in ways that made it difficult to remove. <ref>Gormley, Michael. "[http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/cpress/20050615/ca_pr_on_tc/spitzer_spyware Intermix Media Inc. says it is settling spyware lawsuit with N.Y. attorney general]". ''[[Yahoo!]] News''. June 15, 2005.</ref>

Another spyware behaviour has attracted lawsuits: the replacement of Web advertisements. In June 2002, a number of large Web publishers sued [[Claria]] for replacing advertisements, but settled out of court. Other spyware apart from Claria's also replaces advertisements, thus diverting revenue from the ad-bearing Web site to the spyware author.

One legal issue not yet pursued involves whether courts can hold advertisers responsible for spyware which displays their ads. In many cases, the companies whose advertisements appear in spyware pop-ups do not directly do business with the spyware firm. Rather, the advertised company contracts with an [[advertising agency]], which in turn contracts with an online subcontractor who gets paid by the number of "impressions" or appearances of the advertisement. Some major firms such as [[Dell Computer]] and [[Mercedes-Benz]] have sacked advertising agencies which have run their ads in spyware. <ref>Gormley, Michael. "[http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8AU8LL81.htm?campaign_id=apn_tech_down Major advertisers caught in spyware net]". ''[[Business Week]]''. June 24, 2005.</ref>

Some spyware companies have threatened websites which have posted descriptions of their products. In 2003, Gator (now known as Claria) filed suit against the website [http://www.pcpitstop.com/ PC Pitstop] for describing the Gator program as "spyware". <ref>Festa, Paul. "[http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-5095051.html See you later, anti-Gators?]". ''News.com''. October 22, 2003.</ref> PC Pitstop settled, agreeing not to use the word "spyware", but continues to publish descriptions of the harmful behaviour of the Gator/Claria software. [http://www.pcpitstop.com/gator/default.asp]

==Remedies and prevention==
As the spyware threat has worsened, a number of techniques have emerged to counteract it. These include programs designed to remove or to block spyware, as well as various user practices which reduce the chance of getting spyware on a system.

Nonetheless, spyware remains a costly problem. When a large number of pieces of spyware have infected a Windows computer, the only remedy may involve backing up user data, and fully reinstalling the operating system.

===Anti-spyware programs===
[[Image:Ad-Aware_Personal.png|thumb|300px|right|Lavasoft's [[Ad-Aware]], one of a few reliable [[freeware]] anti-spyware programs, after scanning the hard drive of an infected Windows XP system.]]

Many programmers and some commercial firms have released products designed to remove or block spyware. Steve Gibson's ''OptOut'', mentioned above, pioneered a growing category. Programs such as Lavasoft's ''[[Ad-Aware SE]]'' and Patrick Kolla's ''[[Spybot - Search & Destroy]]'' rapidly gained popularity as effective tools to remove, and in some cases intercept, spyware programs. More recently [[Microsoft]] acquired the ''[[GIANT AntiSpyware]]'' software, rebadging it as ''Windows AntiSpyware beta'' and releasing it as a free download for [[Windows XP]], [[Windows 2000]], and [[Windows 2003]] users. In early spring, 2006, [[Microsoft]] renamed the beta software to [[Windows Defender]], currently "beta 2." The renamed software for now exists as a time-limited [[beta test]] product that will expire (beta 1 in July 2006, and beta 2 in December, 2006). Microsoft has also announced that the product will ship (for free) with [[Windows Vista]]. Other well-known anti-spyware products include Webroot [[Spy Sweeper]], [[Trend Micro]]'s Anti-Spyware, PC Tools' [[Spyware Doctor]], ParetoLogic's XoftSpy, iS3's STOPzilla and Sunbelt's CounterSpy (which uses a forked codebase from the GIANT Anti-Spyware product).

Major anti-virus firms such as [[Symantec]], [[McAfee]] and [[Sophos]] have come later to the table, adding anti-spyware features to their existing anti-virus products. Early on, anti-virus firms expressed reluctance to add anti-spyware functions, citing lawsuits brought by spyware authors against the authors of web sites and programs which described their products as "spyware". However, recent versions of these major firms' home and business anti-virus products do include anti-spyware functions, albeit treated differently from viruses. Symantec Anti-Virus, for instance, categorizes spyware programs as "extended threats" and now offers real-time protection from them (as it does for viruses).

[[Image:Alwaysupdate-adware-winspy.PNG|thumb|225px|Real-time protection blocks spyware in the process of installing itself. Here, Windows AntiSpyware blocks an instance of the AlwaysUpdateNews spyware.]]

Anti-spyware programs can combat spyware in two ways:
#''real-time protection'', which prevents the installation of spyware
# ''detection and removal'' of spyware.
Writers of anti-spyware programs usually find detection and removal simpler, and many more programs have become available which do so. Such programs inspect the contents of the Windows registry, the operating system files, and installed programs, and remove files and entries which match a list of known spyware components. Real-time protection from spyware works identically to real-time anti-virus protection: the software scans incoming network data and disk files at download time, and blocks the activity of components known to represent spyware. In some cases, it may also intercept attempts to install start-up items or to modify browser settings.

Earlier versions of anti-spyware programs focused chiefly on detection and removal. Javacool Software's [[SpywareBlaster]], one of the first to offer real-time protection, blocked the installation of [[ActiveX]]-based and other spyware programs. To date, other programs such as Ad-Aware and Windows AntiSpyware now combine the two approaches, while SpywareBlaster remains focused on prevention.

Like most anti-virus software, many anti-spyware/adware tools require a frequently-updated database of threats. As new spyware programs are released, anti-spyware developers discover and evaluate them, making "signatures" or "definitions" which allow the software to detect and remove the spyware. As a result, anti-spyware software is of limited usefulness without a regular source of updates. Some vendors provide a subscription-based update service, while others provide updates gratis. Updates may be installed automatically on a schedule or before doing a scan, or may be done manually. Not all programs rely on updated definitions. Some programs rely partly (for instance Windows Defender) or entirely ([http://www.winpatrol.com BillP's WinPatrol], and certainly others) on historical observation. They watch certain configuration parameters (such as the Windows registry or browser configuration) and report any change to the user, without judgment or recommendation. Their chief advantage is that they do not rely on updated definitions. Even with a subscription, a "critical mass" of other users have to have, and report a problem before the new definition is characterized and propagated. The disadvantage is that they can offer no guidance. The user is left to determine "what did I just do, and is this configuration change appropriate?"

If a spyware program is not blocked and manages to get itself installed, it may resist attempts to terminate or uninstall it. Some programs work in pairs: when an anti-spyware scanner (or the user) terminates one running process, the other one respawns the killed program. Likewise, some spyware will detect attempts to remove registry keys and immediately add them again. Usually, booting the infected computer in [[safe mode]] allows an anti-spyware program a better chance of removing persistent spyware.

===Fake anti-spyware programs===
Malicious programmers have released a large number of fake anti-spyware programs, and widely distributed Web [[banner ad]]s now spuriously warn users that their computers have been infected with spyware, directing them to purchase programs which do not actually remove spyware — or worse, may add more spyware of their own. <ref>Roberts, Paul F. "[http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1821127,00.asp Spyware-Removal Program Tagged as a Trap]". ''[[eWeek]]''. May 26, 2005.</ref> <ref>Howes, Eric L. "[http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm The Spyware Warrior List of Rogue/Suspect Anti-Spyware Products & Web Sites]". Retrieved July 10, 2005.</ref>

The [[as of 2005|recent]] proliferation of fake or spoofed antivirus products has occasioned some concern. Such products often bill themselves as antispyware, antivirus, or registry cleaners, and sometimes feature popups prompting users to install them. This is called [[Rogue software]].

Known offenders include:
* [[Malware Wipe]]
* [[Pest Trap]]
* [[SpyAxe]]
* [[AntiVirus Gold]]
* [[SpywareStrike]]
* [[SpyFalcon]]
* [[WorldAntiSpy]]
* [[WinFixer]]
* [[SpyTrooper]]
* [[Spysheriff|Spy Sheriff]]
* [[SpyBan]]
* [[SpyWiper]]
* [[PAL Spyware Remover]]
* [[Spyware Stormer]]
* [[PSGuard]]
* [[AlfaCleaner]]
For details, please see [http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm "Rogue/Suspect Anti-Spyware Products & Web Sites"]

On [[2006-01-26]], [[Microsoft]] and the Washington state attorney general filed suit against Secure Computer for its Spyware Cleaner product. <ref>[http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,124508,00.asp Antispyware Company Sued Under Spyware Law]</ref>

=== Virtual Machines ===
Using a [[virtual machine]] (such as a pre-built Browser Appliance for [[VMware]] Player) can inhibit infection by spyware, malware, and viruses. Virtual machines provide separate environments, so if spyware enters the virtual environment, the host computer remains unaffected. One can also use snapshots to remove one's private information, transporting the snapshot of the VM.

This environment resembles a [[sandbox (computer security)|sandbox]]. It has drawbacks in that it uses more memory (compared to a standalone browser) and it uses a lot of disk space.

===Security practices===
To deter spyware, computer users have found a number of techniques useful in addition to installing anti-spyware software.

Many system operators install a [[web browser]] other than Microsoft's Internet Explorer (IE), such as [[Opera (web browser)|Opera]] or [[Mozilla Firefox]]. Though such web browsers have also suffered from some security vulnerabilities, because most users that are likely to fall for spyware aren't using them, these browsers are not targeted as much as Internet Explorer. Not a single browser ranks as safe, because in the case of spyware the security comes with the person who uses the browser.

Some Internet Service Providers — particularly colleges and universities — have taken a different approach to blocking spyware: they use their network [[firewall (networking)|firewall]]s and [[Web proxy|web proxies]] to block access to Web sites known to install spyware. On [[March 31]], [[2005]], [[Cornell University]]'s Information Technology department released a report detailing the behavior of one particular piece of proxy-based spyware, ''Marketscore'', and the steps the university took to intercept it. <ref>Schuster, Steve. "[http://www.cit.cornell.edu/computer/security/marketscore/MarketScore_rev2.html Blocking Marketscore: Why Cornell Did It]". Cornell University, Office of Information Technologies. March 31, 2005.</ref> Many other educational institutions have taken similar steps against Marketscore and other spyware. Spyware programs which redirect network traffic cause greater technical-support problems than programs which merely display ads or monitor users' behavior, and so may attract institutional attention more readily.

Some users install a large [[hosts file]] which prevents the users computer from connecting to known spyware related web addresses. However, by connecting to the numeric IP address, rather than the domain name, spyware may bypass this sort of protection.

Spyware may get installed via certain [[shareware]] programs offered for download. Downloading programs only from reputable sources can provide some protection from this source of attack. Recently, [[CNet]] revamped its download directory: it has stated that it will only keep files that pass inspection by Ad-Aware and Spyware Doctor.

==Notable programs distributed with spyware==
*[[Messenger Plus!]] (only if you agree to install their "sponsor" program)
*[[Bonzi Buddy]] <ref>"[http://sarc.com/avcenter/venc/data/adware.bonzi.html Symantec Security Response - Adware.Bonzi]". ''Symantec''. Retrieved July 27, 2005.</ref>
*[[DivX]] (except for the paid version, and the "standard" version without the encoder). DivX announced removal of GAIN software from version 5.2. <ref>"[http://www.pcpitstop.com/gator/Confused.asp How Did I Get Gator?]". ''PC Pitstop''. Retrieved July 27, 2005.</ref>
*[[Dope Wars]] <ref>Edelman, Ben (2005). "[http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/installations/dopewars-claria/ Claria's Misleading Installation Methods - Dope Wars]". Retrieved July 27, 2005</ref>
*[[ErrorGuard]] <ref>"[http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/pest/pest.aspx?id=453094197 eTrust Spyware Encyclopedia - ErrorGuard]". ''Computer Associates''. Retrieved July 27, 2005.</ref>
*[[FlashGet]] (free version) <ref>"[http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/pest/pest.aspx?id=453077947 eTrust Spyware Encyclopedia - FlashGet]". ''Computer Associates''. Retrieved July 27, 2005</ref>
*[[Grokster]] <ref>Edelman, Ben (2004). "[http://www.benedelman.org/news/100904-1.html Grokster and Claria Take Licenses to New Lows, and Congress Lets Them Do It]". Retrieved July 27, 2005</ref>
*[[Kazaa]] <ref>Edelman, Ben (2004). "[http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/claria-license/ Claria License Agreement Is Fifty Six Pages Long]". Retrieved July 27, 2005.</ref>
*[[Morpheus (computer program)|Morpheus]] <ref name="p2p">Edelman, Ben (2005). "[http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/p2p/ Comparison of Unwanted Software Installed by P2P Programs]". Retrieved July 27, 2005.</ref>
*[[RadLight]] <ref>"[http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/pest/pest.aspx?id=54732 eTrust Spyware Encyclopedia - Radlight 3 PRO]". ''Computer Associates''. Retrieved July 27, 2005</ref>
*[[WeatherBug]] <ref>"[http://www.doxdesk.com/parasite/WeatherBug.html doxdesk.com: database: WeatherBug]". ''Doxdesk.com''. Retrieved July 27, 2005.</ref>
*[[EDonkey2000]] <ref name="p2p" />

[[Sony]]'s [[Extended Copy Protection]] involved the installation of spyware from audio [[compact disc]]s through [[autorun]]. This practice sparked [[2005 Sony CD copy protection scandal|considerable controversy]] when it was discovered.

===Notable programs formerly distributed with spyware===
*[[AOL Instant Messenger]] <ref name="sunbelt-wild">"[http://research.sunbelt-software.com/threat_display.cfm?name=WildTangent&threatid=14225 WildTangent]". ''Sunbelt Software''. Retrieved July 27, 2005.</ref> (AOL Instant Messenger still packages Viewpoint Media Player)
*[[EDonkey2000]] <ref name="p2p" />
*[[LimeWire]] (all free Windows versions up to 3.9.3) <ref name="p2p" />
*[[WildTangent]] <ref name="sunbelt-wild" />

==See also==
*[[Antivirus software]]
*[[OpenAntivirus]]
*[[Computer virus]]
*[[Adware]]
*[[Computer worm|Worms]]
*[[Trojan horse (computing)|Trojan horse]]
*[[Computer insecurity]]
*[[malware]]
*[[virus hoax]]
*[[List of computer viruses]]
*[[List of computer virus hoaxes]]
*[[List of trojan horses]]
*[[Timeline of notable computer viruses and worms]]
*[[Turing completeness]]
*[[Black hat]]
*[[Security through obscurity]]
*[[Spam (electronic)|Spam]]
*[[Melissa (computer worm)|Melissa worm]], [[ILOVEYOU]]
*[[Cryptovirology]]
*[[:Category:Spyware removal]] — Programs that find and remove spyware
*[[Palm OS Viruses]]
*[[Anonymous web browsing]]
*[[Computer security audit]]
*[[Exploit (computer science)|Exploit]]
*[[Keystroke logging]]
*[[Stopping e-mail abuse]]
*[[Phone Home]]
*[[Hosts file]]
*[[Comparison of P2P applications]]

==References==
<div class="references-small">
<references/>
</div>

==External links==

===Guide===
* [http://guides.radified.com/magoo/guides/spyware/remove_spyware_01.htm Magoo's Guide to Eliminating Spyware] - Information on how to get rid of spyware and keep it from returning
* [http://spywarewarrior.com/asw-features.htm The Spyware Warrior Guide to Anti-Spyware Programs] at Spyware Warrior
* [http://www.firewallguide.com/spyware.htm Anti-spyware Guides] - a page listing a lot of spyware guides

===Removal===
* [http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/forum55.html Spyware & Malware Removal Self-Help Guides] - Self-help guides on preventing and removing different types of Spyware and Malware
* [http://members.ispwest.com/polygons/spyware.shtml Spyware Removal Guide] - A quick and easy guide to removing spyware using free tools such as HiJackThis

===Prevention===
* [http://www.pcreview.co.uk/articles/Windows/Protection_against_Adware_and_Spyware/ Protection against Adware and Spyware] - Beginners guide to preventing the installation of spyware
* [http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Spyware-Evolving.html How Spyware And The Weapons Against It Are Evolving] - Article discussing causes and possible remedies of the spyware problem

===Testing and comparison===
* [http://www.malware-test.com/test_reports.html Malware Test] - non-profit website publishing detailed anti-spyware tests and reports periodically
* [http://www.consumersearch.com/www/software/anti-spyware-reviews/reviews.html Consumer Search] - a third-party ratings and comments on different reviews in other websites, in which the ratings are based on credibility in testing, evaluating and identifying the best Anti-Spyware

===Spyware list===
* [http://kppfree.altervista.org/spylist.html The Spyware Infested Filesharing Programs List] - Daily updated list about spyware infested p2p programs

===Organization===
* [http://www.antispywarecoalition.org/ Anti-Spyware Coalition] - A group developing formal definitions and [[best practice|best-practice]]s
* [http://www.stopbadware.org/ StopBadware.org] - A non-profit group (sponsored by Google, Lenovo, and Sun) that aims to provide "reliable, objective information about downloadable applications"

{{featured article}}

[[Category:Computer network security]]
[[Category:Malware]]
[[Category:Internet advertising and promotion]]
[[Category:Spyware|*]]

[[bs:Spyware]]
[[ca:Programari espia]]
[[da:Spyware]]
[[de:Spyware]]
[[es:Programa espía]]
[[fa:جاسوس‌افزار]]
[[fr:Logiciel espion]]
[[ko:스파이웨어]]
[[it:Spyware]]
[[he:רוגלה]]
[[ku:Spyware]]
[[nl:Spyware]]
[[ja:スパイウェア]]
[[no:Spionprogramvare]]
[[pl:Spyware]]
[[pt:Spyware]]
[[ru:Spyware]]
[[sk:Spyware]]
[[fi:Vakoiluohjelma]]
[[sv:Spionprogram]]
[[vi:Phần mềm gián điệp]]
[[zh:間諜軟體]]

Spyware

2006-08-20T19:19:38Z

Wai Wai: /* Remedies and prevention */ add subsection

''"Antispyware" redirects here. For anti-spyware programs, see the section [[#Remedies and prevention|Remedies and prevention]].''
[[Image:Benedelman-spyware-blogspot-2a.png|right|300px|thumb|Malicious websites may attempt to install spyware on readers' computers. In this screenshot a [[spam blog|spamblog]] has triggered a pop-up that offers spyware in the guise of a security upgrade.]]

In the field of [[computing]], the term '''spyware''' refers to a broad category of [[malware|malicious software]] designed to intercept or take partial control of a [[computer]]'s operation without the [[informed consent]] of that machine's owner or legitimate user. While the term taken literally suggests software that surreptitiously monitors the user, it has come to refer more broadly to software that subverts the computer's operation for the benefit of a third party.

In simpler terms, spyware is a type of [[program]] that watches what users do with their computer and then sends that information over the [[internet]]. Spyware can collect many different types of information about a user. More benign programs can attempt to track what types of websites a user visits and send this information to an advertisement agency. More malicious versions can try to [[Keystroke logging|record what a user types]] to try to intercept passwords or credit card numbers. Yet other versions simply launch [[Pop-up ad|popup advertisements]].

==History and development==
The first recorded use of the term ''spyware'' occurred on [[October 17]], [[1994]] in a [[Usenet]] post that poked fun at [[Microsoft]]'s [[business model]]. ''Spyware'' later came to refer to [[espionage]] equipment such as tiny cameras. However, in early 2000 the founder of [[Zone Labs]], Gregor Freund, used the term in a [http://www.zonelabs.com/store/content/company/aboutUs/pressroom/pressReleases/2000/za2.jsp press release] for the [[ZoneAlarm|ZoneAlarm Personal Firewall]]. <ref name="wienbar">Wienbar, Sharon. "[http://news.com.com/2010-1032-5307831.html The Spyware Inferno]". ''News.com''. August 13, 2004.</ref> Since then, computer-users have used the term in its current sense.

In early 2000, [[Steve Gibson]] of [[Gibson Research]] realized that advertising software had been installed on his system, and he suspected that the software was stealing his personal information. After analyzing the software he determined that they were adware components from the companies Aureate (later Radiate) and Conducent. He eventually retracted his claim that the ad software collected information without the user's knowledge, but still chastised the ad companies for covertly installing the spyware and making it difficult to remove.

As a result of his analysis in 2000, Gibson released the first anti-spyware program, OptOut, and many more software-based antidotes have appeared since then. <ref name="wienbar" /> [[International Charter]] now offers software developers a Spyware-Free Certification program. <ref>"[http://www.icharter.org/certification/software/spyware_free/index.html Spyware Certification]". ''International Charter''. Retrieved July 10, 2005.</ref>

According to a November 2004 study by [[AOL]] and the [[National Cyber-Security Alliance]], 80% of surveyed users' computers had some form of spyware, with an average of 93 spyware components per computer. 89% of surveyed users with spyware reported that they did not know of its presence, and 95% reported that they had not given permission for the installation of the spyware. <ref name="aolstudy">"[http://www.staysafeonline.info/pdf/safety_study_v04.pdf AOL/NCSA Online Safety Study]". ''America Online'' & ''The National Cyber Security Alliance''. October 2004.</ref>

[[As of 2006]], spyware has become one of the preeminent security threats to computer-systems running [[Microsoft Windows]] [[operating system|operating-system]]s (and especially to users of [[Internet Explorer]] because of that browser's collaboration with the Windows operating system).{{fact}} Some malware on the [[Linux]] and [[Mac OS X]] platforms has behavior similar to Windows spyware,{{fact}} but to date has not become anywhere near as widespread. In an estimate based on customer sent scan logs, Webroot Software, makers of [[Spy Sweeper]], said that 9 out of 10 computers connected to the internet are infected and 86% of those surveyed suffered a monetary loss due to spyware.[http://www.webroot.com/resources/spywareinfo/]

==Comparison==

===Spyware, adware, and tracking===
The term ''[[adware]]'' frequently refers to any software which displays advertisements, whether or not it does so with the user's consent. Programs such as the [[Eudora (e-mail client)|Eudora]] mail client display advertisements as an alternative to [[shareware]] registration fees. These classify as "adware" in the sense of advertising-supported software, but not as spyware. Adware in this form does not operate surreptitiously or mislead the user, and provides the user with a specific service.

Many of the programs frequently classified as spyware function as ''adware'' in a different sense: their chief observed behaviour consists of displaying advertising. [[Claria Corporation]]'s Gator Software and [http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/exact-advertisers/ Exact Advertising's BargainBuddy] provide examples of this sort of program. Visited Web sites frequently install Gator on client machines in a surreptitious manner, and it directs revenue to the installing site and to Claria by displaying advertisements to the user. The user experiences a large number of [[pop-up advertisement]]s.

Other spyware behaviours, such as reporting on websites the user visits, frequently accompany the displaying of advertisements. Monitoring web activity aims at building up a marketing profile on users in order to sell "targeted" advertisement impressions. The prevalence of spyware has cast suspicion upon other programs that track Web browsing, even for statistical or research purposes. Some observers describe the [[Alexa Toolbar]], an [[Internet Explorer]] plug-in published by [[Amazon.com]], as spyware (and some anti-spyware programs report it as such) although many users choose to install it.

===Spyware, virus and worm===
Spyware differs from [[computer virus|viruses]] and [[computer worm|worms]] in that it does not usually self-replicate. Like [[e-mail spam#Using other people's computers|many recent viruses]], however, spyware — by design — exploits infected computers for commercial gain. Typical tactics furthering this goal include delivery of unsolicited pop-up advertisements; theft of personal information (including financial information such as [[credit card number]]s); monitoring of Web-browsing activity for [[marketing]] purposes; or routing of [[HTTP]] requests to advertising sites.

==Routes of infection==
Spyware does not directly spread in the manner of a computer virus or worm: generally, an infected system does not attempt to transmit the infection to other computers. Instead, spyware gets on a system through deception of the user or through exploitation of software vulnerabilities.

The most direct route by which spyware can infect a computer involves the user installing it. However, users tend not to install software if they know that it will disrupt their working environment and compromise their privacy. So many spyware programs deceive the users, either by [[piggybacking]] on a piece of desirable software such as [[Kazaa]], or by tricking the users to do something that installs the software without them realising. Recently, spyware has come to include [http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm "rogue anti-spyware"] programs, which masquerade as security software while actually doing damage.

Classically, a [[Trojan horse]], by definition, smuggles in something dangerous in the guise of something desirable. Some spyware programs get spread in just this manner. The distributor of spyware presents the program as a useful utility — for instance as a "Web accelerator" or as a helpful [[software agent]]. Users download and install the software without immediately suspecting that it could cause harm. For example, [[Bonzi Buddy]], a spyware program targeted at children, claims that:

:''He will explore the Internet with you as your very own friend and sidekick! He can talk, walk, joke, browse, search, e-mail, and download like no other friend you've ever had! He even has the ability to compare prices on the products you love and help you save money! Best of all, he's FREE!'' <ref>''Bonzi.com''. http://www.bonzi.com/bonzibuddy/bonzimail.asp. Retrieved July 10, 2005.</ref>

Spyware can also come bundled with [[shareware]] or other downloadable software, as well as music CDs. The user downloads a program (for instance, a music program or a file-trading utility) and installs it, and the installer additionally installs the spyware. Although the desirable software itself may do no harm, the bundled spyware does. In some cases, spyware authors have paid shareware authors to bundle spyware with their software. In other cases, spyware authors have repackaged desirable free software with installers that add spyware.

A third way of distributing spyware involves tricking users by manipulating security features designed to prevent unwanted installations. The [[Internet Explorer]] Web browser, by design, prevents websites from initiating an unwanted download. Instead, a user action (such as clicking on a link) must normally trigger a download. However, links can prove deceptive: for instance, a [[pop-up ad]] may appear like a standard Windows [[dialog box]]. The box contains a message such as "Would you like to optimise your Internet access?" with links which look like buttons reading ''Yes'' and ''No''. No matter which "button" the user presses, a download starts, placing the spyware on the user's system. Later versions of Internet Explorer offer fewer avenues for this attack.

Some spyware authors infect a system by attacking security holes in the Web browser or in other software. When the user navigates to a Web page controlled by the spyware author, the page contains code which attacks the browser and forces the download and installation of spyware. The spyware author would also have some extensive knowledge of commercially-available anti-virus and firewall software. This has become known as a "[[drive-by download]]", which leaves the user a hapless bystander to the attack. Common [[browser exploit]]s target security vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer and in the Microsoft [[Java programming language|Java]] runtime.

The installation of spyware frequently involves Microsoft's Internet Explorer. As the most popular Web browser, and with an unfortunate history of security issues, it has become the largest target. Its deep integration with the Windows environment and its scriptability make it an obvious point of attack into Microsoft Windows operating systems. Internet Explorer also serves as a point of attachment for spyware in the form of [[browser helper object]]s, which modify the browser's behaviour to add toolbars or to redirect traffic.

In a few cases, a [[Computer worm|worm]] or [[Computer Virus|virus]] has delivered a payload of spyware. For instance, some attackers used the [[Spybot worm|W32.Spybot.Worm worm]] to install spyware that popped up pornographic ads on the infected system's screen. <ref>"[http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.spybot.worm.html Security Response: W32.Spybot.Worm]". ''Symantec.com''. Retrieved July 10, 2005.</ref> By directing traffic to ads set up to channel funds to the spyware authors, they can profit even by such clearly illegal behaviour.

==Effects and behaviors==
{{unreferenced|section}}
[[Image:Spyware infestation.png|thumb|300px|Many Internet Explorer add-on toolbars monitor the user's activity. When installed and run without the user's consent, such add-ons count as spyware. Here multiple toolbars (including both spyware and innocuous ones) overwhelm an Internet Explorer session.]]

A piece of spyware rarely "lives" alone: an affected computer can rapidly become infected with large numbers of spyware components. Users frequently notice unwanted behavior and degradation of system performance. A spyware infestation can create significant unwanted CPU activity, disk usage, and network traffic which thereby slows down legitimate uses of these resources. Stability issues, such as application or system-wide crashes, are also common. Spyware which interferes with networking software commonly causes difficulty connecting to the Internet.

In some cases of spyware infection, the user has no awareness of spyware and assumes that the system performance, stability, and/or connectivity issues relate to hardware, to Microsoft Windows installation problems, or to a virus. Some owners of badly infected systems resort to contacting [[technical support]] experts, or even buying an entire new computer system because the existing system "has become too slow." Badly infected systems may require a clean reinstall of all their software in order to restore the system to working order. This can become a time-consuming task, even for experienced users.

Only rarely does a single piece of software render a computer unusable. Rather, a computer rarely has only one infection. As the 2004 AOL study noted, if a computer has any spyware at all, it typically has dozens of different pieces installed. The cumulative effect, and the interactions between spyware components, typically cause the stereotypical symptoms reported by users: a computer which slows to a crawl, overwhelmed by the many parasitic processes running on it. Moreover, some types of spyware disable software [[firewall (networking)|firewall]]s and anti-virus software, and/or reduce browser security settings, thus opening the system to further [[opportunistic infection]]s, much like an [[immune deficiency]] disease. Documented cases have also occurred where a spyware program disabled other spyware programs installed by its competitors.

Some other types of spyware (Targetsoft, for example) modify system files to make themselves harder to remove. (Targetsoft modifies the "[[Winsock]]" Windows Sockets files. The deletion of the spyware-infected file "inetadpt.dll" will interrupt normal networking usage.) Unlike users of many other operating systems, a typical Windows user has administrator privileges on the system, mostly for convenience. Because of this, any program which the user runs (intentionally or not) has unrestricted access to the system. Spyware, along with other threats, has led some Windows users to move to other platforms such as [[Linux]] or [[Apple Macintosh]], which such [[malware]] targets far less frequently.

===Advertisements===
Many spyware programs reveal themselves visibly by displaying advertisements. Some programs simply display [[pop-up ad]]s on a regular basis; for instance, one every several minutes, or one when the user opens a new browser window. Others display ads in response to specific sites that the user visits. Spyware operators present this feature as desirable to advertisers, who may buy ad placement in pop-ups displayed when the user visits a particular site. It is also one of the purposes for which spyware programs gather information on user behaviour. Hence, pop-up advertisements lead to some of users' most common complaints about spyware.

Many users complain about irritating or offensive advertisements as well. As with many [[Web banner|banner ads]], many spyware advertisements use animation or flickering banners which are visually distracting and annoying. Pop-up ads for [[pornography]] often display indiscriminately, including when children use the computer (possibly in violation of anti-pornography laws).

A further issue in the case of some spyware programs has to do with the replacement of banner ads on viewed web sites. Spyware that acts as a [[web proxy]] or a [[Browser Helper Object]] can replace references to a site's own advertisements (which fund the site) with advertisements that instead fund the spyware operator. This cuts into the margins of advertising-funded Web sites.

=== "Stealware" and affiliate fraud ===
A few spyware vendors, notably [[180 Solutions]], have written what the [[New York Times]] has dubbed "[[stealware]]", and what spyware-researcher Ben Edelman terms ''affiliate fraud'', also known as [[click fraud]]. These redirect the payment of affiliate marketing revenues from the legitimate affiliate to the spyware vendor.

[[Affiliate marketing]] networks work by tracking users who follow an advertisement from an "affiliate" and subsequently purchase something from the advertised Web site. [[Electronic commerce|Online merchants]] such as [[eBay]] and [[Dell, Inc.|Dell]] are among the larger companies which use affiliate marketing. In order for affiliate marketing to work, the affiliate places a tag such as a cookie or a session variable on the user's request, which the merchant associates with any purchases made. The affiliate then receives a small commission.

Spyware which attacks [[affiliate network]]s does so by placing the spyware operator's affiliate tag on the user's activity—replacing any other tag, if there is one. This harms just about everyone involved in the transaction other than the spyware operator. The user is harmed by having their choices thwarted. A legitimate affiliate is harmed by having their earned income redirected to the spyware operator. Affiliate marketing networks are harmed by the degradation of their reputation. Vendors are harmed by having to pay out affiliate revenues to an "affiliate" who did not earn them through a contractual agreement. [http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/180-affiliates/]

Affiliate fraud is a violation of the [[terms of service]] of most affiliate marketing networks. As a result, spyware operators such as 180 Solutions have been terminated from affiliate networks including LinkShare and ShareSale.

=== Identity theft and fraud ===
One case has closely associated spyware with [[identity theft]]. <ref>Ecker, Clint (2005). ''[http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050805-5175.html Massive spyware-based identity theft ring uncovered]''. August 5, 2005.</ref> In August 2005, researchers from security software firm Sunbelt Software believed that the makers of the common [[CoolWebSearch]] spyware had used it to transmit "chat sessions, user names, passwords, bank information, etc." [http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/massive-identity-theft-ring.html], but it turned out that "it actually is its own sophisticated criminal little trojan that’s independent of CWS." [http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/identity-theft-what-to-do.html] This case is currently under investigation by the [[FBI]].

Spyware has principally become associated with identity theft in that [[keyloggers]] are routinely packaged with spyware. John Bambenek, who researches information security, estimates that identity thieves have stolen over $24 billion US dollars of account information in the United States alone [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/27/technology/27hack.html].

Spyware-makers may perpetrate another sort of fraud with ''[[dialer]]'' program spyware: [[wire fraud]]. Dialers cause a computer with a [[modem]] to dial up a long-distance telephone number instead of the usual [[Internet service provider|ISP]]. Connecting to these suspicious numbers involves long-distance or overseas charges which invariably result in massive telephone bills that the user is liable for. Dialers are somewhat less effective today, now that fewer Internet users use dialup [[modem]]s.{{citeneeded}}

===Digital rights management===
Some copy-protection schemes, while they do serve the purpose of attempting to prevent piracy, also behave similarly to spyware programs. Some [[digital rights management]] technologies (such as [[Sony BMG Music Entertainment|Sony]]'s [[XCP]]) actually use trojan-horse tactics to verify a user as the rightful owner of the media in question.

[[Sony BMG Music Entertainment|Sony]] has been sued for using virus-like techneques to prevent users from copying its CDs. A [[Rootkit]] technique was used to embed Sony's software deep inside the [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]] operating system to make it hard to find by [[antispyware]] software and difficult to uninstall.

===Spyware and cookies===
Anti-spyware programs often report Web advertisers' [[HTTP cookie]]s as spyware. Web sites (including advertisers) set cookies — small pieces of data rather than software—to track Web-browsing activity: for instance to maintain a "shopping cart" for an online store or to maintain consistent user settings on a search engine.

Only the Web site that sets a cookie can access it. In the case of cookies associated with advertisements, the user generally does not intend to visit the Web site which sets the cookies, but gets redirected to a cookie-setting third-party site referenced by a [[banner ad]] image. Some Web browsers and privacy tools offer to reject cookies from sites other than the one that the user requested.

Advertisers use cookies to track people's browsing among various sites carrying ads from the same firm and thus to build up a marketing profile of the person or family using the computer. For this reason many users object to such cookies, and anti-spyware programs offer to remove them.

===Typical examples of spyware===
A few examples of common spyware programs may serve to illustrate the diversity of behaviors found in these attacks.

''Caveat:'' As with computer viruses, researchers give names to spyware programs which frequently do not relate to any names that the spyware-writers use. Researchers may group programs into "families" based not on shared program code, but on common behaviours, or by "following the money" of apparent financial or business connections. For instance, a number of the spyware programs distributed by [[Claria]] are collectively known as "Gator". Likewise, programs which are frequently installed together may be described as parts of the same spyware package, even if they function separately.


*'''[[CoolWebSearch]]''', a group of programs, installs through the exploitation of Internet Explorer vulnerabilities. The programs direct traffic to advertisements on Web sites including ''coolwebsearch.com''. To this end, they display pop-up ads, rewrite [[search engine]] results, and alter the infected computer's [[hosts file]] to direct [[Domain Name System|DNS]] lookups to these sites. <ref name="doxdb">"[http://www.doxdesk.com/parasite/database.html Parasite information database]". ''Doxdesk.com''. Retrieved July 10, 2005.</ref>

*'''[[Internet Optimizer]]''', also known as '''DyFuCa''', redirects Internet Explorer error pages to advertising. When users follow a broken link or enter an erroneous URL, they see a page of advertisements. However, because password-protected Web sites (HTTP Basic authentication) use the same mechanism as HTTP errors, Internet Optimizer makes it impossible for the user to access password-protected sites. <ref name="doxdb" />

*'''[[180 Solutions]]''' transmits extensive information to advertisers about the Web sites which users visit. It also alters HTTP requests for [[affiliate marketing|affiliate]] advertisements linked from a Web site, so that the advertisements make unearned profit for the 180 Solutions company. It opens pop-up ads that cover over the Web sites of competing companies. [http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/180-affiliates/]

*'''[[HuntBar]]''', aka '''WinTools''' or '''[http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/adware.websearch.html Adware.Websearch]''', is a small family of spyware programs distributed by [http://www.trafficsyndicate.com/ Traffic Syndicate]. <ref name="doxdb" /> It is installed by ActiveX drive-by download at affiliate Web sites, or by advertisements displayed by other spyware programs—an example of how spyware can install more spyware. These programs add toolbars to Internet Explorer, track Web browsing behavior, redirect affiliate references, and display advertisements.

==User consent and legality==
Gaining unauthorised access to a computer is illegal under [[computer crime]] laws in several global territories, such as the United States [[Computer Fraud and Abuse Act]]. Since the owners of computers infected with spyware generally claim that they never authorised the installation, a ''[[prima facie]]'' reading would suggest that the promulgation of spyware would count as a criminal act. Law enforcement has often pursued the authors of other malware programs, such as viruses. Nonetheless, few prosecutions of writers of spyware have occurred, and many such producers operate openly as aboveboard businesses. Some have, however, faced lawsuits.{{citeneeded}}

Spyware producers primarily argue in defense of the legality of their acts that, contrary to the users' claims, users do in fact give [[consent]] to the installation of their spyware. Spyware that comes bundled with shareware applications may appear, for instance, described in the [[legalese]] text of an [[end-user license agreement]] (EULA). Many users habitually ignore these purported contracts, but spyware companies such as Claria claim that these demonstrate that users have consented to the installation of their software.

Despite the ubiquity of EULAs and of [[clickwrap]] agreements, relatively little case law has resulted from their use. It has been established in most [[common law]] jurisdictions that a clickwrap agreements can be a binding contract ''in certain circumstances.'' This does not however mean that every clickwrap agreement is a [[contract]] or that every term in a clickwrap contract is enforceable. It seems highly likely that many of the purported contract terms presented in clickwrap agreements would be dismissed in most jurisdictions as being contrary to public policy. Many spyware clickwrap agreements appear intentionally ambiguous and excessive in length, with key contract terms made inconspicuous. These are all grounds on which similar agreements have been rejected as contracts of adhesion. In Australia, the proprietors of Sharman Newtorks, who own and operate the KaZaa P2P network were sued by the Australian Recording Industry Association for breaching copyright laws as a result of allowing illegal music to be shared and distributed through the KaZaa network. Sharman Networks claimed that the EULA stated that the program was not to be used for illegal activity, however the claim was dismissed on the grounds that the length and ambiguity of the agreement coupled with the fact that few users read it made the agreement inadmissable as a defence.

Nor can a contract possibly exist in the case of spyware installed by surreptitious means, such as in a drive-by download where the user receives no opportunity to either agree to or refuse the contract terms.

Some jurisdictions, including the U.S. states of [[Iowa]] [http://nxtsearch.legis.state.ia.us/NXT/gateway.dll/moved%20code/2005%20MERGED%20IOWA%20CODE%20AND%20SUPPLEMENT/1/26063/26064/26421?f=templates$fn=document-frame.htm$3.0$q=] and [[Washington]] [http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.270], have passed laws criminalizing some forms of spyware. Such laws make it illegal for anyone other than the owner or operator of a computer to install software that alters Web-browser settings, monitors keystrokes, or disables computer-security software.

[[New York]] [[Attorney General]] [[Eliot Spitzer]] has pursued spyware companies for fraudulent installation of software. <ref>"[http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2005/apr/apr28a_05.html State Sues Major "Spyware" Distributor]". ''Office of New York State Attorney General''. April 28, 2005.</ref> In a suit brought in 2005 by Spitzer, the California firm [[Intermix Media, Inc.]] ended up settling by agreeing to pay US$7.5 million and to stop distributing spyware. Intermix's spyware spread via drive-by download, and deliberately installed itself in ways that made it difficult to remove. <ref>Gormley, Michael. "[http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/cpress/20050615/ca_pr_on_tc/spitzer_spyware Intermix Media Inc. says it is settling spyware lawsuit with N.Y. attorney general]". ''[[Yahoo!]] News''. June 15, 2005.</ref>

Another spyware behaviour has attracted lawsuits: the replacement of Web advertisements. In June 2002, a number of large Web publishers sued [[Claria]] for replacing advertisements, but settled out of court. Other spyware apart from Claria's also replaces advertisements, thus diverting revenue from the ad-bearing Web site to the spyware author.

One legal issue not yet pursued involves whether courts can hold advertisers responsible for spyware which displays their ads. In many cases, the companies whose advertisements appear in spyware pop-ups do not directly do business with the spyware firm. Rather, the advertised company contracts with an [[advertising agency]], which in turn contracts with an online subcontractor who gets paid by the number of "impressions" or appearances of the advertisement. Some major firms such as [[Dell Computer]] and [[Mercedes-Benz]] have sacked advertising agencies which have run their ads in spyware. <ref>Gormley, Michael. "[http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8AU8LL81.htm?campaign_id=apn_tech_down Major advertisers caught in spyware net]". ''[[Business Week]]''. June 24, 2005.</ref>

Some spyware companies have threatened websites which have posted descriptions of their products. In 2003, Gator (now known as Claria) filed suit against the website [http://www.pcpitstop.com/ PC Pitstop] for describing the Gator program as "spyware". <ref>Festa, Paul. "[http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-5095051.html See you later, anti-Gators?]". ''News.com''. October 22, 2003.</ref> PC Pitstop settled, agreeing not to use the word "spyware", but continues to publish descriptions of the harmful behaviour of the Gator/Claria software. [http://www.pcpitstop.com/gator/default.asp]

==Remedies and prevention==
As the spyware threat has worsened, a number of techniques have emerged to counteract it. These include programs designed to remove or to block spyware, as well as various user practices which reduce the chance of getting spyware on a system.

Nonetheless, spyware remains a costly problem. When a large number of pieces of spyware have infected a Windows computer, the only remedy may involve backing up user data, and fully reinstalling the operating system.

===Anti-spyware programs===
[[Image:Ad-Aware_Personal.png|thumb|300px|right|Lavasoft's [[Ad-Aware]], one of a few reliable [[freeware]] anti-spyware programs, after scanning the hard drive of an infected Windows XP system.]]

Many programmers and some commercial firms have released products designed to remove or block spyware. Steve Gibson's ''OptOut'', mentioned above, pioneered a growing category. Programs such as Lavasoft's ''[[Ad-Aware SE]]'' and Patrick Kolla's ''[[Spybot - Search & Destroy]]'' rapidly gained popularity as effective tools to remove, and in some cases intercept, spyware programs. More recently [[Microsoft]] acquired the ''[[GIANT AntiSpyware]]'' software, rebadging it as ''Windows AntiSpyware beta'' and releasing it as a free download for [[Windows XP]], [[Windows 2000]], and [[Windows 2003]] users. In early spring, 2006, [[Microsoft]] renamed the beta software to [[Windows Defender]], currently "beta 2." The renamed software for now exists as a time-limited [[beta test]] product that will expire (beta 1 in July 2006, and beta 2 in December, 2006). Microsoft has also announced that the product will ship (for free) with [[Windows Vista]]. Other well-known anti-spyware products include Webroot [[Spy Sweeper]], [[Trend Micro]]'s Anti-Spyware, PC Tools' [[Spyware Doctor]], ParetoLogic's XoftSpy, iS3's STOPzilla and Sunbelt's CounterSpy (which uses a forked codebase from the GIANT Anti-Spyware product).

Major anti-virus firms such as [[Symantec]], [[McAfee]] and [[Sophos]] have come later to the table, adding anti-spyware features to their existing anti-virus products. Early on, anti-virus firms expressed reluctance to add anti-spyware functions, citing lawsuits brought by spyware authors against the authors of web sites and programs which described their products as "spyware". However, recent versions of these major firms' home and business anti-virus products do include anti-spyware functions, albeit treated differently from viruses. Symantec Anti-Virus, for instance, categorizes spyware programs as "extended threats" and now offers real-time protection from them (as it does for viruses).

[[Image:Alwaysupdate-adware-winspy.PNG|thumb|225px|Real-time protection blocks spyware in the process of installing itself. Here, Windows AntiSpyware blocks an instance of the AlwaysUpdateNews spyware.]]

Anti-spyware programs can combat spyware in two ways:
#''real-time protection'', which prevents the installation of spyware
# ''detection and removal'' of spyware.
Writers of anti-spyware programs usually find detection and removal simpler, and many more programs have become available which do so. Such programs inspect the contents of the Windows registry, the operating system files, and installed programs, and remove files and entries which match a list of known spyware components. Real-time protection from spyware works identically to real-time anti-virus protection: the software scans incoming network data and disk files at download time, and blocks the activity of components known to represent spyware. In some cases, it may also intercept attempts to install start-up items or to modify browser settings.

Earlier versions of anti-spyware programs focused chiefly on detection and removal. Javacool Software's [[SpywareBlaster]], one of the first to offer real-time protection, blocked the installation of [[ActiveX]]-based and other spyware programs. To date, other programs such as Ad-Aware and Windows AntiSpyware now combine the two approaches, while SpywareBlaster remains focused on prevention.

Like most anti-virus software, many anti-spyware/adware tools require a frequently-updated database of threats. As new spyware programs are released, anti-spyware developers discover and evaluate them, making "signatures" or "definitions" which allow the software to detect and remove the spyware. As a result, anti-spyware software is of limited usefulness without a regular source of updates. Some vendors provide a subscription-based update service, while others provide updates gratis. Updates may be installed automatically on a schedule or before doing a scan, or may be done manually. Not all programs rely on updated definitions. Some programs rely partly (for instance Windows Defender) or entirely ([http://www.winpatrol.com BillP's WinPatrol], and certainly others) on historical observation. They watch certain configuration parameters (such as the Windows registry or browser configuration) and report any change to the user, without judgment or recommendation. Their chief advantage is that they do not rely on updated definitions. Even with a subscription, a "critical mass" of other users have to have, and report a problem before the new definition is characterized and propagated. The disadvantage is that they can offer no guidance. The user is left to determine "what did I just do, and is this configuration change appropriate?"

If a spyware program is not blocked and manages to get itself installed, it may resist attempts to terminate or uninstall it. Some programs work in pairs: when an anti-spyware scanner (or the user) terminates one running process, the other one respawns the killed program. Likewise, some spyware will detect attempts to remove registry keys and immediately add them again. Usually, booting the infected computer in [[safe mode]] allows an anti-spyware program a better chance of removing persistent spyware.

===Fake anti-spyware programs===
Malicious programmers have released a large number of fake anti-spyware programs, and widely distributed Web [[banner ad]]s now spuriously warn users that their computers have been infected with spyware, directing them to purchase programs which do not actually remove spyware — or worse, may add more spyware of their own. <ref>Roberts, Paul F. "[http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1821127,00.asp Spyware-Removal Program Tagged as a Trap]". ''[[eWeek]]''. May 26, 2005.</ref> <ref>Howes, Eric L. "[http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm The Spyware Warrior List of Rogue/Suspect Anti-Spyware Products & Web Sites]". Retrieved July 10, 2005.</ref>

The [[as of 2005|recent]] proliferation of fake or spoofed antivirus products has occasioned some concern. Such products often bill themselves as antispyware, antivirus, or registry cleaners, and sometimes feature popups prompting users to install them. This is called [[Rogue software]].

Known offenders include:
* [[Malware Wipe]]
* [[Pest Trap]]
* [[SpyAxe]]
* [[AntiVirus Gold]]
* [[SpywareStrike]]
* [[SpyFalcon]]
* [[WorldAntiSpy]]
* [[WinFixer]]
* [[SpyTrooper]]
* [[Spysheriff|Spy Sheriff]]
* [[SpyBan]]
* [[SpyWiper]]
* [[PAL Spyware Remover]]
* [[Spyware Stormer]]
* [[PSGuard]]
* [[AlfaCleaner]]
For details, please see [http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm "Rogue/Suspect Anti-Spyware Products & Web Sites"]

On [[2006-01-26]], [[Microsoft]] and the Washington state attorney general filed suit against Secure Computer for its Spyware Cleaner product. <ref>[http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,124508,00.asp Antispyware Company Sued Under Spyware Law]</ref>

=== Virtual Machines ===
Using a [[virtual machine]] (such as a pre-built Browser Appliance for [[VMware]] Player) can inhibit infection by spyware, malware, and viruses. Virtual machines provide separate environments, so if spyware enters the virtual environment, the host computer remains unaffected. One can also use snapshots to remove one's private information, transporting the snapshot of the VM.

This environment resembles a [[sandbox (computer security)|sandbox]]. It has drawbacks in that it uses more memory (compared to a standalone browser) and it uses a lot of disk space.

===Security practices===
To deter spyware, computer users have found a number of techniques useful in addition to installing anti-spyware software.

Many system operators install a [[web browser]] other than Microsoft's Internet Explorer (IE), such as [[Opera (web browser)|Opera]] or [[Mozilla Firefox]]. Though such web browsers have also suffered from some security vulnerabilities, because most users that are likely to fall for spyware aren't using them, these browsers are not targeted as much as Internet Explorer. Not a single browser ranks as safe, because in the case of spyware the security comes with the person who uses the browser.

Some Internet Service Providers — particularly colleges and universities — have taken a different approach to blocking spyware: they use their network [[firewall (networking)|firewall]]s and [[Web proxy|web proxies]] to block access to Web sites known to install spyware. On [[March 31]], [[2005]], [[Cornell University]]'s Information Technology department released a report detailing the behavior of one particular piece of proxy-based spyware, ''Marketscore'', and the steps the university took to intercept it. <ref>Schuster, Steve. "[http://www.cit.cornell.edu/computer/security/marketscore/MarketScore_rev2.html Blocking Marketscore: Why Cornell Did It]". Cornell University, Office of Information Technologies. March 31, 2005.</ref> Many other educational institutions have taken similar steps against Marketscore and other spyware. Spyware programs which redirect network traffic cause greater technical-support problems than programs which merely display ads or monitor users' behavior, and so may attract institutional attention more readily.

Some users install a large [[hosts file]] which prevents the users computer from connecting to known spyware related web addresses. However, by connecting to the numeric IP address, rather than the domain name, spyware may bypass this sort of protection.

Spyware may get installed via certain [[shareware]] programs offered for download. Downloading programs only from reputable sources can provide some protection from this source of attack. Recently, [[CNet]] revamped its download directory: it has stated that it will only keep files that pass inspection by Ad-Aware and Spyware Doctor.

==Notable programs distributed with spyware==
*[[Messenger Plus!]] (only if you agree to install their "sponsor" program)
*[[Bonzi Buddy]] <ref>"[http://sarc.com/avcenter/venc/data/adware.bonzi.html Symantec Security Response - Adware.Bonzi]". ''Symantec''. Retrieved July 27, 2005.</ref>
*[[DivX]] (except for the paid version, and the "standard" version without the encoder). DivX announced removal of GAIN software from version 5.2. <ref>"[http://www.pcpitstop.com/gator/Confused.asp How Did I Get Gator?]". ''PC Pitstop''. Retrieved July 27, 2005.</ref>
*[[Dope Wars]] <ref>Edelman, Ben (2005). "[http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/installations/dopewars-claria/ Claria's Misleading Installation Methods - Dope Wars]". Retrieved July 27, 2005</ref>
*[[ErrorGuard]] <ref>"[http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/pest/pest.aspx?id=453094197 eTrust Spyware Encyclopedia - ErrorGuard]". ''Computer Associates''. Retrieved July 27, 2005.</ref>
*[[FlashGet]] (free version) <ref>"[http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/pest/pest.aspx?id=453077947 eTrust Spyware Encyclopedia - FlashGet]". ''Computer Associates''. Retrieved July 27, 2005</ref>
*[[Grokster]] <ref>Edelman, Ben (2004). "[http://www.benedelman.org/news/100904-1.html Grokster and Claria Take Licenses to New Lows, and Congress Lets Them Do It]". Retrieved July 27, 2005</ref>
*[[Kazaa]] <ref>Edelman, Ben (2004). "[http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/claria-license/ Claria License Agreement Is Fifty Six Pages Long]". Retrieved July 27, 2005.</ref>
*[[Morpheus (computer program)|Morpheus]] <ref name="p2p">Edelman, Ben (2005). "[http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/p2p/ Comparison of Unwanted Software Installed by P2P Programs]". Retrieved July 27, 2005.</ref>
*[[RadLight]] <ref>"[http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/pest/pest.aspx?id=54732 eTrust Spyware Encyclopedia - Radlight 3 PRO]". ''Computer Associates''. Retrieved July 27, 2005</ref>
*[[WeatherBug]] <ref>"[http://www.doxdesk.com/parasite/WeatherBug.html doxdesk.com: database: WeatherBug]". ''Doxdesk.com''. Retrieved July 27, 2005.</ref>
*[[EDonkey2000]] <ref name="p2p" />

[[Sony]]'s [[Extended Copy Protection]] involved the installation of spyware from audio [[compact disc]]s through [[autorun]]. This practice sparked [[2005 Sony CD copy protection scandal|considerable controversy]] when it was discovered.

===Notable programs formerly distributed with spyware===
*[[AOL Instant Messenger]] <ref name="sunbelt-wild">"[http://research.sunbelt-software.com/threat_display.cfm?name=WildTangent&threatid=14225 WildTangent]". ''Sunbelt Software''. Retrieved July 27, 2005.</ref> (AOL Instant Messenger still packages Viewpoint Media Player)
*[[EDonkey2000]] <ref name="p2p" />
*[[LimeWire]] (all free Windows versions up to 3.9.3) <ref name="p2p" />
*[[WildTangent]] <ref name="sunbelt-wild" />

==See also==
*[[Antivirus software]]
*[[OpenAntivirus]]
*[[Computer virus]]
*[[Adware]]
*[[Computer worm|Worms]]
*[[Trojan horse (computing)|Trojan horse]]
*[[Computer insecurity]]
*[[malware]]
*[[virus hoax]]
*[[List of computer viruses]]
*[[List of computer virus hoaxes]]
*[[List of trojan horses]]
*[[Timeline of notable computer viruses and worms]]
*[[Turing completeness]]
*[[Black hat]]
*[[Security through obscurity]]
*[[Spam (electronic)|Spam]]
*[[Melissa (computer worm)|Melissa worm]], [[ILOVEYOU]]
*[[Cryptovirology]]
*[[:Category:Spyware removal]] — Programs that find and remove spyware
*[[Palm OS Viruses]]
*[[Anonymous web browsing]]
*[[Computer security audit]]
*[[Exploit (computer science)|Exploit]]
*[[Keystroke logging]]
*[[Stopping e-mail abuse]]
*[[Phone Home]]
*[[Hosts file]]
*[[Comparison of P2P applications]]

==References==
<div class="references-small">
<references/>
</div>

==External links==
{{cleanup-spam}}
===Guides===
* [http://guides.radified.com/magoo/guides/spyware/remove_spyware_01.htm Magoo's Guide to Eliminating Spyware] - Information on how to get rid of spyware and keep it from returning
*[http://spywarewarrior.com/asw-features.htm The Spyware Warrior Guide to Anti-Spyware Programs] at Spyware Warrior
*[http://www.pcreview.co.uk/articles/Windows/Protection_against_Adware_and_Spyware/ Protection against Adware and Spyware] - Beginners guide to preventing the installation of spyware
* [http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/forum55.html Spyware & Malware Removal Self-Help Guides] - Self-help guides on removing different types of Spyware and Malware.
*[http://members.ispwest.com/polygons/spyware.shtml Spyware Removal Guide] - A quick and easy guide to removing spyware using free tools such as HiJackThis

===Prevention===
* [http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Spyware-Evolving.html How Spyware And The Weapons Against It Are Evolving] - Article discussing causes and possible remedies of the spyware problem
* [http://kppfree.altervista.org/spylist.html The Spyware Infested Filesharing Programs List] - Daily updated list about spyware infested p2p programs.

===Organizations===
* [http://www.antispywarecoalition.org/ Anti-Spyware Coalition] - A group developing formal definitions and [[best practice|best-practice]]s
* [http://www.stopbadware.org/ StopBadware.org] - A non-profit group (sponsored by Google, Lenovo, and Sun) that aims to provide "reliable, objective information about downloadable applications".

===Software===
* [http://www.lavasoft.com Lavasoft] - Ad-Aware antispyware program, free version available
* [http://www.safer-networking.org/en/mirrors/index.html Safer Networking] - Spybot Search & Destroy and other free security programs
* [http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor/ Spyware Doctor] - Spyware Doctor antispyware, and removes trojans horses, other free scans included.
{{featured article}}

[[Category:Computer network security]]
[[Category:Malware]]
[[Category:Internet advertising and promotion]]
[[Category:Spyware|*]]

[[bs:Spyware]]
[[ca:Programari espia]]
[[da:Spyware]]
[[de:Spyware]]
[[es:Programa espía]]
[[fa:جاسوس‌افزار]]
[[fr:Logiciel espion]]
[[ko:스파이웨어]]
[[it:Spyware]]
[[he:רוגלה]]
[[ku:Spyware]]
[[nl:Spyware]]
[[ja:スパイウェア]]
[[no:Spionprogramvare]]
[[pl:Spyware]]
[[pt:Spyware]]
[[ru:Spyware]]
[[sk:Spyware]]
[[fi:Vakoiluohjelma]]
[[sv:Spionprogram]]
[[vi:Phần mềm gián điệp]]
[[zh:間諜軟體]]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style

2006-08-16T06:44:27Z

Wai Wai: beautify the quotation (with cquote)

:''This is the Wikipedia Manual of Style. For the article about Manuals of Style, see [[Style guide]].''
{{style-guideline|[[WP:MOS]], [[WP:STYLE]]}}


This '''Manual of Style''' has the simple purpose of making the encyclopedia easy to read and write by following a consistent format — it is a [[style guide]]. However the following rules should not be treated as the only standards of Wikipedia style. One way is often as good as any other. On the other hand, the following quotation from ''[[The Chicago Manual of Style]]'' is worth considering:
{{cquote|Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity.}}

'''Clear, informative, and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting'''. Wikipedia does not require writers to follow any of these rules, but their efforts will be more appreciated when they do — [[Wikipedia:Editing policy|the joy of wiki editing]] is that Wikipedia does not require perfection.

{{Style}}

__TOC__

==Principles==
The style guides are not set in stone and should not be treated absolutely or with no exception. There are cases where the guidelines do not apply, or another style or formatting is better than the suggested one. Please bear the following main principles in mind when reading the rest of the guidelines.

===Importance===
Wikipedia is intended to be a free encyclopedia, providing detailed and up-to-date knowledge to readers anywhere in the world. '''Clear, unambiguous, informative, and unbiased [[writing]] is always more important''' than presentation, style and formatting. Hence Wikipedia does not require any editor to follow all or any of these rules, but their efforts to do so will be appreciated.

===Consistency===
Wikipedia has established a style manual because following a consistent format makes reading easier, but the prescriptions of Wikipedia's Manual of Style are not binding.

Wikipedia does not require all editors to stick with only one single style or formatting. It is not essential that there be consistency across all articles in Wikipedia, but consistency should be maintained internally within an article, unless there are good reasons to vary.

===Flexibility===
Wikipedia has no firm rules apart from the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|5 fundamental principles]]. One style or formatting is often as good as any other, depending on different cases and situations. As long as the choice of style or formatting is acceptable, it is fine.

Strict and rigid rules may even hinder editor contributions and undermine the quality of the article. The following quotation from ''[[The Chicago Manual of Style]]'' deserves notice:
{{cquote|Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity.}}

===Variety===
Wikipedia allows multiple styles and respects different formatting and style as long as they are clear and unambiguous. When any of the style is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedian to change from one style to another unless there are some substantial reasons for the change.

For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is [[colour]] rather than [[color]], it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable.

However editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

See the ruling of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk|the case of Jguk]] for details.

===Clarity===
An article should be presented as clearly as possible. Ambiguity and confusion should be kept to a minimum. Do not use any style, formatting, or wording that causes ambiguity or confusion.

Something obvious in one country or region may not be so in another. Wikipedia is intended to be read worldwide, so if some style or formatting — even if standard — would cause confusion, do not use it.

==Style guide not applicable to direct quotations==
The style guide do not apply to direct quotations. Direct [[quotations]] (ie the word-for-word reproduction of a written or oral text) should ''not'' be altered to confirm any wikipedia formatting or style because the original source has to be kept intact (in verbatim), if at all possible.

For instance, the date in the following fictional quotation should not be linked (even if it is preferred in wikipedia):
:"Tony Blair, responding to critics in his party, said 'The world has totally changed since the 11th of September.' He was echoing earlier sentiments by Lord Ronald McDonald, who said that 'nine-eleven' was the day that the American public woke up to the reality of terrorism."

==Article titles==
{{main|Wikipedia:Naming conventions}}

If possible, make the title the ''[[subject (grammar)|subject]]'' of the first sentence of the article (as opposed to putting it in the [[Predicate (grammar)|predicate]]). For example, write "This Manual of Style is a style guide" instead of "This style guide is known as the Manual of Style". In any case, the title should appear as early as possible in the article — preferably in the first sentence.

The first time the article mentions the title, put it in bold using three apostrophes — <code><nowiki>'''article title'''</nowiki></code> produces '''article title'''. For example: "This '''Manual of Style''' is a style guide."

As a general rule, do not put links in
* the bold reiteration of the title in the article's lead sentence or
* any section title.
Also, try not to put other phrases in bold in the first sentence. An exception to this arises when an article has alternative titles, each of which an editor puts in bold; for example, [[Río de la Plata]]:
<blockquote>
The '''Río de la Plata''' (from [[Spanish language|Spanish]]: "River of [[Silver]]"), also known by the [[English language|English]] name '''River Plate''', as in the [[Battle of the River Plate]], or sometimes ['''La'''] '''Plata River'''
</blockquote>
Follow the normal rules for italics in choosing whether to put part or all of the title in italics:
<blockquote>
'''''Tattoo You''''' is an album by [[The Rolling Stones]], released in [[1981]].
</blockquote>

==Headings==
{{main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)}}

===Markup===
Use the <tt>==</tt> (two equal signs) style markup for headings, not the <nowiki>'''</nowiki> (triple apostrophes) used to make words appear '''bold''' in [[Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page#Character_formatting|character formatting]]. Start with <tt>==</tt>, add the heading title, then end with <tt>==</tt>.

===Wording===
*'''Capitalize''' the first letter only of the first word and of any [[Noun#Proper nouns and common nouns|proper nouns]] in a heading, and leave all of the other letters in lowercase. Use "Rules and regulations", not "Rules and Regulations".
*'''Avoid special characters''' in headings, such as an ampersand (&), a plus sign (+), curly braces ({}), or square braces ([]). In place of the ampersand, use the word "and" unless the ampersand is part of a formal name.
*Keep the heading '''short''': headings with more than 10 words may violate their purpose.
*Avoid '''unnecessary words or redundancy''' in headings: avoid "a/an/the", [[pronoun]]s, repeating the article title, and so on.
*Do not '''repeat any section title''': that is, do not make one section title conflict with another.

===Section management===
*'''Adding sub-headings is encouraged'''. It helps readers to browse, read and understand the article.
**Use sub-headings if the section becomes a bit long.
**Use proper sub-headings to flesh out your points.
*If at all possible, try '''not to change section headings and sub-headings'''. Other articles may link to a specific section. It will break the section links.
*If you link to a specific section, it is wise to '''leave an editor note''' <nowiki>  </nowiki> to remind others not to change the section title. Please leave the names of the linking articles, so when the title needs changing, it makes the job easier for others to fix the links.

==Capital letters==
{{main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)}}
[[American English]] and [[British English]] sometimes differ in their inclination to use capitals. If possible, as with spelling, use rules appropriate to the cultural and linguistic context. In other words, do not enforce American rules on pages about Commonwealth topics or Commonwealth rules on pages about American topics. In regard to pages about other cultures, choose either style, but be consistent within the page itself.

Initial capitals and all capitals should not be used for emphasis. For example, "aardvarks, which are Not The Same as anteaters" and "aardvarks, which are NOT THE SAME as anteaters" are both incorrect. Use italics instead ("aardvarks, which are ''not the same'' as anteaters").

===Titles===
Titles such as ''president'', ''king'', or ''emperor'' start with a capital letter when used as a title (followed by a name): "President Nixon", not "president Nixon". When used generically, they should be in lower case: "De Gaulle was the French president." The correct formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun. Hence: "Hirohito was Emperor of Japan." Similarly, "Louis XVI was the French king" but "Louis XVI was King of France", ''King of France'' being a title in that context. Likewise, capitalize royal titles: "Her Majesty" or "His Highness". (Reference: ''[[Chicago Manual of Style]]'' 14th ed., 7.16; [http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/page/0,5817,184841,00.html ''The Guardian Manual of Style''], "Titles" keyword.) Exceptions may apply for specific offices.

In the case of "prime minister", either both words begin with a capital letter or neither, except of course when it begins a sentence. Again, when using it generically, do not capitalize it: "There are many prime ministers around the world." When making reference to a specific office, generally use uppercase: "The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said today…" (A good rule of thumb is whether the sentence uses a definite article [the] or an indefinite article [a]. If the sentence uses ''the'', use "Prime Minister"; if ''a'', go with "prime minister". However to complicate matters, some style manuals, while saying "''The'' British Prime Minister", recommend "British prime minister".)

For the use of titles and honorifics in biographical articles, see [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific_prefixes]].

===Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines, and their adherents===
Names of religions, whether as a noun or an adjective, and their followers start with a capital letter. Mormonism has particular complications—see [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mormonism)]].

Deities begin with a capital letter: ''God'', ''Allah'', ''Freya'', ''the Lord'', ''the Supreme Being'', ''the Messiah''. The same is true when referring to important religious figures, such as Muhammad, by terms such as ''the Prophet''. Transcendent ideas in the Platonic sense also begin with a capital letter: ''Good'' and ''Truth''. Pronouns referring to deities, or nouns (other than names) referring to any material or abstract representation of any deity, human or otherwise, do not begin with a capital letter. Thus one would say, "He prayed to Wotan", since ''Wotan'' in this case, is a proper name it is correctly capitalized, but the common use of gods in this sense is not capitalized. The following sentence would be correct usage, "It was thought he prayed to God, but it turned out he prayed to one of the Norse gods."

Do not capitalize mythical creatures, such as elves, fairies, nymphs or genies. The exception is some works of fantasy, such as those of [[J. R. R. Tolkien]], where the viewer considers the mythical creatures an ethnicity and thus written with an initial capital.

Philosophies, doctrines, and systems of economic thought do ''not'' begin with a capital letter, unless the name derives from a proper noun: lowercase ''republican'' refers to a system of political thought; uppercase ''Republican'' refers to a specific [[Republican Party]] (each party name being a proper noun).

===Calendar items===
The names of months, days, and holidays always begin with a capital letter: June, Monday, Fourth of July (when referring to the [[Independence Day (United States)|U.S. Independence Day]], otherwise July 4 or 4 July).

Seasons start with a capital letter when they go with another noun or when they personify. Here they function as proper nouns: "Winter Solstice"; "Autumn Open House"; "I think Spring is showing her colors"; "Old Man Winter".

However, in the general sense, they do not start with a capital letter: "This summer was very hot."

===Animals, plants, and other organisms===
{{main|Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life#Article titles and common names|Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)}}

Editors have hotly debated whether the common names of species should start with a capital letter, and this remains unresolved. As a matter of truce, both styles are acceptable (except for proper names), but create a [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect]] from the alternative form.

===Celestial bodies===
Names of other planets and stars are proper nouns and begin with a capital letter: "The planet Mars can be seen tonight in the constellation Gemini, near the star Pollux."

The words ''sun'', ''earth'', and ''moon'' are proper nouns when the sentence uses them in an astronomical context, but not elsewhere: so "The Sun is a main sequence star, with a spectral class of G2"; but "It was a lovely day and the sun was warm". Note that these terms are proper nouns only when they refer to specific celestial bodies (our Sun, Earth and Moon): so "The Moon orbits the Earth"; but "Pluto's moon Charon".

===Directions and regions===
Regions that are proper nouns, including widely known expressions such as ''Southern California'', start with a capital letter. Follow the same convention for related forms: a person from the [[Southern United States]] is a ''Southerner''.

Directions (''north'', ''southwest'', etc.) are not proper nouns and do not start with a capital letter. The same is true for their related forms: someone might call a road that leads north a ''northern'' road, compared to the [[Great North Road (United Kingdom)|Great North Road]].

If you are not sure whether a region has attained proper-noun status, assume it has not.

===Institutions===
Proper names of specific institutions (for example, [[Harvard University]], [[New York-Presbyterian Hospital]], [[George Brown College]], etc.) are proper nouns and require capitalization.

However, the words for ''types'' of institutions (university, college, hospital, high school, etc.) do not require capitalization if they do not appear in a proper name:
;Incorrect:
:The University offers programs in arts and sciences.
;Correct:
:The university offers…'' or ''The University of Ottawa offers…

==Italics==
{{main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (italics)}}
Use the <code><nowiki>''</nowiki></code> (italic) markup. Example:

:<code><nowiki>''This is italic.''</nowiki></code>

which produces:

<div style="background-color: white">
:''This is italic.''
</div>

Italics are mainly used to ''emphasize'' certain words. Italics for emphasis should be used ''sparingly''.

They are also used in these other cases:
===Titles===
{{main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles)}}
Italics are used for the titles of works of literature and art. (The titles of articles, chapters, and other short works are not italicized but are enclosed in double quotation marks.)

===Words as words===
Use italics when writing about words as words, or letters as letters (to indicate the [[use-mention distinction]]). For example:

*''Deuce'' means "two".
*The term ''panning'' is derived from ''panorama'', a word coined in [[1787]].
*The most common letter in English is ''e''.

===Loan words===
Wikipedia prefers italics for isolated words and phrases from other languages not yet in common use in English. Use anglicized spellings for such words, or use the native spellings if they use the [[Latin alphabet]] (with or without [[diacritic]]s). For example, "Reading and writing in Japanese requires familiarity with ''[[hiragana]]'', ''[[katakana]]'', ''[[kanji]]'', and sometimes ''[[romaji|rōmaji]]''." Words or phrases that have common use in the English language, however—[[praetor]], [[Gestapo]], [[samurai]], [[esprit de corps]]—do not require italicization. If looking for a good rule of thumb, do not italicize words that appear unitalicized in an English-language dictionary. Per the [[Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Use other languages sparingly|guide to writing better Wikipedia articles]], use words from other languages sparingly. Include native spellings in non-Latin scripts in parentheses.

===Quotations===
There is normally no need to put quotations in italics unless the material would otherwise call for italics (emphasis, use of non-English words, etc.). Indicate whether using the italics in the original text or whether they were added later. For example:
<blockquote>Now cracks a noble heart. Good night sweet prince: And ''flights of angels'' sing thee to thy rest! (emphasis added)</blockquote>

==Punctuation==
In most cases, simply follow the usual rules of English punctuation. A few points where Wikipedia may differ from usual usage follow.

===Quotation marks===
With [[quotation marks]] we split the difference between American and British usage. Though not a rigid rule, we use the "double quotes" for most quotations—they are easier to read on the screen—and use 'single quotes' for nesting quotations, that is, "quotations 'within' quotations".

:'''Note:''' if a word or phrase appears in an article with single quotes, such as 'abcd', the [[Wikipedia:Searching]] facility considers the single quotes to be part of the word and will find that word or phrase only if the search string is also within single quotes. (When trying this out with the example mentioned, remember that this article is in the Wikipedia namespace.) Avoiding this complication is an additional reason to use double quotes, for which the difficulty does not arise. It may even be a reason to use double quotes for quotations within quotations.

When punctuating quoted passages, include the [[punctuation mark]] inside the quotation marks ''only if'' the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation ("logical" quotations). When using "[[scare quotes]]", the comma or period always goes outside.

Examples:

*Arthur said the situation was "deplorable". (The [[full stop]] [period] is not part of the quotation.)
*Arthur said, "The situation is deplorable." (The full sentence is quoted; the period is part of the quotation.)
*Arthur said that the situation was "the most deplorable [he] had seen in years." (Although the full sentence is not quoted, the sense of finality conveyed by the period is part of the quotation.)
*Martha asked, "Are you coming?" (Inside when quoting a question.)
*Did Martha say, "Come with me"? (Outside when there is a non-interrogative quotation at the end of a question.)

Similarly, when the title of an article requires quotation marks in the text (for example, the titles of songs, poems, etc.), the quotation marks should not be bolded in the summary, as they are not part of the title:

<blockquote>"'''Jabberwocky'''" is a nonsense poem by Lewis Carroll.</blockquote>

Longer quotations may be better rendered in an indented style by starting the first line with a colon or by using <nowiki> <blockquote> </blockquote> </nowiki> notation (see [[#Direct quotations]]), which indents both left and right margins. Indented quotations do not need to be marked by quotation marks. Double quotation marks belong at the beginning of each paragraph in a quotation of multiple paragraphs not using indented style, though at the end of only the last paragraph.

Use quotation marks or indentation to distinguish quotations from other text. There is normally no need to put quotations in italics unless the material would otherwise call for italics (emphasis, use of non-English words, etc.).

====Look of quotation marks and apostrophes====

There are two options when considering the look of the quotation marks themselves:

* [[Quotation_mark#Quotation marks in English|Typographic]] <big>“text”, ‘text’</big>
* [[Quotation_mark#Typewriter quotation marks|Typewriter]] <big>"text", 'text'</big>

As there is currently no consensus on which should be preferred, either is acceptable. However, it appears that historically the majority of Wikipedia articles, and those on the Internet as a whole, follow the latter style. If curved quotation marks or apostrophes appear in article titles, ensure that there is a redirect with straight glyphs.

Never use grave and acute accents or backticks (<big>`text´</big>) as quotation marks or apostrophes.

===Use of punctuation in presence of brackets/parentheses===
Punctuation goes where it belongs logically; that is, it goes with the text to which it belongs. A sentence wholly inside brackets will have its punctuation inside the brackets. (As shown here, this applies to all punctuation in the sentence.) If a sentence ends with a clause in brackets, the final punctuation stays outside the brackets (as shown here). This applies to square "[ ]" as well as round "( )" brackets (parentheses).

===Serial commas===
The [[serial comma]] (also known as the '''Oxford comma''' or '''Harvard comma''') is a comma used immediately before a conjunction in a list of three or more items. The phrase "ham, chips, and eggs" is written with a serial comma, but "ham, chips and eggs" is not. Sometimes omitting the comma can lead to an ambiguous sentence, as in this example: "The author would like to thank her parents, Sinéad O'Connor and President Bush." Sometimes including the comma can also lead to an ambiguous sentence, as in: "The author would like to thank her mother, Sinéad O'Connor, and President Bush" which may be a list of either two or three people. In such cases, there are three options for avoiding ambiguity:

* A choice can be made whether to use or omit the comma after the penultimate item in such a way as to avoid ambiguity.
* The sentence can be recast to avoid listing the items in an ambiguous manner.
* The items in the list can be presented using a formatted list.

If the presence of the final serial comma does not affect ambiguity of the sentence (as in most cases), there is no Wikipedia consensus on whether it should be used.



Some style authorities support a mandatory final serial comma. These include Fowler's ''[[Fowler's Modern English Usage|Modern English Usage]]'' (Brit.), the ''[[Chicago Manual of Style]]'' (Amer.), and [[Strunk and White]]'s ''[[The Elements of Style|Elements of Style]]'' (Amer.). Others recommend avoiding it where possible; these include ''[[The Times]]'' (Brit.), ''[[The New York Times]]'' (Amer.) and ''[[The Economist]]'' (Brit.). See [[serial comma]] for further authorities and discussion.

Proponents of the serial comma, such as ''The Elements of Style'', cite its disambiguating function and consistency as reasons for its use. Opponents consider it extraneous in situations where it is not explicitly resolving ambiguity. Many non-journalistic style guides recommend its use, while many newspaper style guides discourage its use; Wikipedia currently has no consensus, itself a position which allows either style and therefore allows avoidance of ambiguities like those above.

The serial comma should never be employed when specifying the name of a railroad or railway (for example, [[Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad]]). This is also the standard for [[law firm]]s and similar firms (for example, [[Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom]]).

===Colons===
[[Colon (punctuation)|Colons]] ( : ) should not have spaces before them:
;Correct:
:He attempted it in two years: 1941 and 1943
;Incorrect:
:He attempted it in two years : 1941 and 1943

===Dashes===
{{main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes)}}
The hyphen (-), en-dash (–) and em-dash (—) should be used in the correct context wherever possible. Other dashes, notably double-hyphen (--) should be avoided.

===Spaces after the end of a sentence===
There are no guidelines on whether to use one or two spaces after the end of a sentence ([[French spacing (English)|French spacing]]), but it is not important as the difference shows up only in the edit box. See [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style archive (spaces after a full stop/period)|Wikipedia talk: Manual of Style archive (spaces after the end of a sentence)]] for a discussion on this.

===Contractions===
In general, formal writing is preferred. Therefore, avoid the use of contractions — such as ''don't'', ''can't'', ''won't'', ''would've'', ''they'd'', and so on — unless they occur in a quotation.

===Slashes===
Avoid joining two words by a slash, as it suggests that they are related, but does not say how. Spell it out to avoid ambiguities. Also, the construct ''and/or'' is awkward outside of legal writing. Use "x or y, or both," to explicitly conjoin with the inclusive ''or'', or "either x or y, but not both," to explicitly specify the exclusive ''or''.

===Ellipsis===
''[[Ellipsis]]'', the dot-dot-dot indicating omitted text, should be separated from surrounding words by spaces, but not spaced when combined with other punctuation. The precomposed ellipsis character (&hellip; … ) may be used: it is intended to replace three dots, but looks a bit different in some fonts, so it may be better to just type the dots. To prevent the ellipsis from wrapping to the beginning of a line, you may enter a non-breaking space before it (&nbsp;... ).

Example: ''in the middle of a sentence ... or after a comma, ... before one..., and at the end.... Following a question...? Or even an exclamation...!''

==Acronyms and abbreviations==
{{main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations)}}
Do not assume that your reader is familiar with the acronym or abbreviation you are using. The standard writing style is to spell out the acronym or abbreviation on the first reference (wikilinked if appropriate) and then show the acronym or abbreviation after it. This signals to readers to look out for it later in the text and makes it easy for them to refer back to it. For example:

<blockquote>The [[Ontario New Democratic Party|New Democratic Party]] (NDP) won the [[Ontario general election, 1990|1990 Ontario election]] with a significant majority. The NDP quickly became unpopular with the voters, however…</blockquote>

It can also be helpful in a longer article to spell out the acronym or abbreviation for the reader
again or to rewikify it if it has not been used for a while.

When abbreviating ''United States'', please use "U.S."; that is the more common style in that country. When referring to the United States in a long abbreviation (USA, USN, USAF), periods should not be used. When including the United States in a list of countries, do not abbreviate the "United States" (for example, "France and the United States", not "France and the U.S.").

[[MediaWiki|The software]] that Wikipedia runs on does not currently support [[HTML]] acronym or abbreviation elements (<code><acronym></code> or <code><abbr></code>), so these tags should not be inserted into the source. (See [[Mediazilla:671]].)

==Direct quotations==
Use the exact same formatting as was used in the original written text being [[quotation|quoted]]; in general, do not alter it to conform to Wikipedia style. An exception is that if a quotation is enclosed in quotation marks and includes a quotation itself, any quotation within the quotation should have its quotation marks changed to conform to the Wikipedia style of alternating " and '. For instance, if an article were to quote a source containing the text
<blockquote>The statement "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is frequently misattributed to [[Voltaire]].</blockquote>
then the article would read:
<blockquote>According to source, "The statement 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it' is frequently misattributed to [[Voltaire]]."</blockquote>
not:
<blockquote>According to source, "The statement "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is frequently misattributed to [[Voltaire]]."</blockquote>
(Of course, if the original text followed the British standard of alternating ' and ", there would be no difference.)

When indenting a [[block quote]], use the [[HTML]] tag <code><blockquote></code>, not the wiki indentation mark <code>:</code>. (For the time being, <code><blockquote></code> will not work for multiparagraph quotes; you can manually add <code></code> tags to the beginning of paragraphs beyond the first, or just use <code>:</code> until the issue is resolved. See [[Mediazilla:6200]].)
;Good:
:<blockquote>Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.</blockquote>
;Bad:
::Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

==Pronunciation==
{{main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation)}}

==Scientific style==
{{main|Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions}}

*For [[Units of measurement|unit]]s of measure, use [[SI]] units as the main units in science articles, unless there are compelling historical or pragmatic reasons not to do so (for example, [[Hubble's constant]] should be quoted in its most common unit of ([[Kilometre|km]]/[[Second|s]])/[[Megaparsec|Mpc]] rather than its SI unit of [[Hertz|Hz]]). For other articles, either Imperial or metric units may be used as the main units of measurement. See [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of measurement]] for further guidance. Wikipedia Style for numbers is ''12,345,678.901''.
*In articles about [[chemical]]s and [[chemistry]], use the style of the [[IUPAC|International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry]] (IUPAC) for chemical names wherever possible except in article titles, where the common name should be used if different followed by mention of the IUPAC name. For general information see [[systematic name]], and for organic compounds in particular see [[IUPAC nomenclature]].
*In [[periodic table group]]s, use the ''new'' IUPAC names (these use [[Arabic numerals|Hindu-Arabic numerals]], not [[Roman numerals]] or letters).
*For [[mathematics]] and [[mathematical formula]]e, see [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics]].

==Sections==
{{main|Wikipedia:Section}}
{{see also|Wikipedia:Lead section}}
{{see also|Wikipedia:Guide to layout}}

==Simple tabulation==
Any line that starts with a blank space becomes a fixed font width and can be used for simple tabulation.

foo bar baz
alpha beta gamma

A line that starts with a blank space with nothing else on it forms a blank line.

For a complete guide to more complex tables see [[:Meta:Help:Table]].

==Usage and spelling==
===Usage===
*Possessives of singular nouns ending in ''s'' should generally maintain the additional ''s'' after the [[Apostrophe#Possessive_forms_of_nouns_ending_in_s|apostrophe]]. However, if a form without an ''s'' after the apostrophe is much more common for a particular word or phrase, follow that form, such as with "Moses' Laws" and "Jesus' tears".
*[[List of Latin abbreviations|Abbreviations of Latin terms]] like "i.e.", "e.g.", or "n.b.", or use of the Latin terms in full, such as "nota bene", or "vide infra", should be left as the original author wrote them. However, it should also be noted that articles that are intended for a general audience will be more widely understood if such terms are avoided and English terms such as "that is", "for example", or "note" are used instead.
*If a word or phrase is generally regarded as correct, then prefer it to any other word or phrase that might be regarded as incorrect. For example, "other meaning" should be used instead of "alternate meaning", since ''alternate'' only means "alternating" in British English.
*Use an unambiguous word or phrase in preference to an ambiguous one. For example, "other meaning" should be used instead of "alternative meaning", since ''alternative'' commonly suggests "nontraditional" or "out-of-the-mainstream" to an American-English speaker.

===Avoid self-referential pronouns===
Wikipedia articles must not be based on one person's opinions or experiences. Thus, "I" can never be used except, of course, when it appears in a quotation. For similar reasons, avoid the use of "we" and "one". A sentence such as "We/One should note that some critics have argued in favor of the proposal" sounds more personal than encyclopedic.

Nevertheless, it might sometimes be appropriate to use "we" or "one" when referring to an experience that ''anyone'', any reader, would be expected to have, such as general perceptual experiences. For example, although it might be best to write, "When most people open their eyes, they see something", it is still legitimate to write, "When we open our eyes, we see something", and it is certainly better than using the [[passive voice]]: "When the eyes are opened, something is seen."

It is also acceptable to use "we" in mathematical derivations; for example: "To [[Normalisation_of_a_wavefunction|normalize the wavefunction]], we need to find the value of the arbitrary constant ''A''."

===Avoid the second person===
Use of the second person ("you") is discouraged. This is to keep an encyclopedic tone and also to help clarify the sentence. Instead, refer to the subject of the sentence, for example:
*"When ''a player'' moves past 'go', ''that player'' collects $200."
**Or: "Players passing 'go' collect $200."
*'''Not:''' "When ''you'' move past 'go', ''you'' collect $200."
This does not apply to quoted text, which should be quoted exactly.

==National varieties of English==
{{see also|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling)}}

Cultural clashes over grammar, spelling, and capitalisation/capitalization are a common experience on Wikipedia. Remember that millions of people have been taught to use a different form of English from yours, including different spellings, grammatical constructions, and punctuation. For the English Wikipedia, while a nationally predominant form should be used, there is no preference among the major national varieties of English. However, there is certain etiquette generally accepted on Wikipedia, summarized here:

* Articles should use the same dialect throughout.
* If an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect.
* Where varieties of English differ over a certain word or phrase, try to find an alternative that is common to both.
* If no such words can be agreed upon, and there is no strong tie to a specific dialect, the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be used.

The special cases are clarified in the following guidelines. They are roughly in order; guidelines earlier in this list will usually take precedence over guidelines later:

*Proper names should retain their original spellings, for example, ''United States Department of Defense'' and ''Australian Defence Force''.
*Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings, which can be jarring to the reader. For example, do not use ''center'' in one place and ''centre'' in another in the same article (except in quotations or for comparison purposes).
*Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country. For example:
**Article on the [[American Civil War]]: [[American English]] usage and spelling
**Article on Tolkien's ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'': [[British English]] usage and spelling
**Article on [[Uluru]] (Ayers Rock): [[Australian English]] usage and spelling
**Article on [[List of European Union institutions|European Union institutions]]: British, [[Hiberno-English|Irish]] and Maltese English usage and spelling
**Article on the city of [[Montreal]]: [[Canadian English]] usage and spelling
**Article on [[Taj Mahal]]: [[Indian English]] usage and spelling.
*If the spelling appears in an article name, you should make a [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect]] page to accommodate the other variant, as with [[Artefact]] and [[Artifact]], or if possible ''and'' reasonable, a neutral word might be chosen as with [[stevedore]].
*''Words with multiple spellings'': In choosing words or expressions, there may be value in selecting one that does not have multiple spellings if there are synonyms that are otherwise equally suitable. In extreme cases of conflicting names, a contrived substitute (such as [[fixed-wing aircraft]]) is acceptable.
*If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another. (Sometimes, this can happen quite innocently, so please do not be too quick to make accusations!)
*Consult Wikipedia articles such as [[English plural]] and [[American and British English differences]].
*If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article.

Finally, in the event of conflicts on this issue, please remember that if the use of ''your'' preferred version of English seems like a matter of great national pride to you, the differences are actually relatively minor when you consider the many users who are not native English speakers at all and yet make significant contributions to the English-language Wikipedia, or how small the differences between national varieties are compared with other languages. There are many more productive and enjoyable ways to participate than worrying and fighting about which version of English to use on any particular page.

==Currency==

When including a price or currency, include only one. This should be the currency that fits best for that article. An '''incorrect''' example:

<blockquote>The object costs 300USD (160GBP, 280EURO).</blockquote>

This would be incorrect as there is no need to include multiple currencies. Also, as exchange rates vary with time, these figures will not remain correct.

However, if the figures are there in order to show a geographical variation in the amount (such as the cost of an item at release in different countries), then they can be included:

<blockquote>The object was released in the USA for $10, in the UK for £10 and in the rest of Europe for €12.</blockquote>

{{seealso|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Currency }}

==Time==
Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that will hopefully be read well into the future. Avoid words or phrases like '''recently''', '''last year''', '''soon''', '''modern''', '''new'''.

Whenever information may become dated, try to give the time at which it was accurate. Thus

'''Good''' = The university had an undergraduate enrollment of 8000 in 2003.

'''Bad''' = The university has an undergraduate enrollment of 8000.

Also, avoid phrases like "Mike Tyson was a professional boxer." That makes it sound like he is dead. Instead, use "Mike Tyson is a former professional boxer," unless the person really is dead.

==Big little long short==
Try to use accurate measurements whenever possible. Use specific information.

;Good
:The average male wallaby is 1.6 metres from head to tail.
;Bad
:The wallaby is small.

;Good
:The cyanobacterium ''Prochlorococcus marinus'' is 0.5 to 0.8 micrometres across.
;Bad
:Prochlorococcus marinus is a tiny cyanobacterium.

;Good
:The dugong swam down the coast in a herd five kilometres long and 300 metres wide.
;Bad
:The big herd of dugong stretched a long way down the coast.

==Images==
Some general guidelines which should be followed in the absence of a compelling reason not to:
*Start the article with a right-aligned image.
*When using multiple images in the same article, they can be staggered left-and-right (Example: [[Platypus]]).
*Avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other.
*Generally, we prefer right-alignment to left- or center-alignment. (Example: [[Race]]).
**However: portraits with the head looking to the right can be left-aligned (looking into the article) when this doesn't interfere with navigation or other elements. In such cases you may prefer to use <nowiki>{{TOCright}}</nowiki> or reverse the image as long as this doesn't alter non-symmetrical distinguishing features (Example: [[Mikhail Gorbachev]]'s birthmark) or make included text in the image unreadable.
*If there are too many images in a given article, consider using a gallery.
*Use {{[[Template:Commons|Commons]]}} to link to more images on Commons, wherever possible.
*Use captions to explain the relevance of the image to the article.
The current image markup language is more or less this:

<code><nowiki>[[Image:picture.jpg|120px|right|thumb|Insert caption here]]</nowiki></code>
{{see|Wikipedia:Picture tutorial}}

==Captions==
{{main|Wikipedia:Captions}}

Photos and other graphics should have captions unless they are "self-captioning", as in reproductions of album or book covers, or when the graphic is an unambiguous depiction of the subject of the article. For example, in a biography article, a caption is not needed for a portrait of the subject pictured alone; however, most entries use the name of the subject and the birth and death years and an approximation of the date when the image was taken: "John Smith (1812–95) circa 1880" or "John Smith (1812–95) on January 12, 1880 in Paris".

If the caption is a single sentence or a sentence fragment, it does not get a period at the end. If the caption contains more than one sentence, then each sentence should get a period at the end.

Captions should not be italicized unless they are book titles or related material. The caption always starts with a capital letter. Remember the full information concerning the image is contained in the image entry, so people looking for more information can click on the photo to see the full details.

==Bulleted items==
The following are rules for using lists of bulleted items:
* When using complete sentences, always use punctuation and a period at the end.
* Incomplete sentences don't need terminal punctuation.
* Do not mix sentence styles; use all complete sentences, or use all sentence fragments.
* Each entry begins with a capital letter, even if it is a sentence fragment.

==Identity==
This is perhaps one area where Wikipedians' flexibility and plurality are an asset, and where one would not wish all pages to look exactly alike. Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]] and [[Wikipedia:No original research|no original research]] policies always take precedence. However, here are some nonbinding guidelines that may help:
*Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves ([[self-identification]]). This can mean using the term an individual uses for himself/herself, or using the term a group most widely uses for itself. This includes referring to [[transgender]] individuals according to the name and pronoun they use to identify themselves.
*Use specific terminology: People from Ethiopia (a country in Africa) should be described as Ethiopian, not African.
*Do not assume that any one term is the most [[inclusive]] or [[accurate]].
*However, a more general name will often prove to be more neutral or more accurate. For example, a [[List of African-American composers]] is acceptable, though a [[List of composers of African descent]] may be more useful.
*If possible, terms used to describe people should be given in such a way that they [[grammatical modifier|qualify]] other nouns. Thus, ''black people'', not ''blacks''; ''gay people'', not ''gays''; and so forth.
*Also note: The term ''Arab'' refers to people and things of ethnic Arab origin. The term ''Arabic'' refers to the Arabic language or [[writing system]] (and related concepts). For example, "Not all Arab people write or converse in Arabic, but nearly all are familiar with Arabic numerals."

==Wikilinking==
{{main|Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context}}

Make only [[Wikipedia:links|links]] relevant to the context. It is not useful and can be very distracting to mark all possible words as hyperlinks. Links should add to the user's experience; they should not detract from it by making the article harder to read. A high density of links can draw attention away from the high-value links that you would like your readers to follow up. Redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder. A link is the equivalent of a footnote in a print medium. Imagine if every second word in an encyclopedia article were followed by "(see:)". Hence, the links should not be so numerous as to make the article harder to read.

Check links after they are wikified to make sure they direct to the correct concept; many dictionary words lead to disambiguation pages and not to complete articles on a concept. If an anchor (the label after a pound sign (#) in a URL) is available into a targeted page and is likely to remain stable and gets the reader to the relevant area significantly faster, then use it.

When wikilinks are rendered as URLs by the [[MediaWiki]] software, the initial character becomes capitalized and spaces are replaced by underscores. When including wikilinks in an article, there is no need to use capitalization or underscores, since the software produces them automatically. This feature makes it possible to avoid a [[:Help:piped link|piped link]] in many cases. The correct form in English orthography can be used as a straight link. Wikilinks that begin sentences or are proper nouns should be capitalized as normal.

===Dates===
{{see also|Wikipedia:As of|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)|Wikipedia:Build the web}}

Not every year listed in an article needs to be wikilinked. Ask yourself: will clicking on the year bring any useful information to the reader?

Do, however, wikilink years, using the <nowiki>[[As of XXXX]]</nowiki> form, when they refer to information that was current at the time of writing; this allows other editors to ensure that articles are kept up to date as time passes. Dates including a month and day should also be linked in order for user preferences on date formatting to work properly.

==Miscellaneous notes==
===When all else fails===
If this page does not specify which usage is preferred:
* Use other reliable resources as style guides, such as ''[[The Chicago Manual of Style]]'' (from the [[University of Chicago Press]]) or [[Fowler's Modern English Usage|Fowler's ''Modern English Usage'' (3rd edition)]] (from the [[Oxford University Press]])
* Discuss your problems or propose missing style guide on [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style]]
* Simply look around. Open articles for editing to see how editors have put it together. You can then close the window without saving changes if you like, but look around while you are there.

===Keep markup simple===
Use the simplest markup to display information in a useful and comprehensible way. Markup may appear differently in different browsers. Use HTML and CSS markup sparingly and only with good reason. Minimizing markup in entries allows easier editing.

In particular, do not use the CSS <code>float</code> or <code>line-height</code> properties because they break rendering on some browsers when large fonts are used.

===Formatting issues===
Formatting issues such as font size, blank space and color are issues for the Wikipedia site-wide [[Cascading Style Sheets|style sheet]] and should not be dealt with in articles except in special cases. If you absolutely must specify a font size, use a relative size, that is, <code>font-size: 80%</code>; not an absolute size, for example, <code>font-size: 8pt</code>. It is also almost never a good idea to use other style changes, such as font family or color.

Typically, the usage of custom font styles will
#reduce consistency - the text will no longer look uniform with typical text;
#reduce usability - it will likely be impossible for people with custom stylesheets (for accessibility reasons, for example) to override it, and it might clash with a different skin as well as bother people with [[color blindness]];
#increase arguments - there is the possibility of other Wikipedians disagreeing with choice of font style and starting a debate about it for aesthetic purposes.

For such reasons, it is typically not good practice to apply inline CSS for font attributes in articles.

==== Color coding ====
Using color ''alone'' to convey information ([[color coding]]) should not be done. This is not accessible to people with [[color blindness]] (especially [[monochromacy]]), viewing articles on black-and-white printouts, older monitors with fewer colors, monochrome LCD displays ([[Personal digital assistant|PDAs]], [[cell phone]]s), and so on.

If necessary, try to choose colors that are unambiguous when viewed by a person with red-green color blindness (the most common type). In general, this means that shades of red and green should not both be used as color codes in the same image. Viewing the page with [http://www.vischeck.com/vischeck/vischeckURL.php Vischeck] can help with deciding if the colors should be altered.

It is certainly acceptable to use color as an aid for those who can see it, but the information should still be accessible without it.

===Invisible comments===
Invisible comments are used to communicate with other editors in the article body. These comments are only visible when editing the page. It is invisible to ordinary readers.

Normally if an editor wants to discuss issues with other potential editors, they will do it on the talk page. However it sometimes makes more sense to put in the article body, because an editor would like to leave instructions to guide other editors when they edit this section, or leave reminders on specific issues (eg do not change the section title since others have linked here).

To do so, enclose the text which you intend to be read only by editors within <code></code>.

For example, the following:
:<code>Hello  world. </code>
is displayed as:

:Hello  world.

So the comment can be seen when viewing the wiki source (although not, incidentally, the HTML source).

'''Note''': Comments may introduce unwanted whitespace when put on certain places, such as the top of an article. Avoid placing comment fields in places where they might change the rendered result of the article.

===Legibility===
Consider the [[wiktionary:legible|legibility]] of what you are writing. Make your entry easy to read on a screen. Make judicious use of devices such as bulleted lists and bolding. For more on this, see [http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9710a.html "How Users Read on the Web"] by [[Jakob Nielsen (usability consultant)|Jakob Nielsen]].

==External links==
{{main|Wikipedia:External links}}
Links to websites outside of Wikipedia can be listed at the end of an article or embedded within the body of an article. The standard format for a list of links is to have a header named <code><nowiki>== External links ==</nowiki></code> followed by a bulleted list of links. External links should summarize the website's contents, and indicate why the website is relevant to the article. For example:

:<code><nowiki>*[http://www.aidsnews.org/ AIDS treatment news]</nowiki></code>

When wikified, the link will appear as:

*[http://www.aidsnews.org/ AIDS treatment news]

External links can be embedded in the body of an article to provide specific references. These links have no description other than an automatically generated number. For example:
:<code><nowiki>Sample text. [http://www.sample.com]</nowiki></code>

When wikified, the link will appear as:

:Sample text. [http://www.sample.com]

An embedded external link should be accompanied by a [[Wikipedia:Citing sources#How and where to cite sources|full citation]] in the article's References section.

==Submanuals==
{{col-start}}
{{col-break}}
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations)|Abbreviations]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (ALL CAPS)|ALL CAPS]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)|Biographies]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)|Capital letters]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (command-line examples)|Command-line examples]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes)|Dashes]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)|Dates and numbers]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)|Disambiguation pages]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (emphasis)|Emphasis]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)|Headings]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (italics)|Italics]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints)|Latter Day Saints]]
{{col-break}}
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (legal)|Legal]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)|Links]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works)|Lists of works]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics)|Mathematics]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music)|Music]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (national varieties of English)|National varieties of English]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation)|Pronunciation]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling)|Spelling]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (tables)|Tables]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles)|Titles]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)|Trademarks]]
{{col-break}}
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)|Writing about fiction]]
* Region-specific
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic)|Arabic]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles)|China-related articles]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ethiopia-related articles)|Ethiopia-related articles]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Indic-related articles)|Indic-related articles]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)|Ireland-related articles]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)|Islam-related articles]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)|Japan-related articles]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Korea-related articles)|Korea-related articles]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Philippine-related articles)|Philippine-related articles]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles)|Thailand-related articles]]
{{col-end}}

==See also==

*[[Style guide]], the Wikipedia entry on "style guides". Contains links to the online style guides of some magazines and newspapers.
*[[Wikipedia:Annotated article]] – the article contains annotations that show how it should be edited preferentially.
*[[Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes]] gives a list of common mistakes and how to avoid them.
*[[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages]] should define your attitude toward page updates.
*[[Wikipedia:Cite sources]] explains process and standards for citing references in articles.
*[[Wikipedia:Editing policy]] has even more editing guidelines.
*[[Wikipedia:Guide to layout]] is an example of how to lay out an article.
*[[Wikipedia:How to edit a page]] is a short primer on editing pages.
*[[Wikipedia:Introduction]] is a gentle introduction to the world of Wikipedia.
*[[Wikipedia:Perfect stub article]] shows what you should aim for at a minimum when starting a new article.
*[[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]] is the main stop for policies and, well, guidelines.
*[[Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Wiki markup|Wiki markup]] explains the mechanics of what codes are available to you when editing a page, to do things like titles, links, external links, and so on.
*[[Wikipedia:WikiProject]] sets out boilerplates for certain areas of knowledge.
*[[Meta:Reading level]] (discussion)

{{Writing guides}}

[[Category:Wikipedia style guidelines| ]]

[[ar:ويكيبيديا:دليل الأسلوب]]
[[ca:Viquipèdia:Llibre d'estil]]
[[cy:Wicipedia:Arddull]]
[[da:Wikipedia:Stilmanual]]
[[es:Wikipedia:Manual de estilo]]
[[eo:Vikipedio:Stilogvido]]
[[eu:Wikipedia:Estilo gida]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:شیوه‌نامه]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Conventions de style]]
[[ga:Vicipéid:Lámhleabhar Stíle]]
[[gl:Wikipedia:Libro de estilo]]
[[ko:위키백과:스타일북]]
[[id:Wikipedia:Panduan tata-letak]]
[[it:Aiuto:Manuale di stile]]
[[he:ויקיפדיה:המדריך לעיצוב דפים]]
[[ja:Wikipedia:スタイルマニュアル]]
[[mo:Википедия:Мануал де стил]]
[[ms:Wikipedia:Manual gaya penulisan]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Stijlgids]]
[[no:Wikipedia:Stilmanual]]
[[pt:Wikipedia:Livro de estilo]]
[[ro:Wikipedia:Manual de stil]]
[[sk:Wikipédia:Štylistická príručka]]
[[sl:Wikipedija:Slogovni priročnik]]
[[fi:Wikipedia:Tyyliopas]]
[[sv:Wikipedia:Rekommendationer]]
[[ta:விக்கிபீடியா:நடைக் கையேடு]]
[[th:วิกิพีเดีย:คู่มือในการเขียน]]
[[vi:Wikipedia:Cẩm nang về văn phong]]
[[tr:Vikipedi:Biçem el kitabı]]
[[zh:Wikipedia:格式手册]]
[[zh-min-nan:Wikipedia:Siá-chok ê kui-hoān]]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style

2006-08-16T06:39:32Z

Wai Wai: Centrx: sorry, but it is you who make substantial changes by deleting large amount of info without discussion in talk page. I simply recover the lost info

:''This is the Wikipedia Manual of Style. For the article about Manuals of Style, see [[Style guide]].''
{{style-guideline|[[WP:MOS]], [[WP:STYLE]]}}


This '''Manual of Style''' has the simple purpose of making the encyclopedia easy to read and write by following a consistent format — it is a [[style guide]]. However the following rules should not be treated as the only standards of Wikipedia style. One way is often as good as any other. On the other hand, the following quotation from ''[[The Chicago Manual of Style]]'' is worth considering:
<blockquote>Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity.</blockquote>

'''Clear, informative, and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting'''. Wikipedia does not require writers to follow any of these rules, but their efforts will be more appreciated when they do — [[Wikipedia:Editing policy|the joy of wiki editing]] is that Wikipedia does not require perfection.

{{Style}}

__TOC__

==Principles==
The style guides are not set in stone and should not be treated absolutely or with no exception. There are cases where the guidelines do not apply, or another style or formatting is better than the suggested one. Please bear the following main principles in mind when reading the rest of the guidelines.

===Importance===
Wikipedia is intended to be a free encyclopedia, providing detailed and up-to-date knowledge to readers anywhere in the world. '''Clear, unambiguous, informative, and unbiased [[writing]] is always more important''' than presentation, style and formatting. Hence Wikipedia does not require any editor to follow all or any of these rules, but their efforts to do so will be appreciated.

===Consistency===
Wikipedia has established a style manual because following a consistent format makes reading easier, but the prescriptions of Wikipedia's Manual of Style are not binding.

Wikipedia does not require all editors to stick with only one single style or formatting. It is not essential that there be consistency across all articles in Wikipedia, but consistency should be maintained internally within an article, unless there are good reasons to vary.

===Flexibility===
Wikipedia has no firm rules apart from the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|5 fundamental principles]]. One style or formatting is often as good as any other, depending on different cases and situations. As long as the choice of style or formatting is acceptable, it is fine.

Strict and rigid rules may even hinder editor contributions and undermine the quality of the article. The following quotation from ''[[The Chicago Manual of Style]]'' deserves notice:
:"Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity."

===Variety===
Wikipedia allows multiple styles and respects different formatting and style as long as they are clear and unambiguous. When any of the style is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedian to change from one style to another unless there are some substantial reasons for the change.

For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is [[colour]] rather than [[color]], it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable.

However editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

See the ruling of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk|the case of Jguk]] for details.

===Clarity===
An article should be presented as clearly as possible. Ambiguity and confusion should be kept to a minimum. Do not use any style, formatting, or wording that causes ambiguity or confusion.

Something obvious in one country or region may not be so in another. Wikipedia is intended to be read worldwide, so if some style or formatting — even if standard — would cause confusion, do not use it.

==Style guide not applicable to direct quotations==
The style guide do not apply to direct quotations. Direct [[quotations]] (ie the word-for-word reproduction of a written or oral text) should ''not'' be altered to confirm any wikipedia formatting or style because the original source has to be kept intact (in verbatim), if at all possible.

For instance, the date in the following fictional quotation should not be linked (even if it is preferred in wikipedia):
:"Tony Blair, responding to critics in his party, said 'The world has totally changed since the 11th of September.' He was echoing earlier sentiments by Lord Ronald McDonald, who said that 'nine-eleven' was the day that the American public woke up to the reality of terrorism."

==Article titles==
{{main|Wikipedia:Naming conventions}}

If possible, make the title the ''[[subject (grammar)|subject]]'' of the first sentence of the article (as opposed to putting it in the [[Predicate (grammar)|predicate]]). For example, write "This Manual of Style is a style guide" instead of "This style guide is known as the Manual of Style". In any case, the title should appear as early as possible in the article — preferably in the first sentence.

The first time the article mentions the title, put it in bold using three apostrophes — <code><nowiki>'''article title'''</nowiki></code> produces '''article title'''. For example: "This '''Manual of Style''' is a style guide."

As a general rule, do not put links in
* the bold reiteration of the title in the article's lead sentence or
* any section title.
Also, try not to put other phrases in bold in the first sentence. An exception to this arises when an article has alternative titles, each of which an editor puts in bold; for example, [[Río de la Plata]]:
<blockquote>
The '''Río de la Plata''' (from [[Spanish language|Spanish]]: "River of [[Silver]]"), also known by the [[English language|English]] name '''River Plate''', as in the [[Battle of the River Plate]], or sometimes ['''La'''] '''Plata River'''
</blockquote>
Follow the normal rules for italics in choosing whether to put part or all of the title in italics:
<blockquote>
'''''Tattoo You''''' is an album by [[The Rolling Stones]], released in [[1981]].
</blockquote>

==Headings==
{{main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)}}

===Markup===
Use the <tt>==</tt> (two equal signs) style markup for headings, not the <nowiki>'''</nowiki> (triple apostrophes) used to make words appear '''bold''' in [[Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page#Character_formatting|character formatting]]. Start with <tt>==</tt>, add the heading title, then end with <tt>==</tt>.

===Wording===
*'''Capitalize''' the first letter only of the first word and of any [[Noun#Proper nouns and common nouns|proper nouns]] in a heading, and leave all of the other letters in lowercase. Use "Rules and regulations", not "Rules and Regulations".
*'''Avoid special characters''' in headings, such as an ampersand (&), a plus sign (+), curly braces ({}), or square braces ([]). In place of the ampersand, use the word "and" unless the ampersand is part of a formal name.
*Keep the heading '''short''': headings with more than 10 words may violate their purpose.
*Avoid '''unnecessary words or redundancy''' in headings: avoid "a/an/the", [[pronoun]]s, repeating the article title, and so on.
*Do not '''repeat any section title''': that is, do not make one section title conflict with another.

===Section management===
*'''Adding sub-headings is encouraged'''. It helps readers to browse, read and understand the article.
**Use sub-headings if the section becomes a bit long.
**Use proper sub-headings to flesh out your points.
*If at all possible, try '''not to change section headings and sub-headings'''. Other articles may link to a specific section. It will break the section links.
*If you link to a specific section, it is wise to '''leave an editor note''' <nowiki>  </nowiki> to remind others not to change the section title. Please leave the names of the linking articles, so when the title needs changing, it makes the job easier for others to fix the links.

==Capital letters==
{{main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)}}
[[American English]] and [[British English]] sometimes differ in their inclination to use capitals. If possible, as with spelling, use rules appropriate to the cultural and linguistic context. In other words, do not enforce American rules on pages about Commonwealth topics or Commonwealth rules on pages about American topics. In regard to pages about other cultures, choose either style, but be consistent within the page itself.

Initial capitals and all capitals should not be used for emphasis. For example, "aardvarks, which are Not The Same as anteaters" and "aardvarks, which are NOT THE SAME as anteaters" are both incorrect. Use italics instead ("aardvarks, which are ''not the same'' as anteaters").

===Titles===
Titles such as ''president'', ''king'', or ''emperor'' start with a capital letter when used as a title (followed by a name): "President Nixon", not "president Nixon". When used generically, they should be in lower case: "De Gaulle was the French president." The correct formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun. Hence: "Hirohito was Emperor of Japan." Similarly, "Louis XVI was the French king" but "Louis XVI was King of France", ''King of France'' being a title in that context. Likewise, capitalize royal titles: "Her Majesty" or "His Highness". (Reference: ''[[Chicago Manual of Style]]'' 14th ed., 7.16; [http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/page/0,5817,184841,00.html ''The Guardian Manual of Style''], "Titles" keyword.) Exceptions may apply for specific offices.

In the case of "prime minister", either both words begin with a capital letter or neither, except of course when it begins a sentence. Again, when using it generically, do not capitalize it: "There are many prime ministers around the world." When making reference to a specific office, generally use uppercase: "The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said today…" (A good rule of thumb is whether the sentence uses a definite article [the] or an indefinite article [a]. If the sentence uses ''the'', use "Prime Minister"; if ''a'', go with "prime minister". However to complicate matters, some style manuals, while saying "''The'' British Prime Minister", recommend "British prime minister".)

For the use of titles and honorifics in biographical articles, see [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific_prefixes]].

===Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines, and their adherents===
Names of religions, whether as a noun or an adjective, and their followers start with a capital letter. Mormonism has particular complications—see [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mormonism)]].

Deities begin with a capital letter: ''God'', ''Allah'', ''Freya'', ''the Lord'', ''the Supreme Being'', ''the Messiah''. The same is true when referring to important religious figures, such as Muhammad, by terms such as ''the Prophet''. Transcendent ideas in the Platonic sense also begin with a capital letter: ''Good'' and ''Truth''. Pronouns referring to deities, or nouns (other than names) referring to any material or abstract representation of any deity, human or otherwise, do not begin with a capital letter. Thus one would say, "He prayed to Wotan", since ''Wotan'' in this case, is a proper name it is correctly capitalized, but the common use of gods in this sense is not capitalized. The following sentence would be correct usage, "It was thought he prayed to God, but it turned out he prayed to one of the Norse gods."

Do not capitalize mythical creatures, such as elves, fairies, nymphs or genies. The exception is some works of fantasy, such as those of [[J. R. R. Tolkien]], where the viewer considers the mythical creatures an ethnicity and thus written with an initial capital.

Philosophies, doctrines, and systems of economic thought do ''not'' begin with a capital letter, unless the name derives from a proper noun: lowercase ''republican'' refers to a system of political thought; uppercase ''Republican'' refers to a specific [[Republican Party]] (each party name being a proper noun).

===Calendar items===
The names of months, days, and holidays always begin with a capital letter: June, Monday, Fourth of July (when referring to the [[Independence Day (United States)|U.S. Independence Day]], otherwise July 4 or 4 July).

Seasons start with a capital letter when they go with another noun or when they personify. Here they function as proper nouns: "Winter Solstice"; "Autumn Open House"; "I think Spring is showing her colors"; "Old Man Winter".

However, in the general sense, they do not start with a capital letter: "This summer was very hot."

===Animals, plants, and other organisms===
{{main|Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life#Article titles and common names|Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)}}

Editors have hotly debated whether the common names of species should start with a capital letter, and this remains unresolved. As a matter of truce, both styles are acceptable (except for proper names), but create a [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect]] from the alternative form.

===Celestial bodies===
Names of other planets and stars are proper nouns and begin with a capital letter: "The planet Mars can be seen tonight in the constellation Gemini, near the star Pollux."

The words ''sun'', ''earth'', and ''moon'' are proper nouns when the sentence uses them in an astronomical context, but not elsewhere: so "The Sun is a main sequence star, with a spectral class of G2"; but "It was a lovely day and the sun was warm". Note that these terms are proper nouns only when they refer to specific celestial bodies (our Sun, Earth and Moon): so "The Moon orbits the Earth"; but "Pluto's moon Charon".

===Directions and regions===
Regions that are proper nouns, including widely known expressions such as ''Southern California'', start with a capital letter. Follow the same convention for related forms: a person from the [[Southern United States]] is a ''Southerner''.

Directions (''north'', ''southwest'', etc.) are not proper nouns and do not start with a capital letter. The same is true for their related forms: someone might call a road that leads north a ''northern'' road, compared to the [[Great North Road (United Kingdom)|Great North Road]].

If you are not sure whether a region has attained proper-noun status, assume it has not.

===Institutions===
Proper names of specific institutions (for example, [[Harvard University]], [[New York-Presbyterian Hospital]], [[George Brown College]], etc.) are proper nouns and require capitalization.

However, the words for ''types'' of institutions (university, college, hospital, high school, etc.) do not require capitalization if they do not appear in a proper name:
;Incorrect:
:The University offers programs in arts and sciences.
;Correct:
:The university offers…'' or ''The University of Ottawa offers…

==Italics==
{{main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (italics)}}
Use the <code><nowiki>''</nowiki></code> (italic) markup. Example:

:<code><nowiki>''This is italic.''</nowiki></code>

which produces:

<div style="background-color: white">
:''This is italic.''
</div>

Italics are mainly used to ''emphasize'' certain words. Italics for emphasis should be used ''sparingly''.

They are also used in these other cases:
===Titles===
{{main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles)}}
Italics are used for the titles of works of literature and art. (The titles of articles, chapters, and other short works are not italicized but are enclosed in double quotation marks.)

===Words as words===
Use italics when writing about words as words, or letters as letters (to indicate the [[use-mention distinction]]). For example:

*''Deuce'' means "two".
*The term ''panning'' is derived from ''panorama'', a word coined in [[1787]].
*The most common letter in English is ''e''.

===Loan words===
Wikipedia prefers italics for isolated words and phrases from other languages not yet in common use in English. Use anglicized spellings for such words, or use the native spellings if they use the [[Latin alphabet]] (with or without [[diacritic]]s). For example, "Reading and writing in Japanese requires familiarity with ''[[hiragana]]'', ''[[katakana]]'', ''[[kanji]]'', and sometimes ''[[romaji|rōmaji]]''." Words or phrases that have common use in the English language, however—[[praetor]], [[Gestapo]], [[samurai]], [[esprit de corps]]—do not require italicization. If looking for a good rule of thumb, do not italicize words that appear unitalicized in an English-language dictionary. Per the [[Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Use other languages sparingly|guide to writing better Wikipedia articles]], use words from other languages sparingly. Include native spellings in non-Latin scripts in parentheses.

===Quotations===
There is normally no need to put quotations in italics unless the material would otherwise call for italics (emphasis, use of non-English words, etc.). Indicate whether using the italics in the original text or whether they were added later. For example:
<blockquote>Now cracks a noble heart. Good night sweet prince: And ''flights of angels'' sing thee to thy rest! (emphasis added)</blockquote>

==Punctuation==
In most cases, simply follow the usual rules of English punctuation. A few points where Wikipedia may differ from usual usage follow.

===Quotation marks===
With [[quotation marks]] we split the difference between American and British usage. Though not a rigid rule, we use the "double quotes" for most quotations—they are easier to read on the screen—and use 'single quotes' for nesting quotations, that is, "quotations 'within' quotations".

:'''Note:''' if a word or phrase appears in an article with single quotes, such as 'abcd', the [[Wikipedia:Searching]] facility considers the single quotes to be part of the word and will find that word or phrase only if the search string is also within single quotes. (When trying this out with the example mentioned, remember that this article is in the Wikipedia namespace.) Avoiding this complication is an additional reason to use double quotes, for which the difficulty does not arise. It may even be a reason to use double quotes for quotations within quotations.

When punctuating quoted passages, include the [[punctuation mark]] inside the quotation marks ''only if'' the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation ("logical" quotations). When using "[[scare quotes]]", the comma or period always goes outside.

Examples:

*Arthur said the situation was "deplorable". (The [[full stop]] [period] is not part of the quotation.)
*Arthur said, "The situation is deplorable." (The full sentence is quoted; the period is part of the quotation.)
*Arthur said that the situation was "the most deplorable [he] had seen in years." (Although the full sentence is not quoted, the sense of finality conveyed by the period is part of the quotation.)
*Martha asked, "Are you coming?" (Inside when quoting a question.)
*Did Martha say, "Come with me"? (Outside when there is a non-interrogative quotation at the end of a question.)

Similarly, when the title of an article requires quotation marks in the text (for example, the titles of songs, poems, etc.), the quotation marks should not be bolded in the summary, as they are not part of the title:

<blockquote>"'''Jabberwocky'''" is a nonsense poem by Lewis Carroll.</blockquote>

Longer quotations may be better rendered in an indented style by starting the first line with a colon or by using <nowiki> <blockquote> </blockquote> </nowiki> notation (see [[#Direct quotations]]), which indents both left and right margins. Indented quotations do not need to be marked by quotation marks. Double quotation marks belong at the beginning of each paragraph in a quotation of multiple paragraphs not using indented style, though at the end of only the last paragraph.

Use quotation marks or indentation to distinguish quotations from other text. There is normally no need to put quotations in italics unless the material would otherwise call for italics (emphasis, use of non-English words, etc.).

====Look of quotation marks and apostrophes====

There are two options when considering the look of the quotation marks themselves:

* [[Quotation_mark#Quotation marks in English|Typographic]] <big>“text”, ‘text’</big>
* [[Quotation_mark#Typewriter quotation marks|Typewriter]] <big>"text", 'text'</big>

As there is currently no consensus on which should be preferred, either is acceptable. However, it appears that historically the majority of Wikipedia articles, and those on the Internet as a whole, follow the latter style. If curved quotation marks or apostrophes appear in article titles, ensure that there is a redirect with straight glyphs.

Never use grave and acute accents or backticks (<big>`text´</big>) as quotation marks or apostrophes.

===Use of punctuation in presence of brackets/parentheses===
Punctuation goes where it belongs logically; that is, it goes with the text to which it belongs. A sentence wholly inside brackets will have its punctuation inside the brackets. (As shown here, this applies to all punctuation in the sentence.) If a sentence ends with a clause in brackets, the final punctuation stays outside the brackets (as shown here). This applies to square "[ ]" as well as round "( )" brackets (parentheses).

===Serial commas===
The [[serial comma]] (also known as the '''Oxford comma''' or '''Harvard comma''') is a comma used immediately before a conjunction in a list of three or more items. The phrase "ham, chips, and eggs" is written with a serial comma, but "ham, chips and eggs" is not. Sometimes omitting the comma can lead to an ambiguous sentence, as in this example: "The author would like to thank her parents, Sinéad O'Connor and President Bush." Sometimes including the comma can also lead to an ambiguous sentence, as in: "The author would like to thank her mother, Sinéad O'Connor, and President Bush" which may be a list of either two or three people. In such cases, there are three options for avoiding ambiguity:

* A choice can be made whether to use or omit the comma after the penultimate item in such a way as to avoid ambiguity.
* The sentence can be recast to avoid listing the items in an ambiguous manner.
* The items in the list can be presented using a formatted list.

If the presence of the final serial comma does not affect ambiguity of the sentence (as in most cases), there is no Wikipedia consensus on whether it should be used.



Some style authorities support a mandatory final serial comma. These include Fowler's ''[[Fowler's Modern English Usage|Modern English Usage]]'' (Brit.), the ''[[Chicago Manual of Style]]'' (Amer.), and [[Strunk and White]]'s ''[[The Elements of Style|Elements of Style]]'' (Amer.). Others recommend avoiding it where possible; these include ''[[The Times]]'' (Brit.), ''[[The New York Times]]'' (Amer.) and ''[[The Economist]]'' (Brit.). See [[serial comma]] for further authorities and discussion.

Proponents of the serial comma, such as ''The Elements of Style'', cite its disambiguating function and consistency as reasons for its use. Opponents consider it extraneous in situations where it is not explicitly resolving ambiguity. Many non-journalistic style guides recommend its use, while many newspaper style guides discourage its use; Wikipedia currently has no consensus, itself a position which allows either style and therefore allows avoidance of ambiguities like those above.

The serial comma should never be employed when specifying the name of a railroad or railway (for example, [[Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad]]). This is also the standard for [[law firm]]s and similar firms (for example, [[Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom]]).

===Colons===
[[Colon (punctuation)|Colons]] ( : ) should not have spaces before them:
;Correct:
:He attempted it in two years: 1941 and 1943
;Incorrect:
:He attempted it in two years : 1941 and 1943

===Dashes===
{{main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes)}}
The hyphen (-), en-dash (–) and em-dash (—) should be used in the correct context wherever possible. Other dashes, notably double-hyphen (--) should be avoided.

===Spaces after the end of a sentence===
There are no guidelines on whether to use one or two spaces after the end of a sentence ([[French spacing (English)|French spacing]]), but it is not important as the difference shows up only in the edit box. See [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style archive (spaces after a full stop/period)|Wikipedia talk: Manual of Style archive (spaces after the end of a sentence)]] for a discussion on this.

===Contractions===
In general, formal writing is preferred. Therefore, avoid the use of contractions — such as ''don't'', ''can't'', ''won't'', ''would've'', ''they'd'', and so on — unless they occur in a quotation.

===Slashes===
Avoid joining two words by a slash, as it suggests that they are related, but does not say how. Spell it out to avoid ambiguities. Also, the construct ''and/or'' is awkward outside of legal writing. Use "x or y, or both," to explicitly conjoin with the inclusive ''or'', or "either x or y, but not both," to explicitly specify the exclusive ''or''.

===Ellipsis===
''[[Ellipsis]]'', the dot-dot-dot indicating omitted text, should be separated from surrounding words by spaces, but not spaced when combined with other punctuation. The precomposed ellipsis character (&hellip; … ) may be used: it is intended to replace three dots, but looks a bit different in some fonts, so it may be better to just type the dots. To prevent the ellipsis from wrapping to the beginning of a line, you may enter a non-breaking space before it (&nbsp;... ).

Example: ''in the middle of a sentence ... or after a comma, ... before one..., and at the end.... Following a question...? Or even an exclamation...!''

==Acronyms and abbreviations==
{{main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations)}}
Do not assume that your reader is familiar with the acronym or abbreviation you are using. The standard writing style is to spell out the acronym or abbreviation on the first reference (wikilinked if appropriate) and then show the acronym or abbreviation after it. This signals to readers to look out for it later in the text and makes it easy for them to refer back to it. For example:

<blockquote>The [[Ontario New Democratic Party|New Democratic Party]] (NDP) won the [[Ontario general election, 1990|1990 Ontario election]] with a significant majority. The NDP quickly became unpopular with the voters, however…</blockquote>

It can also be helpful in a longer article to spell out the acronym or abbreviation for the reader
again or to rewikify it if it has not been used for a while.

When abbreviating ''United States'', please use "U.S."; that is the more common style in that country. When referring to the United States in a long abbreviation (USA, USN, USAF), periods should not be used. When including the United States in a list of countries, do not abbreviate the "United States" (for example, "France and the United States", not "France and the U.S.").

[[MediaWiki|The software]] that Wikipedia runs on does not currently support [[HTML]] acronym or abbreviation elements (<code><acronym></code> or <code><abbr></code>), so these tags should not be inserted into the source. (See [[Mediazilla:671]].)

==Direct quotations==
Use the exact same formatting as was used in the original written text being [[quotation|quoted]]; in general, do not alter it to conform to Wikipedia style. An exception is that if a quotation is enclosed in quotation marks and includes a quotation itself, any quotation within the quotation should have its quotation marks changed to conform to the Wikipedia style of alternating " and '. For instance, if an article were to quote a source containing the text
<blockquote>The statement "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is frequently misattributed to [[Voltaire]].</blockquote>
then the article would read:
<blockquote>According to source, "The statement 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it' is frequently misattributed to [[Voltaire]]."</blockquote>
not:
<blockquote>According to source, "The statement "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is frequently misattributed to [[Voltaire]]."</blockquote>
(Of course, if the original text followed the British standard of alternating ' and ", there would be no difference.)

When indenting a [[block quote]], use the [[HTML]] tag <code><blockquote></code>, not the wiki indentation mark <code>:</code>. (For the time being, <code><blockquote></code> will not work for multiparagraph quotes; you can manually add <code></code> tags to the beginning of paragraphs beyond the first, or just use <code>:</code> until the issue is resolved. See [[Mediazilla:6200]].)
;Good:
:<blockquote>Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.</blockquote>
;Bad:
::Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

==Pronunciation==
{{main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation)}}

==Scientific style==
{{main|Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions}}

*For [[Units of measurement|unit]]s of measure, use [[SI]] units as the main units in science articles, unless there are compelling historical or pragmatic reasons not to do so (for example, [[Hubble's constant]] should be quoted in its most common unit of ([[Kilometre|km]]/[[Second|s]])/[[Megaparsec|Mpc]] rather than its SI unit of [[Hertz|Hz]]). For other articles, either Imperial or metric units may be used as the main units of measurement. See [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of measurement]] for further guidance. Wikipedia Style for numbers is ''12,345,678.901''.
*In articles about [[chemical]]s and [[chemistry]], use the style of the [[IUPAC|International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry]] (IUPAC) for chemical names wherever possible except in article titles, where the common name should be used if different followed by mention of the IUPAC name. For general information see [[systematic name]], and for organic compounds in particular see [[IUPAC nomenclature]].
*In [[periodic table group]]s, use the ''new'' IUPAC names (these use [[Arabic numerals|Hindu-Arabic numerals]], not [[Roman numerals]] or letters).
*For [[mathematics]] and [[mathematical formula]]e, see [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics]].

==Sections==
{{main|Wikipedia:Section}}
{{see also|Wikipedia:Lead section}}
{{see also|Wikipedia:Guide to layout}}

==Simple tabulation==
Any line that starts with a blank space becomes a fixed font width and can be used for simple tabulation.

foo bar baz
alpha beta gamma

A line that starts with a blank space with nothing else on it forms a blank line.

For a complete guide to more complex tables see [[:Meta:Help:Table]].

==Usage and spelling==
===Usage===
*Possessives of singular nouns ending in ''s'' should generally maintain the additional ''s'' after the [[Apostrophe#Possessive_forms_of_nouns_ending_in_s|apostrophe]]. However, if a form without an ''s'' after the apostrophe is much more common for a particular word or phrase, follow that form, such as with "Moses' Laws" and "Jesus' tears".
*[[List of Latin abbreviations|Abbreviations of Latin terms]] like "i.e.", "e.g.", or "n.b.", or use of the Latin terms in full, such as "nota bene", or "vide infra", should be left as the original author wrote them. However, it should also be noted that articles that are intended for a general audience will be more widely understood if such terms are avoided and English terms such as "that is", "for example", or "note" are used instead.
*If a word or phrase is generally regarded as correct, then prefer it to any other word or phrase that might be regarded as incorrect. For example, "other meaning" should be used instead of "alternate meaning", since ''alternate'' only means "alternating" in British English.
*Use an unambiguous word or phrase in preference to an ambiguous one. For example, "other meaning" should be used instead of "alternative meaning", since ''alternative'' commonly suggests "nontraditional" or "out-of-the-mainstream" to an American-English speaker.

===Avoid self-referential pronouns===
Wikipedia articles must not be based on one person's opinions or experiences. Thus, "I" can never be used except, of course, when it appears in a quotation. For similar reasons, avoid the use of "we" and "one". A sentence such as "We/One should note that some critics have argued in favor of the proposal" sounds more personal than encyclopedic.

Nevertheless, it might sometimes be appropriate to use "we" or "one" when referring to an experience that ''anyone'', any reader, would be expected to have, such as general perceptual experiences. For example, although it might be best to write, "When most people open their eyes, they see something", it is still legitimate to write, "When we open our eyes, we see something", and it is certainly better than using the [[passive voice]]: "When the eyes are opened, something is seen."

It is also acceptable to use "we" in mathematical derivations; for example: "To [[Normalisation_of_a_wavefunction|normalize the wavefunction]], we need to find the value of the arbitrary constant ''A''."

===Avoid the second person===
Use of the second person ("you") is discouraged. This is to keep an encyclopedic tone and also to help clarify the sentence. Instead, refer to the subject of the sentence, for example:
*"When ''a player'' moves past 'go', ''that player'' collects $200."
**Or: "Players passing 'go' collect $200."
*'''Not:''' "When ''you'' move past 'go', ''you'' collect $200."
This does not apply to quoted text, which should be quoted exactly.

==National varieties of English==
{{see also|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling)}}

Cultural clashes over grammar, spelling, and capitalisation/capitalization are a common experience on Wikipedia. Remember that millions of people have been taught to use a different form of English from yours, including different spellings, grammatical constructions, and punctuation. For the English Wikipedia, while a nationally predominant form should be used, there is no preference among the major national varieties of English. However, there is certain etiquette generally accepted on Wikipedia, summarized here:

* Articles should use the same dialect throughout.
* If an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect.
* Where varieties of English differ over a certain word or phrase, try to find an alternative that is common to both.
* If no such words can be agreed upon, and there is no strong tie to a specific dialect, the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be used.

The special cases are clarified in the following guidelines. They are roughly in order; guidelines earlier in this list will usually take precedence over guidelines later:

*Proper names should retain their original spellings, for example, ''United States Department of Defense'' and ''Australian Defence Force''.
*Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings, which can be jarring to the reader. For example, do not use ''center'' in one place and ''centre'' in another in the same article (except in quotations or for comparison purposes).
*Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country. For example:
**Article on the [[American Civil War]]: [[American English]] usage and spelling
**Article on Tolkien's ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'': [[British English]] usage and spelling
**Article on [[Uluru]] (Ayers Rock): [[Australian English]] usage and spelling
**Article on [[List of European Union institutions|European Union institutions]]: British, [[Hiberno-English|Irish]] and Maltese English usage and spelling
**Article on the city of [[Montreal]]: [[Canadian English]] usage and spelling
**Article on [[Taj Mahal]]: [[Indian English]] usage and spelling.
*If the spelling appears in an article name, you should make a [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect]] page to accommodate the other variant, as with [[Artefact]] and [[Artifact]], or if possible ''and'' reasonable, a neutral word might be chosen as with [[stevedore]].
*''Words with multiple spellings'': In choosing words or expressions, there may be value in selecting one that does not have multiple spellings if there are synonyms that are otherwise equally suitable. In extreme cases of conflicting names, a contrived substitute (such as [[fixed-wing aircraft]]) is acceptable.
*If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another. (Sometimes, this can happen quite innocently, so please do not be too quick to make accusations!)
*Consult Wikipedia articles such as [[English plural]] and [[American and British English differences]].
*If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article.

Finally, in the event of conflicts on this issue, please remember that if the use of ''your'' preferred version of English seems like a matter of great national pride to you, the differences are actually relatively minor when you consider the many users who are not native English speakers at all and yet make significant contributions to the English-language Wikipedia, or how small the differences between national varieties are compared with other languages. There are many more productive and enjoyable ways to participate than worrying and fighting about which version of English to use on any particular page.

==Currency==

When including a price or currency, include only one. This should be the currency that fits best for that article. An '''incorrect''' example:

<blockquote>The object costs 300USD (160GBP, 280EURO).</blockquote>

This would be incorrect as there is no need to include multiple currencies. Also, as exchange rates vary with time, these figures will not remain correct.

However, if the figures are there in order to show a geographical variation in the amount (such as the cost of an item at release in different countries), then they can be included:

<blockquote>The object was released in the USA for $10, in the UK for £10 and in the rest of Europe for €12.</blockquote>

{{seealso|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Currency }}

==Time==
Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that will hopefully be read well into the future. Avoid words or phrases like '''recently''', '''last year''', '''soon''', '''modern''', '''new'''.

Whenever information may become dated, try to give the time at which it was accurate. Thus

'''Good''' = The university had an undergraduate enrollment of 8000 in 2003.

'''Bad''' = The university has an undergraduate enrollment of 8000.

Also, avoid phrases like "Mike Tyson was a professional boxer." That makes it sound like he is dead. Instead, use "Mike Tyson is a former professional boxer," unless the person really is dead.

==Big little long short==
Try to use accurate measurements whenever possible. Use specific information.

;Good
:The average male wallaby is 1.6 metres from head to tail.
;Bad
:The wallaby is small.

;Good
:The cyanobacterium ''Prochlorococcus marinus'' is 0.5 to 0.8 micrometres across.
;Bad
:Prochlorococcus marinus is a tiny cyanobacterium.

;Good
:The dugong swam down the coast in a herd five kilometres long and 300 metres wide.
;Bad
:The big herd of dugong stretched a long way down the coast.

==Images==
Some general guidelines which should be followed in the absence of a compelling reason not to:
*Start the article with a right-aligned image.
*When using multiple images in the same article, they can be staggered left-and-right (Example: [[Platypus]]).
*Avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other.
*Generally, we prefer right-alignment to left- or center-alignment. (Example: [[Race]]).
**However: portraits with the head looking to the right can be left-aligned (looking into the article) when this doesn't interfere with navigation or other elements. In such cases you may prefer to use <nowiki>{{TOCright}}</nowiki> or reverse the image as long as this doesn't alter non-symmetrical distinguishing features (Example: [[Mikhail Gorbachev]]'s birthmark) or make included text in the image unreadable.
*If there are too many images in a given article, consider using a gallery.
*Use {{[[Template:Commons|Commons]]}} to link to more images on Commons, wherever possible.
*Use captions to explain the relevance of the image to the article.
The current image markup language is more or less this:

<code><nowiki>[[Image:picture.jpg|120px|right|thumb|Insert caption here]]</nowiki></code>
{{see|Wikipedia:Picture tutorial}}

==Captions==
{{main|Wikipedia:Captions}}

Photos and other graphics should have captions unless they are "self-captioning", as in reproductions of album or book covers, or when the graphic is an unambiguous depiction of the subject of the article. For example, in a biography article, a caption is not needed for a portrait of the subject pictured alone; however, most entries use the name of the subject and the birth and death years and an approximation of the date when the image was taken: "John Smith (1812–95) circa 1880" or "John Smith (1812–95) on January 12, 1880 in Paris".

If the caption is a single sentence or a sentence fragment, it does not get a period at the end. If the caption contains more than one sentence, then each sentence should get a period at the end.

Captions should not be italicized unless they are book titles or related material. The caption always starts with a capital letter. Remember the full information concerning the image is contained in the image entry, so people looking for more information can click on the photo to see the full details.

==Bulleted items==
The following are rules for using lists of bulleted items:
* When using complete sentences, always use punctuation and a period at the end.
* Incomplete sentences don't need terminal punctuation.
* Do not mix sentence styles; use all complete sentences, or use all sentence fragments.
* Each entry begins with a capital letter, even if it is a sentence fragment.

==Identity==
This is perhaps one area where Wikipedians' flexibility and plurality are an asset, and where one would not wish all pages to look exactly alike. Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]] and [[Wikipedia:No original research|no original research]] policies always take precedence. However, here are some nonbinding guidelines that may help:
*Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves ([[self-identification]]). This can mean using the term an individual uses for himself/herself, or using the term a group most widely uses for itself. This includes referring to [[transgender]] individuals according to the name and pronoun they use to identify themselves.
*Use specific terminology: People from Ethiopia (a country in Africa) should be described as Ethiopian, not African.
*Do not assume that any one term is the most [[inclusive]] or [[accurate]].
*However, a more general name will often prove to be more neutral or more accurate. For example, a [[List of African-American composers]] is acceptable, though a [[List of composers of African descent]] may be more useful.
*If possible, terms used to describe people should be given in such a way that they [[grammatical modifier|qualify]] other nouns. Thus, ''black people'', not ''blacks''; ''gay people'', not ''gays''; and so forth.
*Also note: The term ''Arab'' refers to people and things of ethnic Arab origin. The term ''Arabic'' refers to the Arabic language or [[writing system]] (and related concepts). For example, "Not all Arab people write or converse in Arabic, but nearly all are familiar with Arabic numerals."

==Wikilinking==
{{main|Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context}}

Make only [[Wikipedia:links|links]] relevant to the context. It is not useful and can be very distracting to mark all possible words as hyperlinks. Links should add to the user's experience; they should not detract from it by making the article harder to read. A high density of links can draw attention away from the high-value links that you would like your readers to follow up. Redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder. A link is the equivalent of a footnote in a print medium. Imagine if every second word in an encyclopedia article were followed by "(see:)". Hence, the links should not be so numerous as to make the article harder to read.

Check links after they are wikified to make sure they direct to the correct concept; many dictionary words lead to disambiguation pages and not to complete articles on a concept. If an anchor (the label after a pound sign (#) in a URL) is available into a targeted page and is likely to remain stable and gets the reader to the relevant area significantly faster, then use it.

When wikilinks are rendered as URLs by the [[MediaWiki]] software, the initial character becomes capitalized and spaces are replaced by underscores. When including wikilinks in an article, there is no need to use capitalization or underscores, since the software produces them automatically. This feature makes it possible to avoid a [[:Help:piped link|piped link]] in many cases. The correct form in English orthography can be used as a straight link. Wikilinks that begin sentences or are proper nouns should be capitalized as normal.

===Dates===
{{see also|Wikipedia:As of|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)|Wikipedia:Build the web}}

Not every year listed in an article needs to be wikilinked. Ask yourself: will clicking on the year bring any useful information to the reader?

Do, however, wikilink years, using the <nowiki>[[As of XXXX]]</nowiki> form, when they refer to information that was current at the time of writing; this allows other editors to ensure that articles are kept up to date as time passes. Dates including a month and day should also be linked in order for user preferences on date formatting to work properly.

==Miscellaneous notes==
===When all else fails===
If this page does not specify which usage is preferred:
* Use other reliable resources as style guides, such as ''[[The Chicago Manual of Style]]'' (from the [[University of Chicago Press]]) or [[Fowler's Modern English Usage|Fowler's ''Modern English Usage'' (3rd edition)]] (from the [[Oxford University Press]])
* Discuss your problems or propose missing style guide on [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style]]
* Simply look around. Open articles for editing to see how editors have put it together. You can then close the window without saving changes if you like, but look around while you are there.

===Keep markup simple===
Use the simplest markup to display information in a useful and comprehensible way. Markup may appear differently in different browsers. Use HTML and CSS markup sparingly and only with good reason. Minimizing markup in entries allows easier editing.

In particular, do not use the CSS <code>float</code> or <code>line-height</code> properties because they break rendering on some browsers when large fonts are used.

===Formatting issues===
Formatting issues such as font size, blank space and color are issues for the Wikipedia site-wide [[Cascading Style Sheets|style sheet]] and should not be dealt with in articles except in special cases. If you absolutely must specify a font size, use a relative size, that is, <code>font-size: 80%</code>; not an absolute size, for example, <code>font-size: 8pt</code>. It is also almost never a good idea to use other style changes, such as font family or color.

Typically, the usage of custom font styles will
#reduce consistency - the text will no longer look uniform with typical text;
#reduce usability - it will likely be impossible for people with custom stylesheets (for accessibility reasons, for example) to override it, and it might clash with a different skin as well as bother people with [[color blindness]];
#increase arguments - there is the possibility of other Wikipedians disagreeing with choice of font style and starting a debate about it for aesthetic purposes.

For such reasons, it is typically not good practice to apply inline CSS for font attributes in articles.

==== Color coding ====
Using color ''alone'' to convey information ([[color coding]]) should not be done. This is not accessible to people with [[color blindness]] (especially [[monochromacy]]), viewing articles on black-and-white printouts, older monitors with fewer colors, monochrome LCD displays ([[Personal digital assistant|PDAs]], [[cell phone]]s), and so on.

If necessary, try to choose colors that are unambiguous when viewed by a person with red-green color blindness (the most common type). In general, this means that shades of red and green should not both be used as color codes in the same image. Viewing the page with [http://www.vischeck.com/vischeck/vischeckURL.php Vischeck] can help with deciding if the colors should be altered.

It is certainly acceptable to use color as an aid for those who can see it, but the information should still be accessible without it.

===Invisible comments===
Invisible comments are used to communicate with other editors in the article body. These comments are only visible when editing the page. It is invisible to ordinary readers.

Normally if an editor wants to discuss issues with other potential editors, they will do it on the talk page. However it sometimes makes more sense to put in the article body, because an editor would like to leave instructions to guide other editors when they edit this section, or leave reminders on specific issues (eg do not change the section title since others have linked here).

To do so, enclose the text which you intend to be read only by editors within <code></code>.

For example, the following:
:<code>Hello  world. </code>
is displayed as:

:Hello  world.

So the comment can be seen when viewing the wiki source (although not, incidentally, the HTML source).

'''Note''': Comments may introduce unwanted whitespace when put on certain places, such as the top of an article. Avoid placing comment fields in places where they might change the rendered result of the article.

===Legibility===
Consider the [[wiktionary:legible|legibility]] of what you are writing. Make your entry easy to read on a screen. Make judicious use of devices such as bulleted lists and bolding. For more on this, see [http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9710a.html "How Users Read on the Web"] by [[Jakob Nielsen (usability consultant)|Jakob Nielsen]].

==External links==
{{main|Wikipedia:External links}}
Links to websites outside of Wikipedia can be listed at the end of an article or embedded within the body of an article. The standard format for a list of links is to have a header named <code><nowiki>== External links ==</nowiki></code> followed by a bulleted list of links. External links should summarize the website's contents, and indicate why the website is relevant to the article. For example:

:<code><nowiki>*[http://www.aidsnews.org/ AIDS treatment news]</nowiki></code>

When wikified, the link will appear as:

*[http://www.aidsnews.org/ AIDS treatment news]

External links can be embedded in the body of an article to provide specific references. These links have no description other than an automatically generated number. For example:
:<code><nowiki>Sample text. [http://www.sample.com]</nowiki></code>

When wikified, the link will appear as:

:Sample text. [http://www.sample.com]

An embedded external link should be accompanied by a [[Wikipedia:Citing sources#How and where to cite sources|full citation]] in the article's References section.

==Submanuals==
{{col-start}}
{{col-break}}
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations)|Abbreviations]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (ALL CAPS)|ALL CAPS]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)|Biographies]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)|Capital letters]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (command-line examples)|Command-line examples]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes)|Dashes]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)|Dates and numbers]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)|Disambiguation pages]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (emphasis)|Emphasis]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)|Headings]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (italics)|Italics]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints)|Latter Day Saints]]
{{col-break}}
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (legal)|Legal]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)|Links]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works)|Lists of works]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics)|Mathematics]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music)|Music]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (national varieties of English)|National varieties of English]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation)|Pronunciation]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling)|Spelling]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (tables)|Tables]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles)|Titles]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)|Trademarks]]
{{col-break}}
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)|Writing about fiction]]
* Region-specific
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic)|Arabic]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles)|China-related articles]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ethiopia-related articles)|Ethiopia-related articles]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Indic-related articles)|Indic-related articles]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)|Ireland-related articles]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)|Islam-related articles]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)|Japan-related articles]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Korea-related articles)|Korea-related articles]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Philippine-related articles)|Philippine-related articles]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles)|Thailand-related articles]]
{{col-end}}

==See also==

*[[Style guide]], the Wikipedia entry on "style guides". Contains links to the online style guides of some magazines and newspapers.
*[[Wikipedia:Annotated article]] – the article contains annotations that show how it should be edited preferentially.
*[[Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes]] gives a list of common mistakes and how to avoid them.
*[[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages]] should define your attitude toward page updates.
*[[Wikipedia:Cite sources]] explains process and standards for citing references in articles.
*[[Wikipedia:Editing policy]] has even more editing guidelines.
*[[Wikipedia:Guide to layout]] is an example of how to lay out an article.
*[[Wikipedia:How to edit a page]] is a short primer on editing pages.
*[[Wikipedia:Introduction]] is a gentle introduction to the world of Wikipedia.
*[[Wikipedia:Perfect stub article]] shows what you should aim for at a minimum when starting a new article.
*[[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]] is the main stop for policies and, well, guidelines.
*[[Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Wiki markup|Wiki markup]] explains the mechanics of what codes are available to you when editing a page, to do things like titles, links, external links, and so on.
*[[Wikipedia:WikiProject]] sets out boilerplates for certain areas of knowledge.
*[[Meta:Reading level]] (discussion)

{{Writing guides}}

[[Category:Wikipedia style guidelines| ]]

[[ar:ويكيبيديا:دليل الأسلوب]]
[[ca:Viquipèdia:Llibre d'estil]]
[[cy:Wicipedia:Arddull]]
[[da:Wikipedia:Stilmanual]]
[[es:Wikipedia:Manual de estilo]]
[[eo:Vikipedio:Stilogvido]]
[[eu:Wikipedia:Estilo gida]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:شیوه‌نامه]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Conventions de style]]
[[ga:Vicipéid:Lámhleabhar Stíle]]
[[gl:Wikipedia:Libro de estilo]]
[[ko:위키백과:스타일북]]
[[id:Wikipedia:Panduan tata-letak]]
[[it:Aiuto:Manuale di stile]]
[[he:ויקיפדיה:המדריך לעיצוב דפים]]
[[ja:Wikipedia:スタイルマニュアル]]
[[mo:Википедия:Мануал де стил]]
[[ms:Wikipedia:Manual gaya penulisan]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Stijlgids]]
[[no:Wikipedia:Stilmanual]]
[[pt:Wikipedia:Livro de estilo]]
[[ro:Wikipedia:Manual de stil]]
[[sk:Wikipédia:Štylistická príručka]]
[[sl:Wikipedija:Slogovni priročnik]]
[[fi:Wikipedia:Tyyliopas]]
[[sv:Wikipedia:Rekommendationer]]
[[ta:விக்கிபீடியா:நடைக் கையேடு]]
[[th:วิกิพีเดีย:คู่มือในการเขียน]]
[[vi:Wikipedia:Cẩm nang về văn phong]]
[[tr:Vikipedi:Biçem el kitabı]]
[[zh:Wikipedia:格式手册]]
[[zh-min-nan:Wikipedia:Siá-chok ê kui-hoān]]

Template talk:Citation needed

2006-08-15T21:53:46Z

Wai Wai: /* Why does this template have many redirects? */

{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="text-align:center;"
|-
| width="48px" | [[Image:Evolution-tasks.png|50px|Articles for deletion]]
|| This template was nominated for [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion]] on July 1 2006. The result of the [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_1|discussion]] was {{{result|'''nomination withdrawn on procedural technicality'''}}}
|}
== Brackets? ==
This template looks ''terrible'' in an article. For reference, here are examples of the conventional form of an editorial note [[[Wikipedia:Cite sources|citation needed]]], and the version of this template before I changed it. ''[[Wikipedia:Cite sources|Citation needed]]'' This is an editorial comment, and editorial comments go in [[Bracket |square brackets]], in all types of writing. Small superscript ("superior text") is reserved for footnote or endnote references using symbols or figures (cite*, another 1), mathematical expressions (E=mc2), and sometimes ordinals (1st, 2nd).

Superscript letters are ''never'' used for long words like this template, which puts a big empty space in the middle of the text—it's an empty blot that stands out so much I can see it on my monitor from across the room, and further emphasizing it by italicizing is completely unnecessary. The note is long enough that when it appears after a period, it looks like the beginning of the next sentence rather than a note. and in many browsers superscripts also add line space above, which confuses the reader by masquerading as a paragraph break.

I'm going to change this back to a normal editorial note in brackets; please don't pick an arbitrary and unsuitable formatting style, like superscripted text—please stick to conventional editorial style. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2005-11-30 22:27 Z''

:I find the new style much more intrusive, but your arguments compelling. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 02:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

:: It's bigger, so it may look intrusive in isolation. But when you're reading an article you should find it distracts the eye much less than the other version. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2005-12-1 07:19 Z''
:::Wonderful, and whatever. Get rid of the extra [square brackets] then. [[User:TShilo12|Tom]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]][[User:TShilo12|r]][[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]] 07:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I have been bold and added the square brackets back in so that this template is clearly distinguished from the text. Alternatives are welcome, but this appears to me as the best current choice. [[User:Blackcap|Blackcap]] [[User talk:Blackcap|(talk)]] [[Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy|(vandalfighters, take a look)]] 23:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

== Unprofessional ==

[discussion moved from [[user talk:Mzajac]] —MZ]

the square brackets look very unprofessional. maybe it's just because I've spent too much time on wikipedia. maybe they should be replaced with parentheses or glowing silver pentagrams, I dunno, but the squarebrackets look ... amateurish. [[User:TShilo12|Tom]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]][[User:TShilo12|r]][[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]] 07:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

: But parentheses denote a ''parenthetic statement''. This note is an ''editorial remark,'' outside of the actual text altogether, and [[Bracket |square brackets]] are always used for this purpose in professional publishing. It does stand out a bit more than round parentheses, but that's by design—an editorial remark should not be mistaken for part of the text. Since this template is meant to be a temporary notice that encourages its replacement with a reference, and it's also slightly pushing Wikipedia's rule of [[WP:SELF |avoiding self-references]], I think this appearance may help prompt editors to action.

: And in contrast, the long superscript looks ''very'' unprofessional. I don't believe you'll find a single example of a similar usage in any publication. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2005-12-1 07:35 Z''

:: Well, for me what you describe as "very unprofessional" is, I guess, what has always, in retrospect, drawn me to it. It ''does'' look very unprofessional, and I guess that's kind of how I've always used the template...as a kind of weapon against POV warriors who insist on reinserting unsubstantiated crap into articles. Reviewing how I've used the template, I realize that its very unprofessional appearance is its greatest strength--it's so obscene that trolls either come up with substantiating sources or remove their trollishness of their own accord. In retrospect, it's not how "unprofessional" it looks (although it looks unwikipedistic) that bothers me, it's that it loses its strength as a tool to cajole POV-pushers into sourcing their claims or deleting them on their own. Maybe I've misunderstood the purpose of the template...but I've always regarded it as a means of forcing the issue of [[WP:CITE]] with controversial edits. [[User:TShilo12|Tom]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]][[User:TShilo12|r]][[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]] 07:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

::: Hm, that is a good point, although you seem to be arguing that it is both too ugly and not ugly enough. But this template currently sits in about 280 articles, so it doesn't seem get replaced with references often enough. Can we reach some sort of compromise? Underline it, give it a background or a border? None of these are normal typographic conventions like the square brackets, but the superscript is just ''too'' ugly and disruptive for me. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2005-12-1 07:55 Z''
::::I'm not sure...like I said, I've regarded it primarily as a troll-fighting tool. Basically, whatever draws sufficient attention to the fact that the statement to which it's attached is being made w/o citation, works for me. Being inline with the text and set off by square brackets isn't quite enough, since people easily train themselves to ''ignore'' the contents of square brackets...and I use the template for exactly the ''opposite'' purpose. <blink>blinking</blink> text is way too obnoxious, obviously, but I don't think the fact that a statement is unsourced should be trivialized either. [[User:TShilo12|Tom]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]][[User:TShilo12|r]][[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]] 08:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::How about Citation requested? [[User:TShilo12|Tom]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]][[User:TShilo12|r]][[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]] 08:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::I guess the different-colored background (possibly even set off with square-brackets) is the most appealing to me. [[User:TShilo12|Tom]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]][[User:TShilo12|r]][[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]] 08:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Obviously, the way I'm accustomed to using it, it would be best as This statement made without any notable support, but that might run into just a little bit more opposition than I care to fight off... :-p [[User:TShilo12|Tom]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]][[User:TShilo12|r]][[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]] 08:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

: I might get convinced—don't forget the text is linked [[[Wikipedia:Cite sources|citation requested]]]. Would you mind waiting a day to see how others respond [[[Wikipedia:Cite sources|citation requested]]]? We can file a request for comment if that doesn't help. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2005-12-1 08:10 Z''
:: I'm not ''completely'' unreasonable! :-p I will wait a ''week'' even. The only reason I noticed the change was bcz I slapped a couple of {{fact}} tags on some particularly troll-heavy articles, and all of a sudden they looked less obnoxious than I wanted them to. :-D That said, I think the pale yellow is a bit too unobtrusive (check out how it appears on LCDs, for example)... [[User:TShilo12|Tom]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]][[User:TShilo12|r]][[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]] 08:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

::: With the use of a background colour, the brackets also help accessibility; in case the colour is lost (in a print version, repurposed text, unusual web browser) the nature of the notice is still evident. I don't mind if you add the colour to the template now to help with your troll-baiting, and change the text to "citation requested", but there may be some push-back when other editors spot the colour. Cheers. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2005-12-1 08:25 Z''
:::: Like I said, I'm content to wait a week for others to comment. That said, I take ''minor'' exception to your characterization of my statements as evidence of ''baiting''. I prefer to think of my rationale as troll-''demanding'', but I guess, "baiting" isn't probably that non-understandable an interpretation. I don't use it as a tool intended to ''bait'' trolls, so much as a tool to warn innocent readers that trolls are at work. This is not what I regard as a "tool of first resort", rather almost as one of ''last'' resort. That said, I too am hoping to go to bed soon myself... :-p [[User:TShilo12|Tom]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]][[User:TShilo12|r]][[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]] 08:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I liked the template much better as Citation needed, i.e. as [[superscript]]. Now in the text it looks much uglier (IMHO).--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]] 01:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

==This template is '''not''' an "editorial comment": it is a "proofreader's mark" ==

First of all, it is not "editorial comment". An editorial comment is a normal element in the book or article. and live "forever", so to say. We don't comment the isssue. This is a wikipedia's marker that something is poorly done. I would compare them to big ugly margin marks, This thing must be clearly visible with quick eye scan. I am against color conding, since the page are already raibow: bold black, blue, red, magenta.

Unilike "editorial comment", which is a perm part of the finished text, this template will be deleted once the problem fixed.

While '''[[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages|be bold]]''' is OK, but if people object and revert, then sorry, you have to back off. The priority is for the original version, since for a long time no one objected. And if you feel change needed, wait for consensus. [[user:mikkalai|mikka]] [[user talk:mikkalai|(t)]] 03:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

: Hm, but no one reverted after reading this ongoing discussion about the format, that is until you just came along. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2005-12-3 05:56 Z''
::Hmm yes. But still I am #3 in reverting and I haven't seen anyone yet who definitely supports you. You may try to revert me (I don't object) and see what will happen. [[user:mikkalai|mikka]] [[user talk:mikkalai|(t)]]

::: I would rather reach consensus too, than edit-war. I'm not crazy about colour, either. I see your point about this being like proofreader's markup—It is like that in that it is intended to be replaced, but is also like an editorial comment in that 1. it is regarding editorial content, not merely orthography, and 2. it is visible in a published Wikipedia article. Electronic publishing makes possible what was not possible in paper books, but we should try to extend traditional typesetting conventions when possible. For reference, here's a demonstration of proofreader's marks [http://www.ideography.co.uk/proof/proofmarks.pdf proofmarks.pdf].

::: The superscripted form has absolutely no precedent in typesetting design, and is not only eye-catching, but very ungainly, to be polite. How about something with a prominent character, like this? [[[WP:CITE |•citation requested•]]] Or using a typesetter's fist, although I suspect this may not show up on MSIE/Win without specifying a font. [[[WP:CITE |<big><big>☞</big></big>cite?]]] Or as you suggested, be bold. '''[[[WP:CITE |cite?]]]''' Bolder still? '''[[[WP:CITE |CITE?]]]''' ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2005-12-3 17:40 Z''
::*Sorry, that's plain wrong. Superscripting has long been used for footnoting. As for prominent, too bold is bad either. [[user:mikkalai|mikka]] [[user talk:mikkalai|(t)]] 21:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

::: You just finished arguing that this is not an editorial comment because it is not "a normal element in the book or article. and live 'forever', so to say." Now you're telling me a footnote, a ''more'' normal element in a book or article than a proofreader's mark or an editorial comment.

::: It's true that superscripts are used for footnote ''references''— which are as small as possible: a tiny asterisk, dagger, or number. They're never a sentence fragment or even a single word. They don't leave a big white gap following the x-height of a line of text.

::: Many Wikipedia articles do have actual footnote references in them, but this is not one. It is an editorial comment; it's not part of the text, but a statement about the text. An editorial comment. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2005-12-4 07:14 Z''

An balance must be stricken between:
*Nonobtrusiveness (no bold or bright colors), so that the eye would not be unnecessariny attracted to bright spots, breaking the the normal reading (ufortunately, it is just physiology of eye)
*Still noticeable for a person whose goal is to fish out these marks.
*Clear distinction from article text, i.e., understanding that this is a kind of markup, similar to <nowiki>{{cleanup}}</nowiki>. (Simply square brackets are bad, since it implies familiarity with our conventions. For untrained, any of (...), <...>, {...}, [...], /... /, - ... - , etc, are all the same.
[[user:mikkalai|mikka]] [[user talk:mikkalai|(t)]] 21:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
</nowiki>

: I think you're now the second one who has argued that it must be both more attention-catching and less attention-catching than any of my proposals.

: [[:Template:Cleanup]] is in a blue box, to show that it is not part of the text. That would be better than the weird superscripted fragment between sentences—a completely novel convention. The white space under it is ''precisely'' an unnecessary bright spot in the normal typographic "colour" of the page. This eye-distraction is exactly the kind of thing typesetters avoid.

: Square brackets do ''not'' imply familiarity with our conventions; ''they are a standard English-language typographic convention for an editorial remark that stands outside the text!'' They stand out as "other", without degrading the reader's experience by interrupting the scanning of the eye across the line of text. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2005-12-4 07:29 Z''

== Ugliness ==

The best way to remove the ugliness of the template in an article is to ''fix the problem!'' - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 02:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
:Exactly. Which is why I prefer it to be incredibly ugly. It draws attention to the fact that unsupported/unsupportable information is being held up as fact. Like I said above, it's a tool of last resort, but it it usually rather effectively stops trolls. Making it pretty, or less obtrustive/obscene, would reduce its effectiveness. At the same time, it alerts the casual reader that an assertion is being made that may be inaccurate. [[User:TShilo12|Tom]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]][[User:TShilo12|r]][[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]] 05:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
::I agree completely. — [[User:Brian0918|BRIAN]][[User_talk:Brian0918|0918]] • 2005-12-4 07:16

::: There's about 280 of them. You guys are adding these templates all over the place and leaving them in there. What you want is for it to be prominent. That is not the same thing as being ugly, poorly-designed, unprofessional. Prominent gets attention, ugly is just ugly. What a way to design an interface. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2005-12-4 07:18 Z''
:::: To what, exactly, are you referring? [[WP:AGF]] [[User:TShilo12|Tom]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]][[User:TShilo12|r]][[User talk:TShilo12|talk]] 07:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

::::: Ta bu shi da yu implies that it's okay this is ugly because then it gets removed. This template is now placed in Wikipedia in about 280 places. In a month or two it will be in 500—it's not being removed, it's being added. You guys put this template in the text, and then forget about it. The ugliness doesn't help it go away, it just helps Wikipedia get steadily uglier.

::::: Tom argues, in effect, that making the template typographically ugly helps serve its function of attracting attention. Good designers use a number of techniques to draw attention to elements on the page. Let's use a standard typographic technique to draw attention; let's not use poor design to draw attention. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2005-12-4 07:36 Z''
::::::I disagree that it is not being removed. I've placed this template on newly-made contributions by both anons and registered users, and have seen them immediately find sources and replace the template with that source. So it does work. — [[User:Brian0918|BRIAN]][[User_talk:Brian0918|0918]] • 2005-12-4 07:46

::::::: It's been placed about 280 more times than it's been removed over the 4-1/2 months of its existence. As more people find it, the accretion will accelerate. So it should made to look as professional as most other things on Wikipedia. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2005-12-4 09:14 Z''
:::::::: I guess it's a matter of degrees of comfort then. I don't see a problem with its proliferation given the statistic you cite. Since way more than 280 articles have been created in the past 4.5 months, I'd say we're doing good that only 280 outrageously unsupported statements have been made. I'm with Brian. I've seen it removed rather quickly whereëver it's been used. Michael, do you have statistics indicating that it's been sitting somewhere in some articles for a long period of time unattended? If it has, it should, along with the statement in question, either be commented out, or removed from the article. [[User:TShilo12|Tom]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]][[User:TShilo12|r]][[User talk:TShilo12|talk]] 16:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

::::::::: Evidence like that would take a lot of work to collect. A disadvantage of such a template is that it is difficult to find stale copies. I just added [[:Category:Articles lacking sources]] to the template, to help with the search & destroy. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2005-12-5 16:13 Z''
Ah. Kudos for an excellent idea! :-) [[User:TShilo12|Tom]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]][[User:TShilo12|r]][[User talk:TShilo12|talk]] 00:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

You know this is perhaps a useless template. Next thing you know we weill have a template that only contains the link to [[Wikipedia]] --[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]][[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]] 00:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
:That could be really fun too! :-D [[User:TShilo12|Tom]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]][[User:TShilo12|r]][[User talk:TShilo12|talk]] 02:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

== template adds line breaks with lists. ==

Could someone with more template ability look into the problem that this template adds line breaks on lists? Here's an example:

*Most people find him unattractive.{{citeneeded}}
*Most people find him unattractive.''[[{{SITENAME}}:Cite sources|Citation needed]]''<includeonly>[[Category:Articles lacking sources]]</includeonly>

The second example pastes (what I think is) the template text directly into the page. Can the template be made to work with lists?[[User:Lsommerer|Lsommerer]] 17:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

:I'm seeing the same problem. Template needs to be fixed. --[[User:Stbalbach|Stbalbach]] 04:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks to whomever fixed this. [[User:Lsommerer|LloydSommerer]] 17:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

==Square brackets==
I see someone has added square brackets to this. I preferred it without. Does anyone mind if I revert? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 08:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

: The square brackets are appropriate, since this is an editorial remark. The formatting is definitely over-emphasized, having square brackets, a raised baseline, a smaller font, and italicized font all drawing attention to it. Any ''one'' of those would be sufficient or two at most. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2005-12-29 09:04 Z''

::The brackets are unnecessary because of the superscript, the italics, and the smaller font, all of which I think are a good idea, and which make it obvious it's an editorial insert. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 09:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

::: Well, I'm repeating myself here, but no serious type designer has ever used superscripted, italicized, small font to format whole words, to indicate an editorial insert or anything else. They always use square brackets for this purpose. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2005-12-29 17:10 Z''

== Usage ==

I just noticed this template being used on [[Hugo Kelly]], which is currently facing AfD. It just seems a bit odd to me - I thought the preferred way to deal with unsourced claims was to remove them to the Talk page until citations were/could be provided. Thoughts? [[User:Pfctdayelise|pfctdayelise]] 05:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:Well, there's more than one way to skin a cat :-). Yes, it's common (and accepted [[WP:CITE|under policy]]) to remove stuff to talk until referenced, but this is a relatively new system which any one is free to use... it's up to you! [[User:Dan100|Dan100]] ([[User talk:Dan100|Talk]]) 12:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

== Change the cat ==

I think it would be pertinent t rename the cat for this article with something like {{cl|Article needing specific sources}}. Currently, it feeds into the same cat as {{tl|unreferenced}} and {{tl|Primarysources}}, but has a very different purpose,notably oin that it can be addedto an already well-sourced article without contradiction. [[User:Circeus|Circeus]] 18:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

== Two new versions of the template ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Citation_needed&oldid=40219423 Double-line "citation needed" version]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Citation_needed&oldid=40220250 Superscripted "??" version]

Comments? [[User:Infinity0|Infinity0]] [[User_talk:Infinity0|talk]] 01:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

:The double line version is ugly. The ?? version is unacceptable. The goal is to ''draw attention'' to the fact that a citation is needed. The ?? version does not do this. In particular, this template is typically used when a fact critically needs to be backed up by a reference because it is in dispute or otherwise doubtful. In principle, adding this tag to a statement in the article is a ''warning'' that the statement is subject to deletion unless someone is able to back it up (per [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]). This template needs to provide a glaringly obvious indication that a citation is needed, not an obscure [??].--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] 02:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the ?? is pretty challenging, since not only is it saying "citation needed", it's putting the statement in question marks, ie. adding touch of doubt. [[User:Infinity0|Infinity0]] [[User_talk:Infinity0|talk]] 15:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
:It just looks like a rendering error to my eye, like what I get when someone uses Japanese or Chinese characters on a page.--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] 16:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh right. Well, my main complaint is that the template takes up too much space atm. Also "citation needed" says only that - it doesn't question the validity of the statement. [[User:Infinity0|Infinity0]] [[User_talk:Infinity0|talk]] 16:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
:This is getting close to the discussion above under [[#Ugliness]]. Taking up too much space isn't really a problem because ideally the template shouldn't be there for very long. Any statement that gets flagged with this template should either be referenced, or should be removed in a short time. It's analogous to the "cleanup" tags, that can be placed at the top of an article that needs work. They take up a ''lot'' of space, and are a glaring distraction at the top of the article. They are ''meant'' to be. The goal is to fix the problem and remove the template, not refine the template so that it detracts less from the appearance of the article.

How about [''uncited''] ? [[User:Infinity0|Infinity0]] [[User_talk:Infinity0|talk]] 16:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
:"Citation needed" seems clearer to me. I agree by the way that it doesn't question the validity of the statement. We [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]] first, i.e. assume that the statement is correct, and that the editor who added it can provide a source. If you really want to question the validity of the statement, you should probably use {{tl|Dubious}}, or just be bold and delete it.
:"uncited" or even something as simple as "cite" might be OK, though, as long as it links to [[WP:CITE]]. Either would be preferable to [??].--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] 17:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

"Citation needed" invites the reader/editor to seek out a source and post the citation in the article. "Uncited" or "??" does not. If the only argument against "citation needed" is that it is long, I don't think a change is necessary. I'm reverting the change to the template until consensus is apparent on a change. - [[User:Jersyko|Jersyko]]·''[[User talk:Jersyko|talk]]'' 02:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

:How about a single ? like so [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|<nowiki>[</nowiki>?<nowiki>]</nowiki>]] to match the style of <ref>Sample Reference</ref>? ManaUser] 21:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

::I think a single ? or a double ?? is the best way to do this. "Citation needed" takes up a lot of room, and sort of ruins the article; We need to remember that while ''we're'' here to edit Wikipedia, a lot of other people are here to ''read'' wikipedia, and to a degree, we serve them. That's why we don't have discussions on article pages, and this whole Citation needed business goes a little too far in that direction for my taste. [[User:Mangojuice|Mangojuice]] 19:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

== Viral growth ==

In 2-1/2 months, this template's usage has grown from about 280 inclusions to somewhere around 2,500! If anyone is still claiming that it is okay that this template is an eyesore because it's only going to be in place temporarily, then I ask you to retract that statement, or get ready to work full-time in your local library finding references or removing this template.

Let's make it look like a small single question mark, either superscripted[[citation needed |[?]]] or not [[citation needed |[?]]] (two question marks are redundant), linking through the phrase "citation needed", which will be visible in the tool-tip, but redirects to [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]]. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-02-20 01:54 Z''
:Can't agree. If you are concerned it looks like an eyesore, ''I'' am more concerned that it has been placed on the article in the first place! Two solutions: remove the text and place on talk page, or research the facts and provide a source. The solution is not to "fix" this template: the solution is to fix the article it is used on. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 02:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

:: That would be great, but it's not happening. Adding this template to an article is being used as a gesture of disapproval, by editors who don't follow through and do something about the "offending" text. A great deal of discussion on this page seems to assume that having this template be ugly will somehow prompt the correcting of missing citations. If this is at all true, it's not true enough: this template is being added about 1,000 more times per month than it is being removed!

:: Someone please explain why [''[[citation needed]]''] will be removed from the page any faster than [[citation needed |[?]]] or [[citation needed |[?]]] will. They each look like they don't belong, and if someone is going to go to the trouble of looking up a reference, they will do it just as readily for any of them. But the first breaks all typographic conventions used in publications or on the Web, and looks like heck, especially when it is found multiple times on the page. It makes Wikipedia look home-made. We ''can'' have editorial notices pointing out missing information, while still applying some level of professional-looking typography.

:: There are two problems: 1 lack of citations, and 2 the poor typographic formatting of this template. The second problem does not help with correct the first. So please let's correct the second problem. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-02-20 04:44 Z''

:::The way I look at it, an article that is missing citations or needs cleanup, etc., is not "finished". It's a ''draft''. The appearance of a draft version of an article is not so important. --[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] 12:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

:::: There is no "draft" distinction on Wikipedia. All articles are open to readers, are being actively edited, and are republished on various sites. If an article has a serious problem, then it should have a [[Wikipedia:Template_messages/Maintenance |maintenance template]] at the top.

:::: According to the good faith principle, this template says that a citation is needed, nothing more. The article should remain readable and re-publishable. This template should only mark the place where a citation is needed in a sufficient and professional-looking manner, and not purposely drag down an article's appearance. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-02-20 17:08 Z''

Being an incentive to find a source shouldn't be a reason for making this template bloated. Wikipedia articles are read by everyone, and the point of the template should only be to inform the reader that the statement may not be true; without being at the expense of layout and style. [[User:Infinity0|Infinity0]] [[User_talk:Infinity0|talk]] 17:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

== Template name <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> misleading ==

Folks, I was surprised to see <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> as a synomym for this page, "Citation needed." For newbies, and even experienced users like me, it's completely misleading and confusing, as it appears in the wikimarkup that this is a declared "fact" rather than something that needs "fact checking." Can someone provide an explanation for how this has evolved? -- [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] | [[User talk:Fuzheado|Talk]] 06:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

:AFAIK, {{tl|fact}} is deprecated. That was an older (the original?) name for this template, but should no longer be used. Deleting a template that is in wide use is a lot of trouble. It's usually better to just redirect it to the new template, and then "promote" the new name rather than the old one. In time, we should see fewer and fewer calls to fact in the wikimarkup.--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] 06:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

::Well, I still see people adding using {{tl|fact}} to add {{fact}} to articles. Is it really that much trouble to replace them all with something like {{tl|citeneeded}} and delete {{tl|fact}}? --[[User:Tifego|Tifego]] 03:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
:::Go ahead. If you replace ''every'' occurence of {{tl|fact}} with {{tl|citeneeded}}, you are then welcome to submit [[template:fact]] for deletion.--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] 05:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
::::Somebody surely has a bot/program capable of doing that already. At least a few admins must have access to it. I didn't say it'd be easy for any user like me to do. --[[User:Tifego|Tifego]] 18:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::Who has decided that fact is deprecated? It's much easier to type "fact" than "cite needed". [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 18:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

::::::Maybe somebody should decide it's deprecated. The extra ease of use of a few letters isn't justification for being incredibly confusing to new users. The name {{tl|fact}} is pretty much the opposite of what that template is used to mean. If ease of use is the main reason for {{tl|fact}} then why not make and use something like {{tl|cn}} instead? --[[User:Tifego|Tifego]] 20:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

::::A few minutes ago, there were 5152 links to {{tl|fact}}. [[User:Ardric47|Ardric47]] 00:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This template has at least ten redirects:
* [[:template:Citation required]]
* [[:template:Citationneeded]]
* [[:template:Cite needed]]
* [[:template:Cite-needed]]
* [[:template:Citeneeded]]
* [[:template:Fact]]
* [[:template:Need citation]]
* [[:template:Need-cite]]
* [[:template:Needs citation]]
* [[:template:Uncited]]
''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-04-02 22:37 Z''

I like {{tl|fact}}, it's handy. [[User:Mangojuice|Mangojuice]] 19:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Any further thinking on whether this redirect should go or not? There's not much point in replacing all the current usages ''unless'' it actually is going to be "officially" deprecated and eventually deleted, otherwise people will simply keep using it, making more work for the renaming effort, and hence more server load, and so on ad infinitum. (Nothing crippling in and of itself, but 5-6000 edits is not to be sneezed at either.) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 11:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
:Well, it's not a redirect anymore. It is actually the template name now. as you can see. As for if {{tl|fact}} should be used for the citiation needed template... I'm neutral with it. Its name is a tad bit weird for the template's type, but I keep adding <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> when I want to add this template. Simply put, <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> won't be going away as a usage of this template anytime soon. --'''[[User:Wcquidditch|WC''Quidditch'']]''' <big>[[User talk:Wcquidditch|☎]] [[Special:Contributions/Wcquidditch|✎]]</big> 14:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Link_%28Legend_of_Zelda%29&diff=55635193&oldid=55621637 Very recently, use of "fact" led to a misunderstanding between editors in a feature article.] Clearly, there is and always was a good reason why {{tl|fact}} is deprecated. From what I have observed, {{tl|fact}} reads to the average editor as "not a fact", and it has been just as inflammatory as accusing the submitter of the corresponding statement of vandalism. Henceforth, I feel that we should not endorse {{tl|fact}} by leaving the official title of this template as it is. (Unfortunately somebody went and moved the page from [[Template:Citation needed|Citation needed]] to [[Template:fact|fact]] before we could truly reach consensus. :p) Therefore I propose the following steps:
#'''move''' this page to {{tl|cn}} (for example, or something else that actually tells editors why this template was used)
#'''add move protection''' to {{tl|cn}} and the redirect at {{tl|fact}}
#'''update''' all double-redirects (if not done automatically)
#'''speedy delete''' {{tl|fact}}
#gradually '''replace''' all occurrences that are not the final name of this template with the proper name using AWB, a bot, or similar (somebody?)
#'''remove protection''' after a week so that editors can get used to it
(My reasoning behind step 2 is so that the process isn't interrupted part-way.) Whatever the case, we need more discussion on this, albeit not so far as requesting a move just yet. --[[User:DavidHOzAu|DavidHOzAu]] 14:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Some kind of official declaration on the matter would be greatly appreciated, as the competing templates are sowing confusion (not to mention the actual confusion caused by <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki>). And if not here, then where. '''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]] 18:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

== Another formatting proposal ==

In the last 41 days the number of inclusions of this template has doubled, to about 4,900. Its occurrence grew by about 120 per day, and appears to be accelerating. Perhaps it will level off, but this template will continue to be seen more and more by Wikipedia readers. Please let's not continue to accept poor typography just because the template's placement is intended to be temporary (the details have been discussed above, so let's not get into that here).

Here's an idea to improve the template's appearance, without compromising the typography of an article ''or'' the template's function: instead of using a superscript, set the text in an italic serif font, like this example [[[Wikipedia:Citing sources|citation needed]]], or in small capitals [[[Wikipedia:Citing sources|citation needed]]].

Such a font switch is used in many publications to indicate a change of context, for example, to indicate different parts of a definition in a dictionary. The different font stands out significantly in running text. The square brackets still imply an editorial remark, standing outside of the text article itself. But it uses conventional typographic techniques and doesn't present as much of a jarring visual element on the page as a long superscript.

Would anyone object to such a change in the template? ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-04-02 22:27 Z''

:I'm fine with that, although I can't imagine how you see a italic or small-cap insertion in square brackets as more appealing than a superscript insertion in square brackets. The superscript has the advantage of being small, so it's not as obtrusive, for those who object to this template being too obtrusive.--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] 01:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

:: The dense, tiny text and the long break in the baseline underneath the superscript draw the eye from across the page and interrupt the flow of reading, much more than a simple change of font. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-04-03 05:46 Z''

There is also a change of color too, you have to take that into account. [[Wikipedia:Cite_sources|color change]]. What we really need is a small image like we have for external links, and I have taken the liberty of making a small image[[Image:citation_needed.gif]] and it should suffice for verbatim use in Wikipedia. --[[User:DavidHOzAu|DavidHOzAu]] 00:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

:Note: Although the version I posted ealier only used one tag, it really shouldn't take so much work to get the citation link pointing through the image. Like this[[Wikipedia:Cite_sources|   ]][[Image:citation_needed.gif|{{{size|38}}}x11px|Wikipedia:Cite_sources]]. There has to be a better way to do this. --[[User:DavidHOzAu|DavidHOzAu]] 05:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

::I read the discussion here and I must say that I like the present version: with upper index and square brackets. Perhaps I simply got used to it, but I like it more than any of the alternatives proposed above. Also, as someone noted, the template in fact should distract one's eye. If it does not, a chance is nobody will ever notice it. ''//''[[User:Halibutt|Halibu]][[User talk:Halibutt|tt]] 02:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
:::I also like the present version, although DavidHOzAu's is not bad. It would be best not to use any sort of image, though, for accessibility reasons. [[User:Ardric47|Ardric47]] 02:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

::::I have made some code at [[User:DavidHOzAu/monobook.js|my monobook js]] that allows you to replace the current template with whatever you want. At the moment I am using[[[WP:CITE|CITE]]], (the commented-out line will replace it with my image if you are interested,) and to me it looks nicer than the whitespace-ridden{{citeneeded}}, '''provided the verticalAlign style gets changed to 'top' so text actually stays within the line'''. I have noticed that[[[WP:CITE|CITE]]] looks visually pleasing and non-intrusive when I'm browsing, yet is still eye-catching when I'm in "edit mode". Try it out and see what you think. --[[User:DavidHOzAu|DavidHOzAu]] 02:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Since there has been no objection, I'll implement this. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-05-12 17:58 Z''

:I object; the superscript is smaller, less obtrusive, and more professional looking. When it's in the main body it looks like its part of the actual text itself. I also note that several others objected, above, and made counter-suggestions. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]][[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]] 19:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

::Ditto. The superscript is neat looking. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 19:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

::: Typesetters never set whole words in superscript; it is particularly ''un''professional looking, and more obtrusive, distracting the reader's eye from across the page and disrupting the flow of reading. It lowers the visual quality of an article. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-05-12 20:50 Z''

:::: Next time mZajac makes such a sweeping generalization, he might specify what publisher he has experienced that '''never''' ocurred, and the number of years that he worked professionally in the field.

:::: Speaking as an author of 25+ years experience, and considerable interaction with professional typesetting, I have personally set entire words in superscript, or in subscript, or in underscript-overscript pairs. Short words. Short references. That is, fact is perfectly acceptable, while citation needed is horrible overkill.

:::: Moreover, the {{tl|fact}} is temporary, and not a serious consideration for actual paper publication. In summary, his entire argument was a fallacious [[strawman]].
:::::--[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 04:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

:::::It's meant to be obtrusive to some extent, because the point of it is to encourage editors to find sources. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 05:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

:::::: Mr. Simpson, I'm happy for your successful career, but you won't win any arguments just by stating your length. Can you cite any examples of good typesetters' work where entire words are set in superscript which we can refer to? I do agree that four-letter word like "fact" would be much less disruptive to readers than the phrase "[citation needed]", coloured blue, in brackets and italic font.

:::::: The template is definitely ''not'' temporary. It is being added to Wikipedia at a rate of close to 100 instances per day, and will continue to be seen by more readers, more often. That it is intended to be temporary doesn't matter anyway: it adversely affects readability of text and looks unprofessional when someone reads or prints an article today, regardless of whether it will remain there tomorrow.

:::::: It could serve its purpose just as well while looking more professional. I'm opposed to the working principle of this design element, which more often than not is to shame an editor into providing a reference or allowing disputed text to be removed. The practical result is that thousands of articles look worse, and not the massive addition of useful references. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-05-18 18:05 Z''

:::::::Adding these citation requests is in fact remarkably successful at getting people to dig up references. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 18:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

:::::::: That may be so, but it is impossible to quantify. But we do know that it is 92 occurrences per day ''more'' successful at getting people to do nothing. Perhaps if it looked better, it would be even more successful at getting people to dig up references.

:::::::: Too bad we can't measure how successful this template is at getting newcomers to believe that Wikipedia suffers from bush-league typography. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-05-18 19:10 Z''

==Alignment==
I think it'd be good if the ''vertical-align'' style of the template was changed to ''top'', because at the moment it is seriously borks up the line heights. In my opinion, the '''.reference''' class used for the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tag should use this vertical alignment too, because at the moment it also borks line heights, an effect very evident on heavily-cited articles. I'll demonstrate here:
:First, the present style of superscripting in both <nowiki><ref></nowiki> and {{tl|citeneeded}}:
::{|class=wikitable
!Lorem ipsum
|-
|Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Donec quam felis, ultricies nec, pellentesque eu, pretium quis, sem. Nulla consequat massa quis enim.[[Template:Citation_needed|<nowiki>[1]</nowiki>]] Donec pede justo, fringilla vel, aliquet nec, vulputate eget, arcu. In enim justo, rhoncus ut, imperdiet a, venenatis vitae, justo. Nullam dictum felis eu pede mollis pretium. Integer tincidunt. Cras dapibus. Vivamus elementum semper nisi. Aenean vulputate eleifend tellus. Aenean leo ligula, porttitor eu, consequat vitae, eleifend ac, enim.[[Wikipedia:Citing sources|<nowiki>[</nowiki>''citation needed''<nowiki>]</nowiki>]] Aliquam lorem ante, dapibus in, viverra quis, feugiat a, tellus. Phasellus viverra nulla ut metus varius laoreet. Quisque rutrum. Aenean imperdiet. Etiam ultricies nisi vel augue. Curabitur ullamcorper ultricies nisi. Nam eget dui.
|}
:And again, using my suggested style:
::{|class=wikitable
!Lorem ipsum
|-
|Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Donec quam felis, ultricies nec, pellentesque eu, pretium quis, sem. Nulla consequat massa quis enim.[[Template:Citation_needed|<nowiki>[1]</nowiki>]] Donec pede justo, fringilla vel, aliquet nec, vulputate eget, arcu. In enim justo, rhoncus ut, imperdiet a, venenatis vitae, justo. Nullam dictum felis eu pede mollis pretium. Integer tincidunt. Cras dapibus. Vivamus elementum semper nisi. Aenean vulputate eleifend tellus. Aenean leo ligula, porttitor eu, consequat vitae, eleifend ac, enim.[[Wikipedia:Citing sources|<nowiki>[</nowiki>''citation needed''<nowiki>]</nowiki>]] Aliquam lorem ante, dapibus in, viverra quis, feugiat a, tellus. Phasellus viverra nulla ut metus varius laoreet. Quisque rutrum. Aenean imperdiet. Etiam ultricies nisi vel augue. Curabitur ullamcorper ultricies nisi. Nam eget dui.
|}
:Or even better:
::{|class=wikitable
!Lorem ipsum
|-
|Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Donec quam felis, ultricies nec, pellentesque eu, pretium quis, sem. Nulla consequat massa quis enim.[[Template:Citation_needed|<nowiki>[1]</nowiki>]] Donec pede justo, fringilla vel, aliquet nec, vulputate eget, arcu. In enim justo, rhoncus ut, imperdiet a, venenatis vitae, justo. Nullam dictum felis eu pede mollis pretium. Integer tincidunt. Cras dapibus. Vivamus elementum semper nisi. Aenean vulputate eleifend tellus. Aenean leo ligula, porttitor eu, consequat vitae, eleifend ac, enim.[[Wikipedia:Citing sources|<nowiki>[</nowiki>''citation needed''<nowiki>]</nowiki>]] Aliquam lorem ante, dapibus in, viverra quis, feugiat a, tellus. Phasellus viverra nulla ut metus varius laoreet. Quisque rutrum. Aenean imperdiet. Etiam ultricies nisi vel augue. Curabitur ullamcorper ultricies nisi. Nam eget dui.
|}
:Clearly this template isn't what is at fault here. It appears to me that this layout problem stems from the styles associated with the <nowiki></nowiki> tag itself. --[[User:DavidHOzAu|DavidHOzAu]] 13:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that this separation of lines only happens in some browsers. [[User:Kaldosh|Kaldosh]] 08:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It happens on IE and Mozilla, and that's 95% of the browser market. --[[User:DavidHOzAu|DavidHOzAu]] 14:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

== Changing the category associated with this template ==

I changed the category from [[:Category:Articles lacking sources]] to [[:Category:Articles with unsourced statements]], as the old categorization was really not appropriately titled. This template is for articles that do list sources, but have some statements that need citations.

I also changed the formatting of the text from italics to normal. The text is already superscripted and in brackets... the italics didn't make it stand out any more. I won't yell if anyone reverts the formatting, but I really do think that the new category is a better name. —[[User:Seqsea|Seqsea]] ([[User talk:Seqsea|talk]]) 05:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

:I understand that the discussion about the italics has gone on for some time, but for my two cents, the italics always made sense to me because "citation needed" is a [[WP:SELF|self-reference]]. Pretty much all self-references in the article text (as opposed to boxes) are supposed to be italicized, such as [[Template:Selfref]], [[Template:Dablink]], and [[Template:Otheruses templates|the "otheruses" family]]. In my opinion, the purpose of the italics isn't to emphasize the "citation needed" but to visually lessen its effect of breaking up an article's normal text. –[[User:Sommers|Sommers]] [[User talk:Sommers|(Talk)]] 06:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

::I agree. Was about to post this: Putting in a separate category was a good idea, you're right it didn't seem appropriate before. I liked the italics though. I don't know about making it "stand out", but they distinguished it more from the regular text of the article. I added them back for now, I won't insist on it but it seems like they should be there. –[[User:Tifego|Tifego]][[User Talk:Tifego|(t)]] 06:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

==Fact==
Does anyone know why the fact template is being changed to this one? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 17:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

== Viral growth now down to 100/day ==

This template currently has 8,674 inclusions and links. Its rate of inclusion is beginning to drop, having been added to Wikipedia only an average of 94 times per day over the last forty days (compared to 120 times per day over the previous 41 days).

If someone still thinks the ridiculous design of this template is encouraging its removal, then maybe we should set it in 64-point pink script letters. When they see that, they'll hit the stacks and enter all those references by next week. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-05-12 17:53 Z''

== Aligning with existing source citation styles ==

I'd like to suggest that this template should render its output based on the style used to render sources in the article. As noted in [[WP:CITE]], as of 19:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC) there are three "acceptable" styles:
#Embedded HTML links
#[[Wikipedia:Harvard referencing|Harvard referencing]], and
#[[Wikipedia:Footnotes|Footnotes]].

If this proposal were accepted, here are examples of how this template's appearance would vary based on an article's style, ignoring any [[Help:User style|User style]]s:
*Articles using [http://en.wikipedia.org/ Embedded HTML links] would mark unsourced statements like this <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Wikipedia:Citing sources|citation needed]]<nowiki>]</nowiki>
*Articles using [[Wikipedia:Harvard referencing|Harvard referencing]] would mark unsourced statements like this ([[Wikipedia:Citing sources|citation needed]])
*Articles using [[Wikipedia:Footnotes|Footnotes]] for references would mark unsourced statements like this <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Wikipedia:Citing sources|''citation needed'']]<nowiki>]</nowiki>

There may be a gotcha I'm not thinking of at first glance for making this template sensitive to styles in this way, but before any implementations are attempted it would be useful to know if the idea has merit. Thanks. [[User:66.167.141.119|66.167.141.119]] 19:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC).

:I've got a better idea. Convert all articles to <ref></ref> syntax and stop troubling ourselves with this matter. — May. 13, '06 <tt class=plainlinks>'''[05:29] <[{{fullurl:user:freakofnurture}} freakofnurxture][[special:contributions/freakofnurture||]][{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit&section=new}} talk]>'''</tt>

: This is a good point, that in articles with the first two types of references, this template is out of place, in that it doesn't even imitate the reference style. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-05-14 14:45 Z''

::No, this is insane. This multiplicitiy of ever-more-specific templates has to stop. People can't be expected to remember them all. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 18:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
:::No one says people have to remember when to use every last template. People can put in a more generic template, and others can refine it if they so prefer. "Anyone can edit" can apply to template usage, too. --[[User:DragonHawk|DragonHawk]] 23:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

== Moving and transcluding ==

Why are these templates being shuffled around? Needlessly transcluding templates, such as was done in [[:Template:Citation needed]] is bad practice, and may affect Wikipedia's performace. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-05-14 14:46 Z''

== Useless title attribute ==

<code><nowiki></nowiki></code> should be changed to just <code><nowiki></nowiki></code>. The title tool-tip only appears when mousing over the brackets, because the link's tool-tip overrides it. And anyway, what's the point of adding the label "needs citation" to the text "citation needed"? This helps no one. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-05-14 14:50 Z''

== May 19, 2006 ==
<div style="float:right;font-size:200%">{{fact}}</div>
I've made a few changes to the template:
#I didn't think we really needed three inline links to [[:Category:Articles with unsourced statements]], so I got rid of one of them.
#I moved the brackets outside of the link, for what I feel is a cleaner appearance, but I won't argue it.
#I substed [[Template:Tl]] so the server won't have to re-cache a good chunk of article space if and when {{tl}} is ever modified or touched.
#Most importantly, I added a conditional code evaluating the {{NAMESPACE}} variable. This template will now only populate the category when used in article space. "Category:Articles with unsourced statements" implies that it should only contain articles, not project pages. Notice that this talk page is no longer part of the category.
— May. 19, '06 <tt class=plainlinks>'''[07:25] <[{{fullurl:user:freakofnurture}} freak]|[{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit&section=new}} talk]>'''</tt>

== No print ==

One day a MediaWiki developer will fix the main.css file so that superscripts/references do not muck up line heights in bulleted lists or indented text; this would have the unfortunate side-effect of making this template unobtrusive, which we don't want. I propose adding something like <code><nowiki></nowiki></code> so that this template can be customized on a skin-by-skin basis (see [[m:User styles]] and [[m:Gallery of user styles]]) and always kept ugly even though other superscripts are typographically correct. Javascript code and/or css needs a title or class to distinguish between this template and normal superscripts, regardless of a skin customization. --[[User:DavidHOzAu|DavidHOzAu]] 03:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
:In line with this I have added <code>class="uncited"</code> to the template. Note that this allows the [[m:Paper Wikipedia|Paper Wikipedia project]] (besides others) to quickly censor this template by setting <code>sup.uncited { display:none; }</code> in a css file. --[[User:DavidHOzAu|DavidHOzAu]] 03:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

:: It's a bad idea to inject classes which are not used in the style sheets. Wikipedia already has classes for this purpose (see [[Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes]]), and it's also a bad idea to duplicate their function. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-05-23 12:47 Z''

::: For the record, there is no class definition for <code>sup.reference</code>, which the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tag uses, in either ''monobook.css'', ''common.css'', or ''main.css''. I don't see the problem here. --[[User:DavidHOzAu|DavidHOzAu]] 01:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

:: PS: purposefully screwing up the line height of text on the page to support the function of this template is a really bad idea. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-05-23 13:38 Z''

:::In know it's a bad idea, but it's the idea for this template: make it look ugly, so other people will want to replace it with a citation. --[[User:DavidHOzAu|DavidHOzAu]] 01:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

== Yet another typography proposal ==

How about we use correct typography (remove the sup tag altogether) and :gasp: use '''the evil <nowiki><blink></nowiki> tag''' to draw attention? --[[User:DavidHOzAu|DavidHOzAu]] 14:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

== It really does work ==

I don't know why, but this template is HIGHLY effective. Users often cite things within a single day! Amazing! My thanks to the creators/maintainers :). [[User:RN|RN]] 19:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

== Suggestion for an optional second parameter ==

Make it possible to use the template like this <code><nowiki>{{citeneeded|what-to-reference}}</nowiki></code>, so that when the mouse hovers over the link, "Citation needed: what to reference" appears as the tooltip. This would help point other editors in the right direction and avoid misunderstandings between editors over what is needed to fix up that section.

For example, the text "<nowiki>Object was not designed for verbatim use by people with allergies.{{citeneeded|that use is not verbatim}}</nowiki>" shows that we are requesting a citation about said Object not being for verbatim use, instead of about its use by people with allergies.

My rationale is that even if we decide not to use a second parameter in the template, recommending that people add a reason as the second parameter might be useful in helping other editors clean up articles. (Note that this would have the added benefit of reducing viral growth since the template would be replaced quicker.) --[[User:DavidHOzAu|DavidHOzAu]] 09:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

== Deficient sources ==
Is there a template that can be used when there is a citation but when one thinks it to be somehow "deficient" or "not adequate" ? Like for stating that there is well a citation but an additional one (or more) would be pertinent? Regards. [[User:Cretanforever|Cretanforever]]
*I'm looking for one of these, too. -- [[User:Sdfisher|Steven Fisher]] 06:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
**There is [[Template:Citecheck]]. Not exactly what you describe, but could be adjusted to include 'more needed'. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 14:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
*** What I'm looking for is a "This citation is interesting enough that I'm not going to delete it, but it probably isn't trustworthy." The particular case I'm looking at is an article which cites a rumor site (specifically, [[SoundJam MP]] which references the [[ThinkSecret]]) website. -- [[User:Sdfisher|Steven Fisher]] 15:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

== Deletion ==

I think we need to remove the mention of it being deleted from the template. Concensus is already very clear on the deletion page, and honestly its going to make a mess out of pages. As people subst this, they will have to go back and remove this from any page they subst it on until this is removed. Not to mention on articles that may require more than a couple citations, it begins to look messy. --[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 21:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
:not to mention it makes it look on the article like you're saying the information in the article may be deleted (which it may, but the fact template shouldn't be saying that)--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 21:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

== Overuse in a single article ==

In the recent [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_1#Template:Fact|deletion discussion]], [[User:Dryguy|Dryguy]] made a good point:
<BLOCKQUOTE>"Template:fact also tends to be over applied. Citing sources is good and necessary, but I think the ease of insertion of the template leads to overuse and cluttering of otherwise good articles. Often, a paragraph expressing many ideas needs only one reference, but the uninformed are likely to come along and litter every sentence with {{fact}} tags. A better approach is to bring it up on the talk page - that way, cooler, wiser heads prevail. Verifiability is a must, but that doesn’t mean that citations need to be applied with religious fervor to every last little detail."</BLOCKQUOTE>
This is something I've seen myself -- a paragraph where litterally almost every sentence is tagged as needing a cite. There are better ways to approach things, the talk page being one of them. There are also other templates that deal with citations and verification that might be more appropriate. For example, [[Template:Unreferenced]] puts a textbox up that can be put before a section that is totally unsourced. Just because we have a hammer doesn't mean we have to treat everything as a nail. :-) --[[User:DragonHawk|DragonHawk]] 22:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
:What I try to do is if I find that I'm going to tag 2 or 3 sentences in a paragraph is instead put an unreferenced and then explain on the talk, but I don't just leave it blank. I want a tag there to indicate that something may be wrong with that bit of information. --[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 01:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

==Idea==
While I agree this template should not have been deleted, I think the obtrusiveness of the template is a problem that needs to be fixed. My idea is to change <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Wikipedia:Citing sources |''citation needed'']]<nowiki>]</nowiki> to <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Wikipedia:Citing sources |''?'']]<nowiki>]</nowiki>: this would let editors know that something is not cited while only minimally interfering in the article. Thoughts? [[User:Zafiroblue05|zafiroblue05]] | [[User talk:Zafiroblue05|Talk]] 00:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. Well, there you go - people thought of this before me, just needed to read the entire page above me. But this still needs to be discussed anew, I think. So - thoughts? [[User:Zafiroblue05|zafiroblue05]] | [[User talk:Zafiroblue05|Talk]] 00:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
:While experienced editors might know what that is, Joe Schmoe and new editors would not and it would lead to confusion, or them possibly ignoring that and not realizing there may be a potential problem with the information. --[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 01:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
::Joe Schmoe and new editors aren't going to be looking up citations to replace the template; whoever really matters will know. If they don't know, they can click on the questionmark and find out. And a question mark automatically puts doubt into whatever it follows - enough doubt, I think. [[User:Zafiroblue05|zafiroblue05]] | [[User talk:Zafiroblue05|Talk]] 01:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
:::"Whoever really matters?" I would think that would be the average ''user'', not editor. Anyway, I think that the question mark is way too small. (I couldn't even tell it ''was'' a question mark until you mentioned it.) —'''[[User:MiraLuka|Mi]][[User talk:MiraLuka|r]][[User:MiraLuka/Userboxes|a]]''' 08:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Sorry, I may not have been clear. The average user matters in terms of two things: they need to be able to read the article, and they need to know that a statement might not be verified. The question mark does both of those things; the "citation needed," however, intrudes hugely on the former. As to ''removing'' the template, however - which is, after all, the goal, no? - the average reader doesn't matter, because he/she isn't going to be the one to do it. [[User:Zafiroblue05|zafiroblue05]] | [[User talk:Zafiroblue05|Talk]] 16:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::I like the question mark idea quite a bit but I honestly don't see it being clear enough relative to a potentially tagged passage of text. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 16:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

A question mark formatted as a regular citation would serve just fine, and its function should be obvious to most readers (and a mouseover tool-tip or single click would inform the rest, once and for all). Perhaps it would be more clear without the unnecessary italics, in one of the formats normally used for footnote references: at normal font size,[[[Wikipedia:Citation required |?]]] or as a normal superscript.[[[Wikipedia:Citation required |?]]] ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-07-02 17:00 Z''
:Another idea: [[[Wikipedia:Citing sources |''citations?'']]]. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 17:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
::Or: [[[Wikipedia:Citing sources |''cites?'']]]. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 17:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
:hrm what about [[[Wikipedia:Citing sources |''authentic?'']]]

:: Please don't assume that this template is only used as an accusation of inaccuracy. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-07-02 19:06 Z''
::: I never did. don't make assumptions about what I intended. We're asking for citations because we can't verify the information. What about [[[Wikipedia:Citing sources |''verify'']]] --[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 23:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
::::I like that last. [[User:Zafiroblue05|zafiroblue05]] | [[User talk:Zafiroblue05|Talk]] 04:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::Well at least we have 2 people who do. Does anyone know if it would be possible to create a mouse-over or some other way to track when the fact template was put on the page, i.e. when you hover over the word it might pop up something like "June 12, 2006" so you know how long that material has been sitting there waiting for a fact? it might help the cleanup of some pages so you don't have to spend 15 minutes going throuhg history to find out how old it is.--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 22:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

:::: I inferred that [authentic?] was questioning the authenticity of a statement. [cites?] and [verify] are better than [citation needed]. How about [ref?]—is that too cryptic? ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-07-06 23:12 Z''
I like plain [cite?] personally :) [[User:RN|RN]] 23:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::[[[Wikipedia:Citing sources |''cites?'']]] makes more sense in my mind because it is frequently the case that a passage of text needs more than one citation. ([[User_talk:Netscott|→]][[User:Netscott|Netscott]]) 23:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::Only problem with cites is that its a bit of slang. Cite is a verb, and cites is a past tense, not a plural. Cite as a noun is just a shortened form of citation, with the plural being citations not cites. I don't think we should be using slang in our template. Same with refs. While we may understand what it is, we need to make it plain to Joe User what this means.--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 21:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::::[[[Wikipedia:Citing sources |''citations?'']]] gets around such difficulties. ''([[User_talk:Netscott|→]][[User:Netscott|Netscott]])'' 21:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::Or [[[Wikipedia:Citing sources |''citation?'']]]. It seems to me that consensus is that we need ''a'' change. Any objections to me (boldly) changing the template now? [[User:Zafiroblue05|zafiroblue05]] | [[User talk:Zafiroblue05|Talk]] 23:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
:I'm good with either citation? or verify.--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 23:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
::The word should be plural as "citations" to cover all possibilities. ''([[User_talk:Netscott|→]][[User:Netscott|Netscott]])'' 00:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Okay that makes sense.--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 00:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
:::To me, though, [citations?] sounds a little awkward, because you might only need one. [verify] gets around the plural/not plural problem, though. How's that? [[User:Zafiroblue05|zafiroblue05]] | [[User talk:Zafiroblue05|Talk]] 01:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
::::With all of this back and forth I'm beginning to think...'''don't touch the text''' and just leave it as it is... it's been that way for some time and really it is fine. ''([[User_talk:Netscott|→]][[User:Netscott|Netscott]])'' 01:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Or just try it and see what people's reactions are. In all likelihood, no more than a shrug. [[User:Zafiroblue05|zafiroblue05]] | [[User talk:Zafiroblue05|Talk]] 19:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::To reduce pure ''shock'' from a significant change then I would recommend [citations?]... it's shorter but still has the ring of what is currently in place. ''([[User_talk:Netscott|→]][[User:Netscott|Netscott]])'' 19:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As someone who's just discovered this recent change, I'd say the most jarring thing is the fact that [''verify''] links to [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]] rather than the [[principle of least surprise|less surprising]] [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]. Yet [[WP:CITE]] is the correct page to link to; couldn't it say [''[[WP:CITE|source?]]''] or something instead? [[User:Angr]] 19:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

== Template does not show in printable version ==

Is this intentional or a bug? My initial thoughts are that the printable version
should match the on-screen version. Thanks, [[User:GChriss|GChriss]] 07:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

:This is good, you can't do much with it elsewhere. I propose to add ''cleanup metadata'' for cases like [http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.languages/2656 this]. Frank@[[User:217.251.173.14|217.251.173.14]] 21:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

::I have removed the {editprotected}, I don't have any idea what you are requesting. Add {editprotected} back with a clearer request.--[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] 08:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
:Would you define your request a little more? My understanding is that this template doesn't do anything more than display [citation needed], and extensions would be a good thing. I not quite sure how the language codes fit in. Thanks, [[User:GChriss|GChriss]] 12:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

::Is that question for me GChriss? Well if it is, the way I see it is that GChriss requested that this template be printed. 217.251.173.14 disagrees (or at least I disagree), so there is no consensus for the change at the moment. So I removed the {editprotected}. I am also confused about the language codes, but perhaps that is a suggestion about introducing an option to print meta data like this template.--[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] 02:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Sorry, the question was for [[User:217.251.173.14|217.251.173.14]], who also added the {editprotected}. But you did touch on my original question -- why do you think the template should not be printed? Thanks, [[User:GChriss|GChriss]] <[[User_talk:GChriss|always listening]]><[[Special:Contributions/GChriss|c]]> 07:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

== User:Anwar saadat's creative combination of vandalism and the fact template ==

{{vandal|Anwar saadat}} has, after realizing that his vandalism was futile, combined vandalism with the addition of some dozens of Fact templates. Now he claims that his vandalism cannot be reverted because he also added some dozens of these tags to the article in the same edits.

Can we please state a rule somewhere that controversial edits such as vandalism should not be combined in the same edit with the addition of the fact template? I know it is obvious, but if this is not mentioned somewhere, there might always be users like Anwar who will do it.

The last time he did this was in the Babri Mosque and Hindu Rashtra articles:

:After making large blankings of sections and references on Babri Mosque [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babri_Mosque&diff=prev&oldid=62387105] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babri_Mosque&diff=prev&oldid=62387956] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babri_Mosque&diff=prev&oldid=62666897] which were reverted, he then adds the fact templates and in the same edit removes the reference (!!)[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babri_Mosque&diff=prev&oldid=62734604], deletes text and references, and adds strong POV to the article.

:Anwar adds fact templates [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babri_Mosque&diff=prev&oldid=62734604 and in the same edit he deletes the references.]
:For example he deletes the reference: "(P. Carnegy: A Historical Sketch of Tehsil Fyzabad, Lucknow 1870, quoted by Harsh Narain: The Ayodhya Temple/Mosque Dispute, Penman, Delhi 1993, p.8-9, and by Peter Van der Veer: Religious Nationalism, p.153)''" and adds the fact template in the same edit for the deleted reference.

:Other examples, where this user adds the fact template and in the same edit deletes the reference, blanks text or references and adds strong pov are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babri_Mosque&diff=prev&oldid=62736733] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babri_Mosque&diff=prev&oldid=62731783] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babri_Mosque&diff=prev&oldid=62733932] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babri_Mosque&diff=prev&oldid=62737753] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babri_Mosque&diff=prev&oldid=62738137] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babri_Mosque&diff=prev&oldid=62798406] and by possible sockpuppets [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babri_Mosque&diff=62741556&oldid=62738241].

Can we please state a rule somewhere that controversial edits such as vandalism should not be combined in the same edit with the addition of the fact template? --[[User:Msiev|Msiev]] 08:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

:: We don't need a special rule. [[Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep|Avoid instruction creep]]. Vandalism isn't allowed, period. Now, what you're describing isn't outright vandalism, but edit-waring, POV-pushing, etc. But those aren't allowed, either. We don't need to say "They aren't allowed with a template, either". If a user is causing damage, revert the damage. If a user continues to cause damage, follow the existing producers for handling that. Using this template is just an attempt to distract others from the real issue, and given that we're having this discussion, that attempt appears to be suceeding. :) (Note: I haven't checked into the reported controvery, but I believe my statements apply regardless of how accurate [[User:Msiev|Msiev]]'s statements are.) --[[User:DragonHawk|DragonHawk]] 15:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

== What to replace the old category with? ==

The old category that was used by this template to categorise articles with statements going against the official [[WP:V|verfiability]] policy, ie, Articles with unsourced statements, was deleted in the main because people both think it is unuseful due to its size, and that it is inappropriate to categorise articles going against this particular policy as they distract readers from what is really important...

As such I am calling for someone to suggest a better mechanism, even though I totally disagree with the second argument, and it is just ignoring the problem and making it harder for editors to find articles which are unsourced... I would prefer that some system at all would be available to track these, other than "Whatlinkshere", which is both unordered and hard to track progress with. [[User:Ansell/Esperanza|Ansell]] 04:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

== Addition to description? ==

I added the following statement to the description on the template page, which was instantly reverted by [[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]].

"'''especially in the case of biographies of living people."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Fact&diff=prev&oldid=64292629], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Fact&diff=next&oldid=64292629]

Not only does this addition do no harm to the description in any conceivable way, but it is also directly supported by a July 12 mailing list post made by Jimbo Wales, in which he stated.

"If you read something negative about someone, and there is no source,
then either find a _legitimate_ source (and make sure that WE do not
make the negative claim, but rather than we merely report neutrally on
what the claim is), or just remove it... and insist that anyone who
wants to put it back, do so with a legitimate source!

--Jimbo"

On reviewing the edit history, I notice that Simpson may have merely erred/been lazy in his attempted revert of [[User:Ta bu shi da yu]]'s earlier edit, but I believe this may still be worth discussion. --[[User:Tjstrf|tjstrf]] 15:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
:Agreed. And the change isn't something I see as necessary.--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 15:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

== Protection ==

Could an admin please protect this article? It's becoming a yo-yo and the template is too widely used to be jerked around every day. There's a general rule about templates: the more widely used it is, the more often it is edited - which is exactly the opposite of how it should be. Protection is the solution, it's worked elsewhere. This template needs to be stable and reliable in function and appearance. -- [[User:Stbalbach|Stbalbach]] 01:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
:I oppose protection, since none of the changes made have lasted very long anyway, and were of minimal significance. Protection is for cases of vandalism, not just normal edits. --[[User:Tjstrf|tjstrf]] 01:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
::Agree with Tjstrf... there was a minor squabble... unless actual warring or vandalism commences there's not much need for protection. ''([[User_talk:Netscott|→]][[User:Netscott|Netscott]])'' 01:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
:::All it takes is one vandalism on a popular template to cause major problems, this is not a normal page. [[:Template:Main]] was protected for this reason. Also I'm not sure what the resource load issues are every time this template changes if that's a problem. Anyway, this template is popular, you can count on increasing churn from people trying to change it, hope your vigilant! (me dropping off watch list, just a suggestion from past experience and seeing it repeat here). -- [[User:Stbalbach|Stbalbach]] 01:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
::::For sure, it could cause problems, but no more than vandalizing templates like [[Template:POV]] or [[Template:merge]] might. And those aren't protected. At most, semi-protection might be in order, and only then after repeated vandalism has actually occurred. --[[User:Tjstrf|tjstrf]] 01:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

== Reworded summary of deletion vote ==
After reviewing the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_1]] I tried to reword the summary at the top of the discussion page. [[User:66.167.252.79|66.167.252.79]] 11:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC).

:I support the change in wording based on my interpretation of the discussion. It gives it more flavour instead of implying that the only reason was a technical glitch. The flavour was hugely in favour of keep and as such the withdrawn was a natural conclusion for the ultimate good of the deletion process if nothing else. [[User:Ansell/Esperanza|Ansell]] 11:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, this template I started certainly has been a little controversial. However, it's a great tag, because it is so easily used and so handy to point out facts that haven't got a source in a relatively unobtrusive way! At least none of our critics can say that we don't make it clear what is and isn't sourced. Not only that, but as soon as I see the tag it makes me think "I wonder if this statement is supported by the facts", which means I question what is written. That's a ''good'' thing. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 14:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
:We don't tally the votes in the deletion summary and this was not a candidate for speedy keep due to the deletion votes. This discussion was had at the time of placing the tag. In the future leave them alone, there is no reason to change them. The fact of the matter was that the nom was withdrawn due to a procedural issue.--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 15:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
::First off, there's [[Wikipedia:Ignore all rules|no prohibition]] on tallying the vote in the deletion summary; IMHO such a statement can been seen as a minor case of [[Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point#Gaming the system|gaming the system]]. But more to the point, the current wording is very uninformative. It borders on ([[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|most likely unintentional]]) deception because it implies that some unspecified procedural technicality was all that prevented the template from being deleted. The [[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Templates for Deletion page|template deletion process]] really only provides for two decisions: '''Keep''' or ''Delete''', and in this case the decision was to '''Keep'''. For all of these reasons, I'm in favor replacing the curent summary with either of the following:

{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="text-align:center;"
|-
| width="48px" | [[Image:Evolution-tasks.png|50px|Articles for deletion]]
|| This template was nominated for [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion]] on July 1 2006. After several hours of discussion featuring three votes in support of deletion and dozens of '''keep''' and '''speedy keep''' votes, the result of the [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_1|discussion]] was {{{result|'''nomination withdrawn on procedural technicality.'''}}}
|}
{{tfdend|date=2006 July 1}}
::[[User:66.167.139.6|{{{2|66.167.139.6}}}]] ([[User talk:66.167.139.6|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/66.167.139.6|contribs]]) 08:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC).
:::I think the second one ("The result of the discussion was keep") is a good choice. We don't need to interpret the result of the discussion; the discussion like is right there for people. It's more "NPOV", if you will. Another choice (for the nit-pickers (which I sometimes am)) would be just "The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn." Per [[User:Dryguy|Dryguy]], it was not just the technicality that caused him to withdraw the nomination ("Outcome is already clear anyway."). --[[User:DragonHawk|DragonHawk]] 12:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

:::: After the vote being closed in under five hours, you cannot claim that there was any result or that it indicates any consensus. Most readers of this talk page didn't even know it was taking place before it closed. You would be leaving yourself open to accusations of stacking or rushing a vote. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-07-19 14:08 Z''
::::That's correct. The AfD did not run its course, and in 5 hours regardless of the opinions there, a proper amount of time was not had to reach a concensus. The AfD was closed as was proper. This discuss was had at the time of the closing and I see no reason to bring it up or change the template now.--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 14:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::You both make a good point. Indeed, now that you point it out, I think you're right -- calling it "Keep" would also be misleading. That would be closing the polls early, so to speak, and we don't want that. But, in the spirt of nit-picking (I did say I do that!), I think the current text is also potentially misleading. Like I said, in [[User:Dryguy|Dryguy]]'s own words, he withdrew the nomination not just on the technicality, but also because he felt the outcome was clear. So perhaps a simple "Withdrawn" would be more accurate. Looking for guidance, [[WP:DELPRO]] doesn't even mention the possability of withdrawing a nomination, so perhaps the fact that the TfD was closed early is itself a procedural violation. Meh. I don't really care that much. Nevermind. :) Cheers! --[[User:DragonHawk|DragonHawk]] 15:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::: I think just a simple "request withdrawn" will do. If someone wants a detailed explanation, they can read the request page and draw their own conclusions.''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-07-19 19:11 Z''

== Growth and appearance ==

Please don't feel offended, but I am sorry that the nomination had to be withdrawn in less than five hours without being announced on this page, before I or most other editors even had a chance to see it. I agree with dryguy's concerns about the appearance of this template—it is not well designed, and could fulfill its function without looking like an example of ill-informed typography. I'd rather see its appearance improved or the template removed.

The template's incidence has doubled in the last 67 days to over 18,000 articles, being added to about 150 articles every day. It's still growing at only a slightly lower rate than the total number of articles on English Wikipedia. Since it is coming soon to an article near you, why can't we make it look more professional? ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-07-18 16:46 Z''
:We have an idea section up above. If you have some ideas on how it should look you could make some suggestions there.--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 17:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

::I'm fine with how it looks now. It may be slightly ugly, but when people see enough of these in a single article, they do take notice. I would like to mention that I've seen 2 articles where they actually made a section entitled "unsourced statements" out of the tagged sentences, which is imo ridiculous. I deleted or relocated both of them, but it was still a rather surreal experience. Especially since it wasn't newbie editors doing it either. Our concern should be education about use more than appearence. --[[User:Tjstrf|tjstrf]] 18:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

:In my opinion, it should stand out, rather than being a "good" professional thing. I think the banner tags that are placed at the top of articles look more ugly than these tags. [[User:Ansell/Esperanza|Ansell]] 00:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

:: I agree they often do, but they stand outside the article text and don't make it harder to read by distracting the eye. "Professional" doesn't mean "hidden", and drawing an appropriate amount of of attention isn't synonymous with "ugly". I think this label can still do the intended job of pointing out required citation references, without being an eyesore.

:: Many of the proponents seem to also assume that being an eyesore somehow makes editors find references and replace this template when they otherwise wouldn't, but this seems to be empty talk unsupported by evidence. The addition of this template to ±150 more articles every day seems to argue the opposite. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-07-19 01:41 Z''

:::The 150+ extra page uses per day also says to me that people are not extremely worried by it being too ugly to use. Although I am not very good with aesthetics myself, at least on my skin, the tag looks okay and is noticeable, which is what I want, especially as the categorisation was removed recently. and I am left with no automatic way of seeing which of my favourite pages the tags are being used on. [[User:Ansell/Esperanza|Ansell]] 01:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Or maybe it's being used so fast because it's just a lot easier to write <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> than it is to actually [[Template:Sofixit|fix it]]. [[User:Zafiroblue05|zafiroblue05]] | [[User talk:Zafiroblue05|Talk]] 03:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

== Reference to a note ==

:Hmm I'm getting a strange idea -- how about <nowiki><ref name="citation_needed"><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Wikipedia:Citing sources |''citation needed'']]]</ref></nowiki> so that the "ugly, unprofessional, ... text" goes in the references&footnotes section instead of the main article text?
:Do people see MediaWiki footnotes as synonymous with references, in which case footnotes shouldn't be used for the lack of references? -- [[User:Paddu|Paddu]] 03:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

::I think that would be misleading. SOme people would see the footnote number and possibly just assume its cited.--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 03:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Very much agree with crossmr. If I see the number, I assume the statement has a source, I only read the references afterwards. Others doubtless do the same. So, you would have to read the full article to realize that a statement was baseless. --[[User:Tjstrf|tjstrf]] 04:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

:::: It's an interesting idea. The reference could be simply a question mark, like this example.[[#needcite-note|[?]]] It would look like any citation reference to someone who's only interested in reading, but will look odd to anyone who is paying attention to references. And the note in the references or notes section could be made to stand out quite a bit, say with a full explanation in a bold font (example below). This would grab the eye of anyone who clicks on the link, reads any other citation, or simply scrolls to the end of the article. The note could also have standard cite.php-style backlinks, clearly indicating the number of needed citations and linking to them all. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-07-19 05:34 Z''

Actually, that might not be a bad form for it. Why not make it into the template Fact2? Also, added the superscript tag to it, hope you don't mind. --[[User:Tjstrf|tjstrf]] 06:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

: Superscript or not should match the other references in the article. The note would probably be best at the end of the list. Automatically constructing back-links for multiple instances would probably require this to be integrated into cite.php—is there a reasonably simple and reliable way to do it manually? I suppose we could use standardized anchor names, like #needcite-1, #needcite-2, etc, and #needcite-note. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-07-19 07:02 Z''

::I like the idea of using [?] instead of numbers. We could do just what we were doing with {{tl|ref}}/{{tl|note}} until cite added support within MediaWiki, and then start using cite to do the job (may be something like <nowiki><no_ref/> on the lines of <ref/> that adds a [?], and modify <references/> to list all <no_ref/>s after listing all <ref/>s</nowiki>).
::Back to the present, for manually constructing multiple backlinks, wasn't there some technique used with ref/note for this purpose, that we could use here too? -- [[User:Paddu|Paddu]] 14:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there are many statements marked with this template that will turn out to be slightly or completely wrong when an authoritative source is located. As such, I think it's important to make it clear to readers that certain factual claims is in reference limbo, even if they are not considered obviously wrong or dubious enough to move to the talk page. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] 14:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Is ?<ref name="citation_needed">'''[?] Passages marked with a question mark should be supported with the [[WP:CITE| citation of a verifiable reference]].'''</ref> or ?<ref name="citation_needed"/> or <ref name="citation_needed"/>? or ?<ref name="citation_needed"/>? or some other variation acceptable? One issue with this is references and absence of references will be interspersed -- [[User:Paddu|Paddu]] 14:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
:People are trying to make this template small and inconspicuous. This template needs to be big and in your face - ideally in <nowiki><blink></blink></nowiki> tags to show that you should place absolutely no value whatsoever on the statement - that the statement doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia at all and needs to be fixed QUICK. I would prefer to see all unverifiable statements removed rather than make this template smaller. You wouldn't consider using a small [npov] tag would you? Verifiability is an equally important policy. -- [[User:Zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] [[User_talk:Zzuuzz|(talk)]] 14:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
::I don't know if it needs to be giant, but I also don't think it needs to be tiny either. I think something that is obvious without being an eyesore is what is needed. I personally find the current one to be a tad long, but I also don't think it should be so small as that you mistake it for a footnote. Either of the suggestions made above that I liked are good or something of a similar length.--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 05:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

:: Zzuuzz, you're missing the point. If a statement is considered doubtful, it should be removed from the article—this template is ''not'' intended to mark such statements, as is clear from the instructions on the [[:template:fact |template page]]. This template is for indicating statements which ought to be supported by a cited reference. It is meant as an editorial annotation, not a warning to readers. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-07-31 19:11 Z''

==References==
* [[#ref1|↑]] Doe, John (2006), ''Sample Reference to Show the Contrast''. London: Penguin. ISBN 1-12345-123-1.
* [[#ref2|↑]] Coward, Anonymous (2006), ''Another sample''. New York: Albatross. ISBN 1-54321-321-1.
* [[#needcite-1|↑]] '''[?] Passages marked with a question mark should be supported with the [[WP:CITE| citation of a verifiable reference]].'''

<references/>

== See here, kids ==

I'm with those who say the current phentoype (if you will) of this tag is just really ugly and eye-fatiguing. Some say it ''should'' be "in your face" so that the editors hurry-up and give a proper reference, but that's really just snidely, isn't it?-- especially with people now peppering articles with it, in many cases without full justification. Many, many editors and admins here need to learn the distinction between Original Research and Original Prose. We are still allowed to do the latter, and it, mind you, has been a core reason for our project's stellar success. The dry, hollow, androidy prose that will result if the hyper-citation-freaks get their way will flat-out drive our readers away.

Anyway, my humble suggestion is this: replace "[citation needed]" with "[cn]". Those who click the link will be informed that "cn" means "citation needed". Voila-- eye strain reduced about 80%, yet the budding ultra-correct-expository-writing-militants in our midst will remain appeased. [[User:JDG|JDG]] 03:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

:It needs to be more eye-catching than [cn], because the point of it is to draw people's attention to a problem. I don't agree that supplying good references is incompatible with good prose. Can you give an example of where you feel the former has hampered the latter? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 03:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
::It's not that supplying good refs hampers good prose, it's that original prose is often mistaken for original research and then tagged with this eyesore. [[User:JDG|JDG]] 03:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Can you give an example? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 04:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Well, this isn't an example of particularly good prose, but hopefully it makes the point. In the [[Bob Dylan]] article you'll find: ''"Although his contributions as performer and recording artist have been central to his career, his songwriting is generally held as his highest accomplishment."'' Now, this is a statement of fact and obviously a candidate for sourcing. But after I wrote it a small voice said to me "No, dammit.. how many articles and books have I read on Dylan that contain this exact statement. It's obviously a well-known critical (even a historical) consensus and we are going way overboard with all these '''ref''' tags. So I'm gonna leave it alone." The sentence lived in peace for a few months, but now the ref police are onto it and it carries {{fact}}, to the distraction of the eye and the mind. How established must a statement be to be safe from these police? One admin in a related debate recently said she/he would plaster the '''fact''' tag onto every statement she/he encounters that's not on the level of "the sky is blue". That's just crazy and way beyond the standards of any reference book ever. [[User:JDG|JDG]] 07:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

::::: Hear, hear! Any statement which is less concrete than a statistical figure risks having this label plastered onto it, and sometimes it seems like it inevitably will. A good example of another way in which template:fact can be considered harmful. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-08-06 08:03 Z''

In my experience, this template is most visibly, if not most often, used by a frustrated editor to crap on other people's edits in lieu of or after losing a revert war. It is also commonly used simply to point out a statement someone disagrees with, but doesn't have the knowledge or inclination to check facts and edit an article.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=66982918][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandra_Harding&diff=prev&oldid=66914708] It's also similarly used to criticize without bothering to participate in a discussion.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Fact&diff=66983316&oldid=66982889] Finally, it is used legitimately to mark a statement which simply requires a citation—in these cases it usually just languishes in an article without a lot of active editors, and its "eye-catchiness" doesn't help it go away.

The high visibility of this template does not help it get replaced. In fact, an opposite effect takes place: it's such an eyesore that it is misused all over the place as a secondary weapon in disputes. This is so common, that most editors seem think this template means "your contribution sucks" rather than "please add a citation", to such a degree that we constantly have to correct people as to its intent on this discussion page (the 1% who actually bother coming here—the other 99% go on blithely adding instances of this template to articles).

I agree with JDG: please let's make it less obtrusive. Active editors will still see it and respond to it. Rabble-rousers will stop using it as a tactic.

Please:
* Don't add this template when you are frustrated.
* Don't add this template as part of a dispute.
* Don't add this template if you doubt a statement.
* Don't add this template to a low-traffic article and forget about it.

And think twice about how to deal with a missing reference:
* Look it up and add the citation (even if it's not the ideal citation—a caring editor will replace it with a better one someday).
* Fill out, correct, or remove doubtful facts, even if it's just from memory.
* Just post a note on the talk page.
* Remove doubtful text to the talk page with a comment.
* Be kind to the environment. Don't litter articles you respect with this ugly tag template!

In short, do a small thing to improve the article, rather than adding this template.

We recently used these methods in a campaign to add many citations to the article [[T-34]], in order to successfully bring it to Featured Article status. The effort proceeded quickly, and I'm proud that at no time was this quality article uglified by the addition of [[:template:fact]]. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-08-01 04:39 Z''

:I agree with what you're saying in theory, but in practise I've only ever seen this misused once, by a disruptive editor, now banned, engaged in WP:POINT. In the examples you gave above, I couldn't see much wrong with its use. If something is contentious in any way, a reliable source should be cited, and it's usually faster to find a source that to argue about whether the template is being used correctly. That's my experience anyway. Having said that, I also agree with you that editors should first of all look for a source themselves if they can, rather than immediately resorting to the template. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 05:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

::If someone uses {{[[Template:fact|fact]]}} incorrectly, it can always be removed with the appropriate edit comment. But, just for example, in the first case noted above, the image page has the source information needed for a citation. One could say that the person adding the template should have added the citation themselves, but they did what they did, and it's a start. I add this template to articles that new editors write when they don't go overboard enough to merit {{[[Template:sources|sources]]}}, but need some guidance on sourcing their articles. I review dozens of new articles, so I don't have time to go hunting for sources for all of them, nor engaging the user in a lengthy discussion. I add a note to their talk page when I can, but I also add this template so that they can quickly see where they need to improve the article.

::My main concern with the proposal for an abbreviated footnote would be the risk that casual readers would mistake it for a citation and assume that the statement has been verified, thus rendering such use of the template more damaging than not having it in the first place. -[[User:Harmil|Harmil]] 12:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

== Template: Fact vs Citequote ==

# What's the point of having 2 identical templates apart from technical problems?
# If they are identical, should we appreciate one while depreciate another, or just a redirect?
# If former, which one should be depreciated? 
#* It is known template:fact is rather an old/original template. The confusing naming of [[tl:fact|template:fact]] makes it worse than [[tl:citequote|template:citequote]]. We'd better depreciate '''template:fact''' in this regard.
#* On the other hand, the word '''fact''' is shorter than '''citequote'''. But should we sacrifice clarity for convenience? Or should we create a third template, say, {{cq}} for convenience while keeping good clarity.
--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
::The truth of the matter is: it doesn't matter. Typing in {{tl|fact}} is easy, and it's easy to remember. That's why I chose the name for the template. I do think that having two templates is somewhat silly, however. We should probably redirect one of them. The other thing is that {{tl|fact}} is used on lots of templates. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 09:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
:::But you miss the point that they are '''identical'''. What's the point of having 2 identical templates? Another point is '''clarity'''. This name is unclear and confusing. A newbie may suppose it is to do with, say, marking a fact; but it is actually a "cite quote" request. What's your opinions on these issues? --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Fact is easier to type, so that's the one that people tend to use. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 10:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::The fastest is {{tl|cn}}, not {{tl|fact}}. --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 03:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Wouldn't the text "Citation needed" clue the newbie in to the fact that the template is for facts that needs citations? - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 15:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::It may, but this does not stop some users from getting confused since they do not get this clue. See [[Template_talk:Fact#Template_name_.7B.7Bfact.7D.7D_misleading]]. After all, should we simply redirect {{tl|citequote}} since it's just the same as {{tl|fact}}? Or should we make make something different between this two templates?--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 03:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: How about {{tl|fact?}} ? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 05:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
:How about {{tl|cite?}}, {{tl|source?}} ? This is much more clear and specific since what we ask is cite/source. What the information lacks is proper citation.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 07:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

::The one thing that's really starting to annoy is a lot of users is that people keep changing templates. It's hard enough to remember them as it is, but impossible when they're not stable. People now know to use "fact," and there's nothing wrong with it, so please just leave it alone. :-) [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 07:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I agree that citequote needs to be redirected to fact, or fact needs to be redirected to the other... duplication of templates is just silly. Do we take this to TfD, or what? -- ''[[User:Nae'blis|nae]]'[[User_talk:Nae'blis|blis]]'' 15:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Well, as long as we're sticking with four-letter words, one that I could really use is {{tl|page}}, as people just get so bent outa shape when I stick a [citation needed] on their citation just to request a page number in the edit line. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 07:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
::Not sure what you're trying to say here, Jon. Why not mention it on the talk page, if you need a more specific citation? A page that already has some cites is probably well-watched enough for that to work... -- ''[[User:Nae'blis|nae]]'[[User_talk:Nae'blis|blis]]'' 15:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

::: Have you tried requesting the page number on the talk page? If you really must use the article space to communicate with editors, then why not just put a comment in the wikitext: <-- please cite the page number -->. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-08-09 16:42 Z''

I just redirected citequote to fact. This won't affect users of these templates in the least. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-08-09 16:40 Z''

: I was reverted. Please discuss differentiating or merging these two nearly identical templates at [[template talk:citequote]]. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-08-10 14:48 Z''

== A possible means of categorisation ==

I notice the old category got deleted, leaving pages with this tag on currently unsorted. One solution I've been toying with is since the old category was deleted largely because it was growing too large, perhaps it might be an idea to create sub-categories according to subject area, so people with kowledge and expertise in that area can look into referencing the articles. The way this could be achieved is by adding the following code to the template:

<pre>
{{#if:{{{cat|}}}|{{#ifexist:Category:{{{cat|}}} articles needing references|[[Category:{{{cat|}}} articles needing references]]}} }}
</pre>

What this would do is create an optional cat= parameter that people could use, so <nowiki>{{fact|cat=physics}}</nowiki> would add the relevant page to [[:Category:Physics articles needing references]]. The #if function means that currently existing tags, and any tags added without the cat= paramater, remain unsorted while the #ifexists paramater means that only categories that already exist would be populated, so the categories would have to be created beforehand (I added the paramter in to guard against categories being created because of typos). Ideally the relevant categories would be created and monitored by appropriate WikiProjects, and the list of possible values ("physics", "football" etc) and the categories they relate to could be kept and updated here. The same sort of code could also be added to other similar templates, of course, if it's seen as being useful. Anyway, I thought I'd put it up here first so I can see whether there's a consensus that it would be useful, and see if there's any potential problems I haven't thought of (I've tested the code and it works fine but you never know). --[[User:Daduzi|'''Daduzi''']] [[User talk:Daduzi|talk]] 21:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

:Argh, so I missed the category link at the bottom of the template, not sure how I managed that. Still, the above could still be inserted as an optional, supplementary means of categorisation. Does anyone have any strong feelings (or feelings of any description) either way? --[[User:Daduzi|'''Daduzi''']] [[User talk:Daduzi|talk]] 12:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

== Not overrused ==

It has come to my attention that some people think this is being overrused. Not at all. The problem is different: fact is being used quite a bit because people are putting in lots of unsourced material. We should be dealing with unsourced material, not trying to deprecate this template! I'm sorry, incidently, if people think that the addition of the template looks ugly in an article, but this is an entirely actionable issue: either source the material or remove it! - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 22:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
:Why is this still being discussed? The '''overwhelming''' majority of people voiced [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_1|<big>'''KEEP'''</big>]] for this template. ''([[User_talk:Netscott|→]][[User:Netscott|Netscott]])'' 22:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
::Agree with Tabu and Netscott. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 02:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

: Ta bu shi da yu, are you sure that is reasonable? Unsourced material is not banned from Wikipedia, is it? However, I believe that communication between editors, such as requests for citations, should take place on the talk pages, not with notes or templates inserted into the body of any article. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-08-10 06:12 Z''
::Actually, unsourced material ''is'' banned on Wikipedia. If you make a statement, be prepared to back it up with a source. I also don't find it unreasonable to use the template, but then, I created it. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 14:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

By my count, this template is now in 21,634 articles, over 1.5% of all articles in English Wikipedia. During the last 23 days it has been added to 150 new articles per day. This template doesn't encourage the addition of sources, merely the addition of this template.

Furthermore, it is widely misused to label dubious information, or as a weapon in disputes. Just look at the comments on this page and in the current vote for deletion, where an editor writes "Oppose. ''Dubious information needs to be called out as such'', for the benefit of readers, but I'm not usually comfortable removing information unless I'm reasonably sure it's wrong." ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-08-10 15:16 Z''
:A few articles may have misused the template, but this does not mean that it is overused. If there is unsourced material, then this is very handy to note that we want a citation. It works especially well with [[WP:FAC]]: if I see the template in use on the article, I oppose the FAC. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 16:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

:The NPOV policy is misused all the time, but that doesn't mean we get rid of it. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 17:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

:: But NPOV policy is quite explicit, has a high profile, and its misuse usually constitutes a clear POV, so it's usually easy to identify and combat that by consensus.

:: This label is routinely labels statements which are obscure, or unverifiable, or dubious, and it remains there. Most of the time, no one can be bothered or is able to do anything about these needed citations—the very act of adding this label is an admission of that by an editor. This template fails to achieve its aim in 150 more articles ''every day''. It is counterproductive, which is compounded by its appearance, with awful, unprofessional-looking typography and eye-catching distraction of every reader's eye, the vast majority of whom are not editors interested or qualified to respond to this template.

:: Improving its appearance and stressing the alternative actions would help. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-08-10 17:17 Z''

:::You're kidding, right? I don't know what articles you edit, but at the ones I inhabit violation of NPOV doesn't "constitute ... a clear POV," isn't "easy to identify," or "combat ... by consensus." The template is ''meant'' to be distracting; it's supposed to encourage editors to track down a source. How do you know, as a matter of interest, that they don't work? Numbers alone won't tell you that. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 18:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

:::"This template fails to achieve its aim in 150 more articles every day." - IMHO this template is to say which statements need a citation or a better one - and in that vain is accomplishing its aim. From what I see, people replace it with sources about 30% of the time fairly soon, and for the rest it simply points out that a statement may be dubious. Usually a statement is "mostly accurate" that one or two other editors will be hell-bent on keeping, depite the fact that they will not soon provide a source for the statement - and this is the case that this template is also perfect for (the alternative is to have a possibly dubious statement in the article and possibly get into an ugly, pointless dispute resolution process). To me, this template is a monumental step forward for sourcing on wikipedia. [[User:RN|RN]] 20:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

==WP is not now and never will be considered "professional"==

JA: The rules of its operation were explicitly designed to prevent that. So get used to it. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 17:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

: So you're saying that professional-quality writing and a professional appearance are undesirable? That it's preferable for Wikipedia to look home-made, to avoid conveying a look of quality and dependability? I obviously didn't mean that this template should be designed by someone who is hired for the job. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-08-10 17:46 Z''

JA: I am saying that there seems to be a heckuva lot more concern here with the ''appearance'' than with the reality. If you mean ''pretty'', then say ''pretty'', 'cause the good ship ''Professional'' was scuttled in the christening. If you mean it ain't pretty to have so many unsourced statements, then I heartily agree. But it ain't made any prettier by any brand of overpaint. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 17:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

: You must be a determined user of the Classic skin, or maybe you edit Wikipedia in Netscape 4 or [[Lynx (web browser)|Lynx]], because it's faster.

: The arguments have been repeated here many times. This template distracts the eye, and is bad for the readability of the page. Readability is a measurable effect, studied by cognitive scientists, typographers and graphic designers—for practical reasons. If you can't get past "pretty" or "not pretty", then I'm afraid that my point will probably be lost on you. Whether you like it or not, typography has many conventions followed for practical and aesthetic reasons. This template breaks several of them in a very bush-league fashion. Finally, the talk page is for editors' discussions. Although there are many editorial templates placed at the tops of articles and sections, peppering the text with requests for references which don't concern most readers is bad form, especially when it interferes with readability (and this template is explicitly ''not'' intended to inform readers of dubious information which should be removed from articles). ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-08-11 02:12 Z''

JA: Given the age of these sore eyes, I have all sorts of pragmatic concerns with ease of reading. Right now the most jarring thing about the [citation needed] tag is the fact that it's superscripted, which causes the line spacing on my browser to go all uneven. And one of my secondary objections to the ref tag footnote system is precisely the massive migraine mess it makes of a text. But I gather that it's futile to get anybody to change either of these "features", apparently because ''some people'' labor under the superstition that the superscription is prettier or less obtrusive or whatever. Yes, the tag expands to an overlong phrase — I personally think that [verify!] might be a better choice. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 04:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

: The inconsistent line spacing caused by superscripts is a web browser feature/bug. See [[user:Mzajac/monobook.css/Superscript fix]].

: Even without that problem, typographers never superscript whole words or phrases, because they leave distracting white gaps in the typographic colour of the text on the page. The shorter label [verify!], without the italics, would definitely be an improvement, or perhaps in small caps on the baseline. [[[WP:CITE|CITATION NEEDED]]] ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-08-11 06:27 Z''

::The [verify!] label is not good since it conflicts with "verify source". "citation needed" and "verify source" are different things (read the instructions in {{tl|fact}}). As far as style is concerned, I am loose to that. I accept multiple styles as long as they are clear and not too annoying.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 20:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Well, there we agree about something. But I for one am utterly burned out by the procedural labyrinth, not to mention the administrative minotaurs, and all the other [[Pyrrhic victory|WikiPyrrhic vicissitudes]], so I'll have to leave you to fight the good fight for orthographical orthopediatricks on your own. Cheers, anyway. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 05:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

== Why does this template have many redirects? ==

Here's what I found from the discussion page:
* [[:template:Citation required]]
* [[:template:Citationneeded]]
* [[:template:Cite needed]]
* [[:template:Cite-needed]]
* [[:template:Citeneeded]]
* [[:template:Needs citation]]
* [[:template:Uncited]]
(Note: I'm not sure if it's all of the redirects)

Question:
# There are too many redundant redirects. Should we free up some of the template names for other uses?
# If so, which should be deleted, which should not?
# How can we spot all the redirects?
--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 20:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

: Looks like these will need pruning—I think I already did this once months ago. Editors can just learn the name of the template rather than have the untrackable redirects proliferate—there's no need for more than, say, {{tl|fact}}, {{tl|citeneeded}}, and {{tl|uncited}}. [[:template:Cite-needed]] and [[:template:Needs citation]] are little-used, and can definitely have the redirect bypassed and template deleted. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] 2006-08-12 22:44 Z''

::I would suggest deleting the redundant redirects. —[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 21:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Xbox (console)

2006-08-15T21:42:21Z

Wai Wai: /* MSXbox - expand or delete or merge to Xbox? */

{{Talkheader}}
{{cvgproj|class=B}}
==Modding the Xbox==
I'm going to put some time into this section later. It's a total disgrace right now. 02:47, 14 Mar 2006
:OK, I've structured it and fixed a few more style things. I'm sick of looking at it now.
----
I find it strange to have two halo pics. Its not as if this system is a Halo article or system. The pics are also to show the capabilities, like bump mapping and fur shading, which Xbox can do.

I find it a bit strange that the '''Modding the Xbox''' section of this article does not include information about www.xbox-scene.com or any of the modchip production teams, such as SmartX or Team Xecuter. Xbox scene has been on of the key players in the Xbox mod scene, and I believe that it is large enough to deserve a section in this part of the article.

In fact, I believe '''Modding the Xbox''' is a large enough topic to be another article entirely, with sections dedicated to the major xbox mod sites/mod developers (Including, but not limited to, Xbox-scene.com, Halo-mods.com, xbins.com, Team Xecuter, Team SmartX, Team Xenium, Team Evox, Team UIX, and Team Unleash).

[[User:Hunter Killer|Hunter Killer]] 03:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
----
There definitely is enough information... (No information on Wikipedia about xs or the modchip teams AT ALL! I haven't found a page on it, and I'm curious as to if I should put a page together. Key links would be on [[Xbox]] and [[Modchips]]. Maybe it hasn't been mentioned for legal reasons? The article would just be informative about the modding community, not instructional as to how to get the Xbox to do illegal things. Besides, there's other sites for that. ;)

In fact I think I'll put at least a Team Xecuter page on my to-do list. Any suggestions, see my talk page. {{user:mxdxcxnx/sig}} 08:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
----
I just wanted to point out that this sentence "''Probably the most legal way of modding the Xbox is replacing the whole motherboard so that you can install Linux or any other operating system designed for PC without having to hack anything. There are now sites that offer to modify the software on your Xbox for free. Modding your Xbox in this manner will allow you to retain your original Xbox warranty because you are not required to open the console.''" is at odds with the information found in the linked article [[Xbox_motherboard_replacement]]. Opening the case does void your warranty. I see no other way to get a replacement mini-ITX motherboard into the Xbox. I would edit the article myself, but I just registered for an account.
[[User:Omtek|Omtek]] 11:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

==No specific topic==

''Microsoft built the Xbox around industry-standard PC hardware in contrast to the traditionally proprietary design of nearly all other gaming consoles. In spite of (or because of) this, it is the most powerful console when compared to its main competitors, the PlayStation 2 and Gamecube, while remaining price competitive.''
: This sounds like a fanboy wrote it. It is not NPOV. Same goes for much else in the article.
:Actually thats fact, they built their system around PC hardware, quite a bit of it standard enough that you can swap stuff out on a limited basis, and it's more powerful than it's competitors. Finally it has also remaining competitive price wise against Sony. [[User:PPGMD|PPGMD]]

----

The graphics on this page cover the text when viewed with Netscape 4.76

-- bbotbuilder "forgot password at school terminal"

----

Just an explanation on where the Xbox stands compared to the GameCube as of Nov. 2003: It appears obvious that the Cube's price-slash did propel it forward, but independent sources indicate that it may have only closed a gap that the Xbox held over it this year. I also added a bit of fuzziness to the wording because there are few accurate, independent numbers. For example, Sony claims the PS2 controls at least 3/4 of the market, Nintendo claims 1/3, and doubtless Microsoft also claims somewhere about a 1/3. Before we know it, the Phantom will come out and claim the 60% left over :-). This is typical of the free info, so we have to take it with a grain of salt: [http://www.gamespot.com/all/news/news_6081738.html] [http://www.instat.com/press.asp?Sku=IN030703ME&ID=813] [http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worldbiz/archives/2003/11/24/2003077120]

(I also removed the fact that the Xbox console is selling at a loss because it's not significant when the Cube and the PS2 are as well.)

--[[User:Mrwojo|Mrwojo]] 19:13, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Oh yes, sources sources, If you go to site 1 thay say that the X-box is doingbetter, if you go to site 2 they say that the 'cube is doing better. But there is no denying that the gamecube is outselling the X-box now, in canada the gamecube is selling 52% out of the consoles, in japan ps2 and gamecube are selling equal. I'll get some sources...

--Peter (maybe I should start an account...)

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?section_name=ret&aid=2824

Xbox is falling behind

-- Peter

In the US, that appears to be correct. Globally, it's still not very clear: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3397649.stm BBC: "GameCube fights to stay in the game"], http://www.pcpro.co.uk/?http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/news_story.php?id=52428 --[[User:Mrwojo|Mrwojo]] 02:40, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't feel like adding to the article, but thought this might be of interest to anyone who is so inclined: [http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26497 Xbox lost Microsoft $4 billion over 4 years] -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 12:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

<blockquote>
MICROSOFT is a company with deep pockets, but nevertheless, even we [...] had to suppress a shudder when it was revealed that the Xbox may have lost Microsoft upwards of $4 billion in four years. The company has always been willing to operate at a loss in order to establish itself in the gaming industry, and we reported back in July that they're willing to lose money on the Xbox 360 as well. $4 billion is still a massive loss to be making however, and one has to wonder how long and how much Microsoft bean counters have set aside for the Xbox franchise to start making money.
</blockquote>

== De Facto Standard? ==

In 2002, Microsoft released the successful online gaming service "Xbox Live" which quickly became the de facto standard for online gaming. Third party services for online play also exist. In January 2004, Microsoft reported that Xbox Live reached 750,000 subscribers.

Can we really say that Xbox Live is the de facto standard for online gaming? First of all, that should probably read online console gaming, since PC gaming has it's own set of applications. Even that doesn't seem right since neither Sony nor EA, each who have the largest marketshare in their given fields, participate (although that may change after this year's E3). I like Xbox live and I think some mention should be made of it, but I don't think that you can call it a standard due to the fractured nature of the online console gaming community.

''Some updates: EA is now going to participate in XBL. Sony has their own online plans, but I don't think it is a viable competitor against XBL. Also, many people are interested in XBL for PC, and MS is making it available via their NextGen initiative.''

::Of course, gamers and reviewers preferred Xbox Live over Sony Computer Entertainment's online implementation since Live only have a monthly fee regardless of games, whereas Sony charged for every game. In addition, Electronic Arts was able to discontinue online support for last year's version of Madden NFL when the current version came out through Sony's system, but not the Xbox. Nonetheless, Sony's online system did well due to having exlusive EA support for a couple years.

==Exclusive games==

Similar issue: on the list of "exclusive games" "released" on XBox, does that wording imply that the games are still only on XBox, or can a reader infer that some (like Halo), were released later on other platforms? --[[User:Krupo|Krupo]] 02:13, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

:I think the wording "exclusive" refers to exclusive to other ''consoles'' (e.g. [[Sony Playstation 2]], [[Nintendo Gamecube]]). It does not necessarily refer to the [[IBM PC compatible|PC]], one of Microsoft's core systems. [[User:Frecklefoot|<nowiki></nowiki>]] — [[User:Frecklefoot|Frecklefoot]] | [[User talk:Frecklefoot|Talk]] 14:37, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

::Halo is released for the Apple MacOS X platform, which is NOT one of Microsoft's core systems. It should be removed from the list.
:::Reccomend we just remove the term "exclusive", which I think I'll do just now. [[User:Sockatume|Socka]][[User talk: Sockatume|'''tume''']] 23:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

==Xbox a separate company?==

Is there a separate division of [[Microsoft]] that makes the Xbox—a separate corporate structure? I'm trying to figure out if it should be listed under [[:Category:Microsoft subsidiaries]], or if it's more properly thought of as just a Microsoft product. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 03:46, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:There is a whole structure devoted to the Xbox, but it is not a seperate company. There are entire studios (satellite offices) that do nothing but develop Xbox games (such as in [[Salt Lake City, Utah|Salt Lake City]]). But it is not a seperate company or subsidiary. They consider the Xbox a product, albeit one with a huge supporting infrastructure. [[User:Frecklefoot|<nowiki></nowiki>]] — [[User:Frecklefoot|Frecklefoot]] | [[User talk:Frecklefoot|Talk]] 14:37, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

== Placing XBox on top of the TV ==

Just reading the Wiki about the rumour of not placing XBox on top of the TV.
Not denying the fact that the cable snap-in will instantly seperate, so it's impossible that the XBox will be yanked off the TV set.

But realistically, you can't play ANY games with any console box on top of the TV, the dangling wires will hang over your TV screen - it just can't be good with any console, (PS2, GC, or XBox)

As an aside, when someone tripped over my controller cable and it 'lizard-tailed', the game paused automatically and waited for me to plug the controller back in. Which I thought was really excellent.

- johnliu

I would have thought the main problem with putting an XBox on top of a TV would be that its vast weight would instantly crush the hapless television :-P Hah hah, sorry, couldn't help myself!

You can place a gamecube on top of a TV due to its low weight and size and wireless controller functionality.

-brett

In my experience, putting consoles on top of TVs creates magnetic interference, a big purple zone on the top of the tv picture.--'''[[User:Graphic|Gяaρнic]]''' 15:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

== Xbox logos ==

If anyone doesn't like the current logo displayed on the [[Xbox|article]] then please feel free to use any of these below. I think using ones with white backgrounds is better because Wikipedia has a light background.

[[Image:Xbox (logo2).jpg|200px|]] [[Image:Xbox (logo1).jpg|200px|]]

== Xbox controler information ==

Here are some pretty surprising figures relating to the XBox controler.
The XBox controler has 8 digigtal (binary) buttons: The four that make up the d-pad, the buttons that are part of the sticks (push in), the start, and the back button.
The 4 buttons with letters, the black button, the white button and both triggers are 'analog' and return an 8-bit value. (Senses up to 255 levels of pressure)
Both of the analog sticks have two axes witch return a 16-bit value.
That is thus a total of 8 digital buttons, and 12 analog values.
A grand total 136 bits to represent the current state of the controler.
(Actually a bit more space is used for no apparent purpose. perhaps for lining the analogs up with a 16-bit boundry?)
Source:http://euc.jp/periphs/xbox-controller.en.html

The above data should be integrated into the article. Or at the very least the article should mention that the face buttons are analog, as I'm fairly certain many people do not realize this.

:Duly mentioned. [[User:Sockatume|Socka]][[User talk: Sockatume|'''tume''']] 15:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

== Dingy ==

*[[:Image:Xbox_01b.jpg]]
The dingy picture of the Xbox half way down in the section "modding", serves no actual purpose, does it? It is under the section of modding, but no signs of modding are visible to my knowledge. Even the little clear foil that protects the front panel is still present. I would suggest replacement with some kind of modding picture. --[[User:K.Nevelsteen|Kim Nevelsteen]] 11:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

== DVD Drive History? ==

I find it curious that the article contains no mention of the XBox's DVD drive history. The manufacturers included Thomson, Philips, and Samsung. These changes in hardware caused many newer titles to lock up or act glitchy when played on XBoxes with older disc drives.

Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow was one such game that was nearly impossible to play in multiplayer using the old Thomson drive, and I believe Ubisoft eventually had to release a downloadable auto-update to correct the problem.

Here are the visual differences between the three drives:
http://www.llamma.com/xbox/Repairs/xbox_dvd_version_comparison.htm

== Special Connector for Thomson (RCA) Television Sets? ==

Shortly before or after the release of the Xbox system, Thomson released their high-end RCA sets (by this time, the ProScan brand was out) with a special multipin connector labeled "XBox Connector", and located on the rear of the set.

I'm not quite sure how long that production run lasted until Thomson dumped using the connector. Anyone know?
[[User:Jedo1507r|Jedo1507r]] 05:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

== Legal Mod para added by anon ==

I rolled back a paragraph by an anon editor who talked about a legal way of modding the xbox by replacing the mobo with a small form-factor pc mobo. Since this would result in a xbox that wouldn't actually play xbox games or connect to live, I don't feel that is really pertinent to an article about xboxes. Perhaps when someone writes [[Xbox-cased PCs]] we can restore that paragraph to that article. ;) However, I put it up to the other editors whether to revert my change and restore the paragraph. --[[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 12:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
:Thanks. I was thinking the same thing when I looked this morning but didn't have time to write an edit summary here on the talk page at the time. --[[User:Atari2600tim|Atari2600tim]] 15:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe the V-port as it is called is very relevant and should be included.

== Well, I transferred the Legal Mod to a separate page ==

See [[Xbox motherboard replacement]].

:I saw. Thanks! --[[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 16:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

:With traditional way of installing Linux on Xbox, you can face a problem that it has only 64 MB of RAM. You can [http://www.xbox-linux.org/wiki/Upgrading_Xbox_RAM_HOWTO upgrade it to 128 MB], but this is also too low for most modern Linux distros. With Xbox motherboard replacement, you eliminate this problem, and can install as much RAM as your motherboard supports.

== Vandalism? ==
I would like to know why [[User:Dionyseus]] call vandalism my last edition. --[[User:Mateusc|Mateusc]] 11:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

:Well, I can see his side... When you reverted back to your addition of the sales figures and MS being 4B$ in the hole [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xbox&diff=28486251&oldid=28345312], you did wipe out several other edits that had been made in the meantime. I haven't gone back in to make sure that everything is back in the article (I assume it is, since both he/she reverted and I can still see your sales figures news). I however *don't* see his side about the item you added being "too negative" (per his comments on your talk page). It is news, it is related to Xboxes, and I believe the original article is on Forbes so its not like some gamer fanboi website...so I don't see why it shouldn't be included here. A neutral POV doesn't mean you can't include negative information on the subject... you just can't be adding that negativity in your introduction of the material. ie "Microsoft xbox division is operating at a loss of 4B$" vs "Micro$oft's loser xbox division totally sucks to the tune of 4B$". :) --[[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 13:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

:: I'm back with informations added for other members (Sorry). About the loss, it's a fact, a information. Why hide? We have a Wikinews link. Isn't a Fanboy thing, is a fact documented in the press. --[[User:Mateusc|Mateusc]] 16:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

:::Yes, when he reverted he wiped out several other contributions to the article by other users, and I had to put them back in manually because several people didn't catch it in time. As for the '$4B loss news,' I think that it's NPOV, but I see your point. [[User:Dionyseus|Dionyseus]] 17:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

:::: My point? Where? Did you read the Wikinews story? Sorry if I removed some contribs in reverting, I'm enforced to back with these. The fact is you don't like the presence of Xbox losses in the article. --[[User:Mateusc|Mateusc]] 18:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

:::::Now its my turn to ask you to calm down. Dionyseus conceded the point, the information will be allowed to remain. [[WP:AGF|Assume good faith]] on his part that he was trying to maintain the neutrality of the article. --[[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 19:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

:::::: I'm being attacked by Dionyseus in [[Talk:Kameo: Elements of Power]], by the way I just can't see where is "my point" in the article, the only thing I made is put a resume/link of Wikinews story about Xbox world sales. Dionyseus have extreme bad faith when removed my contributions and say that is because I removed other members contributions. This can be fixed only backing with contributions in the article history, but Dionyseus preffer call "vandalism" and hide what He really want. --[[User:Mateusc|Mateusc]] 21:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

:::::::I am not attacking you, I merely stated the fact that you wiped out the contributions of several users with your reverts. Their contributions have been placed back now, so all is fine. As for "the point," I meant that I understood Syrthiss's point. [[User:Dionyseus|Dionyseus]] 21:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

::::::::Removed the Xbox losses wikinews, and integrated the info into the Market Share section. The heading "Microsoft facings massive losses with the Xbox" sticks out like a knife and its misleading, it implies that the Xbox has made Microsoft a money-losing company. If negative information is highlighted in such a manner that overshadows other relevant info, it is no longer NPOV. {{unsigned|GoldDragon}}

::::::::: Your edition is extreme POV, the source for the losses is Wikinews and can't be removed. I added a number facts for the section (Gamecube and PS2 marketshare): only numbers and the fact that xbox was heavily subsidized. --[[User:Brazil4Linux|Brazil4Linux]] 16:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

:::::::::: Rectifying (because GoldDragon insist revert wihout discussion): My edition does not contain opnion, but '''numbers and facts extracted from Microsoft datasheet''' and Fortune/CNET analysys. It '''has a source in the Wikinews''' to corroborate with this. I ask for so that if somebody to desire to make some edition or commentary makes but doesn't erase information and links. Thanks. --[[User:Brazil4Linux|Brazil4Linux]] 20:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah you got the facts but that Wikinews headline is very misleading, by "massive losses" it implies that Microsoft perhaps had a net loss because of the Xbox. Plus, stuff has been erased that has been in the Xbox article for a long time, such as European and Japanese sales figures. I did integrate some of your info into the original Market Share segment but I removed the misleading headline. {{unsigned|GoldDragon}}

: GoldDragon respect the Wikinews has nothing wrong with news story it's your POV about Xbox losses and Wikinews has the facts. STOP revert the article before consensus reach. --[[User:Brazil4Linux|Brazil4Linux]] 17:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

:I believe 10% out of total income (was it USD 40,000m, right?) is considered massive loses in a balance datasheet. I am curious about your definition of "massive loses"? If you don't like the Wikinews headline, change it from within Wikinews. Also, please sign your comments with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> -- [[User:ReyBrujo|ReyBrujo]] 04:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
:: Yes, it's reliable massive loss and Xbox division is [[loss leader]] in Microsoft company. What's wrong? This hurt the Fanboy heart? Sorry but my edition contains '''sources''' with numbers and facts. Only this, nothing of Fanboyism ''try to understand'' and hide the facts. --[[User:Brazil4Linux|Brazil4Linux]] 19:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why this is still under dispute.
#It is a story on a [[WP:RS|reputable source]].
#Adding negative information to an article is not POV as long as the way you are presenting it is not adding bias (either positive or negative, see my note earlier in this section).
#It looks like we have a consensus that it should stay, and one user atm (GoldDragon) who believes it should be removed.

Is there some way that the rest of us can convince you, GoldDragon, that this information should be included? All these reverts back and forth are making quite a mess in the history, and I'm afraid that other edits are being lost by the wayside in the wrangling (from both sides, I am not singling out GoldDragon or Dionyseus).
--[[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 19:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This info can be included if you skip the wikinews and go straight to the sources that that wikinews is using. That is what I have attempted to do in order to preserve other contributor's works. In fact, much of the info from that section used to be in other places of the Xbox article for a long time before I organized it into the market share section, only to have Brazil4Linux wipe it out. As a hint to Brazil4Linux, a true fanboy would have deleted all info that mentioned the PlayStation 2's 90 million lead and Xbox's size criticisms. Lastly, the wikinews writer had his sources from a blog instead of a proper news article and he even spelled Xbox "XBox". That is not very professional nor reputable to rely upon, is it?
--[[User:GoldDragon|GoldDragon]] 22:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I actually prefer GoldDragon's version. It includes the fact that Microsoft invested 4 billion in the Xbox project, without the problematic and huge NPOV headline "Massive Losses." [[User:Dionyseus|Dionyseus]] 06:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

:::Hmph. Actually, now that I look at the full article and not a bunch of diffs, I'm agreeing with GoldDragon's edits as well. I looked at the original news stories, and neither one uses the quote "massive losses"...so I'm quite willing to go with the version of the page as per GoldDragon (and change the wikinews headline to something less incendiary). I reverted the page to that version, especially since Brazil4Linux reverted to a paragraph fragment that ended in 'about'. --[[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 13:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

:::: Yup it's good because you keep Wikinews link. Need to confirmed (reputable sources): SCEA losses in USA (LoL?) with Xbox shipments increase; 2 milions LIVE subscriptors and some non-sense "''investments''" word to justify a 4 billion loss.--[[User:Brazil4Linux|Brazil4Linux]] 14:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

:: Massive losses isn't POV, it's a financial fact. My edition has better sources, only number and facts and not a unknown news source and extensive POV by GoldDragon (needs comprove SCEA losses, and lot other Xbox gains). --[[User:Brazil4Linux|Brazil4Linux]] 11:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

: At this moment, the wikinews should not even be in the picture since it is only based on one source (the CNET points to the Forbes). Not anywhere in the Forbes does it make any mention of "massive losses" as pointed out keenly by Dionyseus and Syrthiss. Yes, I acknowledge and don't deny that 4 billion has been spent on the Xbox, but that was over 4 years and the Forbes article does point out that Microsoft still managed 40 billion revenue and 12 billion in net income per year despite the Xbox costs. Brazil4Linux omitted that part of Forbes in order to make it look like Microsoft was suddenly slapped with a huge hit. So the very title "massive losses", as well as the wikinews itself, is POV since it misrepresents the source.
: Second, Brazil4Linux have a habit of leaving in POV stuff that makes the PS2 look good and makes the Xbox looks bad. That is POV in its own right. Check out the [[Ken Kutaragi]] article for instance where Brazil4Linux erased everything bad about him and SCE...and that was other contributor's work and not mine.
--[[User:GoldDragon|GoldDragon]] 22:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
::[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]]
::[[Wikipedia:Cite sources]] --[[User:Brazil4Linux|Brazil4Linux]] 13:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

== Xbox 360 ==

It just came out so I'm guessing there will soon be updates on the main article and on this section of this article. For now, I've simply updated future tense to past teste.--[[User:Sampi|Sampi]] 23:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

== Half-life 2 ==

Half-life 2 screenshot shall be in the Xbox game examples. It's graphics were really great and it equals Halo 2 in game play quality. --[[User:Renegadeviking|Renegade Viking]] 19:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah but thats the PC version of the game, not the actual xbox version. I can tell hardware and its differences in technology. Xbox has a smaller polycount.--[[User:69.255.16.162|69.255.16.162]] 03:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh please...Xbox couldn't handle Half Life 2's power...that is why those f00ls production people, had to reduce the ammount of polygons and powers to the game. So it can run fine on xbox. Trust me...it's better to play this kind of games on pc, with bigger graphics, because when playing you can increase the size of the graphics to the highest!
SWEET!
:[[User:Xino|>x<ino]] 08:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

But d00d, you need to spend 3 months installing it and 2 months updating it. Think of all the people without internet at home or with dialup, the xbox version is saving grace! [[User:JayKeaton|JayKeaton]] 22:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

::I have both versions and can say that the Xbox version is definitely less visually impressive. But that really doesn't make it less enjoyable. It still looks great and runs pretty well. It lets those without decent comps enjoy the game. Gets the job done. --[[User:Swaaye|Swaaye]] 15:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

== "Massive losses" edit war ==
Can someone please expain to me what's going on here? There seems to be an edit war over NPOV and sources and I don't know what all, and, ideally, I'd like to see it stop. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In '''Bl♟ck''']] ([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]]) 20:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

: *points up to the ''vandalism?'' topic above* though I admit I was away for a few days when I thought it had resolved. --[[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 21:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
::[[User:Brazil4Linux]] left a note on my talk page asking me to take a look at what's going on, so, well, I came. If it's resolved, then I won't worry myself. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In '''Bl♟ck''']] ([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]]) 05:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
::: Another GoldDragon revert today. No reputable sources, extensive POV, lot of not-comproved info.. --[[User:Brazil4Linux|Brazil4Linux]] 11:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

'''OKAY''', now I see. Right now, while it isn't quite NPOV, B4L's version of the article is a bit closer to NPOV. GoldDragon, I'm going to try to eliminate some of the POV language, without deleting the references as you've been doing. Please look carefully at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xbox&diff=29184971&oldid=29184509 this diff] to see what I've done. I didn't replace your edits about Microsoft's defense of the losses on the Xbox or the 2 million Live subscribers because they're not sourced. If you can source them, they'd be fine. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In '''Bl♟ck''']] ([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]]) 04:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

:It is in Microsoft document [http://www.microsoft.com/msft/ar05/downloads/MS_2005_AR.doc]: ''In our Home and Entertainment business, cumulative shipments of the Xbox® video game system reached 22 million, and the Xbox Live® online game service doubled its subscriber base to 2 million.'' -- [[User:ReyBrujo|ReyBrujo]] 04:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
:: A point: 4 billion of investment or 4 billion losses? I think the word ''investment'' is POV, because the losses are comproved and reported in Forbes article, the investment amount aren't comproved yet. [http://www.forbes.com/business/global/2005/1003/036A.html] --[[User:Brazil4Linux|Brazil4Linux]] 13:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

== One big apology of an article ==
The entire article sounds like a detailed justification for percievied flaws of the xbox, but if I am to point one thing that is certainly obviously like this it is this: ''Besides the large original controller, critics of the Xbox often point out the enormous size of the console which has made it the largest in recent history. However, this overlooks the fact that the Xbox takes advantage of this to include more powerful graphics and audio hardware, online capability, and a hard drive (instead of having to separately purchase memory cards as with the PS2 and GameCube).''

The PS2 (original version) has an empty expansion bay into which you can fit an entire hard drive and which is also used by the modem to slot into. I think it is therefore unjustified to say that people were "overlooking" the fact that smaller consoles were smaller because they lacked these features. I know this is just nitpicking and open to debate but there are so many comments like this in the article.

Also this in the "Overcoming criticism" section: ''Some consider the Xbox's freshman foray into the console market particularly successful in spite of the established dominance of PlayStation 2 whose market lead had been due to the original PlayStation base, and compared to the GameCube which has failed to match the sales of its Nintendo 64 predecessor. In fact, the Xbox's success is remarkable despite the excessive criticism directed at it during its first year of launch, which was often expected since Xbox was the newcomer to the video game industry and because of Microsoft's less-than-stellar reputation.''

This is just rubbish. At every point this paragraph is worded to be twisted in favour of a positive point of view. The use of "freshman foray" overly implies that it's still a success if they mess up because it was their first console. The Playstation 2 is tagged with "established dominance" and the gamecube is similarly derided by saying it hasn't lived up to the N64 legacy. Then it goes on to describe the "remarkable" success. A success that lost 4 billion. If any other company made a "freshman foray" into the games console market, a 4 billion loss would be considered an out and out utter failure. They may have gained mindshare and established themselves but it's still ridiculous to twist this into a "remarkable" success. It is not that anything in this paragraph is literally untrue, it is just not in the spirit of neutrality. I think it should be removed or changed to give a more balanced summary.
--[[User:Tilmitt|Tilmitt]] 15:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
:: I agree with you and say: [[Fan (aficionado)#Fanboy|Fanboy]]s distort the facts completely for the ''love'' to their home consoles. I'm fighting here (and in the many [[Ken Kutaragi|other articles]]) to keep real and concrete purely financial/market facts with [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]]. I ask for you: feel free to edit and become the article most neutral. I'm put NPOV tag in the article until this is decided. --[[User:Brazil4Linux|Brazil4Linux]] 18:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

:::Based upon what I see, Brazil4Linux put up the neutrality tag as a last resort after GoldDragon pointed out that B4L ommitted essential facts from the Forbes article that formed the cornerstone of the "massive losses" arguement. Its also funny how the dispute was only limited to the market share section for a long time but later escalated to include the rest of the article. {{unsigned|GoldDragon}}

::::Thank you, GoldDragon, for that. Please stop attacking everyone else here and reverting to a preferred version. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In '''Bl♟ck''']] ([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]]) 22:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Now, to answer the first poster...

''Indeed, Xbox for the most part has a smaller selection of the teen-adult games than the PlayStation 2 has, with Xbox's advantages over the PS2 version being mostly performance, graphics and sound. Some poor first-party games did damage the initial reputation of the Xbox, leading to the impression that the Xbox emphasized hardware graphics over game design. Conversely, many third-party Xbox games were merely ports of the PS2 version that failed to exploit the Xbox's full potential. Also, Xbox did have trouble getting top-notch console-exclusive games, a strategy with the ''[[Grand Theft Auto (series)|Grand Theft Auto]]'' series that made the PlayStation 2 very successful.''

I'm going to give this article some looking over, but stop attacking each other for holding differing POVs. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In '''Bl♟ck''']] ([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]]) 22:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

:I've done some rewriting, but it's currently a bit more negative than I'd like. Can anyone success a way to keep this article from being overly negative, without adding blatant apologism (like the old Overcoming criticism header)? - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In '''Bl♟ck''']] ([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]]) 23:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The stuff I had issue with has been removed but perhaps it is a little too negative now. Maybe anything positive/negative could all be grouped at the end. This would be alot less misleading as people know in a "Pro's/Con's" section they're going to get oppinions. But then again that can be effected by what order you put things in and it's open to abuse. This is a hard one to call, thanks for address my issue anyway and good look with the rest.--[[User:Tilmitt|Tilmitt]] 23:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
:I ''hate'' "Controversy" headers. That said, I don't know how to incorporate some of the defenses against criticism without being blatantly apologist. Hmm. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In '''Bl♟ck''']] ([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]]) 23:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
:: I think your edition is great. I'm removing NPOV tag now. --[[User:Brazil4Linux|Brazil4Linux]] 15:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

:::Regarding the "Overcoming Criticism" section, I'm working on a rewrite. The main problem of the "Overcoming Criticism" was that the original author was too quick to counter criticism as shown in gems such as "bias is unwarranted". Although I don't like a seperate cons/pros section of the Doom 3 article, I do like how the authors do acknowledge all the common criticisms that casual gamers and reviewers alike have made of that title, while also offering an analytical rebuttal in a seperate section. As a result, both fans and critics of Doom 3 have been satisfied and this is good in that they have reached a concensus.

:::As for the wikinews source, it is still going to be removed since B4L misrepresented the Forbes article that it was based upon. Not ''anywhere'' in the Forbes does it make any mention of "massive losses" as pointed out keenly by Dionyseus and Syrthiss. Yes, I acknowledge and don't deny that 4 billion has been spent on the Xbox, but that was over 4 years and the Forbes article does point out that Microsoft still managed 40 billion revenue and 12 billion in net income per year despite the cost of the Xbox. Brazil4Linux omitted that part of Forbes in order to make it look like Microsoft was suddenly slapped with a huge hit. So the very title "massive losses", as well as the wikinews itself, is POV since it distorts the source. Not to mention the wikinews even spelled Xbox "XBox".

:::Note that both the Forbes and Red Herring articles are not news in the sense that Reuters or Bloomberg is, rather both of them are magazine articles, with Forbes being mostly about business tycoons, where as Red Herring is a more technology-oriented. I don't have any problem with both sources being used as long as the information is not distorted to bring out negative facts. Lastly, you can't really saw which one is more credible, since Forbes disputed the NHL's losses during the lockout. --[[User:GoldDragon|GoldDragon]] 22:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

:::The whole article seems pretty pro-xbox, not neutral one.--[[User:142.177.158.6|142.177.158.6]] 06:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

==Arbitrating this disupute==
Right. Okay. B4L, GD, can you two accept me as a neutral arbiter, here? I'm knowledgeable about games, and utterly disinterested in fanboy back-and-forth. You're both still pushing POVs here, and I want to try and do something about the neutrality problem here.

If you're willing to do this, what I'd like you to do is post any edits that are intended to make the article more positive or negative here first, and wait for comment from me before adding them to the article. If nothing else, this saves me the daily hassle of having to rewrite for NPOV every time I log on.

Is this arrangement acceptable? - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In '''Bl♟ck''']] ([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]]) 23:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

:In the meantime, in my last revert, I've removed the "common criticisms header," moving the salient points where they belong and dumping a ton of reinserted apologism.
:Other concerns:
:*We're keeping the NPOV notice for the time being. POVs are still being pushed.
:*Do not put a dablink for the Xbox 360 at the top of this article, or anywhere else other than the Xbox 360 header, please.
:*B4L, stop changing "its greatest success" to "some success." The Xbox has been most successful in North America; "greatest" is compared to the European and Japanese performance, not the competitors.
:*Forbes is a credible source, and we're keeping the Wikinews link (because it's a sister project). We're not spinning the fact that Microsoft is $4 billion in the red on the Xbox, and we're taking Forbes and CNet at their words (unless someone has some proof that isn't just casting vague aspersions on Forbes's accuracy).
:*A loss leader is product. An entire division cannot be a loss leader.
:*We are ''not'' having a "Criticisms" header, however it's named. We're not going to have a BS back and forth call-and-response "Critics say...however..." header, because it's not NPOV to sequester all the conflicting viewpoints to one corner, and it's not NPOV to make sure that every positive is balanced with a negative and every negative is balanced with a positive.
:*"Other high-end games that could only run on the Xbox" is pure POV. Don't do that, please.
:*This is not the place to dither about whether Halo is overrated or not. It was a best-seller and reviewed well, and we're leaving it at that. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In '''Bl♟ck''']] ([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]]) 23:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

::*Are you really arbitrating, or are you essentially upholding B4L's POV? ''--[[User:GoldDragon|GoldDragon]] 22:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)''
::*:Is that a "No, I don't think you are neutral"? Might I ask why? I assure you, I don't much care about fanboy dickwaving console wars, but I do want to see a factual, neutral, verifiable article. Ideally, this could be a featured article, especially given that there's unlikely to be any more major developments regarding the Xbox. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In '''Bl♟ck''']] ([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]]) 02:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
::*Yes, Forbes is a credible source but it has been misrepresented by the Wikinews. As much as it may be a sister project, someone else rewrites the Wikinews article (and its headline) properly, it should not be in there. Better yet, the Wikinews should have used several ''current events'' sources (such as Reuters and Bloomberg) instead of magazine articles like Forbes. Trust me, you would start an edit war for other console articles if you dared to stick a POV headline like that into the article.
::*:Oh, I get it. You see the Wikinews title as POV in and of itself, correct? Hm. Given that we have the sources, I think dropping the Wikinews box is fine. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In '''Bl♟ck''']] ([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]]) 02:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
::*So there will be no Xbox 360 as long as there is no "Microsoft claims to have sold" in the header paragraph. Fine.
::*:Actually, the "Microsoft claims to have shipped" is redundant anyway; it's mentioned elsewhere. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In '''Bl♟ck''']] ([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]]) 02:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
::*High requirements games...we can't get rid of that since that was the Xbox's crucial selling point, versus the PS2's massive installed base and the GameCube's first-party titles. On the GameCube article, there is a whole section devoted to explaining how Nintendo's close co-op with 3rd party developers made its franchises successful. Based on that precedent, a section can be written that explains how the Xbox's powerful capabilities eventually made it successful.
::*:The GameCube article has its own issues; let's not use it as a yardstick.
::*:"Such and such game is only possible on the Xbox" is mildly POV and generally unverifiable. If you want to ''cite'' someone's statements that such and such game is only possible on the Xbox, that would be fine. Take a look at [[Super Mario 64]] (a featured article); it doesn't say that the game is great. It instead quotes influential game designers who think the game is great. If Carmack said "Doom 3 is only possible on the Xbox", that would be a great way to add "Such-and-such game is only possible on the Xbox." "Some gamers think..." doesn't cut it. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In '''Bl♟ck''']] ([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]]) 02:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

:::"Only possible on the Xbox", this is quoted from John Carmack:
:::"One of the primary functions of our next-generation technology is trying to do everything with bump-mapping and dot products, and that math just isn't there on the PlayStation2...I'm not sure if it's going to be able to do the full-impact stuff we can do on the Xbox. We could certainly do a cut-down version that will run on the PlayStation2 and Dreamcast, but it won't have the incredible next-generation graphics look that we're going to see on the next generation of PC chips."
[http://www.doomworld.com/files/doom3faq.shtml#What%20sort%20of%20system%20will%20be%20required%20to%20play%20Doom%203?]
:::Doom 3 was designed using the [[GeForce 3]] as a base and the Xbox has the only processor close to that, the NV2A. Of course, Sony knew well that the Xbox was quite a bit more powerful so that is why Sony did not push the gaming power of the PS2. Instead, Sony countered by releasing successful first-party games and locking up exclusive deals with the Grand Theft Auto series and (online) Electronic Arts titles. Another thing that Sony was able to rely upon was that some highly anticipated games (that could only run on the Xbox) like Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 didn't come out until late in the Xbox's lifespan (it made headlines when the PC originals were delayed a year). Microsoft however had Xbox Live, 2002 x-mas exclusivity for Splinter Cell, Knights of the Old Republic, and Halo 2, and they later had online EA and the GTA games.

::::Actually Doom3 was designed with NV10 in mind. That's [[GeForce 256]]. The game will run on a [[GeForce 4]]MX (NV10-class NV17) but it looks pretty ugly. It was a priority to get it running on GF4MX because of the sheer size of the userbase of that card. So honestly I think PS2 probably could run it, but it wouldn't be nearly as pretty. --[[User:Swaaye|Swaaye]] 19:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

:::[[User:GoldDragon|GoldDragon]] 12:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

::*Info in the criticism section won't be discarded, rather it will be revised and integrated into history/hardware.
::*:It wasn't discarded (other than a lengthy, pointless section on whether Halo deserved or didn't deserve to be called Game of the Year that year). - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In '''Bl♟ck''']] ([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]]) 02:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
--[[User:GoldDragon|GoldDragon]] 22:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

GoldDragon, I really do mean that I want you to post attempts to make the article more neutral on talk before posting them on the article itself. You've repeatedly added weasel words and non-neutral statements out of a good-faith desire to fix this article, but you're making the problems worse.

While I'm thinking about it... ''ITALICIZE GAME TITLES!'' Video games are longform works, and just like books and periodicals, their names are italicized. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In '''Bl♟ck''']] ([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]]) 02:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

There's got to be somewhere for cited comments about the Xbox being technically (as in technology, not technicality) more powerful than the PS2, but I'm not sure where. It definitely isn't in the history section, sandwiched between the rocky first year and the improvement after the launch of Live.
:::[http://www.doomworld.com/files/doom3faq.shtml#What%20sort%20of%20system%20will%20be%20required%20to%20play%20Doom%203?]
:::[http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=1561]
:::--[[User:GoldDragon|GoldDragon]] 12:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
::::Anandtech is a reliable source (and, later today, I'm going to try to incorporate some of the facts from that article into this one) but Doomworld is not, especially second-hand. You need to find out where and when Carmack said that. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In '''Bl♟ck''']] ([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]]) 18:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Can someone source the strong sales of Halo in the first year? I know it was a best-seller, but we need a source. Also, do we need to compare Halo specifically to FFX and MGS2? I see some POV in those comparisons (since GTA3 was the real huge seller on the PS2 that year anyway). While I'm thinking of it, do we have a [[2001 in gaming]] article? That was a weird year; Halo and GTA3 sort of came out of nowhere and outsold the safe bets (MGS2 and FFX).

I want to get away from constantly comparing the Xbox to the PS2. It's fair to do so in the early history, when it was entirely evaluated in comparison to the PS2, but outside of the history and a section on graphical power, let's see if we can't keep away from the fanboy back-and-forth whenever possible.

Where did Microsoft say they'd lose money for three years, then turn a profit? Sounds like something Fries or Ballard would say, but we need a source.
:::[http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20987]
:::[[User:GoldDragon|GoldDragon]] 12:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
::::The Inq is a decent source for tech stuff, but I don't see where it said anyone from Microsoft predicted they'd lose money for three years. We already have a souce stating that Microsoft turned a profit from Christmas of 2004. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In '''Bl♟ck''']] ([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]]) 18:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see where the Redherring article says that Sony was driven to a loss in Q1 2005 by strong Xbox sales. Sony is a financially troubled company, and I don't think SCE turned in a loss for Q1 2005 anyway.

:::Right here in the Gaming 101 section of the article: "The original Xbox finally outsold the PS2 in the fourth quarter of 2004, and that quarter Sony’s game division lost $25 million. Last year Sony’s game sales fell to $7.5 billion from $8.2 billion, and its operating income slid to $650 million from $1 billion."
:::[[User:GoldDragon|GoldDragon]] 12:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
::::MS profited, Sony had a losing quarter. I don't see in that article where it says the former caused the latter. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In '''Bl♟ck''']] ([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]]) 18:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

::::: Sad, they compare Microsoft x Sony Electronics division. I can't see a reason to put Sony Electronics division loss here, because SCE turns very profitable in 2004. And that's Fanboy POV compare Microsoft Quarter profit with Annual Sony Corp. loss. --[[User:Brazil4Linux|Brazil4Linux]] 23:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Do we have a source on why Japanese gamers didn't like the Xbox? It's common wisdom among gamers, but we need sources. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In '''Bl♟ck''']] ([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]]) 03:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
:: Back with Wikinews link, because we should divulge Wikimedia projects if possible. This turns Wikipedia more integrated, more reliable, this is the Jimbo Wales words. --[[User:Brazil4Linux|Brazil4Linux]] 11:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

:::A_Man_In_Black and I had reached a concensus on the status of the Wikinews link. We decided that it had to go because it distorted the facts of the Forbes article, as well as having a POV headline. So end of story.
:::[[User:GoldDragon|GoldDragon]] 12:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
::::GoldDragon, I'm arbitrating this, so don't misrepresent my statements. I felt the title was POV and the facts were duplicates of more reliable sources (Wikinews is not yet a reliable source), so it was not contributing to the article.
::::I don't see any reason to use Wikinews to the detriment of the article. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In '''Bl♟ck''']] ([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]]) 18:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

* [[User:GoldDragon]] is inserting POV non-sourced infos (SCEA Losses) in [[Ken Kutaragi]] article, making a edit war with me. I don't know more what to say this user, looks like he ignoring common-sense and holding as a [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandal]]. --
[[User:Brazil4Linux|Brazil4Linux]] 11:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

:::Aren't you a vandal ? The info in Kutaragi '''is''' sourced and you removed it since you didn't like it.
:::[[User:GoldDragon|GoldDragon]] 12:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

:::: Isn't source. Show with reliable links sources that comproves the fake things you put in the article. --[[User:Brazil4Linux|Brazil4Linux]] 21:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

**'''Wholesale reversions around one point''' - Reversing a whole series of edits based on a disagreement with one point in it, rather than editing the one point
*** I think GoldDragon isn't a newbie nomore, has conscience that this is wrong and is engaged with bad faith in this reversions. --[[User:Brazil4Linux|Brazil4Linux]] 11:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Can we not have that fight bleed over into this article, please? One article at a time, and you two stop catfighting. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In '''Bl♟ck''']] ([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]]) 18:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
:: Sorry, but I'm tired to revert anonymous edits of GoldDragon [[Special:Contributions/24.43.222.213|24.43.222.213]] - [[Special:Contributions/24.227.213.74|24.227.213.74]] that He use to revert and insist to put non-sourced SCE losses in Xbox and Ken Kutaragi articles and says that other users are supporting him and also to escape 3RR rule. Nothing much to say, this is bad faith for me. --[[User:Brazil4Linux|Brazil4Linux]] 21:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

:::B4L only calls it non-source when he doesn't like it. In fact, Red Herring is as good a source or better than Forbes for tech stuff.
:::[[User:GoldDragon|GoldDragon]] 17:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

:::: RedHiring is opinion tech site. The source that you cited is extensive POV about market, can you capable so, cite source of the source? You need comprove SCE losses with reliable source and a reason for this in Xbox profits. It's your task. --[[User:Brazil4Linux|Brazil4Linux]] 23:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

::: Now, GoldDragon and their anonymous IP [[Special:Contributions/24.43.222.213|24.43.222.213]] just starts reverting [[Sony Computer Entertainment]].--[[User:Brazil4Linux|Brazil4Linux]] 00:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
:::: A_Man_In_Black, sorry but it's clear for me that this guy doesn't respect the Wikipedia and engaged in reversions to push their POV with non-reliable sources to defacing articles. --[[User:Brazil4Linux|Brazil4Linux]] 00:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

===ENOUGH===
Enough is enough. I'm currently not interested in any ongoing disputes at other articles. Please limit your comments on this talk page to issues relevant to this article.

B4L is correct that unsourced stuff should be removed. I've noticed a bit of probably unintentional POV in B4L's lack-of-source removals, so some unsourced stuff supporting his POV gets left. GD sees this as POV pushing and replaces what he sees as appropriate statements.

I am confident that you both want to improve Wikipedia, and not just push a POV. Now stop yelling at each other. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In '''Bl♟ck''']] ([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]]) 05:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Outstanding issues:
*We still need a source that isn't a fansite for John Carmack saying Doom 3 was only possible on the Xbox.
*We still need more info on the development of the Xbox.
*This article still has too many lists of statistics, and too many inane lists of accessories.
*I really, really like the Modding section. Not too technical, not too instructive, not too detailed, not too vague. That said, we need to eliminate the second person (No "you," "your," etc.), and I'm not sure if this is the place for the paragraph about that UK case.
*I don't like the history of prices in its current form; ideally, this would be changed to prose.
*[[FATX]] should probably be merged into this article.

Any thoughts? - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In '''Bl♟ck''']] ([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]]) 06:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

: Just can't see a problem with Wikinews link. Has nothing POV in the title, that's financial fact. We should divulge Wikimedia projects as possible. --[[User:Brazil4Linux|Brazil4Linux]] 09:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
::"Massive losses" is POV and it wouldn't be tolerated in the text, so an intrusive box highlighting that is doubly inappropriate. Additionally, it duplicates the CNet and Forbes sources, and even ''cites'' the CNet and Forbes sources. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In '''Bl♟ck''']] ([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]]) 22:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
::: Allright. For me it's fine. Now we need hear what GoldDragon think.... --[[User:Brazil4Linux|Brazil4Linux]] 22:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
:::: I can't imagine GD objecting, since he's the one who removed it in the first place. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In '''Bl♟ck''']] ([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]]) 23:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
::::: Then, the work is over? --[[User:Brazil4Linux|Brazil4Linux]] 00:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
:::::: Its not just only about the title, but also to reduce provocations. For instance, GameCube fans would start an edit war if any of us added Wikinews headings stating "being in last place" or something negative. That article does state that the Cube is in 3rd place and sources it but doesn't highlight it, so Nintendo supporters would tolerate that info being there. We have a consensus. --[[User:GoldDragon|GoldDragon]] 20:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you guys care enough about this article to edit war, you obviously care enough to get it up to FA status. The list above has some ideas; any other deficiencies you guys see in this article? - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In '''Bl♟ck''']] ([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]]) 23:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
:: For me, it's fine. --[[User:Brazil4Linux|Brazil4Linux]] 21:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Generally, expanding the development/design history would be nice. Since most consoles are defined by their games, then we could have a detailed history and perhaps doing a year-by-year. On the other hand, I noticed that there is a lack of standard form among the console articles. --[[User:GoldDragon|GoldDragon]] 21:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
:Yeah, I've noticed the lack of standard form, too.
:I can imagine a year-by-year history being really good, but I could also imagine it being a POV or cruft nightmare. (The former when people fight all the console wars of the last four years all over again, the latter when people add their favorite game no matter how unimportant to a general article, or try to cram homebrew stuff into a timeline.) It would still be great if it could be done, though.
:Does anyone have a copy of ''Opening the Xbox'', for info on the development? My local library doesn't have it, and I can't really buy a copy. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In '''Bl♟ck''']] ([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]]) 06:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

== Correct name ==

The correct name for this article should be "XBOX", as in the official documentation which comes with the unit itself, it states that the name of the console is "XBOX", not "Xbox".
:: Look at Xbox.com and the Press Releases. "XBOX" is logo/fantasy name, Xbox is usually typing name (using in LIVE service also). It's important remeber that "X-box" and "XBox" was cited by Microsoft in 2001 when the console was only a project --[[User:Brazil4Linux|Brazil4Linux]] 00:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

::: I disagree, the correct name is Xbox. Even Xbox.com's title spells it Xbox, not XBOX. [[User:Dionyseus|Dionyseus]] 18:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

:::: For understand this the user need know fantasy brand/type-common brand/patent brand. XBOX it's only fantasy/logotype purposes, Microsoft use "Xbox" in press releases and patents. Remember also that Xbox isn't a acronym and don't just justify the change for XBOX.--[[User:Brazil4Linux|Brazil4Linux]] 14:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::Keep the original title at Xbox, although you can have additional likes like XBOX and X-box that redirect to this article. --[[User:GoldDragon|GoldDragon]] 21:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

== SKINS ==

since that fool deleted my post (no offence:P)
:Is it possible to change the dashboard for the xbox?....(you know that green menue:P)
reply back quick....with good answe:P
[[User:Xino|>x<ino]] 06:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

== Logo change ==
[[Image:Xbox logo.jpg|right|thumb]]
The black logo is more widely known. What you think about change the current white for the black logo? --[[User:GroundZero|GroundZero]] 18:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
:I don't like it much. The black background isn't a major part of the logo, and generally transparent backgrounds are nicer than fixed ones. I don't care so much either way as to revert if someone feels strongly, though. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In '''Bl♟ck''']] ([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]]) 18:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
::I agree with you. I don't really like the black one all that much. The previous logo just looked nicer, IMHO. I wouldn't say either one of them is more widely known. The "X" and the word "Xbox" is all that matters. Both have that. [[User:K1Bond007|K1Bond007]] 22:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

== Pluralization of "Xbox" ==

"Xboxs" is used in the article as the the plural of "Xbox". Can someone cite that this is the correct style (i.e. Microsoft usage)? Otherwise, I'm apt to edit to the more grammatically correct "Xboxes". [[User:Ned Scotland|Ned Scotland]] 02:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
:I think that I remember seeing "Xboxes" on their website. I haven't been there in a long time though... [[User:BirdValiant|BirdValiant]] 06:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
::As far as I remember, both "Xboxes" and "Xbox systems" are allowed. [[User:A0me|A0me]] 16:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

== Xbox leading over PS2 and GC? ==

I recently removed the latest addition:
<blockquote>; the Xbox has held a lead over the PS2 and GameCube in sales since April 2004 [http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/05/26/news_6099369.html]</blockquote>

GoldDragon restored it stating that it was ok because it was ''(referenced)''. I must point that:
# The article was posted on ''May 26, 2004 5:01 pm PT''. You cannot generalize saying that Xbox has held a lead since April 2004 when the article covered only until May 2004, when it was posted. The reader is being misleaded into thinking Xbox has been leading the market since April 2004 until today.
# The article reads: ''"This marks the first time ever that Sony has been knocked off the leaderboard by another console in this generation," boasted Microsoft's release, which went on to list various notable Xbox events at E3 2004.'' I don't believe it does any good to this article state that Xbox finally managed to sell more consoles than Sony on April 2004 since launch day, but feel free to reword this removed sentence and add it if you think it is useful. -- [[User:ReyBrujo|ReyBrujo]] 04:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
::Agreed, this is why I removed it in the first place. The article only states that the Xbox managed to outsell the PS2 for the month of April in the year 2004, no where does it say it has continued outselling the PS2 to this day. In November 2005, for instance, the PS2 sold 531,000 units in North America, whereas only 197,000 Xbox units were sold in that month, here's the source: http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=7509 [[User:Dionyseus|Dionyseus]] 06:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

== Xbox history ==

Some more information can be found [http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1932&Itemid=2 here]. -- [[User:ReyBrujo|ReyBrujo]] 18:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
:: Read it. It's a good article but looks like GoldDragon dislike it. {{unsigned|201.29.24.87}}
::: Now, "Doom127" dislike it also. It's sourced and all true, based on a book. --[[User:Dungeon Siege|Dungeon Siege]] 00:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

::::This an editorial since it uses lots of weasle words. Yes some statistics are credible such as the declining PC market, but other stuff like "Bill Gates being frustrated by Sony's success" are unsourced rumours and such POV material has no place in an encyclopedia article. --[[User:GoldDragon|GoldDragon]] 13:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

::::: I agree with ReyBrujo the article is based on a book and published in a big website. {{unsigned|201.29.11.234}}

:::::: Actually, GoldDragon, Wikipedia information must be [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability.2C_not_truth|verifiable, not truth]]. Next-Gen is a rather important site (Alexa ranking of [http://alexa.com/data/details/?url=http://www.next-gen.biz 18,705], any information that is quoted from the article can be verified because you can go to their site and read it, and the information itself can be at the same time verified by buying the book. Anyone quoting information from that article into the Xbox article is doing so in the spirit of Wikipedia. You fought so hard for a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] in the "Xbox losses", I thought you would approve of this article. -- [[User:ReyBrujo|ReyBrujo]] 22:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::: yes ReyBrujo GoldDragon only blank what he doesn't like we need keep the info because the source is verifiable. {{unsigned|201.29.63.83}}

== Price? ==

The price of the xbox in the U.S. is listed as having dropped to $119.99 on 12/23/05 however the official xbox site still lists 149 in theis catalog, and a number if retail outlets i visited today said the same when i tried to buy one for 119.

So, basically 119/149 confirmation?

[[User:12.107.149.98|12.107.149.98]] 07:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know what the deal with that is. I've never heard anything about a price drop either. [[User:149.99.157.100|149.99.157.100]] 01:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

== No misleading wikinews POV headline ==

We have already had a long edit war over the inclusion of the wikinews headline and agreed that it has to go because it was POV. Nowhere in the original Forbes source does it say "massive losses".
[[User:GoldDragon|GoldDragon]] 14:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

:: 4 billion loss in 4 years is trully massive loss. {{unsigned|201.29.0.145}}

:::[[User:Brazil4Linux|Brazil4Linux]], we know it is you since someone else traced it to your IP. Haven't you already been banned for a month for repeated sockpuppet use[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ken_Kutaragi]? We were forced to request semi-protection on the [[Ken Kutaragi]] article in order to prevent you from putting anti-American and anti-Microsoft bias in it.
:::I'm not defending Microsoft but the wikinews headline clearly misrepresented the source, ''no where in the Forbes did it say massive losses''. Also, there is only one source, the CNET source is mainly a link to the Forbes.
:::The mediator in the last edit war [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In '''Bl♟ck''']] said it was POV and even you agreed that the wikinews could not stay. --[[User:GoldDragon|GoldDragon]] 20:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

:::'''Here is the decision on the fate of the misleading Wikinews headline from the past edit war'''
::::"Massive losses" is POV and it wouldn't be tolerated in the text, so an intrusive box highlighting that is doubly inappropriate. Additionally, it duplicates the CNet and Forbes sources, and even ''cites'' the CNet and Forbes sources. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In '''Bl♟ck''']] ([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]]) 22:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
:::: Allright. For me it's fine. Now we need hear what GoldDragon think.... --[[User:Brazil4Linux|Brazil4Linux]] 22:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
:::--[[User:GoldDragon|GoldDragon]] 20:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:::: Now K1Bond007 agree with all of us. And stop accusing people I'm not that guy "brazillinux". Wikinews is a sister project of Wikipedia and should be divulged. --[[User:Microsoft Fanboy|Microsoft Fanboy]] 03:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::You sound suspiciously like 1 month banned user Brazil4Linux. Your quote "Wikinews is a sister project of Wikipedia and should be divulged" is almost exactly like Brazil4Linux's "Back with Wikinews link, because we should divulge Wikimedia projects if possible" and "We should divulge Wikimedia projects as possible". You are not fooling anybody. --[[User:GoldDragon|GoldDragon]] 9:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::Agree with these - more excepts from the edit war:
::::::I actually prefer GoldDragon's version. It includes the fact that Microsoft invested 4 billion in the Xbox project, ''without the problematic and huge NPOV headline "Massive Losses."'' Dionyseus 06:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

::::::Hmph. Actually, now that I look at the full article and not a bunch of diffs, I'm agreeing with GoldDragon's edits as well. '''I looked at the original news stories, and neither one uses the quote "massive losses"'''...so I'm quite willing to go with the version of the page as per GoldDragon (and change the wikinews headline to something less incendiary). I reverted the page to that version, especially since Brazil4Linux reverted to a paragraph fragment that ended in 'about'. --Syrthiss 13:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
:::::--[[User:GoldDragon|GoldDragon]] 9:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::: [[User:K1Bond007|K1Bond007]] is administrator and he agree the wikinews link should keep "''Market share - readd back Wikinews. No reason to remove. Valid information that is backed in the article.''" Sorry but we are keeping Wikipedia sister project. --[[User:Microsoft Fanboy|Microsoft Fanboy]] 17:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::::BTW, administrators are just editors. They don't have any more or less say in article content than any other editor. I'm also an admin. --[[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 17:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::Yeah, and I agree with that stance, however, I didn't notice, as [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In Black]] points out that the news article cited the same sources that are already in this Wiki article. Therefore it is a duplicate and should be removed. I don't agree that the title is misleading or POV though since the news article obviously backs up the title - using "massive" isn't really POV - 4 billion whether you're rich or poor, is a shitload of cash - and I think we call all agree on that. [[User:K1Bond007|K1Bond007]] 18:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::Guess what would happen if you put a wikinews headline mentioning that the [[GameCube]] was in 3rd place? That would cause an edit war with die hard GC fans. So the 3rd place is mentioned in the GameCube article but it isn't so prominent as to offend GC fans. --[[User:GoldDragon|GoldDragon]] 13:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC) {{unsigned|142.205.240.234}}

::::::It is what it is. Wikipedia does not censor. Wikipedia does not make changes to appease those that may be offended by the facts. If GameCube is in third and there are credible/reputable news stories published that back this up, then I don't see the problem. This is coming from someone who loves his GameCube and Xbox. 4 billion dollars is massive. That's just how it goes. It's not misleading nor is it POV. Anybody who makes an idiotic assumption based on a headline anyway should be ashamed of themselves. [[User:K1Bond007|K1Bond007]] 18:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::::As I stated somewhere else, USD 4,000m is 10% of Microsoft earnings in the last year, 1/4 of Nintendo company value. The Wikinews headline is ''Microsoft faces massive losses with XBox''. It is a valid headline. Another valid one would have been ''Microsoft loses 4 billion with Xbox'', or as I would prefer since billion is frowned upon, ''Microsoft loses 4,000,000,000 with Xbox''. A more Inquirer title would be ''Xbox slams USD 4 billion debt to Microsoft'', or ''Xbox drains 10% of Microsoft revenues''. Nobody can hide the fact that it is massive. Anyways, I don't take position about whether the headline should be or not in the article, just clarifying that 10% is massive. For how things are going for Microsoft, I guess we will have this same discussion in a couple of years, deciding if 8,000m is massive or not. -- [[User:ReyBrujo|ReyBrujo]] 18:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::You got it all wrong, its ''$4 billion over 4 years, not over one year''. So that works out to 2.5 % of Microsoft's yearly profits. --[[User:GoldDragon|GoldDragon]] 13:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::::: I agree, isn't POV because it ts a financial fact 4 billion is massive. My intention is divulge other Wikimedia services, Wikinews has a propper news story about the subject. This is made in all Wikipedia. --[[User:Microsoft Fanboy|Microsoft Fanboy]] 19:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::::: Anyone who is considering using the WikiNews headline just needs to do one thing- LOOK AT THE PERSON WHO CREATED THE HEADLINE ITSELF.
:::::::: http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Microsoft_faces_massive_losses_with_XBox&action=history - Got the link right there. That Wikinews "Massive Losses" thing was invented by the very same person who is, at this very moment, involved in attacking this page under the guise of "Microsoft Fanboy"- The very selfsame Brazil4Linux. YOU CANNOT REFER FOR SUPPORT BACK TO A WIKINEWS PAGE HEADLINE THAT YOU INVENTED. [[User:Doom127|Daniel Davis]] 19:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)
::::::::: I never created a Wikinews article. Stop nonsense accusations and respect other member opnions. --[[User:Microsoft Fanboy|Microsoft Fanboy]] 19:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::Daniel, the only thing your evidence shows was that Brazil4Linux edited the article on November. The article was created back in September by someone else. [[User:Dionyseus|Dionyseus]] 14:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

== update the price!!! ==

that's correct the price for the xbox is $179.99 because it includes Forza.
:: This is probably a bundle.

== Avdert controversy... ==

In the UK an original advert for the Xbox was banned, or at least only allowed ot air after the water-shed, much like one of the adverts for the Xbox 360 in the US. I was thinking it should be included in the article. Is there an actual name to this advert? [[User:Zooba|Zooba]] 18:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
:Maybe. I see that it's now in the article, but for it to be taken seriously (and for it to be worth including) it needs to be more descriptive. It's current description is very vague. By that, I'm not refferring to its description of the ad itself, but of the controversy. For instance, there should be answers to:
**Who found it offensive/inappropriate?
**Why did they find it offensive/inappropriate?
**What happened about broadcasting it?
**When was the ad on TV? etc.
:I personally don't see how there could've been a big deal with it, so I think these need to be included. - [[User:RedHotHeat|RHe]][[User talk:RedHotHeat|odt]] 13:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Could someone put a link to the advertisement in the article? I am interested in seeing it, and I'm guessing other people who read the article will too. [[User:EdGl|EdGl]] 22:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

== Price History ==

shouldn't the damn price history go at the top!?
:Why the hell is it at the bottom.
Price goes first!
:[[User:Xino|>x<ino]] 15:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

== hebrew and thai interwiki links? ==

Anyone else seeing the hebrew and thai interwiki links not linked, but instead as text at the bottom of the page? I can't see a syntax problem with them in the edit pane, but there's definitely something borked up. --[[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 14:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

== Annual Profits? ==

" ''Investor relations documents says that in the end of 2005 Microsoft lost more 1 billion dollars [http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3147953&did=1]. The Xbox project never gave an annual profit to Microsoft according to these documents.''" -- see the graphic, thanks.
:That doesn't mean your comment of it being Bad that it has name recognization is true. [[User:Jedi6|Jedi6]][[User talk:Jedi6|-(need help?)]] 22:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

== Market share ==
The market share section bears the legend

''Do not change this section without using the talk page first. Otherwise it will be considered vandalism''

so I'd like to point out here that the figure of 25 million sales does not appear in the Microsoft Annual Report 2005 that is linked to as a source - that document[http://www.microsoft.com/msft/ar05/downloads/MS_2005_AR.doc] actually claims
"''cumulative shipments of the Xbox® video game system reached 22 million''"!

Also, the Nintendo Annual Report [http://www.nintendo.com/corp/report/NintendoAnnualReport2005.pdf] for the same year claims "''worldwide cumulative unit sales have reached 18.5 million''" which is also lower than the number supposedly quoted from that source.

Could I also ask how it is that any changes (even correcting blatant mis-quoting from linked sources) will be considered vandalism?[[User:Gormanly|Gormanly]] 15:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
:They didn't always say that. Must have happened in a previos edit war. I fixed it. [[User:Jedi6|Jedi6]][[User talk:Jedi6|-(need help?)]] 03:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
::I cleaned up the section due to vandalism (although I didn't write that notice - it should be removed) and didn't do any fact checking when replacing the information that was deleted. My bad, I guess. [[User:K1Bond007|K1Bond007]] 06:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
:::I'm quite new to Wikipedia, so what's a generally acceptable source for contentious data such as sales figures? The CNN webpage referenced from this article for the Xbox's 24 million sales is a puff piece on Steve Ballmer from Fortune magazine, which quotes (without attribution) UBS estimated sales figures for all 3 of the 6th gen consoles. So either this is considered here a reliable source, in which case we bump the sales numbers for GC and PS2 correspondingly (although interestingly, the Fortune magazine article's numbers for the other 2 consoles are not as much of an increase over the official figures as that for the Xbox), or it's not, in which case we drop back to the 22 million figure which is the latest number published by Microsoft ...
:::that was me[[User:Gormanly|Gormanly]] 14:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

::::CNN and Forbes are both verifiable and reliable sources. I always prefer having information from the companies themselves, though, but anyways, just remember to change the links to the ones pointing to the new amount. If you change the units to 24 and leave the link that states 22, your information cannot be verified. Note that the latest report from Nintendo informs 20.61m. -- [[User:ReyBrujo|ReyBrujo]] 18:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::To my knowledge we only use the company reports to report sales numbers for the major gaming consoles, and frankly CNN knows nothing about gaming. [[User:Dionyseus|Dionyseus]] 02:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

::::::I agree, until Microsoft report that they have shipped more than 22 million we ought to leave it. Ditto for the other vendors. [[User:Gormanly|Gormanly]] 14:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::::However, Jedi6 changed the [[PlayStation 2]] and [[GameCube]] articles' sales figures based on that CNN page, so we need to make a decision either way and be consistent. Personally, I would treat only the sales figures released by the manufacturers as reliable, because (i) they do stock control and know exactly how many consoles they have shipped; and (ii) they have a duty to their shareholders to be truthful about (i). Any number from any other source is both likely to be guessing and potentially biased. Do we want to make judgements about sources' estimation accuracy and fairness without seeing their methods or potential conflicts of interest? {{unsigned|Gormanly}}

::::::::I agree and I now removed it from the PS2 page. I checked the Gamecube page and it seems fine to me, it's using Nintendo's January 2006 report instead of the CNN article. [[User:Dionyseus|Dionyseus]] 18:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::It was in the body of the article - I've left it in, but have now added the officially released numbers to that section. [[User:Gormanly|Gormanly]] 08:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

== Article too long... ==

Oh please why shouldn't the damn article be long. When Xbox only! article is having a small information of 360. I don't see what 360 is doing in an xbox article page.

By the way...while you are clearing it up...we need 1 more picture! So it can complete the art gallery!
:[[User:Xino|>x<ino]] 21:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:: How bout a picture of Ghost Recon or NFS: Hot Pursuit Two?-[[User:Delta Elite|Delta Elite]] 18:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Nah, Ghost Recon is for 360, you know G.R.A.W. NFS: Hot Pursuit Two, nah that is also for the GC!? We need a special game for the xbox not a multiplaformer.

Games like
*Unreal Series
*Otogi
And I can't believe their isn't Ninja Gaiden!? 
Ninja Gaiden should fill up the last section box for the Gallery!
:[[User:Xino|>x<ino]] 00:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
::Only 34kb, not long really. [[User:Skinnyweed|Skinnyweed]] 16:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

== Inline citations ==

Format the other links scattered across the article. [[User:Skinnyweed|Skinnyweed]] 17:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

== EUCD nit ==

It's impossible to be tried and convicted under an EU directive as they are not laws but directions to member states to enact certain sorts of laws. Thus the more correct expression is that the person mentioned in the "legal" subheading of the modding section was convicted under a law derived from, or enacted due to the EU copyright directive (aka EUCD). Let's not propagate the "directive = federal laws of Yurp" meme, okay? [[User:88.112.2.159|88.112.2.159]] 02:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

== featured picture ==

The photo of the Xbox is, uh...not good. The top of the console is dusty, and the clear sticker over the panel that contains the little power button is noticeably still on, with a corner of it coming off. Compared to the photo of the GameCube on its Wikipedia article, the Xbox photo seems amateurish. Just saying.
:It certainly is. If I had an Xbox and a camera I would fix it right away, but alas... [[User:Gerbrant|Shinobu]] 18:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

==update A/V cables==

The advanced A/V pack and HD pack no longer have break out boxes. It is just the cable with the Optical Audio port on the male plug in to the xbox —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Nytemunkey|Nytemunkey]] ([[User talk:Nytemunkey|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nytemunkey|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.

== Mention Used Xbox stock ==

Since it is at the end of it's life, buying used ones is growing in popularity. [[Game Stop|GS]] is selling it for $99.99. Mention that somewhere in the article? Buying something that works for $60 less than retail at Wal-mart sounds good. GS will game test it at the store. You don't hear about it much because they're recommending buying Xbox 360 instead. [[User:Renegadeviking|Renegadeviking]] 00:50, 28 June 2006 (CST)

== Conflicts with Nvidia? ==

There doesn't seem to be much direct commentary on Microsoft's relationship with Nvidia on the Xbox, notably the contractual conflicts over the supply of nvidia chips for the Xbox. There's a short note in this article describing nvidia's stopping production of said chips, spurring the launch of the 360. The story of the two companies working (or not working) together seems it would be an interesting addition to this article. Thoughts? [[User:Tmurase|Tmurase]] 00:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:I've heard about this theory, but the problem is that there's not a lot beyond rumor to back it up. If you could write a sourced section about this, that would be great, but I can't think of any references outside of forum posts (which don't cut it as [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]). - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In '''Bl♟ck''']] ([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]]) 04:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
::I remembered it from some Ars Technica news posts, and have found [http://eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=10800974 this EETimes story] (that links to another story on how the two sides went to arbitration) that covers the nvidia chip pricing dispute between the two companies. There's also a brief [http://eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=18307152 EETimes book review/editorial] on "Opening the Xbox" that according to the EETimes goes into details on the early dealings between Microsoft and Nvidia. [[User:Tmurase|Tmurase]] 16:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
::I could write up a short paragraph summarizing the arbitration and resulting settlement. Where should it go? [[User:Tmurase|Tmurase]] 18:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I've added it to the Hardware section. Feel free to move it somewhere else for appropriateness or consistency. [[User:Tmurase|Tmurase]] 21:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

== region-free? ==

i was wondering if xbox's are region free in terms of dvd playing. cause my xbox was able to play my uncles dvd, that he made at his home in Australia out of some old 8mm films. i live in canada. but my xbox was one of those few unlucky older models that had the short circut or whatever it was. and i had to send it off to newmarket. when i got it back, it was able to play burnt cd's that i had ,made on my computer. and as i was informed in my instruction book, they're not supposed to do that. so does anybody know if xbox's are region free?

:No, those were just region-free DVDs. Homemade DVDs aren't region coded. I believe that strictly, speaking, The Xbox itself is region free and the region coding is in the DVD kit you buy. So if you import a DVD kit from Japan, you could play Japanese movies, btu not American ones. Don't quote me on that, though. [[User:Ace of Sevens|Ace of Sevens]] 22:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

::well the dvd didn't work on my actual dvd player. and he got the dvd professionally made. so i'm almost completely sure that it is australia region-ed —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Eirik Raude|Eirik Raude]] ([[User talk:Eirik Raude|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Eirik Raude|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.
:::No one region-codes DVDs unless it's specifically requested. They would have been in [[PAL]] format and you have an [[NTSC]] tv. The Xbox does conversions and your other player doesn't. This is a separate issue from region coding. [[User:Ace of Sevens|Ace of Sevens]] 23:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

== MSXbox - expand or delete or merge to Xbox? ==

I know little about Xbox.

I see a very short article about [[MSXbox]]. It is too short to be useful, no reference. If not expanded, is going to be deleted according to the Wikipedia standards.

What should we do:
# expand the own article
# merge to Xbox
# merge to another article (please specify)
# delete

Thank you :D --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 14:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I redirected it. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In '''Bl♟ck''']] ([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]]) 14:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Why redirect [[MSXbox]] to [[TeamXbox]]? Are they the same thing?

Template:Cite quote

2006-08-15T21:40:48Z

Wai Wai: sychron template:fact and this page (see also part).

[[[Wikipedia:Citing sources#When you quote someone|CITE?]]]{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||[[Category:Articles with unsourced quotes]]}}<noinclude>


----
Use this tag for '''quotations that are used without a citation'''. Per [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]]: "You should always add a citation when quoting published material, and the citation should be placed directly after the quote, which should be enclosed within double quotation marks — "like this" — or single quotation marks if it's a quote-within-a-quote — "and here is such a 'quote' as an example." Statements marked with this template will put their articles in [[:Category:Articles with unsourced quotes]].

Do not use this tag in order to label text which appears doubtful or false, '''especially''' in the case of [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|biographies of living people]] (see [[Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Reverting_potentially_libellous_material|this section of WP:3RR]] as well). Otherwise please use {{tl|verify source}}.

Regarding the unsourced or poorly sourced information:
# if it is '''not doubtful''', you may use {{tl|fact}} or {{tl|citequote}} tag to ask for better citation in order to make the article complete.
# if it is '''doubtful''' but '''not too harmful''' to the whole article, you may use {{tl|verify source}} tag to ask for source verification. 
# If it is '''doubtful''' and '''(quite) highly harmful''', you may move it to the talk page and ask for a source. 
# If it is '''very doubtful''' and '''very harmful''', you may remove it directly without the need of moving it to the talk page first.

To find all the articles that use this template, please visit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Template%3ACitequote What links here]. For articles which lack sources, please visit [[:Category:Articles needing sources]].

This [[Wikipedia:Template|template]] is a [[Wikipedia:Avoid self-references|self-reference]] and so is part of the Wikipedia project rather than the encyclopedic content.

==See also==
*[[Wikipedia:Citing sources]]

*''{{tl|Cite}} (deprecated)''

*{{tl|fact}}, tagging a request for citation, used for information that needs citations to make it complete, but not for seemingly doubtful or false texts
*{{tl|Request quote}}, tagging a request for quoting inaccessible source, used for requesting a direct quote from the cited source for verification
*{{tl|Betterfact}}, tagging information which is cited but should be referenced to a more [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]].
*{{tl|Verify source}}, tagging a request for source verification, used for information that is doubtful or appears false.
*{{tl|Verify credibility}}, tagging a request for source verification, used for information that is doubtful or appears false.

*{{tl|Citecheck}}, popping up a box saying an article or section may have inappropriate or misinterpreted citations
*{{tl|Not verified}}, popping up a box saying an article or section has not been verified and may not be reliable
*{{tl|Unreferenced}}, popping up a box saying an article or section has no citation or reference for its information

[[Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[als:Vorlage:Beleg]]
[[et:Mall:Lisa viide]]
[[el:Πρότυπο:Εκκρεμεί παραπομπή]]
[[es:Plantilla:Añadir referencias]]
[[fa:نیاز به ذکر منبع]]
[[fr:Modèle:Citation nécessaire]]
[[it:Template:Citazione necessaria]]
[[ja:Template:要出典]]
[[lv:Template:Nepieciešama atsauce]]
[[no:Mal:Trenger referanse]]
[[pt:Predefinição:Carece de fontes]]
[[ro:Format:Necesită citare]]
[[ru:Шаблон:Нет источника]]
[[sr:Шаблон:Чињеница]]
[[te:Template:మూలాలు అవసరం]]
[[vi:Tiêu bản:Cần chú thích]]
</noinclude>

Template:Citation needed

2006-08-15T21:39:34Z

Wai Wai: description of {{betterfact}} etc.

[[[Wikipedia:Citing sources |''citation needed'']]]<noinclude>
<includeonly>[[Category:Articles needing sources]]</includeonly>

----
Enter this tag in the body of an article as a request for other editors to find citations:
# to label a passage which is incomplete without a cited source of information
# to label a quotation which lacks a citation, as per [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]].

'''Do not use this tag in order to label text which appears doubtful or false''', especially in the case of [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|biographies of living people]] (see [[Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Reverting_potentially_libellous_material|this section of WP:3RR]] as well).

For dealing with dubious information, please use {{tl|verify source}}. See also [[Wikipedia:Citing sources#Text that is, or is likely to be, disputed]].

Regarding the unsourced or poorly sourced information:
# if it is likely true, but '''needs specificity,''' you may use {{tl|specify}}
# if it is '''not doubtful''', you may use {{tl|fact}} or {{tl|citequote}} tag to ask for better citation in order to make the article complete.
# if it is '''doubtful''' but '''not too harmful''' to the whole article, you may use {{tl|verify source}} tag to ask for source verification. 
# If it is '''doubtful''' and '''(quite) highly harmful''', you may move it to the talk page and ask for a source. 
# If it is '''very doubtful''' and '''very harmful''', you may remove it directly without the need of moving it to the talk page first.

To find all the articles that use this template, please visit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Template%3AFact What links here]. For articles which lack sources, please visit [[:Category:Articles needing sources]].

This [[Wikipedia:Template|template]] is a [[Wikipedia:Avoid self-references|self-reference]] and so is part of the Wikipedia project rather than the encyclopedic content.

==Useful redirects==
* {{tl|cn}}
* {{tl|Cite needed}}
* {{tl|Cite-needed}}
* {{tl|Citeneeded}}

==See also==
*[[Wikipedia:Citing sources]]

*''{{tl|Cite}} (deprecated)''

*{{tl|Citequote}}, tagging a request for citation, used for quotaions that needs citations to make it complete, but not for seemingly doubtful or false texts
*{{tl|Request quote}}, tagging a request for quoting inaccessible source, used for requesting a direct quote from the cited source for verification
*{{tl|Betterfact}}, tagging information which is cited but should be referenced to a more [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]].
*{{tl|Verify source}}, tagging a request for source verification, used for information that is doubtful or appears false.
*{{tl|Verify credibility}}, tagging a request for source verification, used for information that is doubtful or appears false.

*{{tl|Citecheck}}, popping up a box saying an article or section may have inappropriate or misinterpreted citations
*{{tl|Not verified}}, popping up a box saying an article or section has not been verified and may not be reliable
*{{tl|Unreferenced}}, popping up a box saying an article or section has no citation or reference for its information

[[Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[als:Vorlage:Beleg]]
[[et:Mall:Lisa viide]]
[[el:Πρότυπο:Εκκρεμεί παραπομπή]]
[[es:Plantilla:Añadir referencias]]
[[fa:نیاز به ذکر منبع]]
[[fr:Modèle:Citation nécessaire]]
[[he:תבנית:מקור]]
[[it:Template:Citazione necessaria]]
[[ja:Template:要出典]]
[[lv:Template:Nepieciešama atsauce]]
[[nl:Sjabloon:Geenbron]]
[[nn:mal:kjelde manglar]]
[[no:Mal:Trenger referanse]]
[[pt:Predefinição:Carece de fontes]]
[[ro:Format:Necesită citare]]
[[ru:Шаблон:Нет источника]]
[[sr:Шаблон:Чињеница]]
[[sv:Mall:Källa behövs]]
[[te:Template:మూలాలు అవసరం]]
[[vi:Tiêu bản:Cần chú thích]]
[[zh:Template:Fact]]
</noinclude>

Wikipedia:Disambiguation

2006-08-15T21:34:07Z

Wai Wai: formatting fix

{{guideline|[[WP:D]] or [[WP:DAB]]}}
{{Guideline_list}}
'''Disambiguation''' in [[Wikipedia]] and other [[Wikimedia Foundation]] projects is the process of '''resolving ambiguity'''. The conflict occurs when '''a single term''' can be associated with '''more than one topic'''. In many cases, this word or phrase is the '''same natural title''' of more than one article. In other words, [[wiktionary:disambiguation|disambiguation]]s are paths leading to '''different topic pages''' that share essentially the same term in their title.

==Purpose==
In Wikipedia, creating an internal link is easy: Simply put <nowiki>[[double brackets]]</nowiki> around the word to create the link of that name/title. For example, if you wish to create a link to the topic Mercury, you should type it as <nowiki>[[Mercury]]</nowiki>. The link to [[Mercury]] will be created once you save your edit.

However, when the same title might refer to more than one article, a link to that title can result in conflicts or confusion. In the example with Mecury, do you intend to link to Mercury the [[Mercury (element)|element]], the [[Mercury (planet)|planet]], the [[Mercury (automobile)|automobile brand]], the [[Mercury Records|record label]], the [[Project Mercury|NASA manned-spaceflight project]], the [[Mercury (plant)| plant]], or the [[Mercury (mythology)|Roman god]]? (Note: to see how the above links were created, see the article on [[Wikipedia:Piped link]]).

A disambiguation page or disambiguation link (on the main article) is required when there is more than one meaning for the same word or phrase. It lists every possible meaning (from meaning A, B, C... to the last) and their corresponding links. This lets the reader choose the right meaning or link based on the context of the article they are reading. Referring to the above example, a reader will select [[Mercury (planet)]] when it is looking for an article of the planet system.

Let's illustrate once more with another case. An editor forgets to specify the link and simply creates a link of [[Go]]. However the word ''Go'' may mean many things without the context. It may refer to the English usage of [[Go (verb)]]. Several board games are called ''Go'' too. There is also an airline company whose name is ''Go!''. When you see the word ''Go'' and wish to read further, the link will redirect you to the article of [[Go (board game)]] by default. However, this may not be desirable. There is a statement saying ''"Go" redirects here. For other uses, see [[Go (disambiguation)]].'' If you are looking for another meaning, simply click on [[Go (disambiguation)]]. Then you will go to another page which list every possible meanings of the word ''Go''. Select any one you think based on the context of the article you are reading.

'''Note''': Don't misinterpret that a [[wikipedia:disambiguation|disambiguation page]] is against the policy of [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|what Wikipedia is not]] regarding "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files". A disambiguation page is here to resolve conflicts of articles carrying essentially the same title. It is not just for a reference of links or anything similar to that.

==Type==
===Disambiguation pages===
These are pages which list any number of '''links to article pages''' that carry the same "simple" title, usually followed by a '''clarifying term''' or phrase in parentheses. These pages contain no detailed encyclopedic content themselves, but merely serve to redirect WP users to their desired Wikipedia target pages.

:''For a typical example of of a fairly extensive disambiguation page with multiple sections, see'' [[Mercury]], ''a disambiguation page listing links to over fifty article pages.''

:''For a less extensive example with a single section, see'' [[Stronger]].

===Main articles with disambiguation links===
If a word or phrase commonly refers to '''one major topic,''' simple '''one-word links''' to such ambiguous topics will redirect a user to a main article with the '''same one-word title,''' such as [[Bewitched]]. However, there should be a '''disambiguation statement''' at the top of that page which includes a link to the topic's '''disambiguation page,''' in this case, [[Bewitched (disambiguation)]] . For any readers looking for other meanings for the term "Bewitched", they may click on that link to load the disambiguation page.

A good example of this type of page is [[Go]]. It carries the following statement at the top:

{{redirect|Go}}

The disambiguation page for Go has over a dozen links listed, covering a handful of reference areas.

==Deciding to disambiguate==

===What to include===

====Confusing article or link titles====
Only possible titles of articles, or text appearing as links to them, which might suggest ambiguity or confusion should be considered to be put in a disambiguation page.

Ask yourself: When a reader enters a search term or phrase and pushes "[[Wikipedia:Go button|Go]]", what article might they realistically be expecting to view as a result? (For example, when someone looks up 'Joker', would they find information on a comedian? On a card? On Batman's nemesis?) When the risk of confusion is little to none, do not disambiguate, and don't add a link to a disambiguation page.

For example, in the disambiguation page for Go, it would be appropriate to include a link to the article about the Canadian radio program called [[Go (radio)|Go]] due to its confusing title. However it is not appropriate to add articles simply because their title uses the word in question (for example, [[Going to a Go-Go]] should be excluded since there is little chance of confusion).

===What not to include===

====Dictionary definitions or word variants====
Dictionary definitions don't belong here. Word variants or derivatives such as went, gone, going should be excluded (all of these variant links belong in [[Wiktionary]]).

However, you may add a link to Wiktionary by the use of templates. (See [[Wikipedia:How to link to Wikimedia projects#Wiktionary]])

====Duplicate topics====
Disambiguation should not be confused with the [[Wikipedia:Merge|merging]] of [[Wikipedia:Duplicate articles|duplicate articles]] (articles with different titles, but regarding the very same topic, for example "[[Gas Turbine]]" and "Gas turbine", or "[[restroom]]" and "washroom"). These are handled with [[Wikipedia:Redirect]]s.

====Lists====
Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong here. Disambiguation pages are not search indices. Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title (where there is no significant risk of confusion).

====List of ships====
{{main|Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships#Index Pages|Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships#Index page template}}

Lists consisting entirely of ships replace disambiguation pages. Where a vessel is listed among other entries by a hull number or other abbreviation, the entry should conform to the style for ships.

====Related links====
A disambiguation page is not a collection of links of related articles or terms or anything similar. It is not a page to gather related meaning or concepts into one location.

====Sister projects====
Disambiguation descriptions should not be created for subjects whose only articles are on pages of sister projects, even if the disambiguation page already exists (eg the [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation/Sep11|poll on 9/11 victims]]). Subjects that have articles on both Wikipedia and sister projects are, of course, fine.

====Summary or multi-stub pages====
Several small topics of just a paragraph or so each can co-exist on a single page, separated by headings. Although this is similar to a disambiguation page, the disambiguation notice '''should not''' be put here, as the page doesn't link to other articles closely associated with a specific term.

As each [[Wikipedia:section|section]] grows, there may come a time when a subject should have a page of its own. (See [[Wikipedia:Article size]] and [[Wikipedia:Summary style]].)

Although many pages rely on this principle, it has become more common for each subject to have a separate page for its own stub.

Always use {{tl|split}} or {{tl|splitsection}}, and reach consensus before attempting the split. [[WP:Bold]] doesn't apply, as it is very difficult to revert a split, often requiring extensive assistance by administrators.

==Guides on "main articles with disambiguation links"==
When a user searches for a particular term, she might expect a different article than what appears. Therefore, helpful links to any alternative articles with similar names are needed. One of the [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Template examples|templates]] shown below may be used. Their parameters are described in [[Template_talk:Otheruses4]].

===Top links===
If there are a pair of articles which ought to be disambiguated from each other, include a link to the "opposite" page in each. For example,
*[[50000 Quaoar]] uses the disambiguation template {{tl|Otheruses4}}:
{{Otheruses4|the trans-Neptunian object|the Tongva god|Quaoar (deity)}}

::Which is generated by entering: <nowiki>{{Otheruses4|the trans-Neptunian object|the Tongva god|Quaoar (deity)}}</nowiki>
::''Note that double brackets are'' '''not''' ''required within the template in order to generate the link.''

*Conversely, [[Quaoar (deity)]] also uses {{tl|Otheruses4}} but with the descriptive parameters "swapped", and a link back to the former article:
{{Otheruses4|the Tongva god|the trans-Neptunian object|50000 Quaoar}}

::Which is generated by entering: <nowiki>{{Otheruses4|the Tongva god|the trans-Neptunian object|50000 Quaoar}}</nowiki>
 
Where there are several articles to be disambiguated from each other, include a link to a separate [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation pages|disambiguation page]]. In many cases, the template {{tl|Otheruses}} is appropriate to link to that page. However, a variety of special cases are also handled. For example,
*[[Zürich]] uses the disambiguation template {{tl|Otheruses2}}, which generates:
{{otheruses2|Zurich}}

*Finally, [[Johann Sebastian Bach]] uses {{tl|Redirect}}, a different template incorporating ''redirect'' information:
{{redirect|Bach}}

Above all, don't [[Wikipedia:Piped link|pipe]] the link. Show the entire linked article title ''as is'', to avoid confusion, which is the reason for the top link in the first place.

===Bottom links===
Bottom links are deprecated. Such links are harder to find and easily missed.
For alternatives that are related to the article,
and not likely to be ambiguous, the "See also" [[Wikipedia:Section|Section]] is more appropriate.

===Template examples===
A number of [[Wikipedia:templates|templates]] have been created to ensure the uniform appearance of disambiguation links, some of which were previously outlined:
*{{tl|Otheruses}} This template automatically generates the article title (in this instance, "Disambiguation") so you don't have to retype it, or in case the page is moved to one with a new name.
{{Otheruses}}
*{{tl|Otheruses2}} This template requires a link be entered ("DifferentArticleName")
{{Otheruses2|DifferentArticleName}}
*{{tl|Otheruses4}} to disambiguate one other topic
{{Otheruses4|'''This Topic'''|'''Another Topic'''|DifferentArticleName}}
*{{tl|Otheruses-number}} for year pages (in this example, the title of this page appears rather than a 4-digit numeral)
{{Otheruses-number}}
*{{tl|Otherplaces}}, analogous to {{tl|Otheruses}}
{{Otherplaces}}
*{{tl|Otherplaces2}}, analogous to {{tl|Otheruses2}}
{{Otherplaces2|DifferentArticleName}}
*{{tl|Redirect}} In this example, the term "Lalala" has been entered as the parameter:
{{Redirect|Lalala}}

A longer, but incomplete list of disambiguation templates is found at [[Wikipedia:Template messages/General#Disambiguation]], with further style information at [[Wikipedia:Hatnotes#Templates]]. Many more templates are listed in [[:Category:Disambiguation and redirection templates]].

[[Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages|Links to disambiguation pages]] include the text "(disambiguation)" in the title (such as [[America (disambiguation)]]).

==Guides on "disambiguation pages"==
{{main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)}}

Each of these pages in Wikipedia comprise a list (or multiple lists, for multiple senses of the term in question) of similarly-titled links.
*Start each list with a short introductory sentence fragment, usually ending with a colon. For example:
::'''Blockbuster''' may mean:
*Use a '''bold page title''' in each list sentence fragment (as shown above for the term "Blockbuster").
*Start each entry in the list with a link to the target page.
*For sake of focus, don't link any other words in the entry.
*Only include related subject articles as long as the term in question is actually described on the target article. (For example, the [[Canton]] disambiguation page legitimately has an entry for [[Flag terminology]].)

Include the template {{tl|disambig}} at the bottom as an indicator of the page's status.
Following the template, include any of the standard categories as appropriate.

For a prime example of an actual disambiguation page, see [[Lift]].

===Preparation===
Before constructing a new disambiguation page, determine a [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Specific topic|Specific topic]] name for any and all existing pages, and a generic name for the disambiguation page.
Move any page with a conflicting title (i.e. the same exact title) to its more specific name.
Use the What links here list for the moved page to update all of the pages that [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguated topics|link to that page]] (more likely than not, a link in Wikipedia will point to your new disambiguation page unnecessarily, and this should be resolved on a case-by-case basis).

===Construction===
Assuming a [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Generic topic|Generic topic]] page,
use the What links here list of the moved page to access the redirect page created by the move, and replace that redirect page with the new disambiguation page.

Use the new disambiguation page to find and replace any old [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation links|disambiguation links]] in existing pages with a link to the new disambiguation page.

Note that the standard link templates will actually point to a ''[[Term XYZ (disambiguation)]]'' version of the new name.
Use the red-link on an existing page to create a [[Wikipedia:redirect|redirect]] page,
<code><nowiki>#REDIRECT [[Term XYZ]]{{R to disambiguation page}}</nowiki></code>

===Page naming conventions===
A disambiguation page may be [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions|named]] after the general term ("[[Term XYZ]]"), or may have a title like "[[Term XYZ (disambiguation)]]". Usually, there should be just one page for all [[Letter case|case]]s (upper- or lower-case) and variant punctuation.

:For example, "[[Term xyz]]", "[[Term Xyz]]", "[[Term X-Y-Z]]", and "[[Term X.Y.Z.]]" should all [[Wikipedia:redirect|redirect]] with the template {{tl|R to disambiguation page}} to one page.

====Generic topic====
In most cases, the generic term or phrase should be the [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions|title]] of the actual disambiguation page. This permits an editor to visually determine whether a disambiguating page is generic in [[:Category:Disambiguation]].

Pages that deliberately link to generic topic pages should use an unambiguous "(disambiguation)" page instead, to assist in distinguishing accidental links. In turn, the "(disambiguation)" page will [[Wikipedia:redirect|redirect]] to the generic topic page. This "(disambiguation)" redirect page should always be created for the [[Wikipedia:Links to (disambiguation) pages]] listing.

:For example, the specific topic [[Tables (board game)]] links to [[Table (disambiguation)]], a redirect to [[Table]] with the template {{tl|R to disambiguation page}}. [[Table]] is a generic topic disambiguation page.

====Primary topic====
When there is a well known '''primary meaning''' for a term or phrase (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles and consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation links|disambiguation link]] at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page.

Ensure that the "(disambiguation)" page links back to an unambiguous page name. The unambiguous page name should [[Wikipedia:redirect|redirect]] to the primary topic page. This assists future editors (and automated processes).

:For example, the primary topic [[Rome]] has a link at the top to [[Rome (disambiguation)]], where there is a link back via [[Rome, Italy]] (rather than directly to [[Rome]]).

====Specific topic====
For disambiguating specific topic pages, several options are available:
#When there is another word (such as [[Cheque]] instead of [[Check]]) or more complete name that is equally clear (such as [[Titan rocket]]), that should be used.
#A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses. The word or phrase in parentheses should be:
#*the generic ''class'' that includes the topic (for example, [[Mercury (element)]], [[Seal (mammal)]]); or
#*the ''subject'' or ''context'' to which the topic applies (for example, [[Union (set theory)]], [[Inflation (economics)]]).
#Rarely, an adjective describing the topic can be used, but it's usually better to rephrase the title to avoid parentheses.

If there is a choice between disambiguating with a generic class or with a context, choose whichever is simpler. Use the same disambiguating phrase for other topics within the same context.

:For example, "(mythology)" rather than "(mythological figure)".

If there is a choice between using a short phrase and word with context, there is no hard rule about which is preferred. Both may be created, with one redirecting to the other.

:For example, [[Mathematical analysis]] and [[Analysis (mathematics)]].

When the context is a book or other creative work, such as with articles about fictional characters, avoid lots of little stubs about fictional characters: [[Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction|check your fiction]].

To conform to the [[wikipedia:naming conventions|naming conventions]], the phrase in parentheses should be treated just as any other word in a title: normally lowercase, unless it is a proper noun that ''always'' appears capitalized even in running text (such as a book title).

For more on which word or phrase to insert in the parentheses, see [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions]] and [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions]].

==Links==
===Double disambiguation===
A double disambiguation is a link to a disambiguation page from another disambiguation page. This kind of disambiguation is typically more specific than one with a simplified name. These kind of disambiguations are relatively rare on [[Wikipedia]].

:For example, [[Defense]] is a disambiguation page that leads to [[Defense industry]], a secondary disambiguation page.

===Interlanguage links===
Pure disambiguation pages should contain interlanguage links only where a similar problem of disambiguation exists in the target language; that is, they should not point to a single meaning from the list of meanings, but to another disambiguation page.

===Links to disambiguated topics===
'''A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix all resulting mis-directed links.'''

Before creating a disambiguation page, click on What links here to find all of the pages that link to the page that is about to change. Make sure that those pages are fixed and that they won't be adversely affected when performing the {{tl|split}} or {{tl|splitsection}}.

When repairing a link, use [[Wikipedia:Piped link|pipe syntax]] so that the link does not contain the new qualifier.

:For example, when renaming ''Topic Name'' to ''Topic Name (qualifier)'', <nowiki>[[Topic Name (qualifier)|Topic Name]]</nowiki> will render as ''Topic Name'' just like the original.

A shorter alternative is to use empty pipe syntax, also known as the [[Help:Pipe trick|pipe trick]]. This allows editors to leave out the piped alternative when editing.

:For example, typing "<nowiki>[[Topic Name (qualifier)|]]</nowiki>" will automatically produce "<nowiki>[[Topic Name (qualifier)|Topic Name]]</nowiki>". Read [[Help:Pipe trick]] for more information.

Of course, the whole point of making a disambiguation page is that accidental links made to it will make sense. These [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links]] are periodically checked and repaired.

:There is a tool to facilitate this in the [http://sourceforge.net/projects/pywikipediabot/ Python Wikipedia Robot]. The [[Wikipedia:bot|bot]] offers to update links to choices listed on the disambiguation page. Don't forget to post a notice on the [[Wikipedia talk:Bots]] page.

===Links to disambiguation pages===
There is rarely a need for links directly to disambiguation pages—except from any primary topic. In most cases, links should point to the article that deals with the specific meaning intended.

To link to a disambiguation page (instead of a specific meaning), link to the redirect to the disambiguation page that includes the text "(disambiguation)" in the title (such as, [[America (disambiguation)]]). This helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones.

The Wikipedia software has a feature that lists "[[Special:Lonelypages|orphan]]" pages; that is, no other page links to them. But for disambiguating pages, that's perfectly correct: we usually want pages to link to the more specific pages.

In order to make the orphans list more useful by not cluttering it with intentional orphans, disambiguation pages are linked from:
*[[Wikipedia:Links to disambiguating pages]],
*[[Wikipedia:Links to (disambiguation) pages]],
*[[Wikipedia:Multiple-place names]], and
*[[Wikipedia:Non-unique personal name]].

When you create a disambiguation page, add a link to it in one of those pages as appropriate.

[[:Category:Disambiguation]] provides a complete list of disambiguation pages.

==See also==
* [[Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ]]
* [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]]
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation]]

===System pages===
* [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links]], an active Wiki fixup project

[[Category:Disambiguation | ]]
[[Category:Wikipedia style guidelines|{{PAGENAME}}]]

[[af:Wikipedia:Dubbelsinnigheid]]
[[als:Wikipedia:Begriffsklärung]]
[[an:Wikipedia:Pachina de desambigazión]]
[[ast:Uiquipedia:Páxina de dixebra]]
[[bg:Уикипедия:Пояснителна страница]]
[[ca:Ajuda:Pàgina de desambiguació]]
[[cs:Wikipedie:Rozcestníky]]
[[de:Wikipedia:Begriffsklärung]]
[[et:Vikipeedia:Täpsustuslehekülg]]
[[el:Βικιπαίδεια:Αποσαφήνιση]]
[[eo:Vikipedio:Apartigiloj]]
[[es:Wikipedia:Página de desambiguación]]
[[eu:Wikipedia:Argipen orri]]
[[fr:Aide:Homonymie]]
[[gl:Wikipedia:Homónimos]]
[[ko:위키백과:동음이의어 문서]]
[[hr:Wikipedija:Razdvojba]]
[[id:Wikipedia:Disambiguasi]]
[[ia:Wikipedia:Disambiguation]]
[[is:Wikipedia:Aðgreiningarsíður]]
[[it:Aiuto:Disambigua]]
[[he:ויקיפדיה:פירושונים]]
[[lt:Wikipedia:Nuorodiniai]]
[[lb:Wikipedia:Homonymie]]
[[hu:Wikipédia:Egyértelműsítő lapok]]
[[ms:Wikipedia:Nyahkekaburan]]
[[mo:Wikipedia:Дезамбигуйзаре]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Doorverwijspagina]]
[[nds:Wikipedia:Mehrdüdig Begreep]]
[[ja:Wikipedia:曖昧さ回避]]
[[no:Wikipedia:Flertydige titler]]
[[nn:Wikipedia:Fleirtyding]]
[[oc:Ajuda:Omonimia]]
[[pl:Wikipedia:Strony ujednoznaczniające]]
[[pt:Wikipedia:Desambiguação]]
[[ro:Wikipedia:Dezambiguizare]]
[[ru:Википедия:Страницы разрешения неоднозначностей]]
[[sq:Wikipedia:Kthjellime]]
[[scn:Aiutu:Disambiguazzioni]]
[[simple:Wikipedia:Disambiguation]]
[[sl:Wikipedija:Razločitev]]
[[sr:Википедија:Вишезначна одредница]]
[[fi:Wikipedia:Täsmennyssivu]]
[[sv:Wikipedia:Uppslagsord med flera betydelser]]
[[tl:Wikipedia:Paglilinaw]]
[[th:วิกิพีเดีย:การแก้ความกำกวม]]
[[vi:Wikipedia:Định hướng]]
[[tr:Vikipedi:Anlam ayrım]]
[[uk:Wikipedia:Багатозначність]]
[[wa:Wikipedia:Omonimeye]]
[[zh:Wikipedia:消歧义]]

Wikipedia:Disambiguation

2006-08-15T21:32:21Z

Wai Wai: bring back deleted example and note by Bkonrad on 12 August 2006

{{guideline|[[WP:D]] or [[WP:DAB]]}}
{{Guideline_list}}
'''Disambiguation''' in [[Wikipedia]] and other [[Wikimedia Foundation]] projects is the process of '''resolving ambiguity''' — the conflict occurs when '''a single term''' can be associated with '''more than one topic.''' In many cases, this word or phrase is the '''same natural title''' of more than one article. In other words, [[wiktionary:disambiguation|disambiguation]]s are paths leading to '''different topic pages''' that share essentially the same term in their title.

==Purpose==
In Wikipedia, creating an internal link is easy: Simply put <nowiki>[[double brackets]]</nowiki> around the word to create the link of that name/title. For example, if you wish to create a link to the topic Mercury, you should type it as <nowiki>[[Mercury]]</nowiki>. The link to [[Mercury]] will be created once you save your edit.

However, when the same title might refer to more than one article, a link to that title can result in conflicts or confusion. In the example with Mecury, do you intend to link to Mercury the [[Mercury (element)|element]], the [[Mercury (planet)|planet]], the [[Mercury (automobile)|automobile brand]], the [[Mercury Records|record label]], the [[Project Mercury|NASA manned-spaceflight project]], the [[Mercury (plant)| plant]], or the [[Mercury (mythology)|Roman god]]? (Note: to see how the above links were created, see the article on [[Wikipedia:Piped link]]).

A disambiguation page or disambiguation link (on the main article) is required when there is more than one meaning for the same word or phrase. It lists every possible meaning (from meaning A, B, C... to the last) and their corresponding links. This lets the reader choose the right meaning or link based on the context of the article they are reading. Referring to the above example, a reader will select [[Mercury (planet)]] when it is looking for an article of the planet system.

Let's illustrate once more with another case. An editor forgets to specify the link and simply creates a link of [[Go]]. However the word ''Go'' may mean many things without the context. It may refer to the English usage of [[Go (verb)]]. Several board games are called ''Go'' too. There is also an airline company whose name is ''Go!''. When you see the word ''Go'' and wish to read further, the link will redirect you to the article of [[Go (board game)]] by default. However, this may not be desirable. There is a statement saying ''"Go" redirects here. For other uses, see [[Go (disambiguation)]].'' If you are looking for another meaning, simply click on [[Go (disambiguation)]]. Then you will go to another page which list every possible meanings of the word ''Go''. Select any one you think based on the context of the article you are reading.

'''Note''': Don't misinterpret that a [[wikipedia:disambiguation|disambiguation page]] is against the policy of [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|what Wikipedia is not]] regarding "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files". A disambiguation page is here to resolve conflicts of articles carrying essentially the same title. It is not just for a reference of links or anything similar to that.

==Type==
===Disambiguation pages===
These are pages which list any number of '''links to article pages''' that carry the same "simple" title, usually followed by a '''clarifying term''' or phrase in parentheses. These pages contain no detailed encyclopedic content themselves, but merely serve to redirect WP users to their desired Wikipedia target pages.

:''For a typical example of of a fairly extensive disambiguation page with multiple sections, see'' [[Mercury]], ''a disambiguation page listing links to over fifty article pages.''

:''For a less extensive example with a single section, see'' [[Stronger]].

===Main articles with disambiguation links===
If a word or phrase commonly refers to '''one major topic,''' simple '''one-word links''' to such ambiguous topics will redirect a user to a main article with the '''same one-word title,''' such as [[Bewitched]]. However, there should be a '''disambiguation statement''' at the top of that page which includes a link to the topic's '''disambiguation page,''' in this case, [[Bewitched (disambiguation)]] . For any readers looking for other meanings for the term "Bewitched", they may click on that link to load the disambiguation page.

A good example of this type of page is [[Go]]. It carries the following statement at the top:

{{redirect|Go}}

The disambiguation page for Go has over a dozen links listed, covering a handful of reference areas.

==Deciding to disambiguate==

===What to include===

====Confusing article or link titles====
Only possible titles of articles, or text appearing as links to them, which might suggest ambiguity or confusion should be considered to be put in a disambiguation page.

Ask yourself: When a reader enters a search term or phrase and pushes "[[Wikipedia:Go button|Go]]", what article might they realistically be expecting to view as a result? (For example, when someone looks up 'Joker', would they find information on a comedian? On a card? On Batman's nemesis?) When the risk of confusion is little to none, do not disambiguate, and don't add a link to a disambiguation page.

For example, in the disambiguation page for Go, it would be appropriate to include a link to the article about the Canadian radio program called [[Go (radio)|Go]] due to its confusing title. However it is not appropriate to add articles simply because their title uses the word in question (for example, [[Going to a Go-Go]] should be excluded since there is little chance of confusion).

===What not to include===

====Dictionary definitions or word variants====
Dictionary definitions don't belong here. Word variants or derivatives such as went, gone, going should be excluded (all of these variant links belong in [[Wiktionary]]).

However, you may add a link to Wiktionary by the use of templates. (See [[Wikipedia:How to link to Wikimedia projects#Wiktionary]])

====Duplicate topics====
Disambiguation should not be confused with the [[Wikipedia:Merge|merging]] of [[Wikipedia:Duplicate articles|duplicate articles]] (articles with different titles, but regarding the very same topic, for example "[[Gas Turbine]]" and "Gas turbine", or "[[restroom]]" and "washroom"). These are handled with [[Wikipedia:Redirect]]s.

====Lists====
Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong here. Disambiguation pages are not search indices. Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title (where there is no significant risk of confusion).

====List of ships====
{{main|Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships#Index Pages|Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships#Index page template}}

Lists consisting entirely of ships replace disambiguation pages. Where a vessel is listed among other entries by a hull number or other abbreviation, the entry should conform to the style for ships.

====Related links====
A disambiguation page is not a collection of links of related articles or terms or anything similar. It is not a page to gather related meaning or concepts into one location.

====Sister projects====
Disambiguation descriptions should not be created for subjects whose only articles are on pages of sister projects, even if the disambiguation page already exists (eg the [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation/Sep11|poll on 9/11 victims]]). Subjects that have articles on both Wikipedia and sister projects are, of course, fine.

====Summary or multi-stub pages====
Several small topics of just a paragraph or so each can co-exist on a single page, separated by headings. Although this is similar to a disambiguation page, the disambiguation notice '''should not''' be put here, as the page doesn't link to other articles closely associated with a specific term.

As each [[Wikipedia:section|section]] grows, there may come a time when a subject should have a page of its own. (See [[Wikipedia:Article size]] and [[Wikipedia:Summary style]].)

Although many pages rely on this principle, it has become more common for each subject to have a separate page for its own stub.

Always use {{tl|split}} or {{tl|splitsection}}, and reach consensus before attempting the split. [[WP:Bold]] doesn't apply, as it is very difficult to revert a split, often requiring extensive assistance by administrators.

==Guides on "main articles with disambiguation links"==
When a user searches for a particular term, she might expect a different article than what appears. Therefore, helpful links to any alternative articles with similar names are needed. One of the [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Template examples|templates]] shown below may be used. Their parameters are described in [[Template_talk:Otheruses4]].

===Top links===
If there are a pair of articles which ought to be disambiguated from each other, include a link to the "opposite" page in each. For example,
*[[50000 Quaoar]] uses the disambiguation template {{tl|Otheruses4}}:
{{Otheruses4|the trans-Neptunian object|the Tongva god|Quaoar (deity)}}

::Which is generated by entering: <nowiki>{{Otheruses4|the trans-Neptunian object|the Tongva god|Quaoar (deity)}}</nowiki>
::''Note that double brackets are'' '''not''' ''required within the template in order to generate the link.''

*Conversely, [[Quaoar (deity)]] also uses {{tl|Otheruses4}} but with the descriptive parameters "swapped", and a link back to the former article:
{{Otheruses4|the Tongva god|the trans-Neptunian object|50000 Quaoar}}

::Which is generated by entering: <nowiki>{{Otheruses4|the Tongva god|the trans-Neptunian object|50000 Quaoar}}</nowiki>
 
Where there are several articles to be disambiguated from each other, include a link to a separate [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation pages|disambiguation page]]. In many cases, the template {{tl|Otheruses}} is appropriate to link to that page. However, a variety of special cases are also handled. For example,
*[[Zürich]] uses the disambiguation template {{tl|Otheruses2}}, which generates:
{{otheruses2|Zurich}}

*Finally, [[Johann Sebastian Bach]] uses {{tl|Redirect}}, a different template incorporating ''redirect'' information:
{{redirect|Bach}}

Above all, don't [[Wikipedia:Piped link|pipe]] the link. Show the entire linked article title ''as is'', to avoid confusion, which is the reason for the top link in the first place.

===Bottom links===
Bottom links are deprecated. Such links are harder to find and easily missed.
For alternatives that are related to the article,
and not likely to be ambiguous, the "See also" [[Wikipedia:Section|Section]] is more appropriate.

===Template examples===
A number of [[Wikipedia:templates|templates]] have been created to ensure the uniform appearance of disambiguation links, some of which were previously outlined:
*{{tl|Otheruses}} This template automatically generates the article title (in this instance, "Disambiguation") so you don't have to retype it, or in case the page is moved to one with a new name.
{{Otheruses}}
*{{tl|Otheruses2}} This template requires a link be entered ("DifferentArticleName")
{{Otheruses2|DifferentArticleName}}
*{{tl|Otheruses4}} to disambiguate one other topic
{{Otheruses4|'''This Topic'''|'''Another Topic'''|DifferentArticleName}}
*{{tl|Otheruses-number}} for year pages (in this example, the title of this page appears rather than a 4-digit numeral)
{{Otheruses-number}}
*{{tl|Otherplaces}}, analogous to {{tl|Otheruses}}
{{Otherplaces}}
*{{tl|Otherplaces2}}, analogous to {{tl|Otheruses2}}
{{Otherplaces2|DifferentArticleName}}
*{{tl|Redirect}} In this example, the term "Lalala" has been entered as the parameter:
{{Redirect|Lalala}}

A longer, but incomplete list of disambiguation templates is found at [[Wikipedia:Template messages/General#Disambiguation]], with further style information at [[Wikipedia:Hatnotes#Templates]]. Many more templates are listed in [[:Category:Disambiguation and redirection templates]].

[[Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages|Links to disambiguation pages]] include the text "(disambiguation)" in the title (such as [[America (disambiguation)]]).

==Guides on "disambiguation pages"==
{{main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)}}

Each of these pages in Wikipedia comprise a list (or multiple lists, for multiple senses of the term in question) of similarly-titled links.
*Start each list with a short introductory sentence fragment, usually ending with a colon. For example:
::'''Blockbuster''' may mean:
*Use a '''bold page title''' in each list sentence fragment (as shown above for the term "Blockbuster").
*Start each entry in the list with a link to the target page.
*For sake of focus, don't link any other words in the entry.
*Only include related subject articles as long as the term in question is actually described on the target article. (For example, the [[Canton]] disambiguation page legitimately has an entry for [[Flag terminology]].)

Include the template {{tl|disambig}} at the bottom as an indicator of the page's status.
Following the template, include any of the standard categories as appropriate.

For a prime example of an actual disambiguation page, see [[Lift]].

===Preparation===
Before constructing a new disambiguation page, determine a [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Specific topic|Specific topic]] name for any and all existing pages, and a generic name for the disambiguation page.
Move any page with a conflicting title (i.e. the same exact title) to its more specific name.
Use the What links here list for the moved page to update all of the pages that [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguated topics|link to that page]] (more likely than not, a link in Wikipedia will point to your new disambiguation page unnecessarily, and this should be resolved on a case-by-case basis).

===Construction===
Assuming a [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Generic topic|Generic topic]] page,
use the What links here list of the moved page to access the redirect page created by the move, and replace that redirect page with the new disambiguation page.

Use the new disambiguation page to find and replace any old [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation links|disambiguation links]] in existing pages with a link to the new disambiguation page.

Note that the standard link templates will actually point to a ''[[Term XYZ (disambiguation)]]'' version of the new name.
Use the red-link on an existing page to create a [[Wikipedia:redirect|redirect]] page,
<code><nowiki>#REDIRECT [[Term XYZ]]{{R to disambiguation page}}</nowiki></code>

===Page naming conventions===
A disambiguation page may be [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions|named]] after the general term ("[[Term XYZ]]"), or may have a title like "[[Term XYZ (disambiguation)]]". Usually, there should be just one page for all [[Letter case|case]]s (upper- or lower-case) and variant punctuation.

:For example, "[[Term xyz]]", "[[Term Xyz]]", "[[Term X-Y-Z]]", and "[[Term X.Y.Z.]]" should all [[Wikipedia:redirect|redirect]] with the template {{tl|R to disambiguation page}} to one page.

====Generic topic====
In most cases, the generic term or phrase should be the [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions|title]] of the actual disambiguation page. This permits an editor to visually determine whether a disambiguating page is generic in [[:Category:Disambiguation]].

Pages that deliberately link to generic topic pages should use an unambiguous "(disambiguation)" page instead, to assist in distinguishing accidental links. In turn, the "(disambiguation)" page will [[Wikipedia:redirect|redirect]] to the generic topic page. This "(disambiguation)" redirect page should always be created for the [[Wikipedia:Links to (disambiguation) pages]] listing.

:For example, the specific topic [[Tables (board game)]] links to [[Table (disambiguation)]], a redirect to [[Table]] with the template {{tl|R to disambiguation page}}. [[Table]] is a generic topic disambiguation page.

====Primary topic====
When there is a well known '''primary meaning''' for a term or phrase (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles and consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation links|disambiguation link]] at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page.

Ensure that the "(disambiguation)" page links back to an unambiguous page name. The unambiguous page name should [[Wikipedia:redirect|redirect]] to the primary topic page. This assists future editors (and automated processes).

:For example, the primary topic [[Rome]] has a link at the top to [[Rome (disambiguation)]], where there is a link back via [[Rome, Italy]] (rather than directly to [[Rome]]).

====Specific topic====
For disambiguating specific topic pages, several options are available:
#When there is another word (such as [[Cheque]] instead of [[Check]]) or more complete name that is equally clear (such as [[Titan rocket]]), that should be used.
#A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses. The word or phrase in parentheses should be:
#*the generic ''class'' that includes the topic (for example, [[Mercury (element)]], [[Seal (mammal)]]); or
#*the ''subject'' or ''context'' to which the topic applies (for example, [[Union (set theory)]], [[Inflation (economics)]]).
#Rarely, an adjective describing the topic can be used, but it's usually better to rephrase the title to avoid parentheses.

If there is a choice between disambiguating with a generic class or with a context, choose whichever is simpler. Use the same disambiguating phrase for other topics within the same context.

:For example, "(mythology)" rather than "(mythological figure)".

If there is a choice between using a short phrase and word with context, there is no hard rule about which is preferred. Both may be created, with one redirecting to the other.

:For example, [[Mathematical analysis]] and [[Analysis (mathematics)]].

When the context is a book or other creative work, such as with articles about fictional characters, avoid lots of little stubs about fictional characters: [[Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction|check your fiction]].

To conform to the [[wikipedia:naming conventions|naming conventions]], the phrase in parentheses should be treated just as any other word in a title: normally lowercase, unless it is a proper noun that ''always'' appears capitalized even in running text (such as a book title).

For more on which word or phrase to insert in the parentheses, see [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions]] and [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions]].

==Links==
===Double disambiguation===
A double disambiguation is a link to a disambiguation page from another disambiguation page. This kind of disambiguation is typically more specific than one with a simplified name. These kind of disambiguations are relatively rare on [[Wikipedia]].

:For example, [[Defense]] is a disambiguation page that leads to [[Defense industry]], a secondary disambiguation page.

===Interlanguage links===
Pure disambiguation pages should contain interlanguage links only where a similar problem of disambiguation exists in the target language; that is, they should not point to a single meaning from the list of meanings, but to another disambiguation page.

===Links to disambiguated topics===
'''A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix all resulting mis-directed links.'''

Before creating a disambiguation page, click on What links here to find all of the pages that link to the page that is about to change. Make sure that those pages are fixed and that they won't be adversely affected when performing the {{tl|split}} or {{tl|splitsection}}.

When repairing a link, use [[Wikipedia:Piped link|pipe syntax]] so that the link does not contain the new qualifier.

:For example, when renaming ''Topic Name'' to ''Topic Name (qualifier)'', <nowiki>[[Topic Name (qualifier)|Topic Name]]</nowiki> will render as ''Topic Name'' just like the original.

A shorter alternative is to use empty pipe syntax, also known as the [[Help:Pipe trick|pipe trick]]. This allows editors to leave out the piped alternative when editing.

:For example, typing "<nowiki>[[Topic Name (qualifier)|]]</nowiki>" will automatically produce "<nowiki>[[Topic Name (qualifier)|Topic Name]]</nowiki>". Read [[Help:Pipe trick]] for more information.

Of course, the whole point of making a disambiguation page is that accidental links made to it will make sense. These [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links]] are periodically checked and repaired.

:There is a tool to facilitate this in the [http://sourceforge.net/projects/pywikipediabot/ Python Wikipedia Robot]. The [[Wikipedia:bot|bot]] offers to update links to choices listed on the disambiguation page. Don't forget to post a notice on the [[Wikipedia talk:Bots]] page.

===Links to disambiguation pages===
There is rarely a need for links directly to disambiguation pages—except from any primary topic. In most cases, links should point to the article that deals with the specific meaning intended.

To link to a disambiguation page (instead of a specific meaning), link to the redirect to the disambiguation page that includes the text "(disambiguation)" in the title (such as, [[America (disambiguation)]]). This helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones.

The Wikipedia software has a feature that lists "[[Special:Lonelypages|orphan]]" pages; that is, no other page links to them. But for disambiguating pages, that's perfectly correct: we usually want pages to link to the more specific pages.

In order to make the orphans list more useful by not cluttering it with intentional orphans, disambiguation pages are linked from:
*[[Wikipedia:Links to disambiguating pages]],
*[[Wikipedia:Links to (disambiguation) pages]],
*[[Wikipedia:Multiple-place names]], and
*[[Wikipedia:Non-unique personal name]].

When you create a disambiguation page, add a link to it in one of those pages as appropriate.

[[:Category:Disambiguation]] provides a complete list of disambiguation pages.

==See also==
* [[Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ]]
* [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]]
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation]]

===System pages===
* [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links]], an active Wiki fixup project

[[Category:Disambiguation | ]]
[[Category:Wikipedia style guidelines|{{PAGENAME}}]]

[[af:Wikipedia:Dubbelsinnigheid]]
[[als:Wikipedia:Begriffsklärung]]
[[an:Wikipedia:Pachina de desambigazión]]
[[ast:Uiquipedia:Páxina de dixebra]]
[[bg:Уикипедия:Пояснителна страница]]
[[ca:Ajuda:Pàgina de desambiguació]]
[[cs:Wikipedie:Rozcestníky]]
[[de:Wikipedia:Begriffsklärung]]
[[et:Vikipeedia:Täpsustuslehekülg]]
[[el:Βικιπαίδεια:Αποσαφήνιση]]
[[eo:Vikipedio:Apartigiloj]]
[[es:Wikipedia:Página de desambiguación]]
[[eu:Wikipedia:Argipen orri]]
[[fr:Aide:Homonymie]]
[[gl:Wikipedia:Homónimos]]
[[ko:위키백과:동음이의어 문서]]
[[hr:Wikipedija:Razdvojba]]
[[id:Wikipedia:Disambiguasi]]
[[ia:Wikipedia:Disambiguation]]
[[is:Wikipedia:Aðgreiningarsíður]]
[[it:Aiuto:Disambigua]]
[[he:ויקיפדיה:פירושונים]]
[[lt:Wikipedia:Nuorodiniai]]
[[lb:Wikipedia:Homonymie]]
[[hu:Wikipédia:Egyértelműsítő lapok]]
[[ms:Wikipedia:Nyahkekaburan]]
[[mo:Wikipedia:Дезамбигуйзаре]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Doorverwijspagina]]
[[nds:Wikipedia:Mehrdüdig Begreep]]
[[ja:Wikipedia:曖昧さ回避]]
[[no:Wikipedia:Flertydige titler]]
[[nn:Wikipedia:Fleirtyding]]
[[oc:Ajuda:Omonimia]]
[[pl:Wikipedia:Strony ujednoznaczniające]]
[[pt:Wikipedia:Desambiguação]]
[[ro:Wikipedia:Dezambiguizare]]
[[ru:Википедия:Страницы разрешения неоднозначностей]]
[[sq:Wikipedia:Kthjellime]]
[[scn:Aiutu:Disambiguazzioni]]
[[simple:Wikipedia:Disambiguation]]
[[sl:Wikipedija:Razločitev]]
[[sr:Википедија:Вишезначна одредница]]
[[fi:Wikipedia:Täsmennyssivu]]
[[sv:Wikipedia:Uppslagsord med flera betydelser]]
[[tl:Wikipedia:Paglilinaw]]
[[th:วิกิพีเดีย:การแก้ความกำกวม]]
[[vi:Wikipedia:Định hướng]]
[[tr:Vikipedi:Anlam ayrım]]
[[uk:Wikipedia:Багатозначність]]
[[wa:Wikipedia:Omonimeye]]
[[zh:Wikipedia:消歧义]]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style

2006-08-15T21:25:14Z

Wai Wai: add "purpose of MoS and style guide"

:''This is the Wikipedia Manual of Style. For the article about Manuals of Style, see [[Style guide]].''
{{style-guideline|[[WP:MOS]], [[WP:STYLE]]}}


This '''Manual of Style''' has the simple purpose of making the encyclopedia easy to read and write by following a consistent format — it is a [[style guide]]. However the following rules should not be treated as the only standards of Wikipedia style. One way is often as good as any other. On the other hand, the following quotation from ''[[The Chicago Manual of Style]]'' is worth considering:
<blockquote>Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity.</blockquote>

'''Clear, informative, and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting'''. Wikipedia does not require writers to follow any of these rules, but their efforts will be more appreciated when they do — [[Wikipedia:Editing policy|the joy of wiki editing]] is that Wikipedia does not require perfection.

{{Style}}

__TOC__

==Principles==
The style guides are not set in stone and should not be treated absolutely or with no exception. There are cases where the guidelines do not apply, or another style or formatting is better than the suggested one. Please bear the following main principles in mind when reading the rest of the guidelines.

===Importance===
Wikipedia is intended to be a free encyclopedia, providing detailed and up-to-date knowledge to readers anywhere in the world. '''Clear, unambiguous, informative, and unbiased [[writing]] is always more important''' than presentation, style and formatting. Hence Wikipedia does not require any editor to follow all or any of these rules, but their efforts to do so will be appreciated.

===Consistency===
Wikipedia has established a style manual because following a consistent format makes reading easier, but the prescriptions of Wikipedia's Manual of Style are not binding.

Wikipedia does not require all editors to stick with only one single style or formatting. It is not essential that there be consistency across all articles in Wikipedia, but consistency should be maintained internally within an article, unless there are good reasons to vary.

===Flexibility===
Wikipedia has no firm rules apart from the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|5 fundamental principles]]. One style or formatting is often as good as any other, depending on different cases and situations. As long as the choice of style or formatting is acceptable, it is fine.

Strict and rigid rules may even hinder editor contributions and undermine the quality of the article. The following quotation from ''[[The Chicago Manual of Style]]'' deserves notice:
:"Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity."

===Variety===
Wikipedia allows multiple styles and respects different formatting and style as long as they are clear and unambiguous. When any of the style is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedian to change from one style to another unless there are some substantial reasons for the change.

For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is [[colour]] rather than [[color]], it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable.

However editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

See the ruling of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk|the case of Jguk]] for details.

===Clarity===
An article should be presented as clearly as possible. Ambiguity and confusion should be kept to a minimum. Do not use any style, formatting, or wording that causes ambiguity or confusion.

Something obvious in one country or region may not be so in another. Wikipedia is intended to be read worldwide, so if some style or formatting — even if standard — would cause confusion, do not use it.

==Style guide not applicable to direct quotations==
The style guide do not apply to direct quotations. Direct [[quotations]] (ie the word-for-word reproduction of a written or oral text) should ''not'' be altered to confirm any wikipedia formatting or style because the original source has to be kept intact (in verbatim), if at all possible.

For instance, the date in the following fictional quotation should not be linked (even if it is preferred in wikipedia):
:"Tony Blair, responding to critics in his party, said 'The world has totally changed since the 11th of September.' He was echoing earlier sentiments by Lord Ronald McDonald, who said that 'nine-eleven' was the day that the American public woke up to the reality of terrorism."

==Article titles==
{{main|Wikipedia:Naming conventions}}

If possible, make the title the ''[[subject (grammar)|subject]]'' of the first sentence of the article (as opposed to putting it in the [[Predicate (grammar)|predicate]]). For example, write "This Manual of Style is a style guide" instead of "This style guide is known as the Manual of Style". In any case, the title should appear as early as possible in the article — preferably in the first sentence.

The first time the article mentions the title, put it in bold using three apostrophes — <code><nowiki>'''article title'''</nowiki></code> produces '''article title'''. For example: "This '''Manual of Style''' is a style guide."

As a general rule, do not put links in
* the bold reiteration of the title in the article's lead sentence or
* any section title.
Also, try not to put other phrases in bold in the first sentence. An exception to this arises when an article has alternative titles, each of which an editor puts in bold; for example, [[Río de la Plata]]:
<blockquote>
The '''Río de la Plata''' (from [[Spanish language|Spanish]]: "River of [[Silver]]"), also known by the [[English language|English]] name '''River Plate''', as in the [[Battle of the River Plate]], or sometimes ['''La'''] '''Plata River'''
</blockquote>
Follow the normal rules for italics in choosing whether to put part or all of the title in italics:
<blockquote>
'''''Tattoo You''''' is an album by [[The Rolling Stones]], released in [[1981]].
</blockquote>

==Headings==
{{main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)}}

===Markup===
Use the <tt>==</tt> (two equal signs) style markup for headings, not the <nowiki>'''</nowiki> (triple apostrophes) used to make words appear '''bold''' in [[Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page#Character_formatting|character formatting]]. Start with <tt>==</tt>, add the heading title, then end with <tt>==</tt>.

===Wording===
*'''Capitalize''' the first letter only of the first word and of any [[Noun#Proper nouns and common nouns|proper nouns]] in a heading, and leave all of the other letters in lowercase. Use "Rules and regulations", not "Rules and Regulations".
*'''Avoid special characters''' in headings, such as an ampersand (&), a plus sign (+), curly braces ({}), or square braces ([]). In place of the ampersand, use the word "and" unless the ampersand is part of a formal name.
*Keep the heading '''short''': headings with more than 10 words may violate their purpose.
*Avoid '''unnecessary words or redundancy''' in headings: avoid "a/an/the", [[pronoun]]s, repeating the article title, and so on.
*Do not '''repeat any section title''': that is, do not make one section title conflict with another.

===Section management===
*'''Adding sub-headings is encouraged'''. It helps readers to browse, read and understand the article.
**Use sub-headings if the section becomes a bit long.
**Use proper sub-headings to flesh out your points.
*If at all possible, try '''not to change section headings and sub-headings'''. Other articles may link to a specific section. It will break the section links.
*If you link to a specific section, it is wise to '''leave an editor note''' <nowiki>  </nowiki> to remind others not to change the section title. Please leave the names of the linking articles, so when the title needs changing, it makes the job easier for others to fix the links.

==Capital letters==
{{main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)}}
[[American English]] and [[British English]] sometimes differ in their inclination to use capitals. If possible, as with spelling, use rules appropriate to the cultural and linguistic context. In other words, do not enforce American rules on pages about Commonwealth topics or Commonwealth rules on pages about American topics. In regard to pages about other cultures, choose either style, but be consistent within the page itself.

Initial capitals and all capitals should not be used for emphasis. For example, "aardvarks, which are Not The Same as anteaters" and "aardvarks, which are NOT THE SAME as anteaters" are both incorrect. Use italics instead ("aardvarks, which are ''not the same'' as anteaters").

===Titles===
Titles such as ''president'', ''king'', or ''emperor'' start with a capital letter when used as a title (followed by a name): "President Nixon", not "president Nixon". When used generically, they should be in lower case: "De Gaulle was the French president." The correct formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun. Hence: "Hirohito was Emperor of Japan." Similarly, "Louis XVI was the French king" but "Louis XVI was King of France", ''King of France'' being a title in that context. Likewise, capitalize royal titles: "Her Majesty" or "His Highness". (Reference: ''[[Chicago Manual of Style]]'' 14th ed., 7.16; [http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/page/0,5817,184841,00.html ''The Guardian Manual of Style''], "Titles" keyword.) Exceptions may apply for specific offices.

In the case of "prime minister", either both words begin with a capital letter or neither, except of course when it begins a sentence. Again, when using it generically, do not capitalize it: "There are many prime ministers around the world." When making reference to a specific office, generally use uppercase: "The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said today…" (A good rule of thumb is whether the sentence uses a definite article [the] or an indefinite article [a]. If the sentence uses ''the'', use "Prime Minister"; if ''a'', go with "prime minister". However to complicate matters, some style manuals, while saying "''The'' British Prime Minister", recommend "British prime minister".)

For the use of titles and honorifics in biographical articles, see [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific_prefixes]].

===Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines, and their adherents===
Names of religions, whether as a noun or an adjective, and their followers start with a capital letter. Mormonism has particular complications—see [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mormonism)]].

Deities begin with a capital letter: ''God'', ''Allah'', ''Freya'', ''the Lord'', ''the Supreme Being'', ''the Messiah''. The same is true when referring to important religious figures, such as Muhammad, by terms such as ''the Prophet''. Transcendent ideas in the Platonic sense also begin with a capital letter: ''Good'' and ''Truth''. Pronouns referring to deities, or nouns (other than names) referring to any material or abstract representation of any deity, human or otherwise, do not begin with a capital letter. Thus one would say, "He prayed to Wotan", since ''Wotan'' in this case, is a proper name it is correctly capitalized, but the common use of gods in this sense is not capitalized. The following sentence would be correct usage, "It was thought he prayed to God, but it turned out he prayed to one of the Norse gods."

Do not capitalize mythical creatures, such as elves, fairies, nymphs or genies. The exception is some works of fantasy, such as those of [[J. R. R. Tolkien]], where the viewer considers the mythical creatures an ethnicity and thus written with an initial capital.

Philosophies, doctrines, and systems of economic thought do ''not'' begin with a capital letter, unless the name derives from a proper noun: lowercase ''republican'' refers to a system of political thought; uppercase ''Republican'' refers to a specific [[Republican Party]] (each party name being a proper noun).

===Calendar items===
The names of months, days, and holidays always begin with a capital letter: June, Monday, Fourth of July (when referring to the [[Independence Day (United States)|U.S. Independence Day]], otherwise July 4 or 4 July).

Seasons start with a capital letter when they go with another noun or when they personify. Here they function as proper nouns: "Winter Solstice"; "Autumn Open House"; "I think Spring is showing her colors"; "Old Man Winter".

However, in the general sense, they do not start with a capital letter: "This summer was very hot."

===Animals, plants, and other organisms===
{{main|Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life#Article titles and common names|Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)}}

Editors have hotly debated whether the common names of species should start with a capital letter, and this remains unresolved. As a matter of truce, both styles are acceptable (except for proper names), but create a [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect]] from the alternative form.

===Celestial bodies===
Names of other planets and stars are proper nouns and begin with a capital letter: "The planet Mars can be seen tonight in the constellation Gemini, near the star Pollux."

The words ''sun'', ''earth'', and ''moon'' are proper nouns when the sentence uses them in an astronomical context, but not elsewhere: so "The Sun is a main sequence star, with a spectral class of G2"; but "It was a lovely day and the sun was warm". Note that these terms are proper nouns only when they refer to specific celestial bodies (our Sun, Earth and Moon): so "The Moon orbits the Earth"; but "Pluto's moon Charon".

===Directions and regions===
Regions that are proper nouns, including widely known expressions such as ''Southern California'', start with a capital letter. Follow the same convention for related forms: a person from the [[Southern United States]] is a ''Southerner''.

Directions (''north'', ''southwest'', etc.) are not proper nouns and do not start with a capital letter. The same is true for their related forms: someone might call a road that leads north a ''northern'' road, compared to the [[Great North Road (United Kingdom)|Great North Road]].

If you are not sure whether a region has attained proper-noun status, assume it has not.

===Institutions===
Proper names of specific institutions (for example, [[Harvard University]], [[New York-Presbyterian Hospital]], [[George Brown College]], etc.) are proper nouns and require capitalization.

However, the words for ''types'' of institutions (university, college, hospital, high school, etc.) do not require capitalization if they do not appear in a proper name:
;Incorrect:
:The University offers programs in arts and sciences.
;Correct:
:The university offers…'' or ''The University of Ottawa offers…

==Italics==
{{main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (italics)}}
Use the <code><nowiki>''</nowiki></code> (italic) markup. Example:

:<code><nowiki>''This is italic.''</nowiki></code>

which produces:

<div style="background-color: white">
:''This is italic.''
</div>

Italics are mainly used to ''emphasize'' certain words. Italics for emphasis should be used ''sparingly''.

They are also used in these other cases:
===Titles===
{{main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles)}}
Italics are used for the titles of works of literature and art. (The titles of articles, chapters, and other short works are not italicized but are enclosed in double quotation marks.)

===Words as words===
Use italics when writing about words as words, or letters as letters (to indicate the [[use-mention distinction]]). For example:

*''Deuce'' means "two".
*The term ''panning'' is derived from ''panorama'', a word coined in [[1787]].
*The most common letter in English is ''e''.

===Loan words===
Wikipedia prefers italics for isolated words and phrases from other languages not yet in common use in English. Use anglicized spellings for such words, or use the native spellings if they use the [[Latin alphabet]] (with or without [[diacritic]]s). For example, "Reading and writing in Japanese requires familiarity with ''[[hiragana]]'', ''[[katakana]]'', ''[[kanji]]'', and sometimes ''[[romaji|rōmaji]]''." Words or phrases that have common use in the English language, however—[[praetor]], [[Gestapo]], [[samurai]], [[esprit de corps]]—do not require italicization. If looking for a good rule of thumb, do not italicize words that appear unitalicized in an English-language dictionary. Per the [[Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Use other languages sparingly|guide to writing better Wikipedia articles]], use words from other languages sparingly. Include native spellings in non-Latin scripts in parentheses.

===Quotations===
There is normally no need to put quotations in italics unless the material would otherwise call for italics (emphasis, use of non-English words, etc.). Indicate whether using the italics in the original text or whether they were added later. For example:
<blockquote>Now cracks a noble heart. Good night sweet prince: And ''flights of angels'' sing thee to thy rest! (emphasis added)</blockquote>

==Punctuation==
In most cases, simply follow the usual rules of English punctuation. A few points where Wikipedia may differ from usual usage follow.

===Quotation marks===
With [[quotation marks]] we split the difference between American and British usage. Though not a rigid rule, we use the "double quotes" for most quotations—they are easier to read on the screen—and use 'single quotes' for nesting quotations, that is, "quotations 'within' quotations".

:'''Note:''' if a word or phrase appears in an article with single quotes, such as 'abcd', the [[Wikipedia:Searching]] facility considers the single quotes to be part of the word and will find that word or phrase only if the search string is also within single quotes. (When trying this out with the example mentioned, remember that this article is in the Wikipedia namespace.) Avoiding this complication is an additional reason to use double quotes, for which the difficulty does not arise. It may even be a reason to use double quotes for quotations within quotations.

When punctuating quoted passages, include the [[punctuation mark]] inside the quotation marks ''only if'' the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation ("logical" quotations). When using "[[scare quotes]]", the comma or period always goes outside.

Examples:

*Arthur said the situation was "deplorable". (The [[full stop]] [period] is not part of the quotation.)
*Arthur said, "The situation is deplorable." (The full sentence is quoted; the period is part of the quotation.)
*Arthur said that the situation was "the most deplorable [he] had seen in years." (Although the full sentence is not quoted, the sense of finality conveyed by the period is part of the quotation.)
*Martha asked, "Are you coming?" (Inside when quoting a question.)
*Did Martha say, "Come with me"? (Outside when there is a non-interrogative quotation at the end of a question.)

Similarly, when the title of an article requires quotation marks in the text (for example, the titles of songs, poems, etc.), the quotation marks should not be bolded in the summary, as they are not part of the title:

<blockquote>"'''Jabberwocky'''" is a nonsense poem by Lewis Carroll.</blockquote>

Longer quotations may be better rendered in an indented style by starting the first line with a colon or by using <nowiki> <blockquote> </blockquote> </nowiki> notation (see [[#Direct quotations]]), which indents both left and right margins. Indented quotations do not need to be marked by quotation marks. Double quotation marks belong at the beginning of each paragraph in a quotation of multiple paragraphs not using indented style, though at the end of only the last paragraph.

Use quotation marks or indentation to distinguish quotations from other text. There is normally no need to put quotations in italics unless the material would otherwise call for italics (emphasis, use of non-English words, etc.).

====Look of quotation marks and apostrophes====

There are two options when considering the look of the quotation marks themselves:

* [[Quotation_mark#Quotation marks in English|Typographic]] <big>“text”, ‘text’</big>
* [[Quotation_mark#Typewriter quotation marks|Typewriter]] <big>"text", 'text'</big>

As there is currently no consensus on which should be preferred, either is acceptable. However, it appears that historically the majority of Wikipedia articles, and those on the Internet as a whole, follow the latter style. If curved quotation marks or apostrophes appear in article titles, ensure that there is a redirect with straight glyphs.

Never use grave and acute accents or backticks (<big>`text´</big>) as quotation marks or apostrophes.

===Use of punctuation in presence of brackets/parentheses===
Punctuation goes where it belongs logically; that is, it goes with the text to which it belongs. A sentence wholly inside brackets will have its punctuation inside the brackets. (As shown here, this applies to all punctuation in the sentence.) If a sentence ends with a clause in brackets, the final punctuation stays outside the brackets (as shown here). This applies to square "[ ]" as well as round "( )" brackets (parentheses).

===Serial commas===
The [[serial comma]] (also known as the '''Oxford comma''' or '''Harvard comma''') is a comma used immediately before a conjunction in a list of three or more items. The phrase "ham, chips, and eggs" is written with a serial comma, but "ham, chips and eggs" is not. Sometimes omitting the comma can lead to an ambiguous sentence, as in this example: "The author would like to thank her parents, Sinéad O'Connor and President Bush." Sometimes including the comma can also lead to an ambiguous sentence, as in: "The author would like to thank her mother, Sinéad O'Connor, and President Bush" which may be a list of either two or three people. In such cases, there are three options for avoiding ambiguity:

* A choice can be made whether to use or omit the comma after the penultimate item in such a way as to avoid ambiguity.
* The sentence can be recast to avoid listing the items in an ambiguous manner.
* The items in the list can be presented using a formatted list.

If the presence of the final serial comma does not affect ambiguity of the sentence (as in most cases), there is no Wikipedia consensus on whether it should be used.



Some style authorities support a mandatory final serial comma. These include Fowler's ''[[Fowler's Modern English Usage|Modern English Usage]]'' (Brit.), the ''[[Chicago Manual of Style]]'' (Amer.), and [[Strunk and White]]'s ''[[The Elements of Style|Elements of Style]]'' (Amer.). Others recommend avoiding it where possible; these include ''[[The Times]]'' (Brit.), ''[[The New York Times]]'' (Amer.) and ''[[The Economist]]'' (Brit.). See [[serial comma]] for further authorities and discussion.

Proponents of the serial comma, such as ''The Elements of Style'', cite its disambiguating function and consistency as reasons for its use. Opponents consider it extraneous in situations where it is not explicitly resolving ambiguity. Many non-journalistic style guides recommend its use, while many newspaper style guides discourage its use; Wikipedia currently has no consensus, itself a position which allows either style and therefore allows avoidance of ambiguities like those above.

The serial comma should never be employed when specifying the name of a railroad or railway (for example, [[Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad]]). This is also the standard for [[law firm]]s and similar firms (for example, [[Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom]]).

===Colons===
[[Colon (punctuation)|Colons]] ( : ) should not have spaces before them:
;Correct:
:He attempted it in two years: 1941 and 1943
;Incorrect:
:He attempted it in two years : 1941 and 1943

===Dashes===
{{main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes)}}
The hyphen (-), en-dash (–) and em-dash (—) should be used in the correct context wherever possible. Other dashes, notably double-hyphen (--) should be avoided.

===Spaces after the end of a sentence===
There are no guidelines on whether to use one or two spaces after the end of a sentence ([[French spacing (English)|French spacing]]), but it is not important as the difference shows up only in the edit box. See [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style archive (spaces after a full stop/period)|Wikipedia talk: Manual of Style archive (spaces after the end of a sentence)]] for a discussion on this.

===Contractions===
In general, formal writing is preferred. Therefore, avoid the use of contractions — such as ''don't'', ''can't'', ''won't'', ''would've'', ''they'd'', and so on — unless they occur in a quotation.

===Slashes===
Avoid joining two words by a slash, as it suggests that they are related, but does not say how. Spell it out to avoid ambiguities. Also, the construct ''and/or'' is awkward outside of legal writing. Use "x or y, or both," to explicitly conjoin with the inclusive ''or'', or "either x or y, but not both," to explicitly specify the exclusive ''or''.

===Ellipsis===
''[[Ellipsis]]'', the dot-dot-dot indicating omitted text, should be separated from surrounding words by spaces, but not spaced when combined with other punctuation. The precomposed ellipsis character (&hellip; … ) may be used: it is intended to replace three dots, but looks a bit different in some fonts, so it may be better to just type the dots. To prevent the ellipsis from wrapping to the beginning of a line, you may enter a non-breaking space before it (&nbsp;... ).

Example: ''in the middle of a sentence ... or after a comma, ... before one..., and at the end.... Following a question...? Or even an exclamation...!''

==Acronyms and abbreviations==
{{main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations)}}
Do not assume that your reader is familiar with the acronym or abbreviation you are using. The standard writing style is to spell out the acronym or abbreviation on the first reference (wikilinked if appropriate) and then show the acronym or abbreviation after it. This signals to readers to look out for it later in the text and makes it easy for them to refer back to it. For example:

<blockquote>The [[Ontario New Democratic Party|New Democratic Party]] (NDP) won the [[Ontario general election, 1990|1990 Ontario election]] with a significant majority. The NDP quickly became unpopular with the voters, however…</blockquote>

It can also be helpful in a longer article to spell out the acronym or abbreviation for the reader
again or to rewikify it if it has not been used for a while.

When abbreviating ''United States'', please use "U.S."; that is the more common style in that country. When referring to the United States in a long abbreviation (USA, USN, USAF), periods should not be used. When including the United States in a list of countries, do not abbreviate the "United States" (for example, "France and the United States", not "France and the U.S.").

[[MediaWiki|The software]] that Wikipedia runs on does not currently support [[HTML]] acronym or abbreviation elements (<code><acronym></code> or <code><abbr></code>), so these tags should not be inserted into the source. (See [[Mediazilla:671]].)

==Direct quotations==
Use the exact same formatting as was used in the original written text being [[quotation|quoted]]; in general, do not alter it to conform to Wikipedia style. An exception is that if a quotation is enclosed in quotation marks and includes a quotation itself, any quotation within the quotation should have its quotation marks changed to conform to the Wikipedia style of alternating " and '. For instance, if an article were to quote a source containing the text
<blockquote>The statement "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is frequently misattributed to [[Voltaire]].</blockquote>
then the article would read:
<blockquote>According to source, "The statement 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it' is frequently misattributed to [[Voltaire]]."</blockquote>
not:
<blockquote>According to source, "The statement "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is frequently misattributed to [[Voltaire]]."</blockquote>
(Of course, if the original text followed the British standard of alternating ' and ", there would be no difference.)

When indenting a [[block quote]], use the [[HTML]] tag <code><blockquote></code>, not the wiki indentation mark <code>:</code>. (For the time being, <code><blockquote></code> will not work for multiparagraph quotes; you can manually add <code></code> tags to the beginning of paragraphs beyond the first, or just use <code>:</code> until the issue is resolved. See [[Mediazilla:6200]].)
;Good:
:<blockquote>Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.</blockquote>
;Bad:
::Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

==Pronunciation==
{{main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation)}}

==Scientific style==
{{main|Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions}}

*For [[Units of measurement|unit]]s of measure, use [[SI]] units as the main units in science articles, unless there are compelling historical or pragmatic reasons not to do so (for example, [[Hubble's constant]] should be quoted in its most common unit of ([[Kilometre|km]]/[[Second|s]])/[[Megaparsec|Mpc]] rather than its SI unit of [[Hertz|Hz]]). For other articles, either Imperial or metric units may be used as the main units of measurement. See [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of measurement]] for further guidance. Wikipedia Style for numbers is ''12,345,678.901''.
*In articles about [[chemical]]s and [[chemistry]], use the style of the [[IUPAC|International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry]] (IUPAC) for chemical names wherever possible except in article titles, where the common name should be used if different followed by mention of the IUPAC name. For general information see [[systematic name]], and for organic compounds in particular see [[IUPAC nomenclature]].
*In [[periodic table group]]s, use the ''new'' IUPAC names (these use [[Arabic numerals|Hindu-Arabic numerals]], not [[Roman numerals]] or letters).
*For [[mathematics]] and [[mathematical formula]]e, see [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics]].

==Sections==
{{main|Wikipedia:Section}}
{{see also|Wikipedia:Lead section}}
{{see also|Wikipedia:Guide to layout}}

==Simple tabulation==
Any line that starts with a blank space becomes a fixed font width and can be used for simple tabulation.

foo bar baz
alpha beta gamma

A line that starts with a blank space with nothing else on it forms a blank line.

For a complete guide to more complex tables see [[:Meta:Help:Table]].

==Usage and spelling==
===Usage===
*Possessives of singular nouns ending in ''s'' should generally maintain the additional ''s'' after the [[Apostrophe#Possessive_forms_of_nouns_ending_in_s|apostrophe]]. However, if a form without an ''s'' after the apostrophe is much more common for a particular word or phrase, follow that form, such as with "Moses' Laws" and "Jesus' tears".
*[[List of Latin abbreviations|Abbreviations of Latin terms]] like "i.e.", "e.g.", or "n.b.", or use of the Latin terms in full, such as "nota bene", or "vide infra", should be left as the original author wrote them. However, it should also be noted that articles that are intended for a general audience will be more widely understood if such terms are avoided and English terms such as "that is", "for example", or "note" are used instead.
*If a word or phrase is generally regarded as correct, then prefer it to any other word or phrase that might be regarded as incorrect. For example, "other meaning" should be used instead of "alternate meaning", since ''alternate'' only means "alternating" in British English.
*Use an unambiguous word or phrase in preference to an ambiguous one. For example, "other meaning" should be used instead of "alternative meaning", since ''alternative'' commonly suggests "nontraditional" or "out-of-the-mainstream" to an American-English speaker.

===Avoid self-referential pronouns===
Wikipedia articles must not be based on one person's opinions or experiences. Thus, "I" can never be used except, of course, when it appears in a quotation. For similar reasons, avoid the use of "we" and "one". A sentence such as "We/One should note that some critics have argued in favor of the proposal" sounds more personal than encyclopedic.

Nevertheless, it might sometimes be appropriate to use "we" or "one" when referring to an experience that ''anyone'', any reader, would be expected to have, such as general perceptual experiences. For example, although it might be best to write, "When most people open their eyes, they see something", it is still legitimate to write, "When we open our eyes, we see something", and it is certainly better than using the [[passive voice]]: "When the eyes are opened, something is seen."

It is also acceptable to use "we" in mathematical derivations; for example: "To [[Normalisation_of_a_wavefunction|normalize the wavefunction]], we need to find the value of the arbitrary constant ''A''."

===Avoid the second person===
Use of the second person ("you") is discouraged. This is to keep an encyclopedic tone and also to help clarify the sentence. Instead, refer to the subject of the sentence, for example:
*"When ''a player'' moves past 'go', ''that player'' collects $200."
**Or: "Players passing 'go' collect $200."
*'''Not:''' "When ''you'' move past 'go', ''you'' collect $200."
This does not apply to quoted text, which should be quoted exactly.

==National varieties of English==
{{see also|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling)}}

Cultural clashes over grammar, spelling, and capitalisation/capitalization are a common experience on Wikipedia. Remember that millions of people have been taught to use a different form of English from yours, including different spellings, grammatical constructions, and punctuation. For the English Wikipedia, while a nationally predominant form should be used, there is no preference among the major national varieties of English. However, there is certain etiquette generally accepted on Wikipedia, summarized here:

* Articles should use the same dialect throughout.
* If an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect.
* Where varieties of English differ over a certain word or phrase, try to find an alternative that is common to both.
* If no such words can be agreed upon, and there is no strong tie to a specific dialect, the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be used.

The special cases are clarified in the following guidelines. They are roughly in order; guidelines earlier in this list will usually take precedence over guidelines later:

*Proper names should retain their original spellings, for example, ''United States Department of Defense'' and ''Australian Defence Force''.
*Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings, which can be jarring to the reader. For example, do not use ''center'' in one place and ''centre'' in another in the same article (except in quotations or for comparison purposes).
*Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country. For example:
**Article on the [[American Civil War]]: [[American English]] usage and spelling
**Article on Tolkien's ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'': [[British English]] usage and spelling
**Article on [[Uluru]] (Ayers Rock): [[Australian English]] usage and spelling
**Article on [[List of European Union institutions|European Union institutions]]: British, [[Hiberno-English|Irish]] and Maltese English usage and spelling
**Article on the city of [[Montreal]]: [[Canadian English]] usage and spelling
**Article on [[Taj Mahal]]: [[Indian English]] usage and spelling.
*If the spelling appears in an article name, you should make a [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect]] page to accommodate the other variant, as with [[Artefact]] and [[Artifact]], or if possible ''and'' reasonable, a neutral word might be chosen as with [[stevedore]].
*''Words with multiple spellings'': In choosing words or expressions, there may be value in selecting one that does not have multiple spellings if there are synonyms that are otherwise equally suitable. In extreme cases of conflicting names, a contrived substitute (such as [[fixed-wing aircraft]]) is acceptable.
*If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another. (Sometimes, this can happen quite innocently, so please do not be too quick to make accusations!)
*Consult Wikipedia articles such as [[English plural]] and [[American and British English differences]].
*If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article.

Finally, in the event of conflicts on this issue, please remember that if the use of ''your'' preferred version of English seems like a matter of great national pride to you, the differences are actually relatively minor when you consider the many users who are not native English speakers at all and yet make significant contributions to the English-language Wikipedia, or how small the differences between national varieties are compared with other languages. There are many more productive and enjoyable ways to participate than worrying and fighting about which version of English to use on any particular page.

==Currency==

When including a price or currency, include only one. This should be the currency that fits best for that article. An '''incorrect''' example:

<blockquote>The object costs 300USD (160GBP, 280EURO).</blockquote>

This would be incorrect as there is no need to include multiple currencies. Also, as exchange rates vary with time, these figures will not remain correct.

However, if the figures are there in order to show a geographical variation in the amount (such as the cost of an item at release in different countries), then they can be included:

<blockquote>The object was released in the USA for $10, in the UK for £10 and in the rest of Europe for €12.</blockquote>

{{seealso|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Currency }}

==Time==
Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that will hopefully be read well into the future. Avoid words or phrases like '''recently''', '''last year''', '''soon''', '''modern''', '''new'''.

Whenever information may become dated, try to give the time at which it was accurate. Thus

'''Good''' = The university had an undergraduate enrollment of 8000 in 2003.

'''Bad''' = The university has an undergraduate enrollment of 8000.

Also, avoid phrases like "Mike Tyson was a professional boxer." That makes it sound like he is dead. Instead, use "Mike Tyson is a former professional boxer," unless the person really is dead.

==Big little long short==
Try to use accurate measurements whenever possible. Use specific information.

;Good
:The average male wallaby is 1.6 metres from head to tail.
;Bad
:The wallaby is small.

;Good
:The cyanobacterium ''Prochlorococcus marinus'' is 0.5 to 0.8 micrometres across.
;Bad
:Prochlorococcus marinus is a tiny cyanobacterium.

;Good
:The dugong swam down the coast in a herd five kilometres long and 300 metres wide.
;Bad
:The big herd of dugong stretched a long way down the coast.

==Images==
Some general guidelines which should be followed in the absence of a compelling reason not to:
*Start the article with a right-aligned image.
*When using multiple images in the same article, they can be staggered left-and-right (Example: [[Platypus]]).
*Avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other.
*Generally, we prefer right-alignment to left- or center-alignment. (Example: [[Race]]).
**However: portraits with the head looking to the right can be left-aligned (looking into the article) when this doesn't interfere with navigation or other elements. In such cases you may prefer to use <nowiki>{{TOCright}}</nowiki> or reverse the image as long as this doesn't alter non-symmetrical distinguishing features (Example: [[Mikhail Gorbachev]]'s birthmark) or make included text in the image unreadable.
*If there are too many images in a given article, consider using a gallery.
*Use {{[[Template:Commons|Commons]]}} to link to more images on Commons, wherever possible.
*Use captions to explain the relevance of the image to the article.
The current image markup language is more or less this:

<code><nowiki>[[Image:picture.jpg|120px|right|thumb|Insert caption here]]</nowiki></code>
{{see|Wikipedia:Picture tutorial}}

==Captions==
{{main|Wikipedia:Captions}}

Photos and other graphics should have captions unless they are "self-captioning", as in reproductions of album or book covers, or when the graphic is an unambiguous depiction of the subject of the article. For example, in a biography article, a caption is not needed for a portrait of the subject pictured alone; however, most entries use the name of the subject and the birth and death years and an approximation of the date when the image was taken: "John Smith (1812–95) circa 1880" or "John Smith (1812–95) on January 12, 1880 in Paris".

If the caption is a single sentence or a sentence fragment, it does not get a period at the end. If the caption contains more than one sentence, then each sentence should get a period at the end.

Captions should not be italicized unless they are book titles or related material. The caption always starts with a capital letter. Remember the full information concerning the image is contained in the image entry, so people looking for more information can click on the photo to see the full details.

==Bulleted items==
The following are rules for using lists of bulleted items:
* When using complete sentences, always use punctuation and a period at the end.
* Incomplete sentences don't need terminal punctuation.
* Do not mix sentence styles; use all complete sentences, or use all sentence fragments.
* Each entry begins with a capital letter, even if it is a sentence fragment.

==Identity==
This is perhaps one area where Wikipedians' flexibility and plurality are an asset, and where one would not wish all pages to look exactly alike. Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]] and [[Wikipedia:No original research|no original research]] policies always take precedence. However, here are some nonbinding guidelines that may help:
*Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves ([[self-identification]]). This can mean using the term an individual uses for himself/herself, or using the term a group most widely uses for itself. This includes referring to [[transgender]] individuals according to the name and pronoun they use to identify themselves.
*Use specific terminology: People from Ethiopia (a country in Africa) should be described as Ethiopian, not African.
*Do not assume that any one term is the most [[inclusive]] or [[accurate]].
*However, a more general name will often prove to be more neutral or more accurate. For example, a [[List of African-American composers]] is acceptable, though a [[List of composers of African descent]] may be more useful.
*If possible, terms used to describe people should be given in such a way that they [[grammatical modifier|qualify]] other nouns. Thus, ''black people'', not ''blacks''; ''gay people'', not ''gays''; and so forth.
*Also note: The term ''Arab'' refers to people and things of ethnic Arab origin. The term ''Arabic'' refers to the Arabic language or [[writing system]] (and related concepts). For example, "Not all Arab people write or converse in Arabic, but nearly all are familiar with Arabic numerals."

==Wikilinking==
{{main|Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context}}

Make only [[Wikipedia:links|links]] relevant to the context. It is not useful and can be very distracting to mark all possible words as hyperlinks. Links should add to the user's experience; they should not detract from it by making the article harder to read. A high density of links can draw attention away from the high-value links that you would like your readers to follow up. Redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder. A link is the equivalent of a footnote in a print medium. Imagine if every second word in an encyclopedia article were followed by "(see:)". Hence, the links should not be so numerous as to make the article harder to read.

Check links after they are wikified to make sure they direct to the correct concept; many dictionary words lead to disambiguation pages and not to complete articles on a concept. If an anchor (the label after a pound sign (#) in a URL) is available into a targeted page and is likely to remain stable and gets the reader to the relevant area significantly faster, then use it.

When wikilinks are rendered as URLs by the [[MediaWiki]] software, the initial character becomes capitalized and spaces are replaced by underscores. When including wikilinks in an article, there is no need to use capitalization or underscores, since the software produces them automatically. This feature makes it possible to avoid a [[:Help:piped link|piped link]] in many cases. The correct form in English orthography can be used as a straight link. Wikilinks that begin sentences or are proper nouns should be capitalized as normal.

===Dates===
{{see also|Wikipedia:As of|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)|Wikipedia:Build the web}}

Not every year listed in an article needs to be wikilinked. Ask yourself: will clicking on the year bring any useful information to the reader?

Do, however, wikilink years, using the <nowiki>[[As of XXXX]]</nowiki> form, when they refer to information that was current at the time of writing; this allows other editors to ensure that articles are kept up to date as time passes. Dates including a month and day should also be linked in order for user preferences on date formatting to work properly.

==Miscellaneous notes==
===When all else fails===
If this page does not specify which usage is preferred:
* Use other reliable resources as style guides, such as ''[[The Chicago Manual of Style]]'' (from the [[University of Chicago Press]]) or [[Fowler's Modern English Usage|Fowler's ''Modern English Usage'' (3rd edition)]] (from the [[Oxford University Press]])
* Discuss your problems or propose missing style guide on [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style]]
* Simply look around. Open articles for editing to see how editors have put it together. You can then close the window without saving changes if you like, but look around while you are there.

===Keep markup simple===
Use the simplest markup to display information in a useful and comprehensible way. Markup may appear differently in different browsers. Use HTML and CSS markup sparingly and only with good reason. Minimizing markup in entries allows easier editing.

In particular, do not use the CSS <code>float</code> or <code>line-height</code> properties because they break rendering on some browsers when large fonts are used.

===Formatting issues===
Formatting issues such as font size, blank space and color are issues for the Wikipedia site-wide [[Cascading Style Sheets|style sheet]] and should not be dealt with in articles except in special cases. If you absolutely must specify a font size, use a relative size, that is, <code>font-size: 80%</code>; not an absolute size, for example, <code>font-size: 8pt</code>. It is also almost never a good idea to use other style changes, such as font family or color.

Typically, the usage of custom font styles will
#reduce consistency - the text will no longer look uniform with typical text;
#reduce usability - it will likely be impossible for people with custom stylesheets (for accessibility reasons, for example) to override it, and it might clash with a different skin as well as bother people with [[color blindness]];
#increase arguments - there is the possibility of other Wikipedians disagreeing with choice of font style and starting a debate about it for aesthetic purposes.

For such reasons, it is typically not good practice to apply inline CSS for font attributes in articles.

==== Color coding ====
Using color ''alone'' to convey information ([[color coding]]) should not be done. This is not accessible to people with [[color blindness]] (especially [[monochromacy]]), viewing articles on black-and-white printouts, older monitors with fewer colors, monochrome LCD displays ([[Personal digital assistant|PDAs]], [[cell phone]]s), and so on.

If necessary, try to choose colors that are unambiguous when viewed by a person with red-green color blindness (the most common type). In general, this means that shades of red and green should not both be used as color codes in the same image. Viewing the page with [http://www.vischeck.com/vischeck/vischeckURL.php Vischeck] can help with deciding if the colors should be altered.

It is certainly acceptable to use color as an aid for those who can see it, but the information should still be accessible without it.

===Invisible comments===
Invisible comments are used to communicate with other editors in the article body. These comments are only visible when editing the page. It is invisible to ordinary readers.

Normally if an editor wants to discuss issues with other potential editors, they will do it on the talk page. However it sometimes makes more sense to put in the article body, because an editor would like to leave instructions to guide other editors when they edit this section, or leave reminders on specific issues (eg do not change the section title since others have linked here).

To do so, enclose the text which you intend to be read only by editors within <code></code>.

For example, the following:
:<code>Hello  world. </code>
is displayed as:

:Hello  world.

So the comment can be seen when viewing the wiki source (although not, incidentally, the HTML source).

'''Note''': Comments may introduce unwanted whitespace when put on certain places, such as the top of an article. Avoid placing comment fields in places where they might change the rendered result of the article.

===Legibility===
Consider the [[wiktionary:legible|legibility]] of what you are writing. Make your entry easy to read on a screen. Make judicious use of devices such as bulleted lists and bolding. For more on this, see [http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9710a.html "How Users Read on the Web"] by [[Jakob Nielsen (usability consultant)|Jakob Nielsen]].

==External links==
{{main|Wikipedia:External links}}
Links to websites outside of Wikipedia can be listed at the end of an article or embedded within the body of an article. The standard format for a list of links is to have a header named <code><nowiki>== External links ==</nowiki></code> followed by a bulleted list of links. External links should summarize the website's contents, and indicate why the website is relevant to the article. For example:

:<code><nowiki>*[http://www.aidsnews.org/ AIDS treatment news]</nowiki></code>

When wikified, the link will appear as:

*[http://www.aidsnews.org/ AIDS treatment news]

External links can be embedded in the body of an article to provide specific references. These links have no description other than an automatically generated number. For example:
:<code><nowiki>Sample text. [http://www.sample.com]</nowiki></code>

When wikified, the link will appear as:

:Sample text. [http://www.sample.com]

An embedded external link should be accompanied by a [[Wikipedia:Citing sources#How and where to cite sources|full citation]] in the article's References section.

==Submanuals==
{{col-start}}
{{col-break}}
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations)|Abbreviations]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (ALL CAPS)|ALL CAPS]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)|Biographies]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)|Capital letters]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (command-line examples)|Command-line examples]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes)|Dashes]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)|Dates and numbers]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)|Disambiguation pages]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (emphasis)|Emphasis]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)|Headings]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (italics)|Italics]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints)|Latter Day Saints]]
{{col-break}}
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (legal)|Legal]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)|Links]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works)|Lists of works]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics)|Mathematics]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music)|Music]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (national varieties of English)|National varieties of English]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation)|Pronunciation]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling)|Spelling]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (tables)|Tables]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles)|Titles]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)|Trademarks]]
{{col-break}}
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)|Writing about fiction]]
* Region-specific
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic)|Arabic]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles)|China-related articles]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ethiopia-related articles)|Ethiopia-related articles]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Indic-related articles)|Indic-related articles]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)|Ireland-related articles]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)|Islam-related articles]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)|Japan-related articles]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Korea-related articles)|Korea-related articles]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Philippine-related articles)|Philippine-related articles]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles)|Thailand-related articles]]
{{col-end}}

==See also==

*[[Style guide]], the Wikipedia entry on "style guides". Contains links to the online style guides of some magazines and newspapers.
*[[Wikipedia:Annotated article]] – the article contains annotations that show how it should be edited preferentially.
*[[Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes]] gives a list of common mistakes and how to avoid them.
*[[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages]] should define your attitude toward page updates.
*[[Wikipedia:Cite sources]] explains process and standards for citing references in articles.
*[[Wikipedia:Editing policy]] has even more editing guidelines.
*[[Wikipedia:Guide to layout]] is an example of how to lay out an article.
*[[Wikipedia:How to edit a page]] is a short primer on editing pages.
*[[Wikipedia:Introduction]] is a gentle introduction to the world of Wikipedia.
*[[Wikipedia:Perfect stub article]] shows what you should aim for at a minimum when starting a new article.
*[[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]] is the main stop for policies and, well, guidelines.
*[[Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Wiki markup|Wiki markup]] explains the mechanics of what codes are available to you when editing a page, to do things like titles, links, external links, and so on.
*[[Wikipedia:WikiProject]] sets out boilerplates for certain areas of knowledge.
*[[Meta:Reading level]] (discussion)

{{Writing guides}}

[[Category:Wikipedia style guidelines| ]]

[[ar:ويكيبيديا:دليل الأسلوب]]
[[ca:Viquipèdia:Llibre d'estil]]
[[cy:Wicipedia:Arddull]]
[[da:Wikipedia:Stilmanual]]
[[es:Wikipedia:Manual de estilo]]
[[eo:Vikipedio:Stilogvido]]
[[eu:Wikipedia:Estilo gida]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:شیوه‌نامه]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Conventions de style]]
[[ga:Vicipéid:Lámhleabhar Stíle]]
[[gl:Wikipedia:Libro de estilo]]
[[ko:위키백과:스타일북]]
[[id:Wikipedia:Panduan tata-letak]]
[[it:Aiuto:Manuale di stile]]
[[he:ויקיפדיה:המדריך לעיצוב דפים]]
[[ja:Wikipedia:スタイルマニュアル]]
[[mo:Википедия:Мануал де стил]]
[[ms:Wikipedia:Manual gaya penulisan]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Stijlgids]]
[[no:Wikipedia:Stilmanual]]
[[pt:Wikipedia:Livro de estilo]]
[[ro:Wikipedia:Manual de stil]]
[[sk:Wikipédia:Štylistická príručka]]
[[sl:Wikipedija:Slogovni priročnik]]
[[fi:Wikipedia:Tyyliopas]]
[[sv:Wikipedia:Rekommendationer]]
[[ta:விக்கிபீடியா:நடைக் கையேடு]]
[[th:วิกิพีเดีย:คู่มือในการเขียน]]
[[vi:Wikipedia:Cẩm nang về văn phong]]
[[tr:Vikipedi:Biçem el kitabı]]
[[zh:Wikipedia:格式手册]]
[[zh-min-nan:Wikipedia:Siá-chok ê kui-hoān]]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style

2006-08-15T21:22:20Z

Wai Wai: bring back the whole deleted materials done by Centrx on 13 August 2006

:''This is the Wikipedia Manual of Style. For the article about Manuals of Style, see [[Style guide]].''
{{style-guideline|[[WP:MOS]], [[WP:STYLE]]}}


If everyone follows this '''Manual of Style''', [[Wikipedia]] will be easier to use for readers and editors alike. On the other hand, the following quotation from ''[[The Chicago Manual of Style]]'' is worth considering:
<blockquote>Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity.</blockquote>

'''Clear, informative, and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting'''. Wikipedia does not require writers to follow any of these rules, but their efforts will be more appreciated when they do — [[Wikipedia:Editing policy|the joy of wiki editing]] is that Wikipedia does not require perfection.

{{Style}}

__TOC__

==Principles==
The style guides are not set in stone and should not be treated absolutely or with no exception. There are cases where the guidelines do not apply, or another style or formatting is better than the suggested one. Please bear the following main principles in mind when reading the rest of the guidelines.

===Importance===
Wikipedia is intended to be a free encyclopedia, providing detailed and up-to-date knowledge to readers anywhere in the world. '''Clear, unambiguous, informative, and unbiased [[writing]] is always more important''' than presentation, style and formatting. Hence Wikipedia does not require any editor to follow all or any of these rules, but their efforts to do so will be appreciated.

===Consistency===
Wikipedia has established a style manual because following a consistent format makes reading easier, but the prescriptions of Wikipedia's Manual of Style are not binding.

Wikipedia does not require all editors to stick with only one single style or formatting. It is not essential that there be consistency across all articles in Wikipedia, but consistency should be maintained internally within an article, unless there are good reasons to vary.

===Flexibility===
Wikipedia has no firm rules apart from the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|5 fundamental principles]]. One style or formatting is often as good as any other, depending on different cases and situations. As long as the choice of style or formatting is acceptable, it is fine.

Strict and rigid rules may even hinder editor contributions and undermine the quality of the article. The following quotation from ''[[The Chicago Manual of Style]]'' deserves notice:
:"Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity."

===Variety===
Wikipedia allows multiple styles and respects different formatting and style as long as they are clear and unambiguous. When any of the style is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedian to change from one style to another unless there are some substantial reasons for the change.

For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is [[colour]] rather than [[color]], it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable.

However editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

See the ruling of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk|the case of Jguk]] for details.

===Clarity===
An article should be presented as clearly as possible. Ambiguity and confusion should be kept to a minimum. Do not use any style, formatting, or wording that causes ambiguity or confusion.

Something obvious in one country or region may not be so in another. Wikipedia is intended to be read worldwide, so if some style or formatting — even if standard — would cause confusion, do not use it.

==Style guide not applicable to direct quotations==
The style guide do not apply to direct quotations. Direct [[quotations]] (ie the word-for-word reproduction of a written or oral text) should ''not'' be altered to confirm any wikipedia formatting or style because the original source has to be kept intact (in verbatim), if at all possible.

For instance, the date in the following fictional quotation should not be linked (even if it is preferred in wikipedia):
:"Tony Blair, responding to critics in his party, said 'The world has totally changed since the 11th of September.' He was echoing earlier sentiments by Lord Ronald McDonald, who said that 'nine-eleven' was the day that the American public woke up to the reality of terrorism."

==Article titles==
{{main|Wikipedia:Naming conventions}}

If possible, make the title the ''[[subject (grammar)|subject]]'' of the first sentence of the article (as opposed to putting it in the [[Predicate (grammar)|predicate]]). For example, write "This Manual of Style is a style guide" instead of "This style guide is known as the Manual of Style". In any case, the title should appear as early as possible in the article — preferably in the first sentence.

The first time the article mentions the title, put it in bold using three apostrophes — <code><nowiki>'''article title'''</nowiki></code> produces '''article title'''. For example: "This '''Manual of Style''' is a style guide."

As a general rule, do not put links in
* the bold reiteration of the title in the article's lead sentence or
* any section title.
Also, try not to put other phrases in bold in the first sentence. An exception to this arises when an article has alternative titles, each of which an editor puts in bold; for example, [[Río de la Plata]]:
<blockquote>
The '''Río de la Plata''' (from [[Spanish language|Spanish]]: "River of [[Silver]]"), also known by the [[English language|English]] name '''River Plate''', as in the [[Battle of the River Plate]], or sometimes ['''La'''] '''Plata River'''
</blockquote>
Follow the normal rules for italics in choosing whether to put part or all of the title in italics:
<blockquote>
'''''Tattoo You''''' is an album by [[The Rolling Stones]], released in [[1981]].
</blockquote>

==Headings==
{{main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)}}

===Markup===
Use the <tt>==</tt> (two equal signs) style markup for headings, not the <nowiki>'''</nowiki> (triple apostrophes) used to make words appear '''bold''' in [[Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page#Character_formatting|character formatting]]. Start with <tt>==</tt>, add the heading title, then end with <tt>==</tt>.

===Wording===
*'''Capitalize''' the first letter only of the first word and of any [[Noun#Proper nouns and common nouns|proper nouns]] in a heading, and leave all of the other letters in lowercase. Use "Rules and regulations", not "Rules and Regulations".
*'''Avoid special characters''' in headings, such as an ampersand (&), a plus sign (+), curly braces ({}), or square braces ([]). In place of the ampersand, use the word "and" unless the ampersand is part of a formal name.
*Keep the heading '''short''': headings with more than 10 words may violate their purpose.
*Avoid '''unnecessary words or redundancy''' in headings: avoid "a/an/the", [[pronoun]]s, repeating the article title, and so on.
*Do not '''repeat any section title''': that is, do not make one section title conflict with another.

===Section management===
*'''Adding sub-headings is encouraged'''. It helps readers to browse, read and understand the article.
**Use sub-headings if the section becomes a bit long.
**Use proper sub-headings to flesh out your points.
*If at all possible, try '''not to change section headings and sub-headings'''. Other articles may link to a specific section. It will break the section links.
*If you link to a specific section, it is wise to '''leave an editor note''' <nowiki>  </nowiki> to remind others not to change the section title. Please leave the names of the linking articles, so when the title needs changing, it makes the job easier for others to fix the links.

==Capital letters==
{{main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)}}
[[American English]] and [[British English]] sometimes differ in their inclination to use capitals. If possible, as with spelling, use rules appropriate to the cultural and linguistic context. In other words, do not enforce American rules on pages about Commonwealth topics or Commonwealth rules on pages about American topics. In regard to pages about other cultures, choose either style, but be consistent within the page itself.

Initial capitals and all capitals should not be used for emphasis. For example, "aardvarks, which are Not The Same as anteaters" and "aardvarks, which are NOT THE SAME as anteaters" are both incorrect. Use italics instead ("aardvarks, which are ''not the same'' as anteaters").

===Titles===
Titles such as ''president'', ''king'', or ''emperor'' start with a capital letter when used as a title (followed by a name): "President Nixon", not "president Nixon". When used generically, they should be in lower case: "De Gaulle was the French president." The correct formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun. Hence: "Hirohito was Emperor of Japan." Similarly, "Louis XVI was the French king" but "Louis XVI was King of France", ''King of France'' being a title in that context. Likewise, capitalize royal titles: "Her Majesty" or "His Highness". (Reference: ''[[Chicago Manual of Style]]'' 14th ed., 7.16; [http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/page/0,5817,184841,00.html ''The Guardian Manual of Style''], "Titles" keyword.) Exceptions may apply for specific offices.

In the case of "prime minister", either both words begin with a capital letter or neither, except of course when it begins a sentence. Again, when using it generically, do not capitalize it: "There are many prime ministers around the world." When making reference to a specific office, generally use uppercase: "The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said today…" (A good rule of thumb is whether the sentence uses a definite article [the] or an indefinite article [a]. If the sentence uses ''the'', use "Prime Minister"; if ''a'', go with "prime minister". However to complicate matters, some style manuals, while saying "''The'' British Prime Minister", recommend "British prime minister".)

For the use of titles and honorifics in biographical articles, see [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific_prefixes]].

===Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines, and their adherents===
Names of religions, whether as a noun or an adjective, and their followers start with a capital letter. Mormonism has particular complications—see [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mormonism)]].

Deities begin with a capital letter: ''God'', ''Allah'', ''Freya'', ''the Lord'', ''the Supreme Being'', ''the Messiah''. The same is true when referring to important religious figures, such as Muhammad, by terms such as ''the Prophet''. Transcendent ideas in the Platonic sense also begin with a capital letter: ''Good'' and ''Truth''. Pronouns referring to deities, or nouns (other than names) referring to any material or abstract representation of any deity, human or otherwise, do not begin with a capital letter. Thus one would say, "He prayed to Wotan", since ''Wotan'' in this case, is a proper name it is correctly capitalized, but the common use of gods in this sense is not capitalized. The following sentence would be correct usage, "It was thought he prayed to God, but it turned out he prayed to one of the Norse gods."

Do not capitalize mythical creatures, such as elves, fairies, nymphs or genies. The exception is some works of fantasy, such as those of [[J. R. R. Tolkien]], where the viewer considers the mythical creatures an ethnicity and thus written with an initial capital.

Philosophies, doctrines, and systems of economic thought do ''not'' begin with a capital letter, unless the name derives from a proper noun: lowercase ''republican'' refers to a system of political thought; uppercase ''Republican'' refers to a specific [[Republican Party]] (each party name being a proper noun).

===Calendar items===
The names of months, days, and holidays always begin with a capital letter: June, Monday, Fourth of July (when referring to the [[Independence Day (United States)|U.S. Independence Day]], otherwise July 4 or 4 July).

Seasons start with a capital letter when they go with another noun or when they personify. Here they function as proper nouns: "Winter Solstice"; "Autumn Open House"; "I think Spring is showing her colors"; "Old Man Winter".

However, in the general sense, they do not start with a capital letter: "This summer was very hot."

===Animals, plants, and other organisms===
{{main|Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life#Article titles and common names|Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)}}

Editors have hotly debated whether the common names of species should start with a capital letter, and this remains unresolved. As a matter of truce, both styles are acceptable (except for proper names), but create a [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect]] from the alternative form.

===Celestial bodies===
Names of other planets and stars are proper nouns and begin with a capital letter: "The planet Mars can be seen tonight in the constellation Gemini, near the star Pollux."

The words ''sun'', ''earth'', and ''moon'' are proper nouns when the sentence uses them in an astronomical context, but not elsewhere: so "The Sun is a main sequence star, with a spectral class of G2"; but "It was a lovely day and the sun was warm". Note that these terms are proper nouns only when they refer to specific celestial bodies (our Sun, Earth and Moon): so "The Moon orbits the Earth"; but "Pluto's moon Charon".

===Directions and regions===
Regions that are proper nouns, including widely known expressions such as ''Southern California'', start with a capital letter. Follow the same convention for related forms: a person from the [[Southern United States]] is a ''Southerner''.

Directions (''north'', ''southwest'', etc.) are not proper nouns and do not start with a capital letter. The same is true for their related forms: someone might call a road that leads north a ''northern'' road, compared to the [[Great North Road (United Kingdom)|Great North Road]].

If you are not sure whether a region has attained proper-noun status, assume it has not.

===Institutions===
Proper names of specific institutions (for example, [[Harvard University]], [[New York-Presbyterian Hospital]], [[George Brown College]], etc.) are proper nouns and require capitalization.

However, the words for ''types'' of institutions (university, college, hospital, high school, etc.) do not require capitalization if they do not appear in a proper name:
;Incorrect:
:The University offers programs in arts and sciences.
;Correct:
:The university offers…'' or ''The University of Ottawa offers…

==Italics==
{{main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (italics)}}
Use the <code><nowiki>''</nowiki></code> (italic) markup. Example:

:<code><nowiki>''This is italic.''</nowiki></code>

which produces:

<div style="background-color: white">
:''This is italic.''
</div>

Italics are mainly used to ''emphasize'' certain words. Italics for emphasis should be used ''sparingly''.

They are also used in these other cases:
===Titles===
{{main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles)}}
Italics are used for the titles of works of literature and art. (The titles of articles, chapters, and other short works are not italicized but are enclosed in double quotation marks.)

===Words as words===
Use italics when writing about words as words, or letters as letters (to indicate the [[use-mention distinction]]). For example:

*''Deuce'' means "two".
*The term ''panning'' is derived from ''panorama'', a word coined in [[1787]].
*The most common letter in English is ''e''.

===Loan words===
Wikipedia prefers italics for isolated words and phrases from other languages not yet in common use in English. Use anglicized spellings for such words, or use the native spellings if they use the [[Latin alphabet]] (with or without [[diacritic]]s). For example, "Reading and writing in Japanese requires familiarity with ''[[hiragana]]'', ''[[katakana]]'', ''[[kanji]]'', and sometimes ''[[romaji|rōmaji]]''." Words or phrases that have common use in the English language, however—[[praetor]], [[Gestapo]], [[samurai]], [[esprit de corps]]—do not require italicization. If looking for a good rule of thumb, do not italicize words that appear unitalicized in an English-language dictionary. Per the [[Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Use other languages sparingly|guide to writing better Wikipedia articles]], use words from other languages sparingly. Include native spellings in non-Latin scripts in parentheses.

===Quotations===
There is normally no need to put quotations in italics unless the material would otherwise call for italics (emphasis, use of non-English words, etc.). Indicate whether using the italics in the original text or whether they were added later. For example:
<blockquote>Now cracks a noble heart. Good night sweet prince: And ''flights of angels'' sing thee to thy rest! (emphasis added)</blockquote>

==Punctuation==
In most cases, simply follow the usual rules of English punctuation. A few points where Wikipedia may differ from usual usage follow.

===Quotation marks===
With [[quotation marks]] we split the difference between American and British usage. Though not a rigid rule, we use the "double quotes" for most quotations—they are easier to read on the screen—and use 'single quotes' for nesting quotations, that is, "quotations 'within' quotations".

:'''Note:''' if a word or phrase appears in an article with single quotes, such as 'abcd', the [[Wikipedia:Searching]] facility considers the single quotes to be part of the word and will find that word or phrase only if the search string is also within single quotes. (When trying this out with the example mentioned, remember that this article is in the Wikipedia namespace.) Avoiding this complication is an additional reason to use double quotes, for which the difficulty does not arise. It may even be a reason to use double quotes for quotations within quotations.

When punctuating quoted passages, include the [[punctuation mark]] inside the quotation marks ''only if'' the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation ("logical" quotations). When using "[[scare quotes]]", the comma or period always goes outside.

Examples:

*Arthur said the situation was "deplorable". (The [[full stop]] [period] is not part of the quotation.)
*Arthur said, "The situation is deplorable." (The full sentence is quoted; the period is part of the quotation.)
*Arthur said that the situation was "the most deplorable [he] had seen in years." (Although the full sentence is not quoted, the sense of finality conveyed by the period is part of the quotation.)
*Martha asked, "Are you coming?" (Inside when quoting a question.)
*Did Martha say, "Come with me"? (Outside when there is a non-interrogative quotation at the end of a question.)

Similarly, when the title of an article requires quotation marks in the text (for example, the titles of songs, poems, etc.), the quotation marks should not be bolded in the summary, as they are not part of the title:

<blockquote>"'''Jabberwocky'''" is a nonsense poem by Lewis Carroll.</blockquote>

Longer quotations may be better rendered in an indented style by starting the first line with a colon or by using <nowiki> <blockquote> </blockquote> </nowiki> notation (see [[#Direct quotations]]), which indents both left and right margins. Indented quotations do not need to be marked by quotation marks. Double quotation marks belong at the beginning of each paragraph in a quotation of multiple paragraphs not using indented style, though at the end of only the last paragraph.

Use quotation marks or indentation to distinguish quotations from other text. There is normally no need to put quotations in italics unless the material would otherwise call for italics (emphasis, use of non-English words, etc.).

====Look of quotation marks and apostrophes====

There are two options when considering the look of the quotation marks themselves:

* [[Quotation_mark#Quotation marks in English|Typographic]] <big>“text”, ‘text’</big>
* [[Quotation_mark#Typewriter quotation marks|Typewriter]] <big>"text", 'text'</big>

As there is currently no consensus on which should be preferred, either is acceptable. However, it appears that historically the majority of Wikipedia articles, and those on the Internet as a whole, follow the latter style. If curved quotation marks or apostrophes appear in article titles, ensure that there is a redirect with straight glyphs.

Never use grave and acute accents or backticks (<big>`text´</big>) as quotation marks or apostrophes.

===Use of punctuation in presence of brackets/parentheses===
Punctuation goes where it belongs logically; that is, it goes with the text to which it belongs. A sentence wholly inside brackets will have its punctuation inside the brackets. (As shown here, this applies to all punctuation in the sentence.) If a sentence ends with a clause in brackets, the final punctuation stays outside the brackets (as shown here). This applies to square "[ ]" as well as round "( )" brackets (parentheses).

===Serial commas===
The [[serial comma]] (also known as the '''Oxford comma''' or '''Harvard comma''') is a comma used immediately before a conjunction in a list of three or more items. The phrase "ham, chips, and eggs" is written with a serial comma, but "ham, chips and eggs" is not. Sometimes omitting the comma can lead to an ambiguous sentence, as in this example: "The author would like to thank her parents, Sinéad O'Connor and President Bush." Sometimes including the comma can also lead to an ambiguous sentence, as in: "The author would like to thank her mother, Sinéad O'Connor, and President Bush" which may be a list of either two or three people. In such cases, there are three options for avoiding ambiguity:

* A choice can be made whether to use or omit the comma after the penultimate item in such a way as to avoid ambiguity.
* The sentence can be recast to avoid listing the items in an ambiguous manner.
* The items in the list can be presented using a formatted list.

If the presence of the final serial comma does not affect ambiguity of the sentence (as in most cases), there is no Wikipedia consensus on whether it should be used.



Some style authorities support a mandatory final serial comma. These include Fowler's ''[[Fowler's Modern English Usage|Modern English Usage]]'' (Brit.), the ''[[Chicago Manual of Style]]'' (Amer.), and [[Strunk and White]]'s ''[[The Elements of Style|Elements of Style]]'' (Amer.). Others recommend avoiding it where possible; these include ''[[The Times]]'' (Brit.), ''[[The New York Times]]'' (Amer.) and ''[[The Economist]]'' (Brit.). See [[serial comma]] for further authorities and discussion.

Proponents of the serial comma, such as ''The Elements of Style'', cite its disambiguating function and consistency as reasons for its use. Opponents consider it extraneous in situations where it is not explicitly resolving ambiguity. Many non-journalistic style guides recommend its use, while many newspaper style guides discourage its use; Wikipedia currently has no consensus, itself a position which allows either style and therefore allows avoidance of ambiguities like those above.

The serial comma should never be employed when specifying the name of a railroad or railway (for example, [[Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad]]). This is also the standard for [[law firm]]s and similar firms (for example, [[Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom]]).

===Colons===
[[Colon (punctuation)|Colons]] ( : ) should not have spaces before them:
;Correct:
:He attempted it in two years: 1941 and 1943
;Incorrect:
:He attempted it in two years : 1941 and 1943

===Dashes===
{{main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes)}}
The hyphen (-), en-dash (–) and em-dash (—) should be used in the correct context wherever possible. Other dashes, notably double-hyphen (--) should be avoided.

===Spaces after the end of a sentence===
There are no guidelines on whether to use one or two spaces after the end of a sentence ([[French spacing (English)|French spacing]]), but it is not important as the difference shows up only in the edit box. See [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style archive (spaces after a full stop/period)|Wikipedia talk: Manual of Style archive (spaces after the end of a sentence)]] for a discussion on this.

===Contractions===
In general, formal writing is preferred. Therefore, avoid the use of contractions — such as ''don't'', ''can't'', ''won't'', ''would've'', ''they'd'', and so on — unless they occur in a quotation.

===Slashes===
Avoid joining two words by a slash, as it suggests that they are related, but does not say how. Spell it out to avoid ambiguities. Also, the construct ''and/or'' is awkward outside of legal writing. Use "x or y, or both," to explicitly conjoin with the inclusive ''or'', or "either x or y, but not both," to explicitly specify the exclusive ''or''.

===Ellipsis===
''[[Ellipsis]]'', the dot-dot-dot indicating omitted text, should be separated from surrounding words by spaces, but not spaced when combined with other punctuation. The precomposed ellipsis character (&hellip; … ) may be used: it is intended to replace three dots, but looks a bit different in some fonts, so it may be better to just type the dots. To prevent the ellipsis from wrapping to the beginning of a line, you may enter a non-breaking space before it (&nbsp;... ).

Example: ''in the middle of a sentence ... or after a comma, ... before one..., and at the end.... Following a question...? Or even an exclamation...!''

==Acronyms and abbreviations==
{{main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations)}}
Do not assume that your reader is familiar with the acronym or abbreviation you are using. The standard writing style is to spell out the acronym or abbreviation on the first reference (wikilinked if appropriate) and then show the acronym or abbreviation after it. This signals to readers to look out for it later in the text and makes it easy for them to refer back to it. For example:

<blockquote>The [[Ontario New Democratic Party|New Democratic Party]] (NDP) won the [[Ontario general election, 1990|1990 Ontario election]] with a significant majority. The NDP quickly became unpopular with the voters, however…</blockquote>

It can also be helpful in a longer article to spell out the acronym or abbreviation for the reader
again or to rewikify it if it has not been used for a while.

When abbreviating ''United States'', please use "U.S."; that is the more common style in that country. When referring to the United States in a long abbreviation (USA, USN, USAF), periods should not be used. When including the United States in a list of countries, do not abbreviate the "United States" (for example, "France and the United States", not "France and the U.S.").

[[MediaWiki|The software]] that Wikipedia runs on does not currently support [[HTML]] acronym or abbreviation elements (<code><acronym></code> or <code><abbr></code>), so these tags should not be inserted into the source. (See [[Mediazilla:671]].)

==Direct quotations==
Use the exact same formatting as was used in the original written text being [[quotation|quoted]]; in general, do not alter it to conform to Wikipedia style. An exception is that if a quotation is enclosed in quotation marks and includes a quotation itself, any quotation within the quotation should have its quotation marks changed to conform to the Wikipedia style of alternating " and '. For instance, if an article were to quote a source containing the text
<blockquote>The statement "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is frequently misattributed to [[Voltaire]].</blockquote>
then the article would read:
<blockquote>According to source, "The statement 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it' is frequently misattributed to [[Voltaire]]."</blockquote>
not:
<blockquote>According to source, "The statement "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is frequently misattributed to [[Voltaire]]."</blockquote>
(Of course, if the original text followed the British standard of alternating ' and ", there would be no difference.)

When indenting a [[block quote]], use the [[HTML]] tag <code><blockquote></code>, not the wiki indentation mark <code>:</code>. (For the time being, <code><blockquote></code> will not work for multiparagraph quotes; you can manually add <code></code> tags to the beginning of paragraphs beyond the first, or just use <code>:</code> until the issue is resolved. See [[Mediazilla:6200]].)
;Good:
:<blockquote>Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.</blockquote>
;Bad:
::Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

==Pronunciation==
{{main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation)}}

==Scientific style==
{{main|Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions}}

*For [[Units of measurement|unit]]s of measure, use [[SI]] units as the main units in science articles, unless there are compelling historical or pragmatic reasons not to do so (for example, [[Hubble's constant]] should be quoted in its most common unit of ([[Kilometre|km]]/[[Second|s]])/[[Megaparsec|Mpc]] rather than its SI unit of [[Hertz|Hz]]). For other articles, either Imperial or metric units may be used as the main units of measurement. See [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of measurement]] for further guidance. Wikipedia Style for numbers is ''12,345,678.901''.
*In articles about [[chemical]]s and [[chemistry]], use the style of the [[IUPAC|International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry]] (IUPAC) for chemical names wherever possible except in article titles, where the common name should be used if different followed by mention of the IUPAC name. For general information see [[systematic name]], and for organic compounds in particular see [[IUPAC nomenclature]].
*In [[periodic table group]]s, use the ''new'' IUPAC names (these use [[Arabic numerals|Hindu-Arabic numerals]], not [[Roman numerals]] or letters).
*For [[mathematics]] and [[mathematical formula]]e, see [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics]].

==Sections==
{{main|Wikipedia:Section}}
{{see also|Wikipedia:Lead section}}
{{see also|Wikipedia:Guide to layout}}

==Simple tabulation==
Any line that starts with a blank space becomes a fixed font width and can be used for simple tabulation.

foo bar baz
alpha beta gamma

A line that starts with a blank space with nothing else on it forms a blank line.

For a complete guide to more complex tables see [[:Meta:Help:Table]].

==Usage and spelling==
===Usage===
*Possessives of singular nouns ending in ''s'' should generally maintain the additional ''s'' after the [[Apostrophe#Possessive_forms_of_nouns_ending_in_s|apostrophe]]. However, if a form without an ''s'' after the apostrophe is much more common for a particular word or phrase, follow that form, such as with "Moses' Laws" and "Jesus' tears".
*[[List of Latin abbreviations|Abbreviations of Latin terms]] like "i.e.", "e.g.", or "n.b.", or use of the Latin terms in full, such as "nota bene", or "vide infra", should be left as the original author wrote them. However, it should also be noted that articles that are intended for a general audience will be more widely understood if such terms are avoided and English terms such as "that is", "for example", or "note" are used instead.
*If a word or phrase is generally regarded as correct, then prefer it to any other word or phrase that might be regarded as incorrect. For example, "other meaning" should be used instead of "alternate meaning", since ''alternate'' only means "alternating" in British English.
*Use an unambiguous word or phrase in preference to an ambiguous one. For example, "other meaning" should be used instead of "alternative meaning", since ''alternative'' commonly suggests "nontraditional" or "out-of-the-mainstream" to an American-English speaker.

===Avoid self-referential pronouns===
Wikipedia articles must not be based on one person's opinions or experiences. Thus, "I" can never be used except, of course, when it appears in a quotation. For similar reasons, avoid the use of "we" and "one". A sentence such as "We/One should note that some critics have argued in favor of the proposal" sounds more personal than encyclopedic.

Nevertheless, it might sometimes be appropriate to use "we" or "one" when referring to an experience that ''anyone'', any reader, would be expected to have, such as general perceptual experiences. For example, although it might be best to write, "When most people open their eyes, they see something", it is still legitimate to write, "When we open our eyes, we see something", and it is certainly better than using the [[passive voice]]: "When the eyes are opened, something is seen."

It is also acceptable to use "we" in mathematical derivations; for example: "To [[Normalisation_of_a_wavefunction|normalize the wavefunction]], we need to find the value of the arbitrary constant ''A''."

===Avoid the second person===
Use of the second person ("you") is discouraged. This is to keep an encyclopedic tone and also to help clarify the sentence. Instead, refer to the subject of the sentence, for example:
*"When ''a player'' moves past 'go', ''that player'' collects $200."
**Or: "Players passing 'go' collect $200."
*'''Not:''' "When ''you'' move past 'go', ''you'' collect $200."
This does not apply to quoted text, which should be quoted exactly.

==National varieties of English==
{{see also|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling)}}

Cultural clashes over grammar, spelling, and capitalisation/capitalization are a common experience on Wikipedia. Remember that millions of people have been taught to use a different form of English from yours, including different spellings, grammatical constructions, and punctuation. For the English Wikipedia, while a nationally predominant form should be used, there is no preference among the major national varieties of English. However, there is certain etiquette generally accepted on Wikipedia, summarized here:

* Articles should use the same dialect throughout.
* If an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect.
* Where varieties of English differ over a certain word or phrase, try to find an alternative that is common to both.
* If no such words can be agreed upon, and there is no strong tie to a specific dialect, the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be used.

The special cases are clarified in the following guidelines. They are roughly in order; guidelines earlier in this list will usually take precedence over guidelines later:

*Proper names should retain their original spellings, for example, ''United States Department of Defense'' and ''Australian Defence Force''.
*Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings, which can be jarring to the reader. For example, do not use ''center'' in one place and ''centre'' in another in the same article (except in quotations or for comparison purposes).
*Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country. For example:
**Article on the [[American Civil War]]: [[American English]] usage and spelling
**Article on Tolkien's ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'': [[British English]] usage and spelling
**Article on [[Uluru]] (Ayers Rock): [[Australian English]] usage and spelling
**Article on [[List of European Union institutions|European Union institutions]]: British, [[Hiberno-English|Irish]] and Maltese English usage and spelling
**Article on the city of [[Montreal]]: [[Canadian English]] usage and spelling
**Article on [[Taj Mahal]]: [[Indian English]] usage and spelling.
*If the spelling appears in an article name, you should make a [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect]] page to accommodate the other variant, as with [[Artefact]] and [[Artifact]], or if possible ''and'' reasonable, a neutral word might be chosen as with [[stevedore]].
*''Words with multiple spellings'': In choosing words or expressions, there may be value in selecting one that does not have multiple spellings if there are synonyms that are otherwise equally suitable. In extreme cases of conflicting names, a contrived substitute (such as [[fixed-wing aircraft]]) is acceptable.
*If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another. (Sometimes, this can happen quite innocently, so please do not be too quick to make accusations!)
*Consult Wikipedia articles such as [[English plural]] and [[American and British English differences]].
*If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article.

Finally, in the event of conflicts on this issue, please remember that if the use of ''your'' preferred version of English seems like a matter of great national pride to you, the differences are actually relatively minor when you consider the many users who are not native English speakers at all and yet make significant contributions to the English-language Wikipedia, or how small the differences between national varieties are compared with other languages. There are many more productive and enjoyable ways to participate than worrying and fighting about which version of English to use on any particular page.

==Currency==

When including a price or currency, include only one. This should be the currency that fits best for that article. An '''incorrect''' example:

<blockquote>The object costs 300USD (160GBP, 280EURO).</blockquote>

This would be incorrect as there is no need to include multiple currencies. Also, as exchange rates vary with time, these figures will not remain correct.

However, if the figures are there in order to show a geographical variation in the amount (such as the cost of an item at release in different countries), then they can be included:

<blockquote>The object was released in the USA for $10, in the UK for £10 and in the rest of Europe for €12.</blockquote>

{{seealso|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Currency }}

==Time==
Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that will hopefully be read well into the future. Avoid words or phrases like '''recently''', '''last year''', '''soon''', '''modern''', '''new'''.

Whenever information may become dated, try to give the time at which it was accurate. Thus

'''Good''' = The university had an undergraduate enrollment of 8000 in 2003.

'''Bad''' = The university has an undergraduate enrollment of 8000.

Also, avoid phrases like "Mike Tyson was a professional boxer." That makes it sound like he is dead. Instead, use "Mike Tyson is a former professional boxer," unless the person really is dead.

==Big little long short==
Try to use accurate measurements whenever possible. Use specific information.

;Good
:The average male wallaby is 1.6 metres from head to tail.
;Bad
:The wallaby is small.

;Good
:The cyanobacterium ''Prochlorococcus marinus'' is 0.5 to 0.8 micrometres across.
;Bad
:Prochlorococcus marinus is a tiny cyanobacterium.

;Good
:The dugong swam down the coast in a herd five kilometres long and 300 metres wide.
;Bad
:The big herd of dugong stretched a long way down the coast.

==Images==
Some general guidelines which should be followed in the absence of a compelling reason not to:
*Start the article with a right-aligned image.
*When using multiple images in the same article, they can be staggered left-and-right (Example: [[Platypus]]).
*Avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other.
*Generally, we prefer right-alignment to left- or center-alignment. (Example: [[Race]]).
**However: portraits with the head looking to the right can be left-aligned (looking into the article) when this doesn't interfere with navigation or other elements. In such cases you may prefer to use <nowiki>{{TOCright}}</nowiki> or reverse the image as long as this doesn't alter non-symmetrical distinguishing features (Example: [[Mikhail Gorbachev]]'s birthmark) or make included text in the image unreadable.
*If there are too many images in a given article, consider using a gallery.
*Use {{[[Template:Commons|Commons]]}} to link to more images on Commons, wherever possible.
*Use captions to explain the relevance of the image to the article.
The current image markup language is more or less this:

<code><nowiki>[[Image:picture.jpg|120px|right|thumb|Insert caption here]]</nowiki></code>
{{see|Wikipedia:Picture tutorial}}

==Captions==
{{main|Wikipedia:Captions}}

Photos and other graphics should have captions unless they are "self-captioning", as in reproductions of album or book covers, or when the graphic is an unambiguous depiction of the subject of the article. For example, in a biography article, a caption is not needed for a portrait of the subject pictured alone; however, most entries use the name of the subject and the birth and death years and an approximation of the date when the image was taken: "John Smith (1812–95) circa 1880" or "John Smith (1812–95) on January 12, 1880 in Paris".

If the caption is a single sentence or a sentence fragment, it does not get a period at the end. If the caption contains more than one sentence, then each sentence should get a period at the end.

Captions should not be italicized unless they are book titles or related material. The caption always starts with a capital letter. Remember the full information concerning the image is contained in the image entry, so people looking for more information can click on the photo to see the full details.

==Bulleted items==
The following are rules for using lists of bulleted items:
* When using complete sentences, always use punctuation and a period at the end.
* Incomplete sentences don't need terminal punctuation.
* Do not mix sentence styles; use all complete sentences, or use all sentence fragments.
* Each entry begins with a capital letter, even if it is a sentence fragment.

==Identity==
This is perhaps one area where Wikipedians' flexibility and plurality are an asset, and where one would not wish all pages to look exactly alike. Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]] and [[Wikipedia:No original research|no original research]] policies always take precedence. However, here are some nonbinding guidelines that may help:
*Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves ([[self-identification]]). This can mean using the term an individual uses for himself/herself, or using the term a group most widely uses for itself. This includes referring to [[transgender]] individuals according to the name and pronoun they use to identify themselves.
*Use specific terminology: People from Ethiopia (a country in Africa) should be described as Ethiopian, not African.
*Do not assume that any one term is the most [[inclusive]] or [[accurate]].
*However, a more general name will often prove to be more neutral or more accurate. For example, a [[List of African-American composers]] is acceptable, though a [[List of composers of African descent]] may be more useful.
*If possible, terms used to describe people should be given in such a way that they [[grammatical modifier|qualify]] other nouns. Thus, ''black people'', not ''blacks''; ''gay people'', not ''gays''; and so forth.
*Also note: The term ''Arab'' refers to people and things of ethnic Arab origin. The term ''Arabic'' refers to the Arabic language or [[writing system]] (and related concepts). For example, "Not all Arab people write or converse in Arabic, but nearly all are familiar with Arabic numerals."

==Wikilinking==
{{main|Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context}}

Make only [[Wikipedia:links|links]] relevant to the context. It is not useful and can be very distracting to mark all possible words as hyperlinks. Links should add to the user's experience; they should not detract from it by making the article harder to read. A high density of links can draw attention away from the high-value links that you would like your readers to follow up. Redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder. A link is the equivalent of a footnote in a print medium. Imagine if every second word in an encyclopedia article were followed by "(see:)". Hence, the links should not be so numerous as to make the article harder to read.

Check links after they are wikified to make sure they direct to the correct concept; many dictionary words lead to disambiguation pages and not to complete articles on a concept. If an anchor (the label after a pound sign (#) in a URL) is available into a targeted page and is likely to remain stable and gets the reader to the relevant area significantly faster, then use it.

When wikilinks are rendered as URLs by the [[MediaWiki]] software, the initial character becomes capitalized and spaces are replaced by underscores. When including wikilinks in an article, there is no need to use capitalization or underscores, since the software produces them automatically. This feature makes it possible to avoid a [[:Help:piped link|piped link]] in many cases. The correct form in English orthography can be used as a straight link. Wikilinks that begin sentences or are proper nouns should be capitalized as normal.

===Dates===
{{see also|Wikipedia:As of|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)|Wikipedia:Build the web}}

Not every year listed in an article needs to be wikilinked. Ask yourself: will clicking on the year bring any useful information to the reader?

Do, however, wikilink years, using the <nowiki>[[As of XXXX]]</nowiki> form, when they refer to information that was current at the time of writing; this allows other editors to ensure that articles are kept up to date as time passes. Dates including a month and day should also be linked in order for user preferences on date formatting to work properly.

==Miscellaneous notes==
===When all else fails===
If this page does not specify which usage is preferred:
* Use other reliable resources as style guides, such as ''[[The Chicago Manual of Style]]'' (from the [[University of Chicago Press]]) or [[Fowler's Modern English Usage|Fowler's ''Modern English Usage'' (3rd edition)]] (from the [[Oxford University Press]])
* Discuss your problems or propose missing style guide on [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style]]
* Simply look around. Open articles for editing to see how editors have put it together. You can then close the window without saving changes if you like, but look around while you are there.

===Keep markup simple===
Use the simplest markup to display information in a useful and comprehensible way. Markup may appear differently in different browsers. Use HTML and CSS markup sparingly and only with good reason. Minimizing markup in entries allows easier editing.

In particular, do not use the CSS <code>float</code> or <code>line-height</code> properties because they break rendering on some browsers when large fonts are used.

===Formatting issues===
Formatting issues such as font size, blank space and color are issues for the Wikipedia site-wide [[Cascading Style Sheets|style sheet]] and should not be dealt with in articles except in special cases. If you absolutely must specify a font size, use a relative size, that is, <code>font-size: 80%</code>; not an absolute size, for example, <code>font-size: 8pt</code>. It is also almost never a good idea to use other style changes, such as font family or color.

Typically, the usage of custom font styles will
#reduce consistency - the text will no longer look uniform with typical text;
#reduce usability - it will likely be impossible for people with custom stylesheets (for accessibility reasons, for example) to override it, and it might clash with a different skin as well as bother people with [[color blindness]];
#increase arguments - there is the possibility of other Wikipedians disagreeing with choice of font style and starting a debate about it for aesthetic purposes.

For such reasons, it is typically not good practice to apply inline CSS for font attributes in articles.

==== Color coding ====
Using color ''alone'' to convey information ([[color coding]]) should not be done. This is not accessible to people with [[color blindness]] (especially [[monochromacy]]), viewing articles on black-and-white printouts, older monitors with fewer colors, monochrome LCD displays ([[Personal digital assistant|PDAs]], [[cell phone]]s), and so on.

If necessary, try to choose colors that are unambiguous when viewed by a person with red-green color blindness (the most common type). In general, this means that shades of red and green should not both be used as color codes in the same image. Viewing the page with [http://www.vischeck.com/vischeck/vischeckURL.php Vischeck] can help with deciding if the colors should be altered.

It is certainly acceptable to use color as an aid for those who can see it, but the information should still be accessible without it.

===Invisible comments===
Invisible comments are used to communicate with other editors in the article body. These comments are only visible when editing the page. It is invisible to ordinary readers.

Normally if an editor wants to discuss issues with other potential editors, they will do it on the talk page. However it sometimes makes more sense to put in the article body, because an editor would like to leave instructions to guide other editors when they edit this section, or leave reminders on specific issues (eg do not change the section title since others have linked here).

To do so, enclose the text which you intend to be read only by editors within <code></code>.

For example, the following:
:<code>Hello  world. </code>
is displayed as:

:Hello  world.

So the comment can be seen when viewing the wiki source (although not, incidentally, the HTML source).

'''Note''': Comments may introduce unwanted whitespace when put on certain places, such as the top of an article. Avoid placing comment fields in places where they might change the rendered result of the article.

===Legibility===
Consider the [[wiktionary:legible|legibility]] of what you are writing. Make your entry easy to read on a screen. Make judicious use of devices such as bulleted lists and bolding. For more on this, see [http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9710a.html "How Users Read on the Web"] by [[Jakob Nielsen (usability consultant)|Jakob Nielsen]].

==External links==
{{main|Wikipedia:External links}}
Links to websites outside of Wikipedia can be listed at the end of an article or embedded within the body of an article. The standard format for a list of links is to have a header named <code><nowiki>== External links ==</nowiki></code> followed by a bulleted list of links. External links should summarize the website's contents, and indicate why the website is relevant to the article. For example:

:<code><nowiki>*[http://www.aidsnews.org/ AIDS treatment news]</nowiki></code>

When wikified, the link will appear as:

*[http://www.aidsnews.org/ AIDS treatment news]

External links can be embedded in the body of an article to provide specific references. These links have no description other than an automatically generated number. For example:
:<code><nowiki>Sample text. [http://www.sample.com]</nowiki></code>

When wikified, the link will appear as:

:Sample text. [http://www.sample.com]

An embedded external link should be accompanied by a [[Wikipedia:Citing sources#How and where to cite sources|full citation]] in the article's References section.

==Submanuals==
{{col-start}}
{{col-break}}
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations)|Abbreviations]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (ALL CAPS)|ALL CAPS]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)|Biographies]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)|Capital letters]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (command-line examples)|Command-line examples]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes)|Dashes]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)|Dates and numbers]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)|Disambiguation pages]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (emphasis)|Emphasis]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)|Headings]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (italics)|Italics]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints)|Latter Day Saints]]
{{col-break}}
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (legal)|Legal]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)|Links]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works)|Lists of works]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics)|Mathematics]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music)|Music]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (national varieties of English)|National varieties of English]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation)|Pronunciation]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling)|Spelling]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (tables)|Tables]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles)|Titles]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)|Trademarks]]
{{col-break}}
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)|Writing about fiction]]
* Region-specific
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic)|Arabic]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles)|China-related articles]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ethiopia-related articles)|Ethiopia-related articles]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Indic-related articles)|Indic-related articles]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)|Ireland-related articles]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)|Islam-related articles]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)|Japan-related articles]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Korea-related articles)|Korea-related articles]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Philippine-related articles)|Philippine-related articles]]
** [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles)|Thailand-related articles]]
{{col-end}}

==See also==

*[[Style guide]], the Wikipedia entry on "style guides". Contains links to the online style guides of some magazines and newspapers.
*[[Wikipedia:Annotated article]] – the article contains annotations that show how it should be edited preferentially.
*[[Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes]] gives a list of common mistakes and how to avoid them.
*[[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages]] should define your attitude toward page updates.
*[[Wikipedia:Cite sources]] explains process and standards for citing references in articles.
*[[Wikipedia:Editing policy]] has even more editing guidelines.
*[[Wikipedia:Guide to layout]] is an example of how to lay out an article.
*[[Wikipedia:How to edit a page]] is a short primer on editing pages.
*[[Wikipedia:Introduction]] is a gentle introduction to the world of Wikipedia.
*[[Wikipedia:Perfect stub article]] shows what you should aim for at a minimum when starting a new article.
*[[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]] is the main stop for policies and, well, guidelines.
*[[Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Wiki markup|Wiki markup]] explains the mechanics of what codes are available to you when editing a page, to do things like titles, links, external links, and so on.
*[[Wikipedia:WikiProject]] sets out boilerplates for certain areas of knowledge.
*[[Meta:Reading level]] (discussion)

{{Writing guides}}

[[Category:Wikipedia style guidelines| ]]

[[ar:ويكيبيديا:دليل الأسلوب]]
[[ca:Viquipèdia:Llibre d'estil]]
[[cy:Wicipedia:Arddull]]
[[da:Wikipedia:Stilmanual]]
[[es:Wikipedia:Manual de estilo]]
[[eo:Vikipedio:Stilogvido]]
[[eu:Wikipedia:Estilo gida]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:شیوه‌نامه]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Conventions de style]]
[[ga:Vicipéid:Lámhleabhar Stíle]]
[[gl:Wikipedia:Libro de estilo]]
[[ko:위키백과:스타일북]]
[[id:Wikipedia:Panduan tata-letak]]
[[it:Aiuto:Manuale di stile]]
[[he:ויקיפדיה:המדריך לעיצוב דפים]]
[[ja:Wikipedia:スタイルマニュアル]]
[[mo:Википедия:Мануал де стил]]
[[ms:Wikipedia:Manual gaya penulisan]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Stijlgids]]
[[no:Wikipedia:Stilmanual]]
[[pt:Wikipedia:Livro de estilo]]
[[ro:Wikipedia:Manual de stil]]
[[sk:Wikipédia:Štylistická príručka]]
[[sl:Wikipedija:Slogovni priročnik]]
[[fi:Wikipedia:Tyyliopas]]
[[sv:Wikipedia:Rekommendationer]]
[[ta:விக்கிபீடியா:நடைக் கையேடு]]
[[th:วิกิพีเดีย:คู่มือในการเขียน]]
[[vi:Wikipedia:Cẩm nang về văn phong]]
[[tr:Vikipedi:Biçem el kitabı]]
[[zh:Wikipedia:格式手册]]
[[zh-min-nan:Wikipedia:Siá-chok ê kui-hoān]]

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

2006-08-15T21:07:58Z

Wai Wai: My proposed changes

==Archives==
{| class="infobox" width="270px"
|-
!align="center"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]] [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|
*[[/archive1|1]], [[/archive2|2]], [[/archive3|3]], [[/archive4|4]], [[/archive5|5]], ''[[/vote|5a]]'', [[/archive6|6]], [[/archive7|7]], [[/archive8|8]], [[/archive9|9]], [[/archive10|10]],
*[[/archive11|11]], [[/archive12|12]], [[/archive13|13]], [[/archive14|14]], ''[[/archive dash discussion/|14a]]'', [[/archive15|15]], [[/archive16|16]], [[/archive17|17]], [[/archive18|18]], [[/archive19|19]],
*[[/archive20|20]], [[/archive21|21]], [[/archive22|22]], [[/archive23|23]], [[/archive24|24]], [[/archive25|25]], [[/archive26|26]], [[/archive27|27]], [[/archive28|28]], [[/archive29|29]],
*[[/archive30|30]], [[/archive31|31]], [[/archive32|32]], [[/archive33|33]], [[/archive34|34]], [[/archive35|35]], [[/archive36|36]], [[/archive37|37]], [[/archive38|38]], [[/archive39|39]],
*[[/archive40|40]], [[/archive41|41]], [[/archive42|42]], [[/archive43|43]], [[/archive44|44]], [[/archive45|45]], [[/archive46|46]], [[/archive47|47]], [[/archive48|48]]
*[[/archive49|49]], ''[[/archive49a|49a]]'', [[/archive50|50]], [[/archive51|51]], [[/archive52|52]]
|}

See also:
* [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (calendar dates)]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Timeline standards]]
* [[Wikipedia:Measurements Debate]]
----
'''Note on Archives:'''

'''The recent discussion on linking of dates from [[9 March]] [[2006]] to [[13 April]] [[2006]] is in archives 42 through 46, plus 48. [[/archive42|42]], [[/archive43|43]], [[/archive44|44]], [[/archive45|45]], [[/archive46|46]], [[/archive48|48]]''' 

----

== Improvement about guidelines in Time ==

Quote:
{| class=wikitable
!width=100| 12-hour clock !!width=100| Not !!width=100| 24-hour clock !!width=100| Not
|-
|2 p.m. || 2pm || 14:00 || 14.00
|-
|2:34 p.m. || 2.34 PM || 14:34 || 1434
|-
|12:04:38 a.m. || 12.04 38″ A.M. || 00:04:38 or 0:04:38
|-
|noon ||12 noon || 12:00
|}

The suggestions in "time" section seems to be weird because:
# It does not even follow what other formal or official standards (eg NIST standards) suggest.
# Its guidelines even conflicts with what the referenced articles [[12-hour clock]] and [[24-hour clock]] say. They don't follow what it says.

'''Mistake: p.m, pm & PM are definitely acceptable.'''
Evidence: 
# The initialisms "AM" and "PM" are variously written in small capitals ("am" and "pm"), uppercase letters ("AM" and "PM"), or lowercase letters ("am" and "pm"). Additionally, some styles use periods (full stops), especially in combination with lowercase letters (thus "a.m." and "p.m."). -- the guide in [[12-hour clock]]
# A.M. and P.M. may either be written in all capital letters or all lower case, but choose one style and stick with it. -- englishplus.com and Oxford Advanced dictionary
# The use of period/dot (.) is optional. -- Oxford Advanced dictionary

'''Mistake: noon or 12 noon are definitely acceptable.'''
Evidence: 
#"noon" or "12:00 noon" and "midnight" or "12:00 midnight" should be used (rather than to 12:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m., respectively) to avoid confusion. -- nist.gov (mentioned also in [[12-hour clock]])
# The tables in [[12-hour clock]] and [[24-hour clock]] uses 12 noon and 12 mindinight too. -- the guide in [[12-hour clock]]

'''Mistake: For 24-hour, discretion may be used to determine if the hour has a leading zero.''' 
It's strange that the article says that. There is no discretion as to whether a leading zero is used. It is more to do as a standard or a matter of taste. If one follows formal standard strictly, 24-hour usually use leading numbers. This includes major time sites like NIST.gov, greenwichmeantime.com, and so on.

'''A better explanation on Noon and Midnight''' 
<blockquote>'''AM and PM - What is Noon and Midnight?''' 
AM and PM start immediately after Midnight and Noon (Midday) respectively.
This means that 00:00 AM or 00:00 PM (or 12:00 AM and 12:00 PM) have no meaning.
Every day starts precisely at midnight and AM starts immediately after that point in time e.g. 00:00:01 AM (see also leap seconds)
To avoid confusion timetables, when scheduling around midnight, prefer to use either 23:59 or 00:01 to avoid confusion as to which day is being referred to.
It is after Noon that PM starts e.g. 00:00:01 PM (12:00:01) -- greenwichmeantime.com </blockquote>

I'm going to update the above (to include the instructions in [[12-hour clock]] and [[24-hour clock]], and some major time sites) if no one oppose it. --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

* I can't really decide whether I like what you are proposing without seeing the exact text you plan to use. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 15:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
** The above is more or less all of the proposals. If you agree (generally) with the above, I will put the text up for a review. There is nothing new anyway. What I try to do is to make it consistent with at least what is mentioned or done in [[12-hour clock]] and [[24-hour clock]]. The existing guideline conflicts with them, which is bad. --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 16:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
*** I think we should probably permit AM and PM as an alternative to a.m. and p.m., as the upper-case versions seem to be the normal spelling in the United States. I haven't understood what other problems you perceive in the current text, which you are trying to correct — we already forbid 12 a.m. and 12 p.m., for example. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 03:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
**** They are: 1) noon and 12 noon are definitely acceptable. 2) No discretion is needed to determine if the hour has a leading zero. 12-hour normally doesn't use leading zero; 24-hour usually does (reference given above). Any opinion? --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 05:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
***** I agree with both those points in principle. I think that some people find "12 noon" [[tautology (rhetoric)|tautologous]] but I don't have a problem with it. I'd still like to see the proposed text before giving a definite yes. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 15:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have some doubt that AM and PM are preferred in the United States. And "12 noon" is redundant. It seems like such changes amount to having no style, which can be done more concisely, if that is desired. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 17:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
:People say "12 noon", to distinguish it from "24 midnight". --[[User:SuperJumbo|Jumbo]] 21:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
:I believe that both PM and p.m. should be acceptable (not, though, P.M. or pm). And 12 noon is not redundant. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 22:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, 12 noon is not redundant.
::sorry, why do either P.M. or pm is not acceptable? Anyway, I see all 4 styles in different formal writing. Read [[12 hour clock]] too. All of them should be acceptable.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:The misunderstanding here is what the MoS is for. It's not saying that PM is wrong, for example, just that we have made an arbitrary but well informed decision to use p.m.; where possible without causing flame wars we want WP to have a consistent look and feel. And we don't have to follow any external guides or standards, although they inform the debate. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'' 22:22 [[8 August]] [[2006]] (GMT).

But it is not the way it should work:
#Wikipedia is a place which respect more than 1 style and formatting.
#Multiple style should be allowed, not being biased to one single style of the particular convention or in that particular country (eg the cases of American vs British spelling).
#Wikipedia is intended to be read by different users all over the world. Your choice of formatting or style may not acheve this goal.
#Some of the suggested style do not even confront to the standards (eg discretion can be made as to whether leading zero is used in 24-hour clock format). I don't know why a rule is made to against stanards for no particlar reasons.
#Users feel free to pick any style as long as it is clear and acceptable.
#The style guide still allows "inconsistency" (in the choice of style/formatting), like this style guide will state people can choose between "AD/BC" and "CE/BCE".
#A consistent look and feel can still be achieved even if more than 1 style exist. The point is to mantain consistency with the user's choice in that article.

Also bear in mind I am '''not''' disagreeing with WP having a style, but there is something between "no style" and "one absolute style". I'm disagreeing with "one absolute style" (when other accpetable or standard styles exist) or against the Wikipedian philosophies. It is not necessary to rule out one absolute style only and ask all others to follow. Just like this style guide will state people can choose between "AD/BC" and "CE/BCE", and so on. There are quite many situations where the style ask people to choose either one and keep consistency. Why do you think '''only "one absolute style" must exist everywhere?''' Why do you think '''you must pick one only and ask all others to follow'''?

I realise you would like to keep things consistent, but accepting either one is not the '''only''' way to keep consistency. Allowing both acceptable standard and kindly ask others to maintain interally consistency also works; just like you set rules to allow using arabic numbers in some cases, using numbers in words in other cases. Otherwise why don't you just allow one format only in all cases?--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

=== About the change ===
Please read the proposed change:

===12-hour clock===
* Times in the [[12-hour clock]] end with lower case "am" or "pm". These suffixes should not be omitted.
* As to "12 pm" and "12 am", "(12) noon" and "(12) midnight" should be used for clarity purposes. Some readers may find the former ambiguous and confusing. As it is a wikipedia policy to minimise ambiguity, "(12) noon" and "(12) midnight" are much better than the former.
** Both "12 noon or midnight" and "noon or midnight" is acceptable.
* Normally no leading zero is used to distinguish from times in the [[24-hour clock]].
* Regarding capitalisation:
** It does not matter what capital form "am/pm" is used. It can be written as "AM or am" or "PM or pm". But please be consistent throughout the article.
** It does not matter whether the first letter of "noon/midnight" is capitalised.
* The dot (.) is optional in the suffix: either am/pm or a.m./p.m. is fine.
* The spacing between the number and suffix is optional: either 2:30am or 2:30 am is fine.

===24-hour clock===
* Time in the [[24-hour clock]] times have no "am/pm/noon/midnight" suffix.
* 00:00 or 24:00 refers to the midnight and 12:00 refers to noon.
** 00:00 refers to the start of a day while 24:00 refers to the end of a day. However the end of a day equal to the start of the next day. That is why 00:00 is identical to 24:00.
** Both 00:00 and 24:00 are acceptable. It does not matter which one you use.
* Normally a leading zero is added to distinguish from times in the [[12-hour clock]].

===Common formats===
* In either case, the colon (:) should be used to separate hours, minutes and seconds. The use of dot (.) as a separator is not standard. It also causes confusion with the decimal point (.) in 12.45 (amount). Do not use it.
* Do not add extra symbols like (") to indicate second.
* Example:
** Use 12:34:28 pm (''but not 12.04 38″ pm'')
** Use 00:34 (''but not 00.34 or 0.34 or 0034'')
 —[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 20:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

== Wai Wai's changes ==
I've just reverted all Wai Wai's changes made in the last 12 hours or so. Changes this extensive must be discussed on the talk page first and reach consensus here. I'm sure some of them are fine, but others are controversial, and some of them were badly phrased too. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 15:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

:They are not really big nor major proposals. Most of them are copyedit work (eg reorganization, integration, redundancy removal, inconsistency fixes, and so on). Instead of reverting all the changes which is clearly inappropriate as stated by the policy, review the edit. If you feel there are something which may not be alright, discuss it then in the talk page.
:How about if you try to read the page once now and see if there is anything which may not be alright? I deem you will find it is mostly the same wine but with a new bottle. No new nor major nor core contents have been changed or proposed. And if you think something might not be okay, you can always discuss it in the talk page. Thank you --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 16:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

::A lot of them are just copy-editing, but there are several new pieces of advice in there too. Also it's very difficult to work out everything you've done because of the number of paragraph breaks and moved sections. (Have you looked at the diff?). At a minimum, every new policy should have been discussed here first. (And I don't know what you mean by "clearly inappropriate as stated by the policy" — which policy are you referring to?) [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 16:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

::::As to the new pieces of advice, some of them may be just copied or derived from other policies. It's not something completely new. Some may be just an additional note or advice (which expand or enrich the main one).--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I agree with Stephen's reverts. Until there is a concensus reached (or at least a discussion) here first, no changes to the manual should be made. In units of measurement, a few things that Wai Wai changed that do not have a concensus: making the non-braking space optional; and not spelling out numbers (wasn't Centrx trying to get us to spell out up to 100?). Also the first sentence in "choice" about international units is covered in "conversions". So I changed some things.--[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 03:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

::: (NB I wrote this simultaneously with MJCdetroit's comments).
::: I started reverting the bits I disagreed with, but as I read through it, I found that I disagreed with almost everything you'd done.
:::* New or changed advice should never have been added to the page without discussion here first.
:::* Your reordering of sections seemed worse because there was too much preamble before getting to the important stuff.
:::* Breaking paragraphs into bulleted lists made it much less readable, as did the excessive number of sub-sub-section and sub-sub-sub-section headings.
::: So I'm sorry, but I reverted everything again. I don't like to do that, but I'm afraid I found that most of the edits made the page worse. But maybe someone else could review it and offer an opinion?
:::[[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 03:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
::::[[Status quo]] ante Wai Wai --[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 03:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

::::: See my replies below. Most, if not all, you say can be done through improvement (not reverting). The general rule applies (as stated in wikipedia's policy): '''Improve it, rather than deleting it'''.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

----
Dear [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]]: 
The word "policy" I use is not strict, that is I simply refer to some wikipedia standards or principles or philosophies. It does not necesarily mean any standalone official policy which is being voilated (eg "three revert rule" policy). Anyway, here's the extract of what reverting is deemed appropriate:
* Reverting should be used '''primarily for fighting vandalism'''. -- Help:Reverting
* Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: '''Do not simply revert changes in a dispute'''. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, '''improve the edit, rather than reverting it'''. -- Wikipedia:Resolving disputes
* Does the editor do is something very similar to vandalism? Even the update has some big problems, it is not the excuse to revert it. In the case of NPOV, people usually do it wrong by using: "'''lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete'''" Quoted from NPOV (its philosophy applies): ''Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly.'' -- NPOV
* Unless what one writes is near to completely non-sense, or useless or rubbish. Revert is not something which you should be taken lightly. The bold policy does not apply. We are bold to create/improve it, not bold to destory/delete it.
* '''Reverting should be used primarily for fighting vandalism or anything similar to the effects of vandalism'''.
I realise my edits may not be perfect, but that's the process of wikipedia. I post a preliminary edit. People will try to edit and improve it. We don't need to make sure it is 100% acceptable and perfect before it can be put. Consensus will be reached during the edit process. 
I would revert my changes first (so others have chances to improve it). According to these policies or principles, if you feel my edits are very devastating or near vandalism, feel free to revert my edits (hopefully with reasons provided, so I know how to improve it, instead of starting at ground level again). --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 06:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

----

===My role===
Some people or editors may find this iformation useful. I'm [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias| a member of countering systemic bias]]. Simply speaking, it is a bia due to the nature of the system (wikipedia). Most editors here are coming from United States or in countries where English is their mother language. Most of the information/comments are biased towards the western. Opinions or information from Africa, Asia and South America are missing.

What I am trying to do is:
# Resolve the problem that "the information and perspective in the articles or sections may not represent a worldwide view." In this case, most style tend to be one-sided and in favour of one style standard (mainly United States or western).
# Integrate contents from various articles or policies, and remove the redundancy.
# Make sure the guidelines comply with major wikipedia policies, standards or philosophies.
# Make it consistent throughout the page.
# Make it consistent throughout different guidelines and policies.
# Resolve discrepancies and conflicts occurred within the same article.
 --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

===Editing procedures and requirements===
As regards the comment of "no changes to the manual should be made until there is a concensus reached. Every change has to be discussed in the discussion page first."

It's clearly wrong unfortunately. Please read the following: 
'''Major philosophy''' (official policies): 
:''Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. However, avoid deleting information wherever possible.'' -- Wikipedia:Editing policy
:[[Wikipedia:Editing_policy|perfection isn't required]] and don't worry about messing up. It is what wikipedia is - the editing process will take care it all. -- the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|five pillars of Wikipedia]].

'''Specific guidelines''': 
:''Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.'' -- guideline of updating style pages

Explanation (Note: The following is just a rough guideline. It is never intended to be complete or extensive): 
Things which may need discussions before editing: 
* Major or fundamental proposals
* Proposals which may be against major wikipedia philosophies or policies
* Important changes which is '''not''' going to or has reflected general consensus

Things which may '''not''' need discussions before editing: 
* ideas, rules, or information copied/derived from other guidelines or policies (since they have reflected general consensus already)
* sub-proposals expanding or enriching the existing one
* Changes which is going to or has reflected general consensus (maybe supported by official policies or the like)
* Non-content-specific changes like copyedit, integration, reorganization, categorization, formatting and style etc.
* minor changes or edits

In the forthcoming days, I will try to explain some of the reasons why I make the changes. Nevertheless it is very time consuming and it is impractical to explain every single change, including copyedit and minor ones. Priority has to be decided. If anyone has any doubts about any of my changes, please specify which one and what your doubts are, so I will know which are in higher priority and focus my explanations on them. Consensus and agreement could be made in this regard.

Please give me a few days to respond. Best regards.
 --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

===Reversions===

:Wai Wai. Please try and understand this section of the MOS has come about through continual discussions and consensus of the edits. Your edits here are not the same as if you were making edits to say the article on Queen Elizabeth. Your changes here are effectively telling all editors how all other articles in wikipedia should look or not look. Therefore, in matters dealing with the MOS, I think most editors here would rather proceed with caution. --[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 14:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

::Wai Wai, you should note that your changes have been reverted four times by three people.
::You do not have consensus. Changes within style guide and elsewhere in Wikipedia namespace call for more consensus and discussion than changes in article namespace. Articles are about facts; the style guide is intended essentially as direction and advice. For you to continue as you have been appears to place your ideas above those that the community has determined.
::The best way to work toward the changes you desire is to leave the project page alone until there is clear acceptance on this page. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 14:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Wai Wai, can you please discuss your changes before making them. You have been reverted a number of times and some of your changes I object to such as changing the practice of putting spaces between digits and units for measurements in parentheses. If you are unwilling to list and discuss the changes you wish to make then you will keep being reverted. --[[User:Clawed|Clawed]] 06:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:::It is not okay to revert people's contributions, as stated in revert policies. If every change has to be discussed, the page will be locked. We feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes. Most of my update is copyedit: merge, redundancy removal. However I think I should not mix things together. Maybe I should do it bit by bit. I was concentrating too much at that time (You see, I have spent 1 whole day for this edit, and I deviate a bit from what I originally intended to do). --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 06:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wai Wai -- Do you not see that you are going against consensus? Both the established style and repeated requests for you to first discuss your changes and get agreement before making them? Do you not see how little support your changes have among other editors? [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I realise there are some problems which we have to work on. However this alone does not justify a "revert" as far as the policies are concerned. The polciy has stated '''a "revert" should be dealt primiarily with vandalism'''. Unless you think all of the updates are vandalism or near vandalism, I don't see why it justifies a "revert". Policy has also stated we should work on the problems. Improve/Modify the articles, rather than deleting/reverting it.

After all, I am willing to work on the problems or consensus issues. Please specify the problems and what your doubts are, so I will know which are in higher priority and focus my explanations on them. I will try to explain some of the reasons why I make the changes. Consensus and agreement could be made in this regard. Please give me some time to fix the problems before you make your decision.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

#This is a style guide, not an article. I pointed out some of the difference earlier.
#Given that you change so much, it is hard to analyze and list. Given that there is general disagreement with your changes, the burden is on you. Please specify -- on the talk page -- what you see as the problems. When you get consensus agreement, then it's OK to change the style guide for that aspect. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 09:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of the above rules. Would you mind tellingme where it state so, including it is the updater's burden to prove there is the general agreement before an update is possible? I have stated it already: Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes. -- guideline of updating style pages.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:They are not so much rules, but judgment common to at least several people involved with this.
:But seeing that you like to quote things …
:From [[Help:Reverting]]: "However, sometimes a revert is the best response to a less-than-great edit, so we can't just stop reverting."
:From [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]]: "Amendments to a guideline should be discussed on its talk page, not on a new page - although it's generally acceptable to edit a guideline to improve it."
:But your edits here are obviously not seen to be improvements by the other people involved.
:From the project page: "The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here."
:If the consensus is "Do X" and that is changed to "Do X, or Y, or Z" by one person and other people disagree, then it is no longer a convention established by consensus.
:You are trying to change conventions already established by consensus. Do you not see that consensus is need to change what is already established by consensus?
:It is not that every single edit anyone makes to the style guide must be pre-approved. It is that edits that engender disagreement, especially to to a policy or guideline, should be worked out on the talk page before proceeding further. Do you not see the difference?
[[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 10:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is not all are major changes. It is wrong to revert COMPLETELY because there are some problems in the update. Please read the following: 
'''Major philosophy''' (official policies): 
:''Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. However, avoid deleting information wherever possible.'' -- Wikipedia:Editing policy
:[[Wikipedia:Editing_policy|perfection isn't required]] and don't worry about messing up. It is what wikipedia is - the editing process will take care it all. -- the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|five pillars of Wikipedia]].

'''Specific guidelines''': 
:''Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.'' -- guideline of updating style pages

If every change needed to be done through discussion, why the page is not locked up? What's more, reverting should be used '''primarily for fighting vandalism''', as stated in the help:reverting page.

When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate or problematic, '''improve the edit, rather than reverting it''' as stated in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

Unless what one writes is near to completely non-sense, or useless or rubbish. Revert is not something which you should be taken lightly. The bold policy does not apply. We are bold to create/improve it, not bold to destory/delete it.

However what people doing are reverting all changes but there are only some areas problematic.

===Spacing in unit measurement===
Spacng should be optional since I find both formatting style (ie spacing or non-spacing) in different formal writing. For example, my Oxford Intermediate English Dictionary uses non-spacing one, as in "''For this recipe you need 500g (five hundred grams) of flour''".--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 06:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

: Nearly every style issue has professional style guides that advocate for different styles, but that does not mean that Wikipedia must allow all of them, or even necessarily any two of them. We develop our style guidelines based on consensus, which allows many styles on some issues, and only one or two on others. (The most common single restriction is to follow only one guideline on single issue throughout a single article.) Often these consensuses (consensi?) are carefully negotiated compromises. The real questions are, what have we negotiated for this issue, and does it still hold? ~ [[User:Jeffq|Jeff Q]] [[User talk:Jeffq|(talk)]] 07:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::I agree with Jeff. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::I agree with Wai Wai. [[User:JP06035|→'''&ensp;JARED]]'''&ensp;[[User_talk:JP06035|(t)]]&ensp; 15:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
::I am for following the almost universally recognised SI standard, prescribing a space. −[[User:Woodstone|Woodstone]] 18:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
::I agree with Jeff/Woodstone. [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 21:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
::I said this a little lower on the page, but for the record, I agree with Jeff and Woodstone.--[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 22:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
:::But, I mean, SI standards and ISO standards don't mean that it is the only way to write something. It is only a guideline for those who feel insecure without having set rules. It makes NO DIFFERENCE whether there's a space or not. Both on Wikipedia and in the real world, it should be up to the writer to decide which is asthetically better. Standards mean nothing! [[User:JP06035|→'''&ensp;JARED]]'''&ensp;[[User_talk:JP06035|(t)]]&ensp; 22:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

----
I don't see the need why we need to force all editors to use one single standard, not to say there are other kinds of problems. People tend to defend by saying "consistency", and "consistency" is always good. Really? However they forget they are making things complex and go in the other way round. Take the case of "numbers in word" (extracted):
* Whole numbers from zero to ten are spelled out as words in the body of an article. Use numerals in tables and infoboxes.
* Numbers above ten may be written out if they are expressed in two or fewer words, except in tables and infoboxes. Example: "sixteen", "eighty-four", "two hundred", "twenty million" but "3.75", "544", "21 million".
* Fractions standing alone should be spelt out unless they occur in a percentage. If fractions are mixed with whole numbers, use numerals.

<blockquote>'''Summary''': 
For number zero to ten, spell out the words. 
For number above ten, two situations: 
- expressed in two or fewer words, spell out the words. 
- otherwise, use arabic numbers. 
Fractions alone, spell out the words. 
Fractions mixed with whole numbers, use arabic numbers.</blockquote>

Where is the consistency? The rules tell us to uses numbers in words sometimes, uses arabic numbers in other times. Originally the style guide intends to keep things simple and consistent. However when people are working on it, they tend to forget their original goals and deviate from them - making rules complex, splitting hairs, trivial, inconsistency, inconvenience to editors, and so on.

People tend to forget '''simplicity is the best'''. If editors were not spending time on trivial style or formatting, much of their time saved could be used to improve the real "contents" of the article. It is what benefit the visitors most.

By the way, it is going to be a '''very minority consensus''' if you take the whole community [the world] into account. Only a very few wikipedians are engaged in the discussion.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 07:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
----

:You seem to disagree with WP having a style in general, at least to some degree. That's OK. You don't have to follow the style guide.
:Many other people do want WP to have a style. In a a way, loose style or less style can be more complicated -- editors don't need to decide which style to use, because they can refer to the style guide, where many such matters have already been decided. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::No. You get me wrong. I am '''not''' disagreeing with WP having a style, but there is something between "no style" and "one absolute style". I'm disagreeing with "one absolute style" (when other accpetable or standard styles exist) or against the Wikipedian philosophies. It is not necessary to rule out one absolute style only and ask all others to follow. Just like this style guide will state people can choose between "AD/BC" and "CE/BCE", and so on. There are quite many situations where the style ask people to choose either one and keep consistency. Why do you think '''only "one absolute style" must exist everywhere?''' Why do you think '''you must pick one only and ask all others to follow'''?
::I realise you would like to keep things consistent, but accepting either one is not the '''only''' way to keep consistency. Allowing both acceptable standard and kindly ask others to maintain interally consistency also works; just like you set rules to allow using arabic numbers in some cases, using numbers in words in other cases. Otherwise why don't you just allow one format only in all cases?--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::Another possibility is for you to work on just one paragraph at a time, or in a day. Smaller changes are easier to digest.
::I also disagree with the super-small subsections you've been making. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion taken. I'm working too hard on that day. I will try o update bit by bit next time. As to sections, section starts at 2nd level. What I'm usng is just 4th level (the 3rd type of section). There are articles which use 4th level. And I don't see why we must restrict ourselves to using 2 types of sections only (ie 2nd and 3rd level). Anyway, it is just a style issue. If all people don't like it, just undo the section formatting.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Spacing. I agree with Jeff and Maureen. There should be a non-breaking space between unit and symbol. I think that a rare exception can be made when the measurement itself actually becomes a title for something and is usually written without the space; e.g. 35mm camera, 6.1L Hemi, and the oympic events, etc. However, in those cases, I can live with the space if we don't want to make any exceptions. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 14:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Yes, I agree with the non-breaking space part too. However spacing is not always necessary. It is not rare exceptions. I have read different formal articles about that. I see there are cases where both are acceptable (eg 56 km or 56km). I don't see the reasons behind why we must prefer one style and depreciate another.
::::Beware that we should take [[systemic bias]] into consideration when generating rules. Systemic bias is the inherent tendency of a process to favor particular outcomes. The term is a [[neologism]] that generally refers to human systems; the analogous problem in non-human systems (such as scientific observations). After all, Wikipedia is intedned to be read by all people over the world.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

== The current decade ==

I am sure this has come up before, but I don't see anything on the project page. [[User:GoDot]] is insisting on calling the current decade "the 2000s" as in "bank redlining had largely diminished by the mid 2000s" ([[Seattle neighborhoods]]). I find this very confusing: if someone says "the mid-1900s" they mean around 1950, not 1905. But since this is a user with whom I repeatedly find myself disagreeing, and since the MoS doesn't yet address the matter, I'm simply bringing the question here. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 02:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
: Did you try to look at [[2000s]] or [[1900s]]? Compare to [[21st century]] and [[20th century]]. [[User:Crissov|Christoph Päper]] 13:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

== Update on Olympic Debate ==

I know it was a ''loooooooong'' time ago that we were debating on whether or not a space should be put between the number and the unit of Olympic Event names. The IOC official site does not put space, so one would expect the Wikipedia articles should do the same (e.g. '''10km'''), but according to this overcited page, it was kept according to the WP guidelines (e.g. '''10 km''').

I recently received a long awaited reply from the IOC in which the Sports Director Kelly Fairweather noted to me that the IOC is "working with the International Federations to define the exact terms to be used for disciplines and events." She stated that the project would be completed by October 2006 and the IOC website after that point would be the place to find the official terminology. Until then, "there is no one approved terminology."

I just thought some others would like to know. [[User:JP06035|→'''&ensp;JARED]]'''&ensp;[[User_talk:JP06035|(t)]]&ensp; 21:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
----
As a sidenote, I find both formatting style (ie spacing or non-spacing) in different formal writing. For example, my Oxford Intermediate English Dictionary uses non-spacing one, as in "''For this recipe you need 500g (five hundred grams) of flour''".

Anyway, I think people are getting hypercorrect. What's the difference between '''500g''' and '''500 g'''? Will people get confused when reading either style? People are wasting too much time on trivial issues, and making things complex, not to say it requires huge efforts and good memories to comply with all these trivial rules.

They tend to forget '''simplicity is the best'''. Accept both. Pick either one you like the best. How easy life would be then? After all, standards are all created by humans. No standards must be formal or informal. They are all relative in nature. If time are spent on more important issues, the world would be much better. --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 07:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Actually, I agree. The usage of either one is relative to the situation in which it is used. Different articles (topics) may require the use of different methods, but I'm really not up for arguing for it... [[User:JP06035|→'''&ensp;JARED]]'''&ensp;[[User_talk:JP06035|(t)]]&ensp; 15:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

== Indian numbering convention ==

This has probably come up before: Should the [[Indian numbering system]] (hazar, lakh, crore, arab...) be used in articles about Indian subjects? Should exponential breaks be done in the Indian system (i.e. 1,00,000 as opposed to 100,000)? Thoughts? -- [[User:Samir_(The_Scope)|'''Samir''']] [[User_talk:Samir_(The_Scope)|धर्म]] 09:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks for pointing me at that article - I came across an article with a comma after two digits once and was very confused! Are numbers other than lakhs and crores commonly used? My opinion, off the top of my head, is that it would probably be reasonable to use the Indian names and style of digits when referring to Indian subjects (thus complying with the MoS requirement to use the local form of English), but ''also'' advisable to write the number out in the more common style to avoid confusing non-Indian readers who might think it was a typographical error, e.g. "five crores (5,00,00,000 or 50,000,000)". -- [[User:Arwel_Parry|Arwel]] ([[User talk:Arwel_Parry|talk]]) 12:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

== Compound units ==

I thought there was a style recommendation for complicated units like mm•K/W, but I don't see it. How should we format things like this? — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 14:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

:I don't think the "Manual of Style" has such a recommendation, but the standard IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997 states on page 14 "Symbols. To avoid ambiguity in complicated expressions, unit symbols are preferred over unit names." I think this should go in the manual. --[[User:Gerry Ashton|Gerry Ashton]] 15:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
::I wouldn't not be against this going in the manual. However, we should insist on having a page (linked to the symbol) explaining what the unit is and how it used. Some of the symbols would be obvious, but they should still be linked to the respective article. If [[mph]] and [[km/h]] have articles about them then so should mm•K/W. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 14:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

==Wai Wai's changes, continued==
Here are some options, in alphabetical order:
#Accept Wai Wai's changes without further ado. -- Several of us disagree, so not a good choice.
#Ask to have the page protected.
#Continue the back-and-forth reversion.
#Start an RFC.
#Wai Wai could stop changing the project page, discuss the desired changes, and wait until consensus is clear to make the changes. -- Apparently unlikely, given that this has been requested several time by different people.

Comments? [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 09:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:The "Continue the back-and-forth reversion." is definitely not an option even if people here vote for it. It is because it is against Wikipedian's policies: Wikipedia does not allow revert wars! --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Takes two to tango. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 09:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:I think we are rapidly approaching the time for [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies]]. -- '''[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]([[User talk:Dalbury|Talk]])''' 09:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:After seeing the recent changes on the article page, I would say it is definitely time now for an RfC. -- '''[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]([[User talk:Dalbury|Talk]])''' 10:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Stop changing the project page, discuss the desired changes, and wait until consensus is clear. Only change the page when there is a consensus to do so. This would be the best way to go about it. In fact, isn't that the way that we have been doing it. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 12:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you really saying? Anyway, I have examined the revert policy once again. Unfortunately I'm afirad all people are wrong, at least in reverting. Stephen Turner states he was trying to be bold to revert long hours of contributions. However the "bold" policy clearly states it does not apply in terms of "reverting". Although a few people support him by doing the same, the action is wrong. '''The majority people are performing the same action does not justify the action itself. [[WP:WWIN#Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy|Wikipedia is not a democracy]]. We need to respect rules!'''

Pay attention that '''it's NOT my PERSONAL opinion. It is stated in the policies''' (eg [[WP:BOLD]]).

Please read the following rules first about revert. No one seems to care or understand about the "revert policy" - not to revert people's contributions even if it has problems. Revert is not something which should be taken lightly. "Reverting" is harmful, and so on.

:'''If you feel you are correct in reverting, please tell me which rule tells people it is justifiable to do a SIMPLE REVERT of days of contributions?'''

What's more, the recent update is not just the same as the old one. It has spent me valuable time to modify the update according to some comments (eg super-section, bullets, and spacing in unit measurement). However people keep reverting THE WHOLE PART OF IT instead of stating the questions. People seem to think it is just the same and revert it without any examination. '''THAT IS VERY RUDE'''.

Please read this: 
* Reverting should be used '''primarily for fighting vandalism'''. -- Help:Reverting
* Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: '''Do not simply revert changes in a dispute'''. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, '''improve the edit, rather than reverting it'''. -- Wikipedia:Resolving disputes
* Does the editor do is something very similar to vandalism? Even the update has some big problems, it is not the excuse to revert it. In the case of NPOV, people usually do it wrong by using: "'''lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete'''" Quoted from NPOV (its philosophy applies): ''Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly.'' -- NPOV
* Unless what one writes is near to completely non-sense, or useless or rubbish. Revert is not something which you should be taken lightly. The bold policy does not apply. We are bold to create/improve it, not bold to destory/delete it.
* '''Reverting should be used primarily for fighting vandalism or anything similar to the effects of vandalism'''.
I realise my edits may not be perfect, but that's the process of wikipedia. I post a preliminary edit. People will try to edit and improve it. We don't need to make sure it is 100% acceptable and perfect before it can be put. Consensus will be reached during the edit process.

'''I am willing to work on the problems or consensus issues. However people keep saying there is no consensus, but they are unwilling to specify where is the no consensus. Please specify the problems and what your doubts are, so I will know which are in higher priority and focus my explanations on them. I will try to explain some of the reasons why I make the changes. Consensus and agreement could be made in this regard. Please give me some time to fix the problems before you make your decision.'''--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 13:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:My suggestion would be to discuss your changes a little at a time. Don't do a large scale edit of the page. Baby steps. I think it would go smoother; it'll take longer but that is better in the long run anyway. So start a new topic based on what the first thing that you want to change is. It will be discussed over a few days and you will know the feelings of the editors on that proposal. What do you think? [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 14:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, you are very right. I did too many changes at one time. Lessons learnt. But I am sure the real "contextual" change is much less than what people orginally thought since most of them are not real contextual changes. However I mixed all of my hours work together and make one single update which may be too confusing for others to review. Sorry about that.
::After all, '''it is perfectly fine for me to post the changes here first. However I wonder if there's anyone who will be willing to review it.'''--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 14:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Baby steps! Also, you need to give your proposals some time to be debated. Not everyone lives on the computer—I certainly don't. Let as many people as possible discuss this.---[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 15:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Who says we need to settle it instantly? As long as the discussion is moving, it is perfectly fine. However, last time, I have waited for nearly a week for others to ask questions or respond or specify the problems, no one responded. After all, your review is excellent. Keep it up! --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
{{user Very Happy}}{{clear}}
=== about unit of measurement ===

I have forgotten whether which is copyedit, which is proposal.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. Read them once. If you find anything problematic, state it out.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 14:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

----

====Choice====
* <strike>Try to use the international units instead of local, unless you have good reasons to use others</strike>. ——Covered under 'conversions', unless you mean something else by 'international units'. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 15:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
''What's wrong to state this out to remind editors? When someone which is unsure what unit should be chosen, they are going to read that section. The covering under 'conversions' is not clear, at least to some people.''--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
* Some non-metric units have more than one version. Be specific. For example, ''[[US gallon|U.S. gallon]]'' or ''[[imperial gallon]]'' rather than just ''gallon''. Similarly, use ''[[nautical mile]]'' or ''[[statute mile]]'' rather than just ''mile'' in aviation, space, sea and in some other contexts.
* Try to be consistent with your choice.

====Format====
* Use standard or formal (as opposed to localized or informal) abbreviations when using symbols. For example, metre is m, kilogram is kg, inch is in (''not " or ″'' ), foot is ft (''not ' or ′'' ), and [[Avoirdupois|pound]] is lb (''not #'').
** Do not append an ''s'' for plurals of unit abbreviations. For example kg, in, yd, lb; ''not kgs, ins, yds, lbs''.
* For concision purposes, please use digits for values. For example, 100 kg; ''not one hundred kg''.
* <strike>For understandability purposes,</strike> please spell out units in the text, and link to the relevant article at the first few usage.

——You must have non breaking space between the number and symbol. Here's why: I weigh 180lb and drink a 1l of water a day. Having a space is easier on the eyes and is more consistent with many technical writings.

———''However I see the non-spacing version in other formal writing, including the dictionaries. I see it uses 500g, 10km and so on.''--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

——It's not for understandability, it's the way formal writings are styled. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 15:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

===Conversions===
* Conversions should generally be included and not be removed.
* If editors cannot agree about the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second.
* If for some reason the choice of units is arbitrary, choose [[SI units]] as the main unit, with other units in parentheses. For subjects dealing with the United States, it might be more appropriate to use U.S. measurements first, i.e. mile, foot, U.S. gallon.
* Use digits and unit symbols for values in parentheses. For example, "a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 16 kilometres (10 mi) long" '''or''' "a pipe 4 inches (100 mm) in diameter and 10 miles (16 km) long".
** Do the same for measurements in tables.
* Converted values should use a similar level of precision as the source value. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth", not "(236,121 mi)".

----

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Spacing_in_unit_measurement

===About dates===
If memory serves, they are (nearly) summarised changes (copyedit).
The major change is to move all general style and formatting which can apply to the rest of the page (or date formats) in the front first.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 14:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

See the following:
----

====Wording====

=====Uncertain date=====
*When only an approximate date is available, the English word ''about'' or the abbreviation "''c.''" (Latin: ''circa''; English: "about") may be used.
* When a date is uncertain because the source is unreliable, that fact should be noted and the source should be mentioned. For example, "according to [[Livy]], the [[Roman Republic]] was founded in 509 BC", or "The [[Mahabharata]] is traditionally said to have been composed in [[1310s BCE|1316 BCE]]".

=====Seasons=====
* The seasons are reversed in each hemisphere, while areas near the [[equator]] tend to have just [[wet season|wet]] and [[dry season]]s. Neutral wording should be used to describe times of the year to avoid confusion.
** Use "in early 1990", "in the second quarter of 2003", "around September" or an exact date, rather than references to seasons, unless there is some particular need to do so (eg "the autumn harvest"). It is ambiguous to say that [[Apollo 11]] landed on the Moon in the summer of 1969 (whose summer?).

=====Eras=====
:''See [[Anno Domini]] for a discussion on what is meant by AD and BC notation, and [[Common Era]] for a discussion on what is meant by CE and BCE notation.''
*Simply speaking, AD equals CE. BC equals BCE.

*Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article.

*Note that the [[1st century BC]] is from 100 BC to 1 BC (there was no [[year 0]]) so 1700 BC would be the first year of the 17th century BC, 1800 BC would be the first year of the 18th century BC, etc. Similarly, 4000 BC was the first year of the fourth millennium BC, ''not'' the last year of the fifth millennium BC.

*Note that the [[19th century]] is 1801—1900 (but ''not 1901—2000''). It is because the [[1st century]] starts at 1 AD and ends at 100 AD.

*Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the [[Anno Domini]]/[[Common Era]], but when events span the start of the [[Anno Domini]]/[[Common Era]], use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, <nowiki>[[1 BC]]—[[1|AD 1]]</nowiki> or <nowiki>[[1 BCE]]—[[1|1 CE]]</nowiki>.

*In articles about prehistory, if you use BP ([[before present]]) or MYA ([[million years ago]]), expand these abbreviations when you first use them, as most readers will be unfamiliar with them.

====Formatting====

=====General=====
* For any formatting or style, please maintain consistency throughout an article, unless there's a good reason to do otherwise.
* If, for any special reasons, a less clearer or specific format (eg 1900-01-12 date format is chosen instead of 12 January 1900) is used. Please make it very sure that your choice does not cause any ambiguity or confusion to anyone over the world. Note that something which is certain in one country or nation may not be so in another. Thus the best way to eliminate possible ambiguity or confusion is to adding notes beside the usage (to clarify any grey area or ambiguity).
*Wikipedia respects different formatting and style as long as they are clear and unambiguous. When any of the style is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedian to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reasons for the change. For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject.
** Revert warring over optional styles is highly unacceptable; if the article is [[colour]] rather than [[color]], it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable. See also [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk]].
* Direct [[quotations]] (ie the word-for-word reproduction of a written or oral text) should ''not'' be altered to confirm any wikipedia formatting or style. It is because the original source has to be kept as intact (in verbatim) as possible. For instance, the date in the following fictional quotation should not be linked (even if it is preferred in wikipedia):
:"Tony Blair, responding to critics in his party, said 'The world has totally changed since the 11th of September.' He was echoing earlier sentiments by Lord Ronald McDonald, who said that 'nine-eleven' was the day that the American public woke up to the reality of terrorism."


=====Ranges=====
Sometimes numbers and dates are expressed in ranges, such as "14—17" for the numbers 14 to 17. It is often preferable to write this out (eg "14 through 17" (US and Canada) or "from 14 to 17"). It is to avoid confusion with "14 minus 17", which is expressed with spaces, as "14 &minus; 17".

Traditionally, ranges of numbers and dates are given with an en dash (—). Simply click the "–" button (excluding quotes) below the edit window or insert it with any software supporting this punctuation. Please avoiding typing the code &ndash; to insert en dash. It is because new editors may not understand the code. They may delete the code due to misunderstanding. Also the visually form of "—" (excluding quotes) is more visually appealing and readable in the edit screen.

However, nowadays some sources use spaced or unspaced hyphens, at least online, and some Wikipedians believe that these hyphens should not be changed to en dashes.

See [[#Dates of birth and death]] (another section in the same article) for example.

See [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes)]] for details.

=====Year, decade, century formats=====
* Always write year in full form. Do not use the shortened two-digit form to express a year. It is because the shortened formats are likely to cause confusion. The same holds true whether the years are BC or AD. For example:
** Do not use 56 or '56. Use 1956 (when referring to the decade of the 20th century)
** Do not use 80s or '80s or "the eighties". Use 1980s (when referring to the decade of the 20th century)
* It is not necessary to use an apostrophe to indicate a decade. [[1970s]] is preferred, but not [[1970's]].
* The word "century" is normally not capitalised. [[18th century]] (small capital) is normally used. [[18th Century]] (big capital) is less common.

=====Day and month formats=====
* Please express a month as a whole word. Do not use numbers, except in [[ISO 8601]] format. Do not use abbreviations like "Dec". For example, use December 1945. Do not use "12, 1945" or "12 of 1945" or "Dec 1945"
** If space is precious (eg in a table, infobox, or the like), abbreviations are preferred to numbers (eg "Oct", ''not "10"''). Numbers are discouraged because it may cause confusion to readers as to whether day or month is referred.
** The shortened two-digit format is optional at the end of a range (ie "1970—1987" or "1970—87").
* The ordering does not matter: both "February 14" and "14 February" are fine.
* It is not necessary to add ordinal suffixes. "February 14" is preferred, but not "February 14th" and "14th February".
* It is not necessary to use a comma (,) or the word "of" between a month and year. "December 1945" is preferred, but not "December, 1945" and "December of 1945".

===Unclear===
[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]], this is progress. Thank you.

But the above material does not indicate the difference between the established style guide and your desired changes.

I have asked you to address a pragraph at a time. If you won't do that, would you at least narrow it to a section or subsection at a time, whichever is smaller that is applicable? [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 18:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:You are welcome! What "material" are you referring to? I assume you are talking about "dates". Yes, you spotted it right. There is no change in '''real''' content. They are just summarisation, re-organization or the like. The major change I could think of is to move all general style and formatting which can apply to the rest of the page (or date formats) to the front.
:Some changes are expanding the explanations. For example, I have added more explanation about "BC and AD", like the 19th century is meant to be 1801—1900 (I don't know if it's common sense to native speakers, but I know some people will mistakenly take it as 1901-2000. Personally I avoid using 19th century. I use 1801-1900 instead to avoid possible confusion, like the case in 12:00pm and 12:00am. The same holds true to date format like 2006-11-12. There are 2 possible formats: YYYY-MM-DD and YYYY-DD-MM. Some people will get confused. That's why I prefer the traditional 12 Nov 2006 or 2006-Nov-12 if I have to use similar date format. I would like to add these notes too, so editors who decide to pick these formats realise the potential ambiguity or confusion.
:If you are talking about "time", the changes are already pointed out in my first post.
:if you are talking about "unit of measurement", the only change in '''real''' content I would think of is the "spacing". I simply point out both style are used in writing (non-spaced and spaced).—[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 20:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

===&mdash; and &ndash; entities===
I find the changes to the dash guidelines highly objectionable. &mdash; and &ndash; are easy to type, their names quite clearly indicate "this is a dash", and HTML entities are certainly no more confusing than most of the markup used in MediaWiki. I don't see any reason to disallow using the Unicode characters, but "confusing for new editors" describes a whole lot more of what goes on here than these HTML entities. Anyone playing with the sandbox will be able to see what &mdash; and &ndash; do. —[[User:Ptkfgs|ptk]]✰[[User_talk:Ptkfgs|fgs]] 18:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:The reason is most new editors who are not familiar with Unicode characters will find it confusing. That's also why Wikipedia creates Wiki codes, to make it easier for others to edit. Others like HTML are hard to understand for newbies.—[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 20:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

=== recent changes ===
I agree that it's a little sudden. They need copy-editing in a number of places, and while I like a lot of the changes, I don't like all of them. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 15:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:So sorry about the "suddenness".--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

===Removal of material from user talk page===
Some people have left notes on [[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]]'s talk page about the style guide changes. [[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] has removed them all, including my note intended to discourage such removals. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 20:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

: Removing warnings from one's own talk page is unacceptable, per [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]]. I think both [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wai_Wai&diff=69187463&oldid=69181170 this edit] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wai_Wai&diff=69260023&oldid=69245690 this one] fall into that category. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 20:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
----

Thee above are not [[Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace|warnings]], as mentioned in [[Wikipedia:Removing warnings]]. The responses (discussions) are related here. Why don't all of you simply reply here? Forking the discussion is hard to follow, not to say others are not going to read them.

Just like this case, my responses about the removal is completely missing. As a reference, here's the previous discussion about "removing warnings": 

'''Replies to removing warnings''' 
Removing the recent notes here about your changes to the style guide is misleading. Also, from [[Wikipedia:Removing warnings]]: "Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism." [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 17:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
----
I don't understand what you mean. Anyway I have received no warning from the admin etc. at all. The 3RR is fake. I don't know if I understand correctly, but it seems to be the reverse. I posted an update. Others reverted all the changes without even trying to improve or examine. After all, I have done 2 reverts. How come I have violated 3RR (and received warning)? Weird?

Anyway I don't care much. Time should be spent on improving articles, not on trivial things.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 18:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
----
:What part of "Removing the recent notes here about your changes to the style guide is misleading" do you not understand? And to mark such removals as minor is further misleading. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 18:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::Please understand what is "[[Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace|warning]]" (in your quote) before you make your comment. Next time, for any discussion relating to the article/topic, please reply in the related talk page, instead of forking the discussions over everywhere. it is hard to follow.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 18:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

=== General comments ===
I don't have time to read through your changes in detail at the moment, but here are some general comments:
* I think your changes are more extensive than you imagine. You think they're mostly just tidying up, but I think they're rather more than that.
* I find rewriting the paragraphs as bulleted lists makes them much less readable.
* The grammar is often slightly wrong. Your English is very good, but not quite perfect. For example, a native speaker wouldn't say "Both '12 noon' and 'noon' is acceptable" but "Either '12 noon' or 'noon' is acceptable". There are many similar examples, so you should get it checked by a native speaker first.
* On MoS pages, it is conventional to proceed very cautiously, and seek consensus for all changes before making them; not to make changes and hope that they're not reverted. This is because the MoS guidance potentially affects every article on Wikipedia. You might like to compare [[User:Stephen Turner/Date Proposal|what I wrote]] before I made extensive changes to this page.
* If you are reverted by several editors, consider whether you may be doing something wrong. And take it to the talk page, rather than making your changes again.
[[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 20:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'm not specifically replying to your points above, but I thought the title "General comments" was suitable for adding this: regardless of how much reasonable they can be, changes to the Manual of Style should be carefully considered, and possibly avoided. When I joined Wikipedia the whole Manual was pretty stable. At a given moment, it began to change and has never stopped. This is too bad. It does need stability, or articles will never keep up (if nothing else because nobody wants to drive crazy for that). To put it differently: the more you change it, the more it is dead letter. —[[User:Gennaro Prota|Gennaro Prota]][[User talk:Gennaro Prota|•Talk]] 02:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding general comments, I have modified my changes based on what you say (eg bulleted lists) (which is actually my second update done last week). Let's see how others respond to the proposed changes then.—[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 20:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

== Dates, non WaiWai issue ==

I was taking a look at the changes and I noticed this (which was present in both versions)
:Elsewhere, either format is acceptable. See [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English]] for more guidance.

I would assume that in non-Commonwealth, non-US/Canada countries there is in fact a preferred style and IMHO we should stick with this. So perhaps it would be best to at least mention this (e.g. although if a national style is known, this should be used). Depending on how variable national styles are, we might even be able to include some info on national styles from non-Commonwealth, non-US/Canada countries... [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] 16:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'm OK with including "(e.g. although if a national style is known, this should be used if it does not conflict with this style guide)," with the modification at the end. But I think extra info on national styles might be too much detail. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 18:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Can you give an example of an English speaking country that was not part of the British Empire/ Commonwealth and the type of date style that is used there?---[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 19:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Very few countries use American dating. Apart from North American topics, I think the default should be International dating, which is the choice of most. BTW what does South America do, BTW? [[User:Jtdirl|'''Fear''ÉIREANN''''']][[Image:Ireland-Capitals.PNG|15px]]\[[User talk:Jtdirl|(caint)]] 20:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::I should have been clearer but reading the statement "''non-Commonwealth, non-US/Canada countries''" makes me think that there is/are other date styles besides the two that are used in the U.S./Canada and British Commonwealth —i.e. besides August 13th, 2006 or 13 August 2006 (and their slight variations). I don't want this taken the wrong way but we should only be concerned with how native English speaking counties style things. If this was Spanish Wikipedia that I would wonder how dates were styled in South America.[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 13:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Hmm... Some of my ideas: 1) If most editors here are American, does it mean only American spelling or style should be used. Not so. Wikipedia is intended to be edited by everyone in the world. 2) The stlye guide should not take editors into consideration only. 3) It is also intended to be read by everyone in the world. Some styles or formatting, even if it causes no problem to one nation or country, may cause problems on another. This style should not be used to avoid ambiguity to visitors of other nations.—[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 20:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

== My proposed changes ==

Would anyone please take some time to read my proposed changes (and make amendments if you find the mistakes)? After all, thanks so much for MJCdetroit to give valuable advice and improve my proposed changes.—[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 21:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

2006-08-15T21:01:42Z

Wai Wai: /* General comments */

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

2006-08-15T20:59:18Z

Wai Wai: /* Unclear */

==Archives==
{| class="infobox" width="270px"
|-
!align="center"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]] [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|
*[[/archive1|1]], [[/archive2|2]], [[/archive3|3]], [[/archive4|4]], [[/archive5|5]], ''[[/vote|5a]]'', [[/archive6|6]], [[/archive7|7]], [[/archive8|8]], [[/archive9|9]], [[/archive10|10]],
*[[/archive11|11]], [[/archive12|12]], [[/archive13|13]], [[/archive14|14]], ''[[/archive dash discussion/|14a]]'', [[/archive15|15]], [[/archive16|16]], [[/archive17|17]], [[/archive18|18]], [[/archive19|19]],
*[[/archive20|20]], [[/archive21|21]], [[/archive22|22]], [[/archive23|23]], [[/archive24|24]], [[/archive25|25]], [[/archive26|26]], [[/archive27|27]], [[/archive28|28]], [[/archive29|29]],
*[[/archive30|30]], [[/archive31|31]], [[/archive32|32]], [[/archive33|33]], [[/archive34|34]], [[/archive35|35]], [[/archive36|36]], [[/archive37|37]], [[/archive38|38]], [[/archive39|39]],
*[[/archive40|40]], [[/archive41|41]], [[/archive42|42]], [[/archive43|43]], [[/archive44|44]], [[/archive45|45]], [[/archive46|46]], [[/archive47|47]], [[/archive48|48]]
*[[/archive49|49]], ''[[/archive49a|49a]]'', [[/archive50|50]], [[/archive51|51]], [[/archive52|52]]
|}

See also:
* [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (calendar dates)]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Timeline standards]]
* [[Wikipedia:Measurements Debate]]
----
'''Note on Archives:'''

'''The recent discussion on linking of dates from [[9 March]] [[2006]] to [[13 April]] [[2006]] is in archives 42 through 46, plus 48. [[/archive42|42]], [[/archive43|43]], [[/archive44|44]], [[/archive45|45]], [[/archive46|46]], [[/archive48|48]]''' 

----

== Improvement about guidelines in Time ==

Quote:
{| class=wikitable
!width=100| 12-hour clock !!width=100| Not !!width=100| 24-hour clock !!width=100| Not
|-
|2 p.m. || 2pm || 14:00 || 14.00
|-
|2:34 p.m. || 2.34 PM || 14:34 || 1434
|-
|12:04:38 a.m. || 12.04 38″ A.M. || 00:04:38 or 0:04:38
|-
|noon ||12 noon || 12:00
|}

The suggestions in "time" section seems to be weird because:
# It does not even follow what other formal or official standards (eg NIST standards) suggest.
# Its guidelines even conflicts with what the referenced articles [[12-hour clock]] and [[24-hour clock]] say. They don't follow what it says.

'''Mistake: p.m, pm & PM are definitely acceptable.'''
Evidence: 
# The initialisms "AM" and "PM" are variously written in small capitals ("am" and "pm"), uppercase letters ("AM" and "PM"), or lowercase letters ("am" and "pm"). Additionally, some styles use periods (full stops), especially in combination with lowercase letters (thus "a.m." and "p.m."). -- the guide in [[12-hour clock]]
# A.M. and P.M. may either be written in all capital letters or all lower case, but choose one style and stick with it. -- englishplus.com and Oxford Advanced dictionary
# The use of period/dot (.) is optional. -- Oxford Advanced dictionary

'''Mistake: noon or 12 noon are definitely acceptable.'''
Evidence: 
#"noon" or "12:00 noon" and "midnight" or "12:00 midnight" should be used (rather than to 12:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m., respectively) to avoid confusion. -- nist.gov (mentioned also in [[12-hour clock]])
# The tables in [[12-hour clock]] and [[24-hour clock]] uses 12 noon and 12 mindinight too. -- the guide in [[12-hour clock]]

'''Mistake: For 24-hour, discretion may be used to determine if the hour has a leading zero.''' 
It's strange that the article says that. There is no discretion as to whether a leading zero is used. It is more to do as a standard or a matter of taste. If one follows formal standard strictly, 24-hour usually use leading numbers. This includes major time sites like NIST.gov, greenwichmeantime.com, and so on.

'''A better explanation on Noon and Midnight''' 
<blockquote>'''AM and PM - What is Noon and Midnight?''' 
AM and PM start immediately after Midnight and Noon (Midday) respectively.
This means that 00:00 AM or 00:00 PM (or 12:00 AM and 12:00 PM) have no meaning.
Every day starts precisely at midnight and AM starts immediately after that point in time e.g. 00:00:01 AM (see also leap seconds)
To avoid confusion timetables, when scheduling around midnight, prefer to use either 23:59 or 00:01 to avoid confusion as to which day is being referred to.
It is after Noon that PM starts e.g. 00:00:01 PM (12:00:01) -- greenwichmeantime.com </blockquote>

I'm going to update the above (to include the instructions in [[12-hour clock]] and [[24-hour clock]], and some major time sites) if no one oppose it. --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

* I can't really decide whether I like what you are proposing without seeing the exact text you plan to use. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 15:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
** The above is more or less all of the proposals. If you agree (generally) with the above, I will put the text up for a review. There is nothing new anyway. What I try to do is to make it consistent with at least what is mentioned or done in [[12-hour clock]] and [[24-hour clock]]. The existing guideline conflicts with them, which is bad. --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 16:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
*** I think we should probably permit AM and PM as an alternative to a.m. and p.m., as the upper-case versions seem to be the normal spelling in the United States. I haven't understood what other problems you perceive in the current text, which you are trying to correct — we already forbid 12 a.m. and 12 p.m., for example. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 03:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
**** They are: 1) noon and 12 noon are definitely acceptable. 2) No discretion is needed to determine if the hour has a leading zero. 12-hour normally doesn't use leading zero; 24-hour usually does (reference given above). Any opinion? --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 05:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
***** I agree with both those points in principle. I think that some people find "12 noon" [[tautology (rhetoric)|tautologous]] but I don't have a problem with it. I'd still like to see the proposed text before giving a definite yes. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 15:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have some doubt that AM and PM are preferred in the United States. And "12 noon" is redundant. It seems like such changes amount to having no style, which can be done more concisely, if that is desired. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 17:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
:People say "12 noon", to distinguish it from "24 midnight". --[[User:SuperJumbo|Jumbo]] 21:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
:I believe that both PM and p.m. should be acceptable (not, though, P.M. or pm). And 12 noon is not redundant. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 22:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, 12 noon is not redundant.
::sorry, why do either P.M. or pm is not acceptable? Anyway, I see all 4 styles in different formal writing. Read [[12 hour clock]] too. All of them should be acceptable.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:The misunderstanding here is what the MoS is for. It's not saying that PM is wrong, for example, just that we have made an arbitrary but well informed decision to use p.m.; where possible without causing flame wars we want WP to have a consistent look and feel. And we don't have to follow any external guides or standards, although they inform the debate. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'' 22:22 [[8 August]] [[2006]] (GMT).

But it is not the way it should work:
#Wikipedia is a place which respect more than 1 style and formatting.
#Multiple style should be allowed, not being biased to one single style of the particular convention or in that particular country (eg the cases of American vs British spelling).
#Wikipedia is intended to be read by different users all over the world. Your choice of formatting or style may not acheve this goal.
#Some of the suggested style do not even confront to the standards (eg discretion can be made as to whether leading zero is used in 24-hour clock format). I don't know why a rule is made to against stanards for no particlar reasons.
#Users feel free to pick any style as long as it is clear and acceptable.
#The style guide still allows "inconsistency" (in the choice of style/formatting), like this style guide will state people can choose between "AD/BC" and "CE/BCE".
#A consistent look and feel can still be achieved even if more than 1 style exist. The point is to mantain consistency with the user's choice in that article.

Also bear in mind I am '''not''' disagreeing with WP having a style, but there is something between "no style" and "one absolute style". I'm disagreeing with "one absolute style" (when other accpetable or standard styles exist) or against the Wikipedian philosophies. It is not necessary to rule out one absolute style only and ask all others to follow. Just like this style guide will state people can choose between "AD/BC" and "CE/BCE", and so on. There are quite many situations where the style ask people to choose either one and keep consistency. Why do you think '''only "one absolute style" must exist everywhere?''' Why do you think '''you must pick one only and ask all others to follow'''?

I realise you would like to keep things consistent, but accepting either one is not the '''only''' way to keep consistency. Allowing both acceptable standard and kindly ask others to maintain interally consistency also works; just like you set rules to allow using arabic numbers in some cases, using numbers in words in other cases. Otherwise why don't you just allow one format only in all cases?--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

=== About the change ===
Please read the proposed change:

===12-hour clock===
* Times in the [[12-hour clock]] end with lower case "am" or "pm". These suffixes should not be omitted.
* As to "12 pm" and "12 am", "(12) noon" and "(12) midnight" should be used for clarity purposes. Some readers may find the former ambiguous and confusing. As it is a wikipedia policy to minimise ambiguity, "(12) noon" and "(12) midnight" are much better than the former.
** Both "12 noon or midnight" and "noon or midnight" is acceptable.
* Normally no leading zero is used to distinguish from times in the [[24-hour clock]].
* Regarding capitalisation:
** It does not matter what capital form "am/pm" is used. It can be written as "AM or am" or "PM or pm". But please be consistent throughout the article.
** It does not matter whether the first letter of "noon/midnight" is capitalised.
* The dot (.) is optional in the suffix: either am/pm or a.m./p.m. is fine.
* The spacing between the number and suffix is optional: either 2:30am or 2:30 am is fine.

===24-hour clock===
* Time in the [[24-hour clock]] times have no "am/pm/noon/midnight" suffix.
* 00:00 or 24:00 refers to the midnight and 12:00 refers to noon.
** 00:00 refers to the start of a day while 24:00 refers to the end of a day. However the end of a day equal to the start of the next day. That is why 00:00 is identical to 24:00.
** Both 00:00 and 24:00 are acceptable. It does not matter which one you use.
* Normally a leading zero is added to distinguish from times in the [[12-hour clock]].

===Common formats===
* In either case, the colon (:) should be used to separate hours, minutes and seconds. The use of dot (.) as a separator is not standard. It also causes confusion with the decimal point (.) in 12.45 (amount). Do not use it.
* Do not add extra symbols like (") to indicate second.
* Example:
** Use 12:34:28 pm (''but not 12.04 38″ pm'')
** Use 00:34 (''but not 00.34 or 0.34 or 0034'')
 —[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 20:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

== Wai Wai's changes ==
I've just reverted all Wai Wai's changes made in the last 12 hours or so. Changes this extensive must be discussed on the talk page first and reach consensus here. I'm sure some of them are fine, but others are controversial, and some of them were badly phrased too. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 15:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

:They are not really big nor major proposals. Most of them are copyedit work (eg reorganization, integration, redundancy removal, inconsistency fixes, and so on). Instead of reverting all the changes which is clearly inappropriate as stated by the policy, review the edit. If you feel there are something which may not be alright, discuss it then in the talk page.
:How about if you try to read the page once now and see if there is anything which may not be alright? I deem you will find it is mostly the same wine but with a new bottle. No new nor major nor core contents have been changed or proposed. And if you think something might not be okay, you can always discuss it in the talk page. Thank you --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 16:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

::A lot of them are just copy-editing, but there are several new pieces of advice in there too. Also it's very difficult to work out everything you've done because of the number of paragraph breaks and moved sections. (Have you looked at the diff?). At a minimum, every new policy should have been discussed here first. (And I don't know what you mean by "clearly inappropriate as stated by the policy" — which policy are you referring to?) [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 16:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

::::As to the new pieces of advice, some of them may be just copied or derived from other policies. It's not something completely new. Some may be just an additional note or advice (which expand or enrich the main one).--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I agree with Stephen's reverts. Until there is a concensus reached (or at least a discussion) here first, no changes to the manual should be made. In units of measurement, a few things that Wai Wai changed that do not have a concensus: making the non-braking space optional; and not spelling out numbers (wasn't Centrx trying to get us to spell out up to 100?). Also the first sentence in "choice" about international units is covered in "conversions". So I changed some things.--[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 03:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

::: (NB I wrote this simultaneously with MJCdetroit's comments).
::: I started reverting the bits I disagreed with, but as I read through it, I found that I disagreed with almost everything you'd done.
:::* New or changed advice should never have been added to the page without discussion here first.
:::* Your reordering of sections seemed worse because there was too much preamble before getting to the important stuff.
:::* Breaking paragraphs into bulleted lists made it much less readable, as did the excessive number of sub-sub-section and sub-sub-sub-section headings.
::: So I'm sorry, but I reverted everything again. I don't like to do that, but I'm afraid I found that most of the edits made the page worse. But maybe someone else could review it and offer an opinion?
:::[[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 03:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
::::[[Status quo]] ante Wai Wai --[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 03:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

::::: See my replies below. Most, if not all, you say can be done through improvement (not reverting). The general rule applies (as stated in wikipedia's policy): '''Improve it, rather than deleting it'''.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

----
Dear [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]]: 
The word "policy" I use is not strict, that is I simply refer to some wikipedia standards or principles or philosophies. It does not necesarily mean any standalone official policy which is being voilated (eg "three revert rule" policy). Anyway, here's the extract of what reverting is deemed appropriate:
* Reverting should be used '''primarily for fighting vandalism'''. -- Help:Reverting
* Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: '''Do not simply revert changes in a dispute'''. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, '''improve the edit, rather than reverting it'''. -- Wikipedia:Resolving disputes
* Does the editor do is something very similar to vandalism? Even the update has some big problems, it is not the excuse to revert it. In the case of NPOV, people usually do it wrong by using: "'''lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete'''" Quoted from NPOV (its philosophy applies): ''Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly.'' -- NPOV
* Unless what one writes is near to completely non-sense, or useless or rubbish. Revert is not something which you should be taken lightly. The bold policy does not apply. We are bold to create/improve it, not bold to destory/delete it.
* '''Reverting should be used primarily for fighting vandalism or anything similar to the effects of vandalism'''.
I realise my edits may not be perfect, but that's the process of wikipedia. I post a preliminary edit. People will try to edit and improve it. We don't need to make sure it is 100% acceptable and perfect before it can be put. Consensus will be reached during the edit process. 
I would revert my changes first (so others have chances to improve it). According to these policies or principles, if you feel my edits are very devastating or near vandalism, feel free to revert my edits (hopefully with reasons provided, so I know how to improve it, instead of starting at ground level again). --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 06:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

----

===My role===
Some people or editors may find this iformation useful. I'm [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias| a member of countering systemic bias]]. Simply speaking, it is a bia due to the nature of the system (wikipedia). Most editors here are coming from United States or in countries where English is their mother language. Most of the information/comments are biased towards the western. Opinions or information from Africa, Asia and South America are missing.

What I am trying to do is:
# Resolve the problem that "the information and perspective in the articles or sections may not represent a worldwide view." In this case, most style tend to be one-sided and in favour of one style standard (mainly United States or western).
# Integrate contents from various articles or policies, and remove the redundancy.
# Make sure the guidelines comply with major wikipedia policies, standards or philosophies.
# Make it consistent throughout the page.
# Make it consistent throughout different guidelines and policies.
# Resolve discrepancies and conflicts occurred within the same article.
 --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

===Editing procedures and requirements===
As regards the comment of "no changes to the manual should be made until there is a concensus reached. Every change has to be discussed in the discussion page first."

It's clearly wrong unfortunately. Please read the following: 
'''Major philosophy''' (official policies): 
:''Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. However, avoid deleting information wherever possible.'' -- Wikipedia:Editing policy
:[[Wikipedia:Editing_policy|perfection isn't required]] and don't worry about messing up. It is what wikipedia is - the editing process will take care it all. -- the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|five pillars of Wikipedia]].

'''Specific guidelines''': 
:''Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.'' -- guideline of updating style pages

Explanation (Note: The following is just a rough guideline. It is never intended to be complete or extensive): 
Things which may need discussions before editing: 
* Major or fundamental proposals
* Proposals which may be against major wikipedia philosophies or policies
* Important changes which is '''not''' going to or has reflected general consensus

Things which may '''not''' need discussions before editing: 
* ideas, rules, or information copied/derived from other guidelines or policies (since they have reflected general consensus already)
* sub-proposals expanding or enriching the existing one
* Changes which is going to or has reflected general consensus (maybe supported by official policies or the like)
* Non-content-specific changes like copyedit, integration, reorganization, categorization, formatting and style etc.
* minor changes or edits

In the forthcoming days, I will try to explain some of the reasons why I make the changes. Nevertheless it is very time consuming and it is impractical to explain every single change, including copyedit and minor ones. Priority has to be decided. If anyone has any doubts about any of my changes, please specify which one and what your doubts are, so I will know which are in higher priority and focus my explanations on them. Consensus and agreement could be made in this regard.

Please give me a few days to respond. Best regards.
 --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

===Reversions===

:Wai Wai. Please try and understand this section of the MOS has come about through continual discussions and consensus of the edits. Your edits here are not the same as if you were making edits to say the article on Queen Elizabeth. Your changes here are effectively telling all editors how all other articles in wikipedia should look or not look. Therefore, in matters dealing with the MOS, I think most editors here would rather proceed with caution. --[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 14:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

::Wai Wai, you should note that your changes have been reverted four times by three people.
::You do not have consensus. Changes within style guide and elsewhere in Wikipedia namespace call for more consensus and discussion than changes in article namespace. Articles are about facts; the style guide is intended essentially as direction and advice. For you to continue as you have been appears to place your ideas above those that the community has determined.
::The best way to work toward the changes you desire is to leave the project page alone until there is clear acceptance on this page. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 14:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Wai Wai, can you please discuss your changes before making them. You have been reverted a number of times and some of your changes I object to such as changing the practice of putting spaces between digits and units for measurements in parentheses. If you are unwilling to list and discuss the changes you wish to make then you will keep being reverted. --[[User:Clawed|Clawed]] 06:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:::It is not okay to revert people's contributions, as stated in revert policies. If every change has to be discussed, the page will be locked. We feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes. Most of my update is copyedit: merge, redundancy removal. However I think I should not mix things together. Maybe I should do it bit by bit. I was concentrating too much at that time (You see, I have spent 1 whole day for this edit, and I deviate a bit from what I originally intended to do). --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 06:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wai Wai -- Do you not see that you are going against consensus? Both the established style and repeated requests for you to first discuss your changes and get agreement before making them? Do you not see how little support your changes have among other editors? [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I realise there are some problems which we have to work on. However this alone does not justify a "revert" as far as the policies are concerned. The polciy has stated '''a "revert" should be dealt primiarily with vandalism'''. Unless you think all of the updates are vandalism or near vandalism, I don't see why it justifies a "revert". Policy has also stated we should work on the problems. Improve/Modify the articles, rather than deleting/reverting it.

After all, I am willing to work on the problems or consensus issues. Please specify the problems and what your doubts are, so I will know which are in higher priority and focus my explanations on them. I will try to explain some of the reasons why I make the changes. Consensus and agreement could be made in this regard. Please give me some time to fix the problems before you make your decision.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

#This is a style guide, not an article. I pointed out some of the difference earlier.
#Given that you change so much, it is hard to analyze and list. Given that there is general disagreement with your changes, the burden is on you. Please specify -- on the talk page -- what you see as the problems. When you get consensus agreement, then it's OK to change the style guide for that aspect. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 09:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of the above rules. Would you mind tellingme where it state so, including it is the updater's burden to prove there is the general agreement before an update is possible? I have stated it already: Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes. -- guideline of updating style pages.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:They are not so much rules, but judgment common to at least several people involved with this.
:But seeing that you like to quote things …
:From [[Help:Reverting]]: "However, sometimes a revert is the best response to a less-than-great edit, so we can't just stop reverting."
:From [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]]: "Amendments to a guideline should be discussed on its talk page, not on a new page - although it's generally acceptable to edit a guideline to improve it."
:But your edits here are obviously not seen to be improvements by the other people involved.
:From the project page: "The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here."
:If the consensus is "Do X" and that is changed to "Do X, or Y, or Z" by one person and other people disagree, then it is no longer a convention established by consensus.
:You are trying to change conventions already established by consensus. Do you not see that consensus is need to change what is already established by consensus?
:It is not that every single edit anyone makes to the style guide must be pre-approved. It is that edits that engender disagreement, especially to to a policy or guideline, should be worked out on the talk page before proceeding further. Do you not see the difference?
[[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 10:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is not all are major changes. It is wrong to revert COMPLETELY because there are some problems in the update. Please read the following: 
'''Major philosophy''' (official policies): 
:''Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. However, avoid deleting information wherever possible.'' -- Wikipedia:Editing policy
:[[Wikipedia:Editing_policy|perfection isn't required]] and don't worry about messing up. It is what wikipedia is - the editing process will take care it all. -- the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|five pillars of Wikipedia]].

'''Specific guidelines''': 
:''Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.'' -- guideline of updating style pages

If every change needed to be done through discussion, why the page is not locked up? What's more, reverting should be used '''primarily for fighting vandalism''', as stated in the help:reverting page.

When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate or problematic, '''improve the edit, rather than reverting it''' as stated in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

Unless what one writes is near to completely non-sense, or useless or rubbish. Revert is not something which you should be taken lightly. The bold policy does not apply. We are bold to create/improve it, not bold to destory/delete it.

However what people doing are reverting all changes but there are only some areas problematic.

===Spacing in unit measurement===
Spacng should be optional since I find both formatting style (ie spacing or non-spacing) in different formal writing. For example, my Oxford Intermediate English Dictionary uses non-spacing one, as in "''For this recipe you need 500g (five hundred grams) of flour''".--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 06:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

: Nearly every style issue has professional style guides that advocate for different styles, but that does not mean that Wikipedia must allow all of them, or even necessarily any two of them. We develop our style guidelines based on consensus, which allows many styles on some issues, and only one or two on others. (The most common single restriction is to follow only one guideline on single issue throughout a single article.) Often these consensuses (consensi?) are carefully negotiated compromises. The real questions are, what have we negotiated for this issue, and does it still hold? ~ [[User:Jeffq|Jeff Q]] [[User talk:Jeffq|(talk)]] 07:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::I agree with Jeff. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::I agree with Wai Wai. [[User:JP06035|→'''&ensp;JARED]]'''&ensp;[[User_talk:JP06035|(t)]]&ensp; 15:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
::I am for following the almost universally recognised SI standard, prescribing a space. −[[User:Woodstone|Woodstone]] 18:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
::I agree with Jeff/Woodstone. [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 21:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
::I said this a little lower on the page, but for the record, I agree with Jeff and Woodstone.--[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 22:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
:::But, I mean, SI standards and ISO standards don't mean that it is the only way to write something. It is only a guideline for those who feel insecure without having set rules. It makes NO DIFFERENCE whether there's a space or not. Both on Wikipedia and in the real world, it should be up to the writer to decide which is asthetically better. Standards mean nothing! [[User:JP06035|→'''&ensp;JARED]]'''&ensp;[[User_talk:JP06035|(t)]]&ensp; 22:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

----
I don't see the need why we need to force all editors to use one single standard, not to say there are other kinds of problems. People tend to defend by saying "consistency", and "consistency" is always good. Really? However they forget they are making things complex and go in the other way round. Take the case of "numbers in word" (extracted):
* Whole numbers from zero to ten are spelled out as words in the body of an article. Use numerals in tables and infoboxes.
* Numbers above ten may be written out if they are expressed in two or fewer words, except in tables and infoboxes. Example: "sixteen", "eighty-four", "two hundred", "twenty million" but "3.75", "544", "21 million".
* Fractions standing alone should be spelt out unless they occur in a percentage. If fractions are mixed with whole numbers, use numerals.

<blockquote>'''Summary''': 
For number zero to ten, spell out the words. 
For number above ten, two situations: 
- expressed in two or fewer words, spell out the words. 
- otherwise, use arabic numbers. 
Fractions alone, spell out the words. 
Fractions mixed with whole numbers, use arabic numbers.</blockquote>

Where is the consistency? The rules tell us to uses numbers in words sometimes, uses arabic numbers in other times. Originally the style guide intends to keep things simple and consistent. However when people are working on it, they tend to forget their original goals and deviate from them - making rules complex, splitting hairs, trivial, inconsistency, inconvenience to editors, and so on.

People tend to forget '''simplicity is the best'''. If editors were not spending time on trivial style or formatting, much of their time saved could be used to improve the real "contents" of the article. It is what benefit the visitors most.

By the way, it is going to be a '''very minority consensus''' if you take the whole community [the world] into account. Only a very few wikipedians are engaged in the discussion.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 07:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
----

:You seem to disagree with WP having a style in general, at least to some degree. That's OK. You don't have to follow the style guide.
:Many other people do want WP to have a style. In a a way, loose style or less style can be more complicated -- editors don't need to decide which style to use, because they can refer to the style guide, where many such matters have already been decided. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::No. You get me wrong. I am '''not''' disagreeing with WP having a style, but there is something between "no style" and "one absolute style". I'm disagreeing with "one absolute style" (when other accpetable or standard styles exist) or against the Wikipedian philosophies. It is not necessary to rule out one absolute style only and ask all others to follow. Just like this style guide will state people can choose between "AD/BC" and "CE/BCE", and so on. There are quite many situations where the style ask people to choose either one and keep consistency. Why do you think '''only "one absolute style" must exist everywhere?''' Why do you think '''you must pick one only and ask all others to follow'''?
::I realise you would like to keep things consistent, but accepting either one is not the '''only''' way to keep consistency. Allowing both acceptable standard and kindly ask others to maintain interally consistency also works; just like you set rules to allow using arabic numbers in some cases, using numbers in words in other cases. Otherwise why don't you just allow one format only in all cases?--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::Another possibility is for you to work on just one paragraph at a time, or in a day. Smaller changes are easier to digest.
::I also disagree with the super-small subsections you've been making. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion taken. I'm working too hard on that day. I will try o update bit by bit next time. As to sections, section starts at 2nd level. What I'm usng is just 4th level (the 3rd type of section). There are articles which use 4th level. And I don't see why we must restrict ourselves to using 2 types of sections only (ie 2nd and 3rd level). Anyway, it is just a style issue. If all people don't like it, just undo the section formatting.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Spacing. I agree with Jeff and Maureen. There should be a non-breaking space between unit and symbol. I think that a rare exception can be made when the measurement itself actually becomes a title for something and is usually written without the space; e.g. 35mm camera, 6.1L Hemi, and the oympic events, etc. However, in those cases, I can live with the space if we don't want to make any exceptions. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 14:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Yes, I agree with the non-breaking space part too. However spacing is not always necessary. It is not rare exceptions. I have read different formal articles about that. I see there are cases where both are acceptable (eg 56 km or 56km). I don't see the reasons behind why we must prefer one style and depreciate another.
::::Beware that we should take [[systemic bias]] into consideration when generating rules. Systemic bias is the inherent tendency of a process to favor particular outcomes. The term is a [[neologism]] that generally refers to human systems; the analogous problem in non-human systems (such as scientific observations). After all, Wikipedia is intedned to be read by all people over the world.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

== The current decade ==

I am sure this has come up before, but I don't see anything on the project page. [[User:GoDot]] is insisting on calling the current decade "the 2000s" as in "bank redlining had largely diminished by the mid 2000s" ([[Seattle neighborhoods]]). I find this very confusing: if someone says "the mid-1900s" they mean around 1950, not 1905. But since this is a user with whom I repeatedly find myself disagreeing, and since the MoS doesn't yet address the matter, I'm simply bringing the question here. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 02:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
: Did you try to look at [[2000s]] or [[1900s]]? Compare to [[21st century]] and [[20th century]]. [[User:Crissov|Christoph Päper]] 13:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

== Update on Olympic Debate ==

I know it was a ''loooooooong'' time ago that we were debating on whether or not a space should be put between the number and the unit of Olympic Event names. The IOC official site does not put space, so one would expect the Wikipedia articles should do the same (e.g. '''10km'''), but according to this overcited page, it was kept according to the WP guidelines (e.g. '''10 km''').

I recently received a long awaited reply from the IOC in which the Sports Director Kelly Fairweather noted to me that the IOC is "working with the International Federations to define the exact terms to be used for disciplines and events." She stated that the project would be completed by October 2006 and the IOC website after that point would be the place to find the official terminology. Until then, "there is no one approved terminology."

I just thought some others would like to know. [[User:JP06035|→'''&ensp;JARED]]'''&ensp;[[User_talk:JP06035|(t)]]&ensp; 21:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
----
As a sidenote, I find both formatting style (ie spacing or non-spacing) in different formal writing. For example, my Oxford Intermediate English Dictionary uses non-spacing one, as in "''For this recipe you need 500g (five hundred grams) of flour''".

Anyway, I think people are getting hypercorrect. What's the difference between '''500g''' and '''500 g'''? Will people get confused when reading either style? People are wasting too much time on trivial issues, and making things complex, not to say it requires huge efforts and good memories to comply with all these trivial rules.

They tend to forget '''simplicity is the best'''. Accept both. Pick either one you like the best. How easy life would be then? After all, standards are all created by humans. No standards must be formal or informal. They are all relative in nature. If time are spent on more important issues, the world would be much better. --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 07:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Actually, I agree. The usage of either one is relative to the situation in which it is used. Different articles (topics) may require the use of different methods, but I'm really not up for arguing for it... [[User:JP06035|→'''&ensp;JARED]]'''&ensp;[[User_talk:JP06035|(t)]]&ensp; 15:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

== Indian numbering convention ==

This has probably come up before: Should the [[Indian numbering system]] (hazar, lakh, crore, arab...) be used in articles about Indian subjects? Should exponential breaks be done in the Indian system (i.e. 1,00,000 as opposed to 100,000)? Thoughts? -- [[User:Samir_(The_Scope)|'''Samir''']] [[User_talk:Samir_(The_Scope)|धर्म]] 09:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks for pointing me at that article - I came across an article with a comma after two digits once and was very confused! Are numbers other than lakhs and crores commonly used? My opinion, off the top of my head, is that it would probably be reasonable to use the Indian names and style of digits when referring to Indian subjects (thus complying with the MoS requirement to use the local form of English), but ''also'' advisable to write the number out in the more common style to avoid confusing non-Indian readers who might think it was a typographical error, e.g. "five crores (5,00,00,000 or 50,000,000)". -- [[User:Arwel_Parry|Arwel]] ([[User talk:Arwel_Parry|talk]]) 12:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

== Compound units ==

I thought there was a style recommendation for complicated units like mm•K/W, but I don't see it. How should we format things like this? — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 14:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

:I don't think the "Manual of Style" has such a recommendation, but the standard IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997 states on page 14 "Symbols. To avoid ambiguity in complicated expressions, unit symbols are preferred over unit names." I think this should go in the manual. --[[User:Gerry Ashton|Gerry Ashton]] 15:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
::I wouldn't not be against this going in the manual. However, we should insist on having a page (linked to the symbol) explaining what the unit is and how it used. Some of the symbols would be obvious, but they should still be linked to the respective article. If [[mph]] and [[km/h]] have articles about them then so should mm•K/W. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 14:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

==Wai Wai's changes, continued==
Here are some options, in alphabetical order:
#Accept Wai Wai's changes without further ado. -- Several of us disagree, so not a good choice.
#Ask to have the page protected.
#Continue the back-and-forth reversion.
#Start an RFC.
#Wai Wai could stop changing the project page, discuss the desired changes, and wait until consensus is clear to make the changes. -- Apparently unlikely, given that this has been requested several time by different people.

Comments? [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 09:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:The "Continue the back-and-forth reversion." is definitely not an option even if people here vote for it. It is because it is against Wikipedian's policies: Wikipedia does not allow revert wars! --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Takes two to tango. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 09:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:I think we are rapidly approaching the time for [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies]]. -- '''[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]([[User talk:Dalbury|Talk]])''' 09:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:After seeing the recent changes on the article page, I would say it is definitely time now for an RfC. -- '''[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]([[User talk:Dalbury|Talk]])''' 10:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Stop changing the project page, discuss the desired changes, and wait until consensus is clear. Only change the page when there is a consensus to do so. This would be the best way to go about it. In fact, isn't that the way that we have been doing it. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 12:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you really saying? Anyway, I have examined the revert policy once again. Unfortunately I'm afirad all people are wrong, at least in reverting. Stephen Turner states he was trying to be bold to revert long hours of contributions. However the "bold" policy clearly states it does not apply in terms of "reverting". Although a few people support him by doing the same, the action is wrong. '''The majority people are performing the same action does not justify the action itself. [[WP:WWIN#Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy|Wikipedia is not a democracy]]. We need to respect rules!'''

Pay attention that '''it's NOT my PERSONAL opinion. It is stated in the policies''' (eg [[WP:BOLD]]).

Please read the following rules first about revert. No one seems to care or understand about the "revert policy" - not to revert people's contributions even if it has problems. Revert is not something which should be taken lightly. "Reverting" is harmful, and so on.

:'''If you feel you are correct in reverting, please tell me which rule tells people it is justifiable to do a SIMPLE REVERT of days of contributions?'''

What's more, the recent update is not just the same as the old one. It has spent me valuable time to modify the update according to some comments (eg super-section, bullets, and spacing in unit measurement). However people keep reverting THE WHOLE PART OF IT instead of stating the questions. People seem to think it is just the same and revert it without any examination. '''THAT IS VERY RUDE'''.

Please read this: 
* Reverting should be used '''primarily for fighting vandalism'''. -- Help:Reverting
* Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: '''Do not simply revert changes in a dispute'''. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, '''improve the edit, rather than reverting it'''. -- Wikipedia:Resolving disputes
* Does the editor do is something very similar to vandalism? Even the update has some big problems, it is not the excuse to revert it. In the case of NPOV, people usually do it wrong by using: "'''lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete'''" Quoted from NPOV (its philosophy applies): ''Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly.'' -- NPOV
* Unless what one writes is near to completely non-sense, or useless or rubbish. Revert is not something which you should be taken lightly. The bold policy does not apply. We are bold to create/improve it, not bold to destory/delete it.
* '''Reverting should be used primarily for fighting vandalism or anything similar to the effects of vandalism'''.
I realise my edits may not be perfect, but that's the process of wikipedia. I post a preliminary edit. People will try to edit and improve it. We don't need to make sure it is 100% acceptable and perfect before it can be put. Consensus will be reached during the edit process.

'''I am willing to work on the problems or consensus issues. However people keep saying there is no consensus, but they are unwilling to specify where is the no consensus. Please specify the problems and what your doubts are, so I will know which are in higher priority and focus my explanations on them. I will try to explain some of the reasons why I make the changes. Consensus and agreement could be made in this regard. Please give me some time to fix the problems before you make your decision.'''--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 13:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:My suggestion would be to discuss your changes a little at a time. Don't do a large scale edit of the page. Baby steps. I think it would go smoother; it'll take longer but that is better in the long run anyway. So start a new topic based on what the first thing that you want to change is. It will be discussed over a few days and you will know the feelings of the editors on that proposal. What do you think? [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 14:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, you are very right. I did too many changes at one time. Lessons learnt. But I am sure the real "contextual" change is much less than what people orginally thought since most of them are not real contextual changes. However I mixed all of my hours work together and make one single update which may be too confusing for others to review. Sorry about that.
::After all, '''it is perfectly fine for me to post the changes here first. However I wonder if there's anyone who will be willing to review it.'''--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 14:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Baby steps! Also, you need to give your proposals some time to be debated. Not everyone lives on the computer—I certainly don't. Let as many people as possible discuss this.---[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 15:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Who says we need to settle it instantly? As long as the discussion is moving, it is perfectly fine. However, last time, I have waited for nearly a week for others to ask questions or respond or specify the problems, no one responded. After all, your review is excellent. Keep it up! --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
{{user Very Happy}}{{clear}}
=== about unit of measurement ===

I have forgotten whether which is copyedit, which is proposal.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. Read them once. If you find anything problematic, state it out.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 14:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

----

====Choice====
* <strike>Try to use the international units instead of local, unless you have good reasons to use others</strike>. ——Covered under 'conversions', unless you mean something else by 'international units'. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 15:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
''What's wrong to state this out to remind editors? When someone which is unsure what unit should be chosen, they are going to read that section. The covering under 'conversions' is not clear, at least to some people.''--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
* Some non-metric units have more than one version. Be specific. For example, ''[[US gallon|U.S. gallon]]'' or ''[[imperial gallon]]'' rather than just ''gallon''. Similarly, use ''[[nautical mile]]'' or ''[[statute mile]]'' rather than just ''mile'' in aviation, space, sea and in some other contexts.
* Try to be consistent with your choice.

====Format====
* Use standard or formal (as opposed to localized or informal) abbreviations when using symbols. For example, metre is m, kilogram is kg, inch is in (''not " or ″'' ), foot is ft (''not ' or ′'' ), and [[Avoirdupois|pound]] is lb (''not #'').
** Do not append an ''s'' for plurals of unit abbreviations. For example kg, in, yd, lb; ''not kgs, ins, yds, lbs''.
* For concision purposes, please use digits for values. For example, 100 kg; ''not one hundred kg''.
* <strike>For understandability purposes,</strike> please spell out units in the text, and link to the relevant article at the first few usage.

——You must have non breaking space between the number and symbol. Here's why: I weigh 180lb and drink a 1l of water a day. Having a space is easier on the eyes and is more consistent with many technical writings.

———''However I see the non-spacing version in other formal writing, including the dictionaries. I see it uses 500g, 10km and so on.''--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

——It's not for understandability, it's the way formal writings are styled. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 15:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

===Conversions===
* Conversions should generally be included and not be removed.
* If editors cannot agree about the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second.
* If for some reason the choice of units is arbitrary, choose [[SI units]] as the main unit, with other units in parentheses. For subjects dealing with the United States, it might be more appropriate to use U.S. measurements first, i.e. mile, foot, U.S. gallon.
* Use digits and unit symbols for values in parentheses. For example, "a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 16 kilometres (10 mi) long" '''or''' "a pipe 4 inches (100 mm) in diameter and 10 miles (16 km) long".
** Do the same for measurements in tables.
* Converted values should use a similar level of precision as the source value. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth", not "(236,121 mi)".

----

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Spacing_in_unit_measurement

===About dates===
If memory serves, they are (nearly) summarised changes (copyedit).
The major change is to move all general style and formatting which can apply to the rest of the page (or date formats) in the front first.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 14:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

See the following:
----

====Wording====

=====Uncertain date=====
*When only an approximate date is available, the English word ''about'' or the abbreviation "''c.''" (Latin: ''circa''; English: "about") may be used.
* When a date is uncertain because the source is unreliable, that fact should be noted and the source should be mentioned. For example, "according to [[Livy]], the [[Roman Republic]] was founded in 509 BC", or "The [[Mahabharata]] is traditionally said to have been composed in [[1310s BCE|1316 BCE]]".

=====Seasons=====
* The seasons are reversed in each hemisphere, while areas near the [[equator]] tend to have just [[wet season|wet]] and [[dry season]]s. Neutral wording should be used to describe times of the year to avoid confusion.
** Use "in early 1990", "in the second quarter of 2003", "around September" or an exact date, rather than references to seasons, unless there is some particular need to do so (eg "the autumn harvest"). It is ambiguous to say that [[Apollo 11]] landed on the Moon in the summer of 1969 (whose summer?).

=====Eras=====
:''See [[Anno Domini]] for a discussion on what is meant by AD and BC notation, and [[Common Era]] for a discussion on what is meant by CE and BCE notation.''
*Simply speaking, AD equals CE. BC equals BCE.

*Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article.

*Note that the [[1st century BC]] is from 100 BC to 1 BC (there was no [[year 0]]) so 1700 BC would be the first year of the 17th century BC, 1800 BC would be the first year of the 18th century BC, etc. Similarly, 4000 BC was the first year of the fourth millennium BC, ''not'' the last year of the fifth millennium BC.

*Note that the [[19th century]] is 1801—1900 (but ''not 1901—2000''). It is because the [[1st century]] starts at 1 AD and ends at 100 AD.

*Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the [[Anno Domini]]/[[Common Era]], but when events span the start of the [[Anno Domini]]/[[Common Era]], use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, <nowiki>[[1 BC]]—[[1|AD 1]]</nowiki> or <nowiki>[[1 BCE]]—[[1|1 CE]]</nowiki>.

*In articles about prehistory, if you use BP ([[before present]]) or MYA ([[million years ago]]), expand these abbreviations when you first use them, as most readers will be unfamiliar with them.

====Formatting====

=====General=====
* For any formatting or style, please maintain consistency throughout an article, unless there's a good reason to do otherwise.
* If, for any special reasons, a less clearer or specific format (eg 1900-01-12 date format is chosen instead of 12 January 1900) is used. Please make it very sure that your choice does not cause any ambiguity or confusion to anyone over the world. Note that something which is certain in one country or nation may not be so in another. Thus the best way to eliminate possible ambiguity or confusion is to adding notes beside the usage (to clarify any grey area or ambiguity).
*Wikipedia respects different formatting and style as long as they are clear and unambiguous. When any of the style is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedian to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reasons for the change. For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject.
** Revert warring over optional styles is highly unacceptable; if the article is [[colour]] rather than [[color]], it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable. See also [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk]].
* Direct [[quotations]] (ie the word-for-word reproduction of a written or oral text) should ''not'' be altered to confirm any wikipedia formatting or style. It is because the original source has to be kept as intact (in verbatim) as possible. For instance, the date in the following fictional quotation should not be linked (even if it is preferred in wikipedia):
:"Tony Blair, responding to critics in his party, said 'The world has totally changed since the 11th of September.' He was echoing earlier sentiments by Lord Ronald McDonald, who said that 'nine-eleven' was the day that the American public woke up to the reality of terrorism."


=====Ranges=====
Sometimes numbers and dates are expressed in ranges, such as "14—17" for the numbers 14 to 17. It is often preferable to write this out (eg "14 through 17" (US and Canada) or "from 14 to 17"). It is to avoid confusion with "14 minus 17", which is expressed with spaces, as "14 &minus; 17".

Traditionally, ranges of numbers and dates are given with an en dash (—). Simply click the "–" button (excluding quotes) below the edit window or insert it with any software supporting this punctuation. Please avoiding typing the code &ndash; to insert en dash. It is because new editors may not understand the code. They may delete the code due to misunderstanding. Also the visually form of "—" (excluding quotes) is more visually appealing and readable in the edit screen.

However, nowadays some sources use spaced or unspaced hyphens, at least online, and some Wikipedians believe that these hyphens should not be changed to en dashes.

See [[#Dates of birth and death]] (another section in the same article) for example.

See [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes)]] for details.

=====Year, decade, century formats=====
* Always write year in full form. Do not use the shortened two-digit form to express a year. It is because the shortened formats are likely to cause confusion. The same holds true whether the years are BC or AD. For example:
** Do not use 56 or '56. Use 1956 (when referring to the decade of the 20th century)
** Do not use 80s or '80s or "the eighties". Use 1980s (when referring to the decade of the 20th century)
* It is not necessary to use an apostrophe to indicate a decade. [[1970s]] is preferred, but not [[1970's]].
* The word "century" is normally not capitalised. [[18th century]] (small capital) is normally used. [[18th Century]] (big capital) is less common.

=====Day and month formats=====
* Please express a month as a whole word. Do not use numbers, except in [[ISO 8601]] format. Do not use abbreviations like "Dec". For example, use December 1945. Do not use "12, 1945" or "12 of 1945" or "Dec 1945"
** If space is precious (eg in a table, infobox, or the like), abbreviations are preferred to numbers (eg "Oct", ''not "10"''). Numbers are discouraged because it may cause confusion to readers as to whether day or month is referred.
** The shortened two-digit format is optional at the end of a range (ie "1970—1987" or "1970—87").
* The ordering does not matter: both "February 14" and "14 February" are fine.
* It is not necessary to add ordinal suffixes. "February 14" is preferred, but not "February 14th" and "14th February".
* It is not necessary to use a comma (,) or the word "of" between a month and year. "December 1945" is preferred, but not "December, 1945" and "December of 1945".

===Unclear===
[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]], this is progress. Thank you.

But the above material does not indicate the difference between the established style guide and your desired changes.

I have asked you to address a pragraph at a time. If you won't do that, would you at least narrow it to a section or subsection at a time, whichever is smaller that is applicable? [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 18:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:You are welcome! What "material" are you referring to? I assume you are talking about "dates". Yes, you spotted it right. There is no change in '''real''' content. They are just summarisation, re-organization or the like. The major change I could think of is to move all general style and formatting which can apply to the rest of the page (or date formats) to the front.
:Some changes are expanding the explanations. For example, I have added more explanation about "BC and AD", like the 19th century is meant to be 1801—1900 (I don't know if it's common sense to native speakers, but I know some people will mistakenly take it as 1901-2000. Personally I avoid using 19th century. I use 1801-1900 instead to avoid possible confusion, like the case in 12:00pm and 12:00am. The same holds true to date format like 2006-11-12. There are 2 possible formats: YYYY-MM-DD and YYYY-DD-MM. Some people will get confused. That's why I prefer the traditional 12 Nov 2006 or 2006-Nov-12 if I have to use similar date format. I would like to add these notes too, so editors who decide to pick these formats realise the potential ambiguity or confusion.
:If you are talking about "time", the changes are already pointed out in my first post.
:if you are talking about "unit of measurement", the only change in '''real''' content I would think of is the "spacing". I simply point out both style are used in writing (non-spaced and spaced).—[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 20:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

===&mdash; and &ndash; entities===
I find the changes to the dash guidelines highly objectionable. &mdash; and &ndash; are easy to type, their names quite clearly indicate "this is a dash", and HTML entities are certainly no more confusing than most of the markup used in MediaWiki. I don't see any reason to disallow using the Unicode characters, but "confusing for new editors" describes a whole lot more of what goes on here than these HTML entities. Anyone playing with the sandbox will be able to see what &mdash; and &ndash; do. —[[User:Ptkfgs|ptk]]✰[[User_talk:Ptkfgs|fgs]] 18:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:The reason is most new editors who are not familiar with Unicode characters will find it confusing. That's also why Wikipedia creates Wiki codes, to make it easier for others to edit. Others like HTML are hard to understand for newbies.—[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 20:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

=== recent changes ===
I agree that it's a little sudden. They need copy-editing in a number of places, and while I like a lot of the changes, I don't like all of them. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 15:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:So sorry about the "suddenness".--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

===Removal of material from user talk page===
Some people have left notes on [[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]]'s talk page about the style guide changes. [[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] has removed them all, including my note intended to discourage such removals. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 20:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

: Removing warnings from one's own talk page is unacceptable, per [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]]. I think both [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wai_Wai&diff=69187463&oldid=69181170 this edit] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wai_Wai&diff=69260023&oldid=69245690 this one] fall into that category. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 20:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
----

Thee above are not [[Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace|warnings]], as mentioned in [[Wikipedia:Removing warnings]]. The responses (discussions) are related here. Why don't all of you simply reply here? Forking the discussion is hard to follow, not to say others are not going to read them.

Just like this case, my responses about the removal is completely missing. As a reference, here's the previous discussion about "removing warnings": 

'''Replies to removing warnings''' 
Removing the recent notes here about your changes to the style guide is misleading. Also, from [[Wikipedia:Removing warnings]]: "Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism." [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 17:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
----
I don't understand what you mean. Anyway I have received no warning from the admin etc. at all. The 3RR is fake. I don't know if I understand correctly, but it seems to be the reverse. I posted an update. Others reverted all the changes without even trying to improve or examine. After all, I have done 2 reverts. How come I have violated 3RR (and received warning)? Weird?

Anyway I don't care much. Time should be spent on improving articles, not on trivial things.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 18:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
----
:What part of "Removing the recent notes here about your changes to the style guide is misleading" do you not understand? And to mark such removals as minor is further misleading. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 18:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::Please understand what is "[[Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace|warning]]" (in your quote) before you make your comment. Next time, for any discussion relating to the article/topic, please reply in the related talk page, instead of forking the discussions over everywhere. it is hard to follow.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 18:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

=== General comments ===
I don't have time to read through your changes in detail at the moment, but here are some general comments:
* I think your changes are more extensive than you imagine. You think they're mostly just tidying up, but I think they're rather more than that.
* I find rewriting the paragraphs as bulleted lists makes them much less readable.
* The grammar is often slightly wrong. Your English is very good, but not quite perfect. For example, a native speaker wouldn't say "Both '12 noon' and 'noon' is acceptable" but "Either '12 noon' or 'noon' is acceptable". There are many similar examples, so you should get it checked by a native speaker first.
* On MoS pages, it is conventional to proceed very cautiously, and seek consensus for all changes before making them; not to make changes and hope that they're not reverted. This is because the MoS guidance potentially affects every article on Wikipedia. You might like to compare [[User:Stephen Turner/Date Proposal|what I wrote]] before I made extensive changes to this page.
* If you are reverted by several editors, consider whether you may be doing something wrong. And take it to the talk page, rather than making your changes again.
[[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 20:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'm not specifically replying to your points above, but I thought the title "General comments" was suitable for adding this: regardless of how much reasonable they can be, changes to the Manual of Style should be carefully considered, and possibly avoided. When I joined Wikipedia the whole Manual was pretty stable. At a given moment, it began to change and has never stopped. This is too bad. It does need stability, or articles will never keep up (if nothing else because nobody wants to drive crazy for that). To put it differently: the more you change it, the more it is dead letter. —[[User:Gennaro Prota|Gennaro Prota]][[User talk:Gennaro Prota|•Talk]] 02:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding general comments, I have modified my changes based on what you say (eg bulleted lists). Let's see how others respond to the proposed changes then.—[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 20:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

== Dates, non WaiWai issue ==

I was taking a look at the changes and I noticed this (which was present in both versions)
:Elsewhere, either format is acceptable. See [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English]] for more guidance.

I would assume that in non-Commonwealth, non-US/Canada countries there is in fact a preferred style and IMHO we should stick with this. So perhaps it would be best to at least mention this (e.g. although if a national style is known, this should be used). Depending on how variable national styles are, we might even be able to include some info on national styles from non-Commonwealth, non-US/Canada countries... [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] 16:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'm OK with including "(e.g. although if a national style is known, this should be used if it does not conflict with this style guide)," with the modification at the end. But I think extra info on national styles might be too much detail. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 18:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Can you give an example of an English speaking country that was not part of the British Empire/ Commonwealth and the type of date style that is used there?---[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 19:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Very few countries use American dating. Apart from North American topics, I think the default should be International dating, which is the choice of most. BTW what does South America do, BTW? [[User:Jtdirl|'''Fear''ÉIREANN''''']][[Image:Ireland-Capitals.PNG|15px]]\[[User talk:Jtdirl|(caint)]] 20:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::I should have been clearer but reading the statement "''non-Commonwealth, non-US/Canada countries''" makes me think that there is/are other date styles besides the two that are used in the U.S./Canada and British Commonwealth —i.e. besides August 13th, 2006 or 13 August 2006 (and their slight variations). I don't want this taken the wrong way but we should only be concerned with how native English speaking counties style things. If this was Spanish Wikipedia that I would wonder how dates were styled in South America.[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 13:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Hmm... Some of my ideas: 1) If most editors here are American, does it mean only American spelling or style should be used. Not so. Wikipedia is intended to be edited by everyone in the world. 2) The stlye guide should not take editors into consideration only. 3) It is also intended to be read by everyone in the world. Some styles or formatting, even if it causes no problem to one nation or country, may cause problems on another. This style should not be used to avoid ambiguity to visitors of other nations.—[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 20:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

2006-08-15T20:40:08Z

Wai Wai: /* Removal of material from user talk page */

==Archives==
{| class="infobox" width="270px"
|-
!align="center"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]] [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|
*[[/archive1|1]], [[/archive2|2]], [[/archive3|3]], [[/archive4|4]], [[/archive5|5]], ''[[/vote|5a]]'', [[/archive6|6]], [[/archive7|7]], [[/archive8|8]], [[/archive9|9]], [[/archive10|10]],
*[[/archive11|11]], [[/archive12|12]], [[/archive13|13]], [[/archive14|14]], ''[[/archive dash discussion/|14a]]'', [[/archive15|15]], [[/archive16|16]], [[/archive17|17]], [[/archive18|18]], [[/archive19|19]],
*[[/archive20|20]], [[/archive21|21]], [[/archive22|22]], [[/archive23|23]], [[/archive24|24]], [[/archive25|25]], [[/archive26|26]], [[/archive27|27]], [[/archive28|28]], [[/archive29|29]],
*[[/archive30|30]], [[/archive31|31]], [[/archive32|32]], [[/archive33|33]], [[/archive34|34]], [[/archive35|35]], [[/archive36|36]], [[/archive37|37]], [[/archive38|38]], [[/archive39|39]],
*[[/archive40|40]], [[/archive41|41]], [[/archive42|42]], [[/archive43|43]], [[/archive44|44]], [[/archive45|45]], [[/archive46|46]], [[/archive47|47]], [[/archive48|48]]
*[[/archive49|49]], ''[[/archive49a|49a]]'', [[/archive50|50]], [[/archive51|51]], [[/archive52|52]]
|}

See also:
* [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (calendar dates)]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Timeline standards]]
* [[Wikipedia:Measurements Debate]]
----
'''Note on Archives:'''

'''The recent discussion on linking of dates from [[9 March]] [[2006]] to [[13 April]] [[2006]] is in archives 42 through 46, plus 48. [[/archive42|42]], [[/archive43|43]], [[/archive44|44]], [[/archive45|45]], [[/archive46|46]], [[/archive48|48]]''' 

----

== Improvement about guidelines in Time ==

Quote:
{| class=wikitable
!width=100| 12-hour clock !!width=100| Not !!width=100| 24-hour clock !!width=100| Not
|-
|2 p.m. || 2pm || 14:00 || 14.00
|-
|2:34 p.m. || 2.34 PM || 14:34 || 1434
|-
|12:04:38 a.m. || 12.04 38″ A.M. || 00:04:38 or 0:04:38
|-
|noon ||12 noon || 12:00
|}

The suggestions in "time" section seems to be weird because:
# It does not even follow what other formal or official standards (eg NIST standards) suggest.
# Its guidelines even conflicts with what the referenced articles [[12-hour clock]] and [[24-hour clock]] say. They don't follow what it says.

'''Mistake: p.m, pm & PM are definitely acceptable.'''
Evidence: 
# The initialisms "AM" and "PM" are variously written in small capitals ("am" and "pm"), uppercase letters ("AM" and "PM"), or lowercase letters ("am" and "pm"). Additionally, some styles use periods (full stops), especially in combination with lowercase letters (thus "a.m." and "p.m."). -- the guide in [[12-hour clock]]
# A.M. and P.M. may either be written in all capital letters or all lower case, but choose one style and stick with it. -- englishplus.com and Oxford Advanced dictionary
# The use of period/dot (.) is optional. -- Oxford Advanced dictionary

'''Mistake: noon or 12 noon are definitely acceptable.'''
Evidence: 
#"noon" or "12:00 noon" and "midnight" or "12:00 midnight" should be used (rather than to 12:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m., respectively) to avoid confusion. -- nist.gov (mentioned also in [[12-hour clock]])
# The tables in [[12-hour clock]] and [[24-hour clock]] uses 12 noon and 12 mindinight too. -- the guide in [[12-hour clock]]

'''Mistake: For 24-hour, discretion may be used to determine if the hour has a leading zero.''' 
It's strange that the article says that. There is no discretion as to whether a leading zero is used. It is more to do as a standard or a matter of taste. If one follows formal standard strictly, 24-hour usually use leading numbers. This includes major time sites like NIST.gov, greenwichmeantime.com, and so on.

'''A better explanation on Noon and Midnight''' 
<blockquote>'''AM and PM - What is Noon and Midnight?''' 
AM and PM start immediately after Midnight and Noon (Midday) respectively.
This means that 00:00 AM or 00:00 PM (or 12:00 AM and 12:00 PM) have no meaning.
Every day starts precisely at midnight and AM starts immediately after that point in time e.g. 00:00:01 AM (see also leap seconds)
To avoid confusion timetables, when scheduling around midnight, prefer to use either 23:59 or 00:01 to avoid confusion as to which day is being referred to.
It is after Noon that PM starts e.g. 00:00:01 PM (12:00:01) -- greenwichmeantime.com </blockquote>

I'm going to update the above (to include the instructions in [[12-hour clock]] and [[24-hour clock]], and some major time sites) if no one oppose it. --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

* I can't really decide whether I like what you are proposing without seeing the exact text you plan to use. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 15:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
** The above is more or less all of the proposals. If you agree (generally) with the above, I will put the text up for a review. There is nothing new anyway. What I try to do is to make it consistent with at least what is mentioned or done in [[12-hour clock]] and [[24-hour clock]]. The existing guideline conflicts with them, which is bad. --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 16:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
*** I think we should probably permit AM and PM as an alternative to a.m. and p.m., as the upper-case versions seem to be the normal spelling in the United States. I haven't understood what other problems you perceive in the current text, which you are trying to correct — we already forbid 12 a.m. and 12 p.m., for example. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 03:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
**** They are: 1) noon and 12 noon are definitely acceptable. 2) No discretion is needed to determine if the hour has a leading zero. 12-hour normally doesn't use leading zero; 24-hour usually does (reference given above). Any opinion? --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 05:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
***** I agree with both those points in principle. I think that some people find "12 noon" [[tautology (rhetoric)|tautologous]] but I don't have a problem with it. I'd still like to see the proposed text before giving a definite yes. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 15:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have some doubt that AM and PM are preferred in the United States. And "12 noon" is redundant. It seems like such changes amount to having no style, which can be done more concisely, if that is desired. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 17:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
:People say "12 noon", to distinguish it from "24 midnight". --[[User:SuperJumbo|Jumbo]] 21:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
:I believe that both PM and p.m. should be acceptable (not, though, P.M. or pm). And 12 noon is not redundant. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 22:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, 12 noon is not redundant.
::sorry, why do either P.M. or pm is not acceptable? Anyway, I see all 4 styles in different formal writing. Read [[12 hour clock]] too. All of them should be acceptable.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:The misunderstanding here is what the MoS is for. It's not saying that PM is wrong, for example, just that we have made an arbitrary but well informed decision to use p.m.; where possible without causing flame wars we want WP to have a consistent look and feel. And we don't have to follow any external guides or standards, although they inform the debate. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'' 22:22 [[8 August]] [[2006]] (GMT).

But it is not the way it should work:
#Wikipedia is a place which respect more than 1 style and formatting.
#Multiple style should be allowed, not being biased to one single style of the particular convention or in that particular country (eg the cases of American vs British spelling).
#Wikipedia is intended to be read by different users all over the world. Your choice of formatting or style may not acheve this goal.
#Some of the suggested style do not even confront to the standards (eg discretion can be made as to whether leading zero is used in 24-hour clock format). I don't know why a rule is made to against stanards for no particlar reasons.
#Users feel free to pick any style as long as it is clear and acceptable.
#The style guide still allows "inconsistency" (in the choice of style/formatting), like this style guide will state people can choose between "AD/BC" and "CE/BCE".
#A consistent look and feel can still be achieved even if more than 1 style exist. The point is to mantain consistency with the user's choice in that article.

Also bear in mind I am '''not''' disagreeing with WP having a style, but there is something between "no style" and "one absolute style". I'm disagreeing with "one absolute style" (when other accpetable or standard styles exist) or against the Wikipedian philosophies. It is not necessary to rule out one absolute style only and ask all others to follow. Just like this style guide will state people can choose between "AD/BC" and "CE/BCE", and so on. There are quite many situations where the style ask people to choose either one and keep consistency. Why do you think '''only "one absolute style" must exist everywhere?''' Why do you think '''you must pick one only and ask all others to follow'''?

I realise you would like to keep things consistent, but accepting either one is not the '''only''' way to keep consistency. Allowing both acceptable standard and kindly ask others to maintain interally consistency also works; just like you set rules to allow using arabic numbers in some cases, using numbers in words in other cases. Otherwise why don't you just allow one format only in all cases?--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

=== About the change ===
Please read the proposed change:

===12-hour clock===
* Times in the [[12-hour clock]] end with lower case "am" or "pm". These suffixes should not be omitted.
* As to "12 pm" and "12 am", "(12) noon" and "(12) midnight" should be used for clarity purposes. Some readers may find the former ambiguous and confusing. As it is a wikipedia policy to minimise ambiguity, "(12) noon" and "(12) midnight" are much better than the former.
** Both "12 noon or midnight" and "noon or midnight" is acceptable.
* Normally no leading zero is used to distinguish from times in the [[24-hour clock]].
* Regarding capitalisation:
** It does not matter what capital form "am/pm" is used. It can be written as "AM or am" or "PM or pm". But please be consistent throughout the article.
** It does not matter whether the first letter of "noon/midnight" is capitalised.
* The dot (.) is optional in the suffix: either am/pm or a.m./p.m. is fine.
* The spacing between the number and suffix is optional: either 2:30am or 2:30 am is fine.

===24-hour clock===
* Time in the [[24-hour clock]] times have no "am/pm/noon/midnight" suffix.
* 00:00 or 24:00 refers to the midnight and 12:00 refers to noon.
** 00:00 refers to the start of a day while 24:00 refers to the end of a day. However the end of a day equal to the start of the next day. That is why 00:00 is identical to 24:00.
** Both 00:00 and 24:00 are acceptable. It does not matter which one you use.
* Normally a leading zero is added to distinguish from times in the [[12-hour clock]].

===Common formats===
* In either case, the colon (:) should be used to separate hours, minutes and seconds. The use of dot (.) as a separator is not standard. It also causes confusion with the decimal point (.) in 12.45 (amount). Do not use it.
* Do not add extra symbols like (") to indicate second.
* Example:
** Use 12:34:28 pm (''but not 12.04 38″ pm'')
** Use 00:34 (''but not 00.34 or 0.34 or 0034'')
 —[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 20:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

== Wai Wai's changes ==
I've just reverted all Wai Wai's changes made in the last 12 hours or so. Changes this extensive must be discussed on the talk page first and reach consensus here. I'm sure some of them are fine, but others are controversial, and some of them were badly phrased too. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 15:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

:They are not really big nor major proposals. Most of them are copyedit work (eg reorganization, integration, redundancy removal, inconsistency fixes, and so on). Instead of reverting all the changes which is clearly inappropriate as stated by the policy, review the edit. If you feel there are something which may not be alright, discuss it then in the talk page.
:How about if you try to read the page once now and see if there is anything which may not be alright? I deem you will find it is mostly the same wine but with a new bottle. No new nor major nor core contents have been changed or proposed. And if you think something might not be okay, you can always discuss it in the talk page. Thank you --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 16:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

::A lot of them are just copy-editing, but there are several new pieces of advice in there too. Also it's very difficult to work out everything you've done because of the number of paragraph breaks and moved sections. (Have you looked at the diff?). At a minimum, every new policy should have been discussed here first. (And I don't know what you mean by "clearly inappropriate as stated by the policy" — which policy are you referring to?) [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 16:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

::::As to the new pieces of advice, some of them may be just copied or derived from other policies. It's not something completely new. Some may be just an additional note or advice (which expand or enrich the main one).--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I agree with Stephen's reverts. Until there is a concensus reached (or at least a discussion) here first, no changes to the manual should be made. In units of measurement, a few things that Wai Wai changed that do not have a concensus: making the non-braking space optional; and not spelling out numbers (wasn't Centrx trying to get us to spell out up to 100?). Also the first sentence in "choice" about international units is covered in "conversions". So I changed some things.--[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 03:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

::: (NB I wrote this simultaneously with MJCdetroit's comments).
::: I started reverting the bits I disagreed with, but as I read through it, I found that I disagreed with almost everything you'd done.
:::* New or changed advice should never have been added to the page without discussion here first.
:::* Your reordering of sections seemed worse because there was too much preamble before getting to the important stuff.
:::* Breaking paragraphs into bulleted lists made it much less readable, as did the excessive number of sub-sub-section and sub-sub-sub-section headings.
::: So I'm sorry, but I reverted everything again. I don't like to do that, but I'm afraid I found that most of the edits made the page worse. But maybe someone else could review it and offer an opinion?
:::[[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 03:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
::::[[Status quo]] ante Wai Wai --[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 03:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

::::: See my replies below. Most, if not all, you say can be done through improvement (not reverting). The general rule applies (as stated in wikipedia's policy): '''Improve it, rather than deleting it'''.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

----
Dear [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]]: 
The word "policy" I use is not strict, that is I simply refer to some wikipedia standards or principles or philosophies. It does not necesarily mean any standalone official policy which is being voilated (eg "three revert rule" policy). Anyway, here's the extract of what reverting is deemed appropriate:
* Reverting should be used '''primarily for fighting vandalism'''. -- Help:Reverting
* Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: '''Do not simply revert changes in a dispute'''. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, '''improve the edit, rather than reverting it'''. -- Wikipedia:Resolving disputes
* Does the editor do is something very similar to vandalism? Even the update has some big problems, it is not the excuse to revert it. In the case of NPOV, people usually do it wrong by using: "'''lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete'''" Quoted from NPOV (its philosophy applies): ''Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly.'' -- NPOV
* Unless what one writes is near to completely non-sense, or useless or rubbish. Revert is not something which you should be taken lightly. The bold policy does not apply. We are bold to create/improve it, not bold to destory/delete it.
* '''Reverting should be used primarily for fighting vandalism or anything similar to the effects of vandalism'''.
I realise my edits may not be perfect, but that's the process of wikipedia. I post a preliminary edit. People will try to edit and improve it. We don't need to make sure it is 100% acceptable and perfect before it can be put. Consensus will be reached during the edit process. 
I would revert my changes first (so others have chances to improve it). According to these policies or principles, if you feel my edits are very devastating or near vandalism, feel free to revert my edits (hopefully with reasons provided, so I know how to improve it, instead of starting at ground level again). --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 06:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

----

===My role===
Some people or editors may find this iformation useful. I'm [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias| a member of countering systemic bias]]. Simply speaking, it is a bia due to the nature of the system (wikipedia). Most editors here are coming from United States or in countries where English is their mother language. Most of the information/comments are biased towards the western. Opinions or information from Africa, Asia and South America are missing.

What I am trying to do is:
# Resolve the problem that "the information and perspective in the articles or sections may not represent a worldwide view." In this case, most style tend to be one-sided and in favour of one style standard (mainly United States or western).
# Integrate contents from various articles or policies, and remove the redundancy.
# Make sure the guidelines comply with major wikipedia policies, standards or philosophies.
# Make it consistent throughout the page.
# Make it consistent throughout different guidelines and policies.
# Resolve discrepancies and conflicts occurred within the same article.
 --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

===Editing procedures and requirements===
As regards the comment of "no changes to the manual should be made until there is a concensus reached. Every change has to be discussed in the discussion page first."

It's clearly wrong unfortunately. Please read the following: 
'''Major philosophy''' (official policies): 
:''Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. However, avoid deleting information wherever possible.'' -- Wikipedia:Editing policy
:[[Wikipedia:Editing_policy|perfection isn't required]] and don't worry about messing up. It is what wikipedia is - the editing process will take care it all. -- the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|five pillars of Wikipedia]].

'''Specific guidelines''': 
:''Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.'' -- guideline of updating style pages

Explanation (Note: The following is just a rough guideline. It is never intended to be complete or extensive): 
Things which may need discussions before editing: 
* Major or fundamental proposals
* Proposals which may be against major wikipedia philosophies or policies
* Important changes which is '''not''' going to or has reflected general consensus

Things which may '''not''' need discussions before editing: 
* ideas, rules, or information copied/derived from other guidelines or policies (since they have reflected general consensus already)
* sub-proposals expanding or enriching the existing one
* Changes which is going to or has reflected general consensus (maybe supported by official policies or the like)
* Non-content-specific changes like copyedit, integration, reorganization, categorization, formatting and style etc.
* minor changes or edits

In the forthcoming days, I will try to explain some of the reasons why I make the changes. Nevertheless it is very time consuming and it is impractical to explain every single change, including copyedit and minor ones. Priority has to be decided. If anyone has any doubts about any of my changes, please specify which one and what your doubts are, so I will know which are in higher priority and focus my explanations on them. Consensus and agreement could be made in this regard.

Please give me a few days to respond. Best regards.
 --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

===Reversions===

:Wai Wai. Please try and understand this section of the MOS has come about through continual discussions and consensus of the edits. Your edits here are not the same as if you were making edits to say the article on Queen Elizabeth. Your changes here are effectively telling all editors how all other articles in wikipedia should look or not look. Therefore, in matters dealing with the MOS, I think most editors here would rather proceed with caution. --[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 14:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

::Wai Wai, you should note that your changes have been reverted four times by three people.
::You do not have consensus. Changes within style guide and elsewhere in Wikipedia namespace call for more consensus and discussion than changes in article namespace. Articles are about facts; the style guide is intended essentially as direction and advice. For you to continue as you have been appears to place your ideas above those that the community has determined.
::The best way to work toward the changes you desire is to leave the project page alone until there is clear acceptance on this page. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 14:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Wai Wai, can you please discuss your changes before making them. You have been reverted a number of times and some of your changes I object to such as changing the practice of putting spaces between digits and units for measurements in parentheses. If you are unwilling to list and discuss the changes you wish to make then you will keep being reverted. --[[User:Clawed|Clawed]] 06:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:::It is not okay to revert people's contributions, as stated in revert policies. If every change has to be discussed, the page will be locked. We feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes. Most of my update is copyedit: merge, redundancy removal. However I think I should not mix things together. Maybe I should do it bit by bit. I was concentrating too much at that time (You see, I have spent 1 whole day for this edit, and I deviate a bit from what I originally intended to do). --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 06:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wai Wai -- Do you not see that you are going against consensus? Both the established style and repeated requests for you to first discuss your changes and get agreement before making them? Do you not see how little support your changes have among other editors? [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I realise there are some problems which we have to work on. However this alone does not justify a "revert" as far as the policies are concerned. The polciy has stated '''a "revert" should be dealt primiarily with vandalism'''. Unless you think all of the updates are vandalism or near vandalism, I don't see why it justifies a "revert". Policy has also stated we should work on the problems. Improve/Modify the articles, rather than deleting/reverting it.

After all, I am willing to work on the problems or consensus issues. Please specify the problems and what your doubts are, so I will know which are in higher priority and focus my explanations on them. I will try to explain some of the reasons why I make the changes. Consensus and agreement could be made in this regard. Please give me some time to fix the problems before you make your decision.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

#This is a style guide, not an article. I pointed out some of the difference earlier.
#Given that you change so much, it is hard to analyze and list. Given that there is general disagreement with your changes, the burden is on you. Please specify -- on the talk page -- what you see as the problems. When you get consensus agreement, then it's OK to change the style guide for that aspect. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 09:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of the above rules. Would you mind tellingme where it state so, including it is the updater's burden to prove there is the general agreement before an update is possible? I have stated it already: Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes. -- guideline of updating style pages.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:They are not so much rules, but judgment common to at least several people involved with this.
:But seeing that you like to quote things …
:From [[Help:Reverting]]: "However, sometimes a revert is the best response to a less-than-great edit, so we can't just stop reverting."
:From [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]]: "Amendments to a guideline should be discussed on its talk page, not on a new page - although it's generally acceptable to edit a guideline to improve it."
:But your edits here are obviously not seen to be improvements by the other people involved.
:From the project page: "The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here."
:If the consensus is "Do X" and that is changed to "Do X, or Y, or Z" by one person and other people disagree, then it is no longer a convention established by consensus.
:You are trying to change conventions already established by consensus. Do you not see that consensus is need to change what is already established by consensus?
:It is not that every single edit anyone makes to the style guide must be pre-approved. It is that edits that engender disagreement, especially to to a policy or guideline, should be worked out on the talk page before proceeding further. Do you not see the difference?
[[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 10:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is not all are major changes. It is wrong to revert COMPLETELY because there are some problems in the update. Please read the following: 
'''Major philosophy''' (official policies): 
:''Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. However, avoid deleting information wherever possible.'' -- Wikipedia:Editing policy
:[[Wikipedia:Editing_policy|perfection isn't required]] and don't worry about messing up. It is what wikipedia is - the editing process will take care it all. -- the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|five pillars of Wikipedia]].

'''Specific guidelines''': 
:''Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.'' -- guideline of updating style pages

If every change needed to be done through discussion, why the page is not locked up? What's more, reverting should be used '''primarily for fighting vandalism''', as stated in the help:reverting page.

When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate or problematic, '''improve the edit, rather than reverting it''' as stated in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

Unless what one writes is near to completely non-sense, or useless or rubbish. Revert is not something which you should be taken lightly. The bold policy does not apply. We are bold to create/improve it, not bold to destory/delete it.

However what people doing are reverting all changes but there are only some areas problematic.

===Spacing in unit measurement===
Spacng should be optional since I find both formatting style (ie spacing or non-spacing) in different formal writing. For example, my Oxford Intermediate English Dictionary uses non-spacing one, as in "''For this recipe you need 500g (five hundred grams) of flour''".--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 06:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

: Nearly every style issue has professional style guides that advocate for different styles, but that does not mean that Wikipedia must allow all of them, or even necessarily any two of them. We develop our style guidelines based on consensus, which allows many styles on some issues, and only one or two on others. (The most common single restriction is to follow only one guideline on single issue throughout a single article.) Often these consensuses (consensi?) are carefully negotiated compromises. The real questions are, what have we negotiated for this issue, and does it still hold? ~ [[User:Jeffq|Jeff Q]] [[User talk:Jeffq|(talk)]] 07:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::I agree with Jeff. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::I agree with Wai Wai. [[User:JP06035|→'''&ensp;JARED]]'''&ensp;[[User_talk:JP06035|(t)]]&ensp; 15:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
::I am for following the almost universally recognised SI standard, prescribing a space. −[[User:Woodstone|Woodstone]] 18:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
::I agree with Jeff/Woodstone. [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 21:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
::I said this a little lower on the page, but for the record, I agree with Jeff and Woodstone.--[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 22:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
:::But, I mean, SI standards and ISO standards don't mean that it is the only way to write something. It is only a guideline for those who feel insecure without having set rules. It makes NO DIFFERENCE whether there's a space or not. Both on Wikipedia and in the real world, it should be up to the writer to decide which is asthetically better. Standards mean nothing! [[User:JP06035|→'''&ensp;JARED]]'''&ensp;[[User_talk:JP06035|(t)]]&ensp; 22:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

----
I don't see the need why we need to force all editors to use one single standard, not to say there are other kinds of problems. People tend to defend by saying "consistency", and "consistency" is always good. Really? However they forget they are making things complex and go in the other way round. Take the case of "numbers in word" (extracted):
* Whole numbers from zero to ten are spelled out as words in the body of an article. Use numerals in tables and infoboxes.
* Numbers above ten may be written out if they are expressed in two or fewer words, except in tables and infoboxes. Example: "sixteen", "eighty-four", "two hundred", "twenty million" but "3.75", "544", "21 million".
* Fractions standing alone should be spelt out unless they occur in a percentage. If fractions are mixed with whole numbers, use numerals.

<blockquote>'''Summary''': 
For number zero to ten, spell out the words. 
For number above ten, two situations: 
- expressed in two or fewer words, spell out the words. 
- otherwise, use arabic numbers. 
Fractions alone, spell out the words. 
Fractions mixed with whole numbers, use arabic numbers.</blockquote>

Where is the consistency? The rules tell us to uses numbers in words sometimes, uses arabic numbers in other times. Originally the style guide intends to keep things simple and consistent. However when people are working on it, they tend to forget their original goals and deviate from them - making rules complex, splitting hairs, trivial, inconsistency, inconvenience to editors, and so on.

People tend to forget '''simplicity is the best'''. If editors were not spending time on trivial style or formatting, much of their time saved could be used to improve the real "contents" of the article. It is what benefit the visitors most.

By the way, it is going to be a '''very minority consensus''' if you take the whole community [the world] into account. Only a very few wikipedians are engaged in the discussion.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 07:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
----

:You seem to disagree with WP having a style in general, at least to some degree. That's OK. You don't have to follow the style guide.
:Many other people do want WP to have a style. In a a way, loose style or less style can be more complicated -- editors don't need to decide which style to use, because they can refer to the style guide, where many such matters have already been decided. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::No. You get me wrong. I am '''not''' disagreeing with WP having a style, but there is something between "no style" and "one absolute style". I'm disagreeing with "one absolute style" (when other accpetable or standard styles exist) or against the Wikipedian philosophies. It is not necessary to rule out one absolute style only and ask all others to follow. Just like this style guide will state people can choose between "AD/BC" and "CE/BCE", and so on. There are quite many situations where the style ask people to choose either one and keep consistency. Why do you think '''only "one absolute style" must exist everywhere?''' Why do you think '''you must pick one only and ask all others to follow'''?
::I realise you would like to keep things consistent, but accepting either one is not the '''only''' way to keep consistency. Allowing both acceptable standard and kindly ask others to maintain interally consistency also works; just like you set rules to allow using arabic numbers in some cases, using numbers in words in other cases. Otherwise why don't you just allow one format only in all cases?--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::Another possibility is for you to work on just one paragraph at a time, or in a day. Smaller changes are easier to digest.
::I also disagree with the super-small subsections you've been making. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion taken. I'm working too hard on that day. I will try o update bit by bit next time. As to sections, section starts at 2nd level. What I'm usng is just 4th level (the 3rd type of section). There are articles which use 4th level. And I don't see why we must restrict ourselves to using 2 types of sections only (ie 2nd and 3rd level). Anyway, it is just a style issue. If all people don't like it, just undo the section formatting.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Spacing. I agree with Jeff and Maureen. There should be a non-breaking space between unit and symbol. I think that a rare exception can be made when the measurement itself actually becomes a title for something and is usually written without the space; e.g. 35mm camera, 6.1L Hemi, and the oympic events, etc. However, in those cases, I can live with the space if we don't want to make any exceptions. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 14:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Yes, I agree with the non-breaking space part too. However spacing is not always necessary. It is not rare exceptions. I have read different formal articles about that. I see there are cases where both are acceptable (eg 56 km or 56km). I don't see the reasons behind why we must prefer one style and depreciate another.
::::Beware that we should take [[systemic bias]] into consideration when generating rules. Systemic bias is the inherent tendency of a process to favor particular outcomes. The term is a [[neologism]] that generally refers to human systems; the analogous problem in non-human systems (such as scientific observations). After all, Wikipedia is intedned to be read by all people over the world.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

== The current decade ==

I am sure this has come up before, but I don't see anything on the project page. [[User:GoDot]] is insisting on calling the current decade "the 2000s" as in "bank redlining had largely diminished by the mid 2000s" ([[Seattle neighborhoods]]). I find this very confusing: if someone says "the mid-1900s" they mean around 1950, not 1905. But since this is a user with whom I repeatedly find myself disagreeing, and since the MoS doesn't yet address the matter, I'm simply bringing the question here. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 02:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
: Did you try to look at [[2000s]] or [[1900s]]? Compare to [[21st century]] and [[20th century]]. [[User:Crissov|Christoph Päper]] 13:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

== Update on Olympic Debate ==

I know it was a ''loooooooong'' time ago that we were debating on whether or not a space should be put between the number and the unit of Olympic Event names. The IOC official site does not put space, so one would expect the Wikipedia articles should do the same (e.g. '''10km'''), but according to this overcited page, it was kept according to the WP guidelines (e.g. '''10 km''').

I recently received a long awaited reply from the IOC in which the Sports Director Kelly Fairweather noted to me that the IOC is "working with the International Federations to define the exact terms to be used for disciplines and events." She stated that the project would be completed by October 2006 and the IOC website after that point would be the place to find the official terminology. Until then, "there is no one approved terminology."

I just thought some others would like to know. [[User:JP06035|→'''&ensp;JARED]]'''&ensp;[[User_talk:JP06035|(t)]]&ensp; 21:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
----
As a sidenote, I find both formatting style (ie spacing or non-spacing) in different formal writing. For example, my Oxford Intermediate English Dictionary uses non-spacing one, as in "''For this recipe you need 500g (five hundred grams) of flour''".

Anyway, I think people are getting hypercorrect. What's the difference between '''500g''' and '''500 g'''? Will people get confused when reading either style? People are wasting too much time on trivial issues, and making things complex, not to say it requires huge efforts and good memories to comply with all these trivial rules.

They tend to forget '''simplicity is the best'''. Accept both. Pick either one you like the best. How easy life would be then? After all, standards are all created by humans. No standards must be formal or informal. They are all relative in nature. If time are spent on more important issues, the world would be much better. --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 07:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Actually, I agree. The usage of either one is relative to the situation in which it is used. Different articles (topics) may require the use of different methods, but I'm really not up for arguing for it... [[User:JP06035|→'''&ensp;JARED]]'''&ensp;[[User_talk:JP06035|(t)]]&ensp; 15:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

== Indian numbering convention ==

This has probably come up before: Should the [[Indian numbering system]] (hazar, lakh, crore, arab...) be used in articles about Indian subjects? Should exponential breaks be done in the Indian system (i.e. 1,00,000 as opposed to 100,000)? Thoughts? -- [[User:Samir_(The_Scope)|'''Samir''']] [[User_talk:Samir_(The_Scope)|धर्म]] 09:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks for pointing me at that article - I came across an article with a comma after two digits once and was very confused! Are numbers other than lakhs and crores commonly used? My opinion, off the top of my head, is that it would probably be reasonable to use the Indian names and style of digits when referring to Indian subjects (thus complying with the MoS requirement to use the local form of English), but ''also'' advisable to write the number out in the more common style to avoid confusing non-Indian readers who might think it was a typographical error, e.g. "five crores (5,00,00,000 or 50,000,000)". -- [[User:Arwel_Parry|Arwel]] ([[User talk:Arwel_Parry|talk]]) 12:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

== Compound units ==

I thought there was a style recommendation for complicated units like mm•K/W, but I don't see it. How should we format things like this? — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 14:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

:I don't think the "Manual of Style" has such a recommendation, but the standard IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997 states on page 14 "Symbols. To avoid ambiguity in complicated expressions, unit symbols are preferred over unit names." I think this should go in the manual. --[[User:Gerry Ashton|Gerry Ashton]] 15:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
::I wouldn't not be against this going in the manual. However, we should insist on having a page (linked to the symbol) explaining what the unit is and how it used. Some of the symbols would be obvious, but they should still be linked to the respective article. If [[mph]] and [[km/h]] have articles about them then so should mm•K/W. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 14:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

==Wai Wai's changes, continued==
Here are some options, in alphabetical order:
#Accept Wai Wai's changes without further ado. -- Several of us disagree, so not a good choice.
#Ask to have the page protected.
#Continue the back-and-forth reversion.
#Start an RFC.
#Wai Wai could stop changing the project page, discuss the desired changes, and wait until consensus is clear to make the changes. -- Apparently unlikely, given that this has been requested several time by different people.

Comments? [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 09:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:The "Continue the back-and-forth reversion." is definitely not an option even if people here vote for it. It is because it is against Wikipedian's policies: Wikipedia does not allow revert wars! --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Takes two to tango. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 09:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:I think we are rapidly approaching the time for [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies]]. -- '''[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]([[User talk:Dalbury|Talk]])''' 09:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:After seeing the recent changes on the article page, I would say it is definitely time now for an RfC. -- '''[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]([[User talk:Dalbury|Talk]])''' 10:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Stop changing the project page, discuss the desired changes, and wait until consensus is clear. Only change the page when there is a consensus to do so. This would be the best way to go about it. In fact, isn't that the way that we have been doing it. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 12:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you really saying? Anyway, I have examined the revert policy once again. Unfortunately I'm afirad all people are wrong, at least in reverting. Stephen Turner states he was trying to be bold to revert long hours of contributions. However the "bold" policy clearly states it does not apply in terms of "reverting". Although a few people support him by doing the same, the action is wrong. '''The majority people are performing the same action does not justify the action itself. [[WP:WWIN#Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy|Wikipedia is not a democracy]]. We need to respect rules!'''

Pay attention that '''it's NOT my PERSONAL opinion. It is stated in the policies''' (eg [[WP:BOLD]]).

Please read the following rules first about revert. No one seems to care or understand about the "revert policy" - not to revert people's contributions even if it has problems. Revert is not something which should be taken lightly. "Reverting" is harmful, and so on.

:'''If you feel you are correct in reverting, please tell me which rule tells people it is justifiable to do a SIMPLE REVERT of days of contributions?'''

What's more, the recent update is not just the same as the old one. It has spent me valuable time to modify the update according to some comments (eg super-section, bullets, and spacing in unit measurement). However people keep reverting THE WHOLE PART OF IT instead of stating the questions. People seem to think it is just the same and revert it without any examination. '''THAT IS VERY RUDE'''.

Please read this: 
* Reverting should be used '''primarily for fighting vandalism'''. -- Help:Reverting
* Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: '''Do not simply revert changes in a dispute'''. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, '''improve the edit, rather than reverting it'''. -- Wikipedia:Resolving disputes
* Does the editor do is something very similar to vandalism? Even the update has some big problems, it is not the excuse to revert it. In the case of NPOV, people usually do it wrong by using: "'''lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete'''" Quoted from NPOV (its philosophy applies): ''Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly.'' -- NPOV
* Unless what one writes is near to completely non-sense, or useless or rubbish. Revert is not something which you should be taken lightly. The bold policy does not apply. We are bold to create/improve it, not bold to destory/delete it.
* '''Reverting should be used primarily for fighting vandalism or anything similar to the effects of vandalism'''.
I realise my edits may not be perfect, but that's the process of wikipedia. I post a preliminary edit. People will try to edit and improve it. We don't need to make sure it is 100% acceptable and perfect before it can be put. Consensus will be reached during the edit process.

'''I am willing to work on the problems or consensus issues. However people keep saying there is no consensus, but they are unwilling to specify where is the no consensus. Please specify the problems and what your doubts are, so I will know which are in higher priority and focus my explanations on them. I will try to explain some of the reasons why I make the changes. Consensus and agreement could be made in this regard. Please give me some time to fix the problems before you make your decision.'''--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 13:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:My suggestion would be to discuss your changes a little at a time. Don't do a large scale edit of the page. Baby steps. I think it would go smoother; it'll take longer but that is better in the long run anyway. So start a new topic based on what the first thing that you want to change is. It will be discussed over a few days and you will know the feelings of the editors on that proposal. What do you think? [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 14:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, you are very right. I did too many changes at one time. Lessons learnt. But I am sure the real "contextual" change is much less than what people orginally thought since most of them are not real contextual changes. However I mixed all of my hours work together and make one single update which may be too confusing for others to review. Sorry about that.
::After all, '''it is perfectly fine for me to post the changes here first. However I wonder if there's anyone who will be willing to review it.'''--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 14:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Baby steps! Also, you need to give your proposals some time to be debated. Not everyone lives on the computer—I certainly don't. Let as many people as possible discuss this.---[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 15:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Who says we need to settle it instantly? As long as the discussion is moving, it is perfectly fine. However, last time, I have waited for nearly a week for others to ask questions or respond or specify the problems, no one responded. After all, your review is excellent. Keep it up! --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
{{user Very Happy}}{{clear}}
=== about unit of measurement ===

I have forgotten whether which is copyedit, which is proposal.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. Read them once. If you find anything problematic, state it out.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 14:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

----

====Choice====
* <strike>Try to use the international units instead of local, unless you have good reasons to use others</strike>. ——Covered under 'conversions', unless you mean something else by 'international units'. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 15:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
''What's wrong to state this out to remind editors? When someone which is unsure what unit should be chosen, they are going to read that section. The covering under 'conversions' is not clear, at least to some people.''--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
* Some non-metric units have more than one version. Be specific. For example, ''[[US gallon|U.S. gallon]]'' or ''[[imperial gallon]]'' rather than just ''gallon''. Similarly, use ''[[nautical mile]]'' or ''[[statute mile]]'' rather than just ''mile'' in aviation, space, sea and in some other contexts.
* Try to be consistent with your choice.

====Format====
* Use standard or formal (as opposed to localized or informal) abbreviations when using symbols. For example, metre is m, kilogram is kg, inch is in (''not " or ″'' ), foot is ft (''not ' or ′'' ), and [[Avoirdupois|pound]] is lb (''not #'').
** Do not append an ''s'' for plurals of unit abbreviations. For example kg, in, yd, lb; ''not kgs, ins, yds, lbs''.
* For concision purposes, please use digits for values. For example, 100 kg; ''not one hundred kg''.
* <strike>For understandability purposes,</strike> please spell out units in the text, and link to the relevant article at the first few usage.

——You must have non breaking space between the number and symbol. Here's why: I weigh 180lb and drink a 1l of water a day. Having a space is easier on the eyes and is more consistent with many technical writings.

———''However I see the non-spacing version in other formal writing, including the dictionaries. I see it uses 500g, 10km and so on.''--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

——It's not for understandability, it's the way formal writings are styled. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 15:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

===Conversions===
* Conversions should generally be included and not be removed.
* If editors cannot agree about the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second.
* If for some reason the choice of units is arbitrary, choose [[SI units]] as the main unit, with other units in parentheses. For subjects dealing with the United States, it might be more appropriate to use U.S. measurements first, i.e. mile, foot, U.S. gallon.
* Use digits and unit symbols for values in parentheses. For example, "a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 16 kilometres (10 mi) long" '''or''' "a pipe 4 inches (100 mm) in diameter and 10 miles (16 km) long".
** Do the same for measurements in tables.
* Converted values should use a similar level of precision as the source value. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth", not "(236,121 mi)".

----

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Spacing_in_unit_measurement

===About dates===
If memory serves, they are (nearly) summarised changes (copyedit).
The major change is to move all general style and formatting which can apply to the rest of the page (or date formats) in the front first.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 14:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

See the following:
----

====Wording====

=====Uncertain date=====
*When only an approximate date is available, the English word ''about'' or the abbreviation "''c.''" (Latin: ''circa''; English: "about") may be used.
* When a date is uncertain because the source is unreliable, that fact should be noted and the source should be mentioned. For example, "according to [[Livy]], the [[Roman Republic]] was founded in 509 BC", or "The [[Mahabharata]] is traditionally said to have been composed in [[1310s BCE|1316 BCE]]".

=====Seasons=====
* The seasons are reversed in each hemisphere, while areas near the [[equator]] tend to have just [[wet season|wet]] and [[dry season]]s. Neutral wording should be used to describe times of the year to avoid confusion.
** Use "in early 1990", "in the second quarter of 2003", "around September" or an exact date, rather than references to seasons, unless there is some particular need to do so (eg "the autumn harvest"). It is ambiguous to say that [[Apollo 11]] landed on the Moon in the summer of 1969 (whose summer?).

=====Eras=====
:''See [[Anno Domini]] for a discussion on what is meant by AD and BC notation, and [[Common Era]] for a discussion on what is meant by CE and BCE notation.''
*Simply speaking, AD equals CE. BC equals BCE.

*Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article.

*Note that the [[1st century BC]] is from 100 BC to 1 BC (there was no [[year 0]]) so 1700 BC would be the first year of the 17th century BC, 1800 BC would be the first year of the 18th century BC, etc. Similarly, 4000 BC was the first year of the fourth millennium BC, ''not'' the last year of the fifth millennium BC.

*Note that the [[19th century]] is 1801—1900 (but ''not 1901—2000''). It is because the [[1st century]] starts at 1 AD and ends at 100 AD.

*Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the [[Anno Domini]]/[[Common Era]], but when events span the start of the [[Anno Domini]]/[[Common Era]], use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, <nowiki>[[1 BC]]—[[1|AD 1]]</nowiki> or <nowiki>[[1 BCE]]—[[1|1 CE]]</nowiki>.

*In articles about prehistory, if you use BP ([[before present]]) or MYA ([[million years ago]]), expand these abbreviations when you first use them, as most readers will be unfamiliar with them.

====Formatting====

=====General=====
* For any formatting or style, please maintain consistency throughout an article, unless there's a good reason to do otherwise.
* If, for any special reasons, a less clearer or specific format (eg 1900-01-12 date format is chosen instead of 12 January 1900) is used. Please make it very sure that your choice does not cause any ambiguity or confusion to anyone over the world. Note that something which is certain in one country or nation may not be so in another. Thus the best way to eliminate possible ambiguity or confusion is to adding notes beside the usage (to clarify any grey area or ambiguity).
*Wikipedia respects different formatting and style as long as they are clear and unambiguous. When any of the style is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedian to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reasons for the change. For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject.
** Revert warring over optional styles is highly unacceptable; if the article is [[colour]] rather than [[color]], it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable. See also [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk]].
* Direct [[quotations]] (ie the word-for-word reproduction of a written or oral text) should ''not'' be altered to confirm any wikipedia formatting or style. It is because the original source has to be kept as intact (in verbatim) as possible. For instance, the date in the following fictional quotation should not be linked (even if it is preferred in wikipedia):
:"Tony Blair, responding to critics in his party, said 'The world has totally changed since the 11th of September.' He was echoing earlier sentiments by Lord Ronald McDonald, who said that 'nine-eleven' was the day that the American public woke up to the reality of terrorism."


=====Ranges=====
Sometimes numbers and dates are expressed in ranges, such as "14—17" for the numbers 14 to 17. It is often preferable to write this out (eg "14 through 17" (US and Canada) or "from 14 to 17"). It is to avoid confusion with "14 minus 17", which is expressed with spaces, as "14 &minus; 17".

Traditionally, ranges of numbers and dates are given with an en dash (—). Simply click the "–" button (excluding quotes) below the edit window or insert it with any software supporting this punctuation. Please avoiding typing the code &ndash; to insert en dash. It is because new editors may not understand the code. They may delete the code due to misunderstanding. Also the visually form of "—" (excluding quotes) is more visually appealing and readable in the edit screen.

However, nowadays some sources use spaced or unspaced hyphens, at least online, and some Wikipedians believe that these hyphens should not be changed to en dashes.

See [[#Dates of birth and death]] (another section in the same article) for example.

See [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes)]] for details.

=====Year, decade, century formats=====
* Always write year in full form. Do not use the shortened two-digit form to express a year. It is because the shortened formats are likely to cause confusion. The same holds true whether the years are BC or AD. For example:
** Do not use 56 or '56. Use 1956 (when referring to the decade of the 20th century)
** Do not use 80s or '80s or "the eighties". Use 1980s (when referring to the decade of the 20th century)
* It is not necessary to use an apostrophe to indicate a decade. [[1970s]] is preferred, but not [[1970's]].
* The word "century" is normally not capitalised. [[18th century]] (small capital) is normally used. [[18th Century]] (big capital) is less common.

=====Day and month formats=====
* Please express a month as a whole word. Do not use numbers, except in [[ISO 8601]] format. Do not use abbreviations like "Dec". For example, use December 1945. Do not use "12, 1945" or "12 of 1945" or "Dec 1945"
** If space is precious (eg in a table, infobox, or the like), abbreviations are preferred to numbers (eg "Oct", ''not "10"''). Numbers are discouraged because it may cause confusion to readers as to whether day or month is referred.
** The shortened two-digit format is optional at the end of a range (ie "1970—1987" or "1970—87").
* The ordering does not matter: both "February 14" and "14 February" are fine.
* It is not necessary to add ordinal suffixes. "February 14" is preferred, but not "February 14th" and "14th February".
* It is not necessary to use a comma (,) or the word "of" between a month and year. "December 1945" is preferred, but not "December, 1945" and "December of 1945".

===Unclear===

[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]], this is progress. Thank you.

But the above material does not indicate the difference between the established style guide and your desired changes.

I have asked you to address a pragraph at a time. If you won't do that, would you at least narrow it to a section or subsection at a time, whichever is smaller that is applicable? [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 18:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

===&mdash; and &ndash; entities===
I find the changes to the dash guidelines highly objectionable. &mdash; and &ndash; are easy to type, their names quite clearly indicate "this is a dash", and HTML entities are certainly no more confusing than most of the markup used in MediaWiki. I don't see any reason to disallow using the Unicode characters, but "confusing for new editors" describes a whole lot more of what goes on here than these HTML entities. Anyone playing with the sandbox will be able to see what &mdash; and &ndash; do. —[[User:Ptkfgs|ptk]]✰[[User_talk:Ptkfgs|fgs]] 18:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:The reason is most new editors who are not familiar with Unicode characters will find it confusing. That's also why Wikipedia creates Wiki codes, to make it easier for others to edit. Others like HTML are hard to understand for newbies.—[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 20:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

=== recent changes ===
I agree that it's a little sudden. They need copy-editing in a number of places, and while I like a lot of the changes, I don't like all of them. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 15:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:So sorry about the "suddenness".--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

===Removal of material from user talk page===
Some people have left notes on [[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]]'s talk page about the style guide changes. [[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] has removed them all, including my note intended to discourage such removals. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 20:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

: Removing warnings from one's own talk page is unacceptable, per [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]]. I think both [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wai_Wai&diff=69187463&oldid=69181170 this edit] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wai_Wai&diff=69260023&oldid=69245690 this one] fall into that category. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 20:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
----

Thee above are not [[Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace|warnings]], as mentioned in [[Wikipedia:Removing warnings]]. The responses (discussions) are related here. Why don't all of you simply reply here? Forking the discussion is hard to follow, not to say others are not going to read them.

Just like this case, my responses about the removal is completely missing. As a reference, here's the previous discussion about "removing warnings": 

'''Replies to removing warnings''' 
Removing the recent notes here about your changes to the style guide is misleading. Also, from [[Wikipedia:Removing warnings]]: "Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism." [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 17:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
----
I don't understand what you mean. Anyway I have received no warning from the admin etc. at all. The 3RR is fake. I don't know if I understand correctly, but it seems to be the reverse. I posted an update. Others reverted all the changes without even trying to improve or examine. After all, I have done 2 reverts. How come I have violated 3RR (and received warning)? Weird?

Anyway I don't care much. Time should be spent on improving articles, not on trivial things.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 18:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
----
:What part of "Removing the recent notes here about your changes to the style guide is misleading" do you not understand? And to mark such removals as minor is further misleading. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 18:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::Please understand what is "[[Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace|warning]]" (in your quote) before you make your comment. Next time, for any discussion relating to the article/topic, please reply in the related talk page, instead of forking the discussions over everywhere. it is hard to follow.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 18:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

=== General comments ===
I don't have time to read through your changes in detail at the moment, but here are some general comments:
* I think your changes are more extensive than you imagine. You think they're mostly just tidying up, but I think they're rather more than that.
* I find rewriting the paragraphs as bulleted lists makes them much less readable.
* The grammar is often slightly wrong. Your English is very good, but not quite perfect. For example, a native speaker wouldn't say "Both '12 noon' and 'noon' is acceptable" but "Either '12 noon' or 'noon' is acceptable". There are many similar examples, so you should get it checked by a native speaker first.
* On MoS pages, it is conventional to proceed very cautiously, and seek consensus for all changes before making them; not to make changes and hope that they're not reverted. This is because the MoS guidance potentially affects every article on Wikipedia. You might like to compare [[User:Stephen Turner/Date Proposal|what I wrote]] before I made extensive changes to this page.
* If you are reverted by several editors, consider whether you may be doing something wrong. And take it to the talk page, rather than making your changes again.
[[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 20:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'm not specifically replying to your points above, but I thought the title "General comments" was suitable for adding this: regardless of how much reasonable they can be, changes to the Manual of Style should be carefully considered, and possibly avoided. When I joined Wikipedia the whole Manual was pretty stable. At a given moment, it began to change and has never stopped. This is too bad. It does need stability, or articles will never keep up (if nothing else because nobody wants to drive crazy for that). To put it differently: the more you change it, the more it is dead letter. —[[User:Gennaro Prota|Gennaro Prota]][[User talk:Gennaro Prota|•Talk]] 02:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding general comments, I have modified my changes based on what you say (eg bulleted lists). Let's see how others respond to the proposed changes then.—[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 20:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

== Dates, non WaiWai issue ==

I was taking a look at the changes and I noticed this (which was present in both versions)
:Elsewhere, either format is acceptable. See [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English]] for more guidance.

I would assume that in non-Commonwealth, non-US/Canada countries there is in fact a preferred style and IMHO we should stick with this. So perhaps it would be best to at least mention this (e.g. although if a national style is known, this should be used). Depending on how variable national styles are, we might even be able to include some info on national styles from non-Commonwealth, non-US/Canada countries... [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] 16:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'm OK with including "(e.g. although if a national style is known, this should be used if it does not conflict with this style guide)," with the modification at the end. But I think extra info on national styles might be too much detail. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 18:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Can you give an example of an English speaking country that was not part of the British Empire/ Commonwealth and the type of date style that is used there?---[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 19:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Very few countries use American dating. Apart from North American topics, I think the default should be International dating, which is the choice of most. BTW what does South America do, BTW? [[User:Jtdirl|'''Fear''ÉIREANN''''']][[Image:Ireland-Capitals.PNG|15px]]\[[User talk:Jtdirl|(caint)]] 20:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::I should have been clearer but reading the statement "''non-Commonwealth, non-US/Canada countries''" makes me think that there is/are other date styles besides the two that are used in the U.S./Canada and British Commonwealth —i.e. besides August 13th, 2006 or 13 August 2006 (and their slight variations). I don't want this taken the wrong way but we should only be concerned with how native English speaking counties style things. If this was Spanish Wikipedia that I would wonder how dates were styled in South America.[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 13:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Hmm... Some of my ideas: 1) If most editors here are American, does it mean only American spelling or style should be used. Not so. Wikipedia is intended to be edited by everyone in the world. 2) The stlye guide should not take editors into consideration only. 3) It is also intended to be read by everyone in the world. Some styles or formatting, even if it causes no problem to one nation or country, may cause problems on another. This style should not be used to avoid ambiguity to visitors of other nations.—[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 20:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

2006-08-15T20:36:01Z

Wai Wai: /* Dates, non WaiWai issue */

==Archives==
{| class="infobox" width="270px"
|-
!align="center"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]] [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|
*[[/archive1|1]], [[/archive2|2]], [[/archive3|3]], [[/archive4|4]], [[/archive5|5]], ''[[/vote|5a]]'', [[/archive6|6]], [[/archive7|7]], [[/archive8|8]], [[/archive9|9]], [[/archive10|10]],
*[[/archive11|11]], [[/archive12|12]], [[/archive13|13]], [[/archive14|14]], ''[[/archive dash discussion/|14a]]'', [[/archive15|15]], [[/archive16|16]], [[/archive17|17]], [[/archive18|18]], [[/archive19|19]],
*[[/archive20|20]], [[/archive21|21]], [[/archive22|22]], [[/archive23|23]], [[/archive24|24]], [[/archive25|25]], [[/archive26|26]], [[/archive27|27]], [[/archive28|28]], [[/archive29|29]],
*[[/archive30|30]], [[/archive31|31]], [[/archive32|32]], [[/archive33|33]], [[/archive34|34]], [[/archive35|35]], [[/archive36|36]], [[/archive37|37]], [[/archive38|38]], [[/archive39|39]],
*[[/archive40|40]], [[/archive41|41]], [[/archive42|42]], [[/archive43|43]], [[/archive44|44]], [[/archive45|45]], [[/archive46|46]], [[/archive47|47]], [[/archive48|48]]
*[[/archive49|49]], ''[[/archive49a|49a]]'', [[/archive50|50]], [[/archive51|51]], [[/archive52|52]]
|}

See also:
* [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (calendar dates)]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Timeline standards]]
* [[Wikipedia:Measurements Debate]]
----
'''Note on Archives:'''

'''The recent discussion on linking of dates from [[9 March]] [[2006]] to [[13 April]] [[2006]] is in archives 42 through 46, plus 48. [[/archive42|42]], [[/archive43|43]], [[/archive44|44]], [[/archive45|45]], [[/archive46|46]], [[/archive48|48]]''' 

----

== Improvement about guidelines in Time ==

Quote:
{| class=wikitable
!width=100| 12-hour clock !!width=100| Not !!width=100| 24-hour clock !!width=100| Not
|-
|2 p.m. || 2pm || 14:00 || 14.00
|-
|2:34 p.m. || 2.34 PM || 14:34 || 1434
|-
|12:04:38 a.m. || 12.04 38″ A.M. || 00:04:38 or 0:04:38
|-
|noon ||12 noon || 12:00
|}

The suggestions in "time" section seems to be weird because:
# It does not even follow what other formal or official standards (eg NIST standards) suggest.
# Its guidelines even conflicts with what the referenced articles [[12-hour clock]] and [[24-hour clock]] say. They don't follow what it says.

'''Mistake: p.m, pm & PM are definitely acceptable.'''
Evidence: 
# The initialisms "AM" and "PM" are variously written in small capitals ("am" and "pm"), uppercase letters ("AM" and "PM"), or lowercase letters ("am" and "pm"). Additionally, some styles use periods (full stops), especially in combination with lowercase letters (thus "a.m." and "p.m."). -- the guide in [[12-hour clock]]
# A.M. and P.M. may either be written in all capital letters or all lower case, but choose one style and stick with it. -- englishplus.com and Oxford Advanced dictionary
# The use of period/dot (.) is optional. -- Oxford Advanced dictionary

'''Mistake: noon or 12 noon are definitely acceptable.'''
Evidence: 
#"noon" or "12:00 noon" and "midnight" or "12:00 midnight" should be used (rather than to 12:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m., respectively) to avoid confusion. -- nist.gov (mentioned also in [[12-hour clock]])
# The tables in [[12-hour clock]] and [[24-hour clock]] uses 12 noon and 12 mindinight too. -- the guide in [[12-hour clock]]

'''Mistake: For 24-hour, discretion may be used to determine if the hour has a leading zero.''' 
It's strange that the article says that. There is no discretion as to whether a leading zero is used. It is more to do as a standard or a matter of taste. If one follows formal standard strictly, 24-hour usually use leading numbers. This includes major time sites like NIST.gov, greenwichmeantime.com, and so on.

'''A better explanation on Noon and Midnight''' 
<blockquote>'''AM and PM - What is Noon and Midnight?''' 
AM and PM start immediately after Midnight and Noon (Midday) respectively.
This means that 00:00 AM or 00:00 PM (or 12:00 AM and 12:00 PM) have no meaning.
Every day starts precisely at midnight and AM starts immediately after that point in time e.g. 00:00:01 AM (see also leap seconds)
To avoid confusion timetables, when scheduling around midnight, prefer to use either 23:59 or 00:01 to avoid confusion as to which day is being referred to.
It is after Noon that PM starts e.g. 00:00:01 PM (12:00:01) -- greenwichmeantime.com </blockquote>

I'm going to update the above (to include the instructions in [[12-hour clock]] and [[24-hour clock]], and some major time sites) if no one oppose it. --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

* I can't really decide whether I like what you are proposing without seeing the exact text you plan to use. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 15:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
** The above is more or less all of the proposals. If you agree (generally) with the above, I will put the text up for a review. There is nothing new anyway. What I try to do is to make it consistent with at least what is mentioned or done in [[12-hour clock]] and [[24-hour clock]]. The existing guideline conflicts with them, which is bad. --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 16:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
*** I think we should probably permit AM and PM as an alternative to a.m. and p.m., as the upper-case versions seem to be the normal spelling in the United States. I haven't understood what other problems you perceive in the current text, which you are trying to correct — we already forbid 12 a.m. and 12 p.m., for example. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 03:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
**** They are: 1) noon and 12 noon are definitely acceptable. 2) No discretion is needed to determine if the hour has a leading zero. 12-hour normally doesn't use leading zero; 24-hour usually does (reference given above). Any opinion? --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 05:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
***** I agree with both those points in principle. I think that some people find "12 noon" [[tautology (rhetoric)|tautologous]] but I don't have a problem with it. I'd still like to see the proposed text before giving a definite yes. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 15:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have some doubt that AM and PM are preferred in the United States. And "12 noon" is redundant. It seems like such changes amount to having no style, which can be done more concisely, if that is desired. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 17:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
:People say "12 noon", to distinguish it from "24 midnight". --[[User:SuperJumbo|Jumbo]] 21:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
:I believe that both PM and p.m. should be acceptable (not, though, P.M. or pm). And 12 noon is not redundant. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 22:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, 12 noon is not redundant.
::sorry, why do either P.M. or pm is not acceptable? Anyway, I see all 4 styles in different formal writing. Read [[12 hour clock]] too. All of them should be acceptable.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:The misunderstanding here is what the MoS is for. It's not saying that PM is wrong, for example, just that we have made an arbitrary but well informed decision to use p.m.; where possible without causing flame wars we want WP to have a consistent look and feel. And we don't have to follow any external guides or standards, although they inform the debate. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'' 22:22 [[8 August]] [[2006]] (GMT).

But it is not the way it should work:
#Wikipedia is a place which respect more than 1 style and formatting.
#Multiple style should be allowed, not being biased to one single style of the particular convention or in that particular country (eg the cases of American vs British spelling).
#Wikipedia is intended to be read by different users all over the world. Your choice of formatting or style may not acheve this goal.
#Some of the suggested style do not even confront to the standards (eg discretion can be made as to whether leading zero is used in 24-hour clock format). I don't know why a rule is made to against stanards for no particlar reasons.
#Users feel free to pick any style as long as it is clear and acceptable.
#The style guide still allows "inconsistency" (in the choice of style/formatting), like this style guide will state people can choose between "AD/BC" and "CE/BCE".
#A consistent look and feel can still be achieved even if more than 1 style exist. The point is to mantain consistency with the user's choice in that article.

Also bear in mind I am '''not''' disagreeing with WP having a style, but there is something between "no style" and "one absolute style". I'm disagreeing with "one absolute style" (when other accpetable or standard styles exist) or against the Wikipedian philosophies. It is not necessary to rule out one absolute style only and ask all others to follow. Just like this style guide will state people can choose between "AD/BC" and "CE/BCE", and so on. There are quite many situations where the style ask people to choose either one and keep consistency. Why do you think '''only "one absolute style" must exist everywhere?''' Why do you think '''you must pick one only and ask all others to follow'''?

I realise you would like to keep things consistent, but accepting either one is not the '''only''' way to keep consistency. Allowing both acceptable standard and kindly ask others to maintain interally consistency also works; just like you set rules to allow using arabic numbers in some cases, using numbers in words in other cases. Otherwise why don't you just allow one format only in all cases?--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

=== About the change ===
Please read the proposed change:

===12-hour clock===
* Times in the [[12-hour clock]] end with lower case "am" or "pm". These suffixes should not be omitted.
* As to "12 pm" and "12 am", "(12) noon" and "(12) midnight" should be used for clarity purposes. Some readers may find the former ambiguous and confusing. As it is a wikipedia policy to minimise ambiguity, "(12) noon" and "(12) midnight" are much better than the former.
** Both "12 noon or midnight" and "noon or midnight" is acceptable.
* Normally no leading zero is used to distinguish from times in the [[24-hour clock]].
* Regarding capitalisation:
** It does not matter what capital form "am/pm" is used. It can be written as "AM or am" or "PM or pm". But please be consistent throughout the article.
** It does not matter whether the first letter of "noon/midnight" is capitalised.
* The dot (.) is optional in the suffix: either am/pm or a.m./p.m. is fine.
* The spacing between the number and suffix is optional: either 2:30am or 2:30 am is fine.

===24-hour clock===
* Time in the [[24-hour clock]] times have no "am/pm/noon/midnight" suffix.
* 00:00 or 24:00 refers to the midnight and 12:00 refers to noon.
** 00:00 refers to the start of a day while 24:00 refers to the end of a day. However the end of a day equal to the start of the next day. That is why 00:00 is identical to 24:00.
** Both 00:00 and 24:00 are acceptable. It does not matter which one you use.
* Normally a leading zero is added to distinguish from times in the [[12-hour clock]].

===Common formats===
* In either case, the colon (:) should be used to separate hours, minutes and seconds. The use of dot (.) as a separator is not standard. It also causes confusion with the decimal point (.) in 12.45 (amount). Do not use it.
* Do not add extra symbols like (") to indicate second.
* Example:
** Use 12:34:28 pm (''but not 12.04 38″ pm'')
** Use 00:34 (''but not 00.34 or 0.34 or 0034'')
 —[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 20:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

== Wai Wai's changes ==
I've just reverted all Wai Wai's changes made in the last 12 hours or so. Changes this extensive must be discussed on the talk page first and reach consensus here. I'm sure some of them are fine, but others are controversial, and some of them were badly phrased too. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 15:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

:They are not really big nor major proposals. Most of them are copyedit work (eg reorganization, integration, redundancy removal, inconsistency fixes, and so on). Instead of reverting all the changes which is clearly inappropriate as stated by the policy, review the edit. If you feel there are something which may not be alright, discuss it then in the talk page.
:How about if you try to read the page once now and see if there is anything which may not be alright? I deem you will find it is mostly the same wine but with a new bottle. No new nor major nor core contents have been changed or proposed. And if you think something might not be okay, you can always discuss it in the talk page. Thank you --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 16:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

::A lot of them are just copy-editing, but there are several new pieces of advice in there too. Also it's very difficult to work out everything you've done because of the number of paragraph breaks and moved sections. (Have you looked at the diff?). At a minimum, every new policy should have been discussed here first. (And I don't know what you mean by "clearly inappropriate as stated by the policy" — which policy are you referring to?) [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 16:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

::::As to the new pieces of advice, some of them may be just copied or derived from other policies. It's not something completely new. Some may be just an additional note or advice (which expand or enrich the main one).--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I agree with Stephen's reverts. Until there is a concensus reached (or at least a discussion) here first, no changes to the manual should be made. In units of measurement, a few things that Wai Wai changed that do not have a concensus: making the non-braking space optional; and not spelling out numbers (wasn't Centrx trying to get us to spell out up to 100?). Also the first sentence in "choice" about international units is covered in "conversions". So I changed some things.--[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 03:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

::: (NB I wrote this simultaneously with MJCdetroit's comments).
::: I started reverting the bits I disagreed with, but as I read through it, I found that I disagreed with almost everything you'd done.
:::* New or changed advice should never have been added to the page without discussion here first.
:::* Your reordering of sections seemed worse because there was too much preamble before getting to the important stuff.
:::* Breaking paragraphs into bulleted lists made it much less readable, as did the excessive number of sub-sub-section and sub-sub-sub-section headings.
::: So I'm sorry, but I reverted everything again. I don't like to do that, but I'm afraid I found that most of the edits made the page worse. But maybe someone else could review it and offer an opinion?
:::[[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 03:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
::::[[Status quo]] ante Wai Wai --[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 03:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

::::: See my replies below. Most, if not all, you say can be done through improvement (not reverting). The general rule applies (as stated in wikipedia's policy): '''Improve it, rather than deleting it'''.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

----
Dear [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]]: 
The word "policy" I use is not strict, that is I simply refer to some wikipedia standards or principles or philosophies. It does not necesarily mean any standalone official policy which is being voilated (eg "three revert rule" policy). Anyway, here's the extract of what reverting is deemed appropriate:
* Reverting should be used '''primarily for fighting vandalism'''. -- Help:Reverting
* Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: '''Do not simply revert changes in a dispute'''. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, '''improve the edit, rather than reverting it'''. -- Wikipedia:Resolving disputes
* Does the editor do is something very similar to vandalism? Even the update has some big problems, it is not the excuse to revert it. In the case of NPOV, people usually do it wrong by using: "'''lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete'''" Quoted from NPOV (its philosophy applies): ''Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly.'' -- NPOV
* Unless what one writes is near to completely non-sense, or useless or rubbish. Revert is not something which you should be taken lightly. The bold policy does not apply. We are bold to create/improve it, not bold to destory/delete it.
* '''Reverting should be used primarily for fighting vandalism or anything similar to the effects of vandalism'''.
I realise my edits may not be perfect, but that's the process of wikipedia. I post a preliminary edit. People will try to edit and improve it. We don't need to make sure it is 100% acceptable and perfect before it can be put. Consensus will be reached during the edit process. 
I would revert my changes first (so others have chances to improve it). According to these policies or principles, if you feel my edits are very devastating or near vandalism, feel free to revert my edits (hopefully with reasons provided, so I know how to improve it, instead of starting at ground level again). --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 06:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

----

===My role===
Some people or editors may find this iformation useful. I'm [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias| a member of countering systemic bias]]. Simply speaking, it is a bia due to the nature of the system (wikipedia). Most editors here are coming from United States or in countries where English is their mother language. Most of the information/comments are biased towards the western. Opinions or information from Africa, Asia and South America are missing.

What I am trying to do is:
# Resolve the problem that "the information and perspective in the articles or sections may not represent a worldwide view." In this case, most style tend to be one-sided and in favour of one style standard (mainly United States or western).
# Integrate contents from various articles or policies, and remove the redundancy.
# Make sure the guidelines comply with major wikipedia policies, standards or philosophies.
# Make it consistent throughout the page.
# Make it consistent throughout different guidelines and policies.
# Resolve discrepancies and conflicts occurred within the same article.
 --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

===Editing procedures and requirements===
As regards the comment of "no changes to the manual should be made until there is a concensus reached. Every change has to be discussed in the discussion page first."

It's clearly wrong unfortunately. Please read the following: 
'''Major philosophy''' (official policies): 
:''Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. However, avoid deleting information wherever possible.'' -- Wikipedia:Editing policy
:[[Wikipedia:Editing_policy|perfection isn't required]] and don't worry about messing up. It is what wikipedia is - the editing process will take care it all. -- the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|five pillars of Wikipedia]].

'''Specific guidelines''': 
:''Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.'' -- guideline of updating style pages

Explanation (Note: The following is just a rough guideline. It is never intended to be complete or extensive): 
Things which may need discussions before editing: 
* Major or fundamental proposals
* Proposals which may be against major wikipedia philosophies or policies
* Important changes which is '''not''' going to or has reflected general consensus

Things which may '''not''' need discussions before editing: 
* ideas, rules, or information copied/derived from other guidelines or policies (since they have reflected general consensus already)
* sub-proposals expanding or enriching the existing one
* Changes which is going to or has reflected general consensus (maybe supported by official policies or the like)
* Non-content-specific changes like copyedit, integration, reorganization, categorization, formatting and style etc.
* minor changes or edits

In the forthcoming days, I will try to explain some of the reasons why I make the changes. Nevertheless it is very time consuming and it is impractical to explain every single change, including copyedit and minor ones. Priority has to be decided. If anyone has any doubts about any of my changes, please specify which one and what your doubts are, so I will know which are in higher priority and focus my explanations on them. Consensus and agreement could be made in this regard.

Please give me a few days to respond. Best regards.
 --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

===Reversions===

:Wai Wai. Please try and understand this section of the MOS has come about through continual discussions and consensus of the edits. Your edits here are not the same as if you were making edits to say the article on Queen Elizabeth. Your changes here are effectively telling all editors how all other articles in wikipedia should look or not look. Therefore, in matters dealing with the MOS, I think most editors here would rather proceed with caution. --[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 14:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

::Wai Wai, you should note that your changes have been reverted four times by three people.
::You do not have consensus. Changes within style guide and elsewhere in Wikipedia namespace call for more consensus and discussion than changes in article namespace. Articles are about facts; the style guide is intended essentially as direction and advice. For you to continue as you have been appears to place your ideas above those that the community has determined.
::The best way to work toward the changes you desire is to leave the project page alone until there is clear acceptance on this page. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 14:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Wai Wai, can you please discuss your changes before making them. You have been reverted a number of times and some of your changes I object to such as changing the practice of putting spaces between digits and units for measurements in parentheses. If you are unwilling to list and discuss the changes you wish to make then you will keep being reverted. --[[User:Clawed|Clawed]] 06:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:::It is not okay to revert people's contributions, as stated in revert policies. If every change has to be discussed, the page will be locked. We feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes. Most of my update is copyedit: merge, redundancy removal. However I think I should not mix things together. Maybe I should do it bit by bit. I was concentrating too much at that time (You see, I have spent 1 whole day for this edit, and I deviate a bit from what I originally intended to do). --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 06:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wai Wai -- Do you not see that you are going against consensus? Both the established style and repeated requests for you to first discuss your changes and get agreement before making them? Do you not see how little support your changes have among other editors? [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I realise there are some problems which we have to work on. However this alone does not justify a "revert" as far as the policies are concerned. The polciy has stated '''a "revert" should be dealt primiarily with vandalism'''. Unless you think all of the updates are vandalism or near vandalism, I don't see why it justifies a "revert". Policy has also stated we should work on the problems. Improve/Modify the articles, rather than deleting/reverting it.

After all, I am willing to work on the problems or consensus issues. Please specify the problems and what your doubts are, so I will know which are in higher priority and focus my explanations on them. I will try to explain some of the reasons why I make the changes. Consensus and agreement could be made in this regard. Please give me some time to fix the problems before you make your decision.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

#This is a style guide, not an article. I pointed out some of the difference earlier.
#Given that you change so much, it is hard to analyze and list. Given that there is general disagreement with your changes, the burden is on you. Please specify -- on the talk page -- what you see as the problems. When you get consensus agreement, then it's OK to change the style guide for that aspect. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 09:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of the above rules. Would you mind tellingme where it state so, including it is the updater's burden to prove there is the general agreement before an update is possible? I have stated it already: Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes. -- guideline of updating style pages.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:They are not so much rules, but judgment common to at least several people involved with this.
:But seeing that you like to quote things …
:From [[Help:Reverting]]: "However, sometimes a revert is the best response to a less-than-great edit, so we can't just stop reverting."
:From [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]]: "Amendments to a guideline should be discussed on its talk page, not on a new page - although it's generally acceptable to edit a guideline to improve it."
:But your edits here are obviously not seen to be improvements by the other people involved.
:From the project page: "The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here."
:If the consensus is "Do X" and that is changed to "Do X, or Y, or Z" by one person and other people disagree, then it is no longer a convention established by consensus.
:You are trying to change conventions already established by consensus. Do you not see that consensus is need to change what is already established by consensus?
:It is not that every single edit anyone makes to the style guide must be pre-approved. It is that edits that engender disagreement, especially to to a policy or guideline, should be worked out on the talk page before proceeding further. Do you not see the difference?
[[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 10:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is not all are major changes. It is wrong to revert COMPLETELY because there are some problems in the update. Please read the following: 
'''Major philosophy''' (official policies): 
:''Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. However, avoid deleting information wherever possible.'' -- Wikipedia:Editing policy
:[[Wikipedia:Editing_policy|perfection isn't required]] and don't worry about messing up. It is what wikipedia is - the editing process will take care it all. -- the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|five pillars of Wikipedia]].

'''Specific guidelines''': 
:''Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.'' -- guideline of updating style pages

If every change needed to be done through discussion, why the page is not locked up? What's more, reverting should be used '''primarily for fighting vandalism''', as stated in the help:reverting page.

When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate or problematic, '''improve the edit, rather than reverting it''' as stated in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

Unless what one writes is near to completely non-sense, or useless or rubbish. Revert is not something which you should be taken lightly. The bold policy does not apply. We are bold to create/improve it, not bold to destory/delete it.

However what people doing are reverting all changes but there are only some areas problematic.

===Spacing in unit measurement===
Spacng should be optional since I find both formatting style (ie spacing or non-spacing) in different formal writing. For example, my Oxford Intermediate English Dictionary uses non-spacing one, as in "''For this recipe you need 500g (five hundred grams) of flour''".--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 06:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

: Nearly every style issue has professional style guides that advocate for different styles, but that does not mean that Wikipedia must allow all of them, or even necessarily any two of them. We develop our style guidelines based on consensus, which allows many styles on some issues, and only one or two on others. (The most common single restriction is to follow only one guideline on single issue throughout a single article.) Often these consensuses (consensi?) are carefully negotiated compromises. The real questions are, what have we negotiated for this issue, and does it still hold? ~ [[User:Jeffq|Jeff Q]] [[User talk:Jeffq|(talk)]] 07:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::I agree with Jeff. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::I agree with Wai Wai. [[User:JP06035|→'''&ensp;JARED]]'''&ensp;[[User_talk:JP06035|(t)]]&ensp; 15:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
::I am for following the almost universally recognised SI standard, prescribing a space. −[[User:Woodstone|Woodstone]] 18:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
::I agree with Jeff/Woodstone. [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 21:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
::I said this a little lower on the page, but for the record, I agree with Jeff and Woodstone.--[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 22:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
:::But, I mean, SI standards and ISO standards don't mean that it is the only way to write something. It is only a guideline for those who feel insecure without having set rules. It makes NO DIFFERENCE whether there's a space or not. Both on Wikipedia and in the real world, it should be up to the writer to decide which is asthetically better. Standards mean nothing! [[User:JP06035|→'''&ensp;JARED]]'''&ensp;[[User_talk:JP06035|(t)]]&ensp; 22:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

----
I don't see the need why we need to force all editors to use one single standard, not to say there are other kinds of problems. People tend to defend by saying "consistency", and "consistency" is always good. Really? However they forget they are making things complex and go in the other way round. Take the case of "numbers in word" (extracted):
* Whole numbers from zero to ten are spelled out as words in the body of an article. Use numerals in tables and infoboxes.
* Numbers above ten may be written out if they are expressed in two or fewer words, except in tables and infoboxes. Example: "sixteen", "eighty-four", "two hundred", "twenty million" but "3.75", "544", "21 million".
* Fractions standing alone should be spelt out unless they occur in a percentage. If fractions are mixed with whole numbers, use numerals.

<blockquote>'''Summary''': 
For number zero to ten, spell out the words. 
For number above ten, two situations: 
- expressed in two or fewer words, spell out the words. 
- otherwise, use arabic numbers. 
Fractions alone, spell out the words. 
Fractions mixed with whole numbers, use arabic numbers.</blockquote>

Where is the consistency? The rules tell us to uses numbers in words sometimes, uses arabic numbers in other times. Originally the style guide intends to keep things simple and consistent. However when people are working on it, they tend to forget their original goals and deviate from them - making rules complex, splitting hairs, trivial, inconsistency, inconvenience to editors, and so on.

People tend to forget '''simplicity is the best'''. If editors were not spending time on trivial style or formatting, much of their time saved could be used to improve the real "contents" of the article. It is what benefit the visitors most.

By the way, it is going to be a '''very minority consensus''' if you take the whole community [the world] into account. Only a very few wikipedians are engaged in the discussion.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 07:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
----

:You seem to disagree with WP having a style in general, at least to some degree. That's OK. You don't have to follow the style guide.
:Many other people do want WP to have a style. In a a way, loose style or less style can be more complicated -- editors don't need to decide which style to use, because they can refer to the style guide, where many such matters have already been decided. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::No. You get me wrong. I am '''not''' disagreeing with WP having a style, but there is something between "no style" and "one absolute style". I'm disagreeing with "one absolute style" (when other accpetable or standard styles exist) or against the Wikipedian philosophies. It is not necessary to rule out one absolute style only and ask all others to follow. Just like this style guide will state people can choose between "AD/BC" and "CE/BCE", and so on. There are quite many situations where the style ask people to choose either one and keep consistency. Why do you think '''only "one absolute style" must exist everywhere?''' Why do you think '''you must pick one only and ask all others to follow'''?
::I realise you would like to keep things consistent, but accepting either one is not the '''only''' way to keep consistency. Allowing both acceptable standard and kindly ask others to maintain interally consistency also works; just like you set rules to allow using arabic numbers in some cases, using numbers in words in other cases. Otherwise why don't you just allow one format only in all cases?--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::Another possibility is for you to work on just one paragraph at a time, or in a day. Smaller changes are easier to digest.
::I also disagree with the super-small subsections you've been making. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion taken. I'm working too hard on that day. I will try o update bit by bit next time. As to sections, section starts at 2nd level. What I'm usng is just 4th level (the 3rd type of section). There are articles which use 4th level. And I don't see why we must restrict ourselves to using 2 types of sections only (ie 2nd and 3rd level). Anyway, it is just a style issue. If all people don't like it, just undo the section formatting.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Spacing. I agree with Jeff and Maureen. There should be a non-breaking space between unit and symbol. I think that a rare exception can be made when the measurement itself actually becomes a title for something and is usually written without the space; e.g. 35mm camera, 6.1L Hemi, and the oympic events, etc. However, in those cases, I can live with the space if we don't want to make any exceptions. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 14:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Yes, I agree with the non-breaking space part too. However spacing is not always necessary. It is not rare exceptions. I have read different formal articles about that. I see there are cases where both are acceptable (eg 56 km or 56km). I don't see the reasons behind why we must prefer one style and depreciate another.
::::Beware that we should take [[systemic bias]] into consideration when generating rules. Systemic bias is the inherent tendency of a process to favor particular outcomes. The term is a [[neologism]] that generally refers to human systems; the analogous problem in non-human systems (such as scientific observations). After all, Wikipedia is intedned to be read by all people over the world.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

== The current decade ==

I am sure this has come up before, but I don't see anything on the project page. [[User:GoDot]] is insisting on calling the current decade "the 2000s" as in "bank redlining had largely diminished by the mid 2000s" ([[Seattle neighborhoods]]). I find this very confusing: if someone says "the mid-1900s" they mean around 1950, not 1905. But since this is a user with whom I repeatedly find myself disagreeing, and since the MoS doesn't yet address the matter, I'm simply bringing the question here. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 02:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
: Did you try to look at [[2000s]] or [[1900s]]? Compare to [[21st century]] and [[20th century]]. [[User:Crissov|Christoph Päper]] 13:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

== Update on Olympic Debate ==

I know it was a ''loooooooong'' time ago that we were debating on whether or not a space should be put between the number and the unit of Olympic Event names. The IOC official site does not put space, so one would expect the Wikipedia articles should do the same (e.g. '''10km'''), but according to this overcited page, it was kept according to the WP guidelines (e.g. '''10 km''').

I recently received a long awaited reply from the IOC in which the Sports Director Kelly Fairweather noted to me that the IOC is "working with the International Federations to define the exact terms to be used for disciplines and events." She stated that the project would be completed by October 2006 and the IOC website after that point would be the place to find the official terminology. Until then, "there is no one approved terminology."

I just thought some others would like to know. [[User:JP06035|→'''&ensp;JARED]]'''&ensp;[[User_talk:JP06035|(t)]]&ensp; 21:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
----
As a sidenote, I find both formatting style (ie spacing or non-spacing) in different formal writing. For example, my Oxford Intermediate English Dictionary uses non-spacing one, as in "''For this recipe you need 500g (five hundred grams) of flour''".

Anyway, I think people are getting hypercorrect. What's the difference between '''500g''' and '''500 g'''? Will people get confused when reading either style? People are wasting too much time on trivial issues, and making things complex, not to say it requires huge efforts and good memories to comply with all these trivial rules.

They tend to forget '''simplicity is the best'''. Accept both. Pick either one you like the best. How easy life would be then? After all, standards are all created by humans. No standards must be formal or informal. They are all relative in nature. If time are spent on more important issues, the world would be much better. --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 07:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Actually, I agree. The usage of either one is relative to the situation in which it is used. Different articles (topics) may require the use of different methods, but I'm really not up for arguing for it... [[User:JP06035|→'''&ensp;JARED]]'''&ensp;[[User_talk:JP06035|(t)]]&ensp; 15:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

== Indian numbering convention ==

This has probably come up before: Should the [[Indian numbering system]] (hazar, lakh, crore, arab...) be used in articles about Indian subjects? Should exponential breaks be done in the Indian system (i.e. 1,00,000 as opposed to 100,000)? Thoughts? -- [[User:Samir_(The_Scope)|'''Samir''']] [[User_talk:Samir_(The_Scope)|धर्म]] 09:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks for pointing me at that article - I came across an article with a comma after two digits once and was very confused! Are numbers other than lakhs and crores commonly used? My opinion, off the top of my head, is that it would probably be reasonable to use the Indian names and style of digits when referring to Indian subjects (thus complying with the MoS requirement to use the local form of English), but ''also'' advisable to write the number out in the more common style to avoid confusing non-Indian readers who might think it was a typographical error, e.g. "five crores (5,00,00,000 or 50,000,000)". -- [[User:Arwel_Parry|Arwel]] ([[User talk:Arwel_Parry|talk]]) 12:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

== Compound units ==

I thought there was a style recommendation for complicated units like mm•K/W, but I don't see it. How should we format things like this? — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 14:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

:I don't think the "Manual of Style" has such a recommendation, but the standard IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997 states on page 14 "Symbols. To avoid ambiguity in complicated expressions, unit symbols are preferred over unit names." I think this should go in the manual. --[[User:Gerry Ashton|Gerry Ashton]] 15:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
::I wouldn't not be against this going in the manual. However, we should insist on having a page (linked to the symbol) explaining what the unit is and how it used. Some of the symbols would be obvious, but they should still be linked to the respective article. If [[mph]] and [[km/h]] have articles about them then so should mm•K/W. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 14:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

==Wai Wai's changes, continued==
Here are some options, in alphabetical order:
#Accept Wai Wai's changes without further ado. -- Several of us disagree, so not a good choice.
#Ask to have the page protected.
#Continue the back-and-forth reversion.
#Start an RFC.
#Wai Wai could stop changing the project page, discuss the desired changes, and wait until consensus is clear to make the changes. -- Apparently unlikely, given that this has been requested several time by different people.

Comments? [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 09:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:The "Continue the back-and-forth reversion." is definitely not an option even if people here vote for it. It is because it is against Wikipedian's policies: Wikipedia does not allow revert wars! --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Takes two to tango. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 09:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:I think we are rapidly approaching the time for [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies]]. -- '''[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]([[User talk:Dalbury|Talk]])''' 09:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:After seeing the recent changes on the article page, I would say it is definitely time now for an RfC. -- '''[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]([[User talk:Dalbury|Talk]])''' 10:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Stop changing the project page, discuss the desired changes, and wait until consensus is clear. Only change the page when there is a consensus to do so. This would be the best way to go about it. In fact, isn't that the way that we have been doing it. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 12:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you really saying? Anyway, I have examined the revert policy once again. Unfortunately I'm afirad all people are wrong, at least in reverting. Stephen Turner states he was trying to be bold to revert long hours of contributions. However the "bold" policy clearly states it does not apply in terms of "reverting". Although a few people support him by doing the same, the action is wrong. '''The majority people are performing the same action does not justify the action itself. [[WP:WWIN#Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy|Wikipedia is not a democracy]]. We need to respect rules!'''

Pay attention that '''it's NOT my PERSONAL opinion. It is stated in the policies''' (eg [[WP:BOLD]]).

Please read the following rules first about revert. No one seems to care or understand about the "revert policy" - not to revert people's contributions even if it has problems. Revert is not something which should be taken lightly. "Reverting" is harmful, and so on.

:'''If you feel you are correct in reverting, please tell me which rule tells people it is justifiable to do a SIMPLE REVERT of days of contributions?'''

What's more, the recent update is not just the same as the old one. It has spent me valuable time to modify the update according to some comments (eg super-section, bullets, and spacing in unit measurement). However people keep reverting THE WHOLE PART OF IT instead of stating the questions. People seem to think it is just the same and revert it without any examination. '''THAT IS VERY RUDE'''.

Please read this: 
* Reverting should be used '''primarily for fighting vandalism'''. -- Help:Reverting
* Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: '''Do not simply revert changes in a dispute'''. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, '''improve the edit, rather than reverting it'''. -- Wikipedia:Resolving disputes
* Does the editor do is something very similar to vandalism? Even the update has some big problems, it is not the excuse to revert it. In the case of NPOV, people usually do it wrong by using: "'''lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete'''" Quoted from NPOV (its philosophy applies): ''Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly.'' -- NPOV
* Unless what one writes is near to completely non-sense, or useless or rubbish. Revert is not something which you should be taken lightly. The bold policy does not apply. We are bold to create/improve it, not bold to destory/delete it.
* '''Reverting should be used primarily for fighting vandalism or anything similar to the effects of vandalism'''.
I realise my edits may not be perfect, but that's the process of wikipedia. I post a preliminary edit. People will try to edit and improve it. We don't need to make sure it is 100% acceptable and perfect before it can be put. Consensus will be reached during the edit process.

'''I am willing to work on the problems or consensus issues. However people keep saying there is no consensus, but they are unwilling to specify where is the no consensus. Please specify the problems and what your doubts are, so I will know which are in higher priority and focus my explanations on them. I will try to explain some of the reasons why I make the changes. Consensus and agreement could be made in this regard. Please give me some time to fix the problems before you make your decision.'''--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 13:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:My suggestion would be to discuss your changes a little at a time. Don't do a large scale edit of the page. Baby steps. I think it would go smoother; it'll take longer but that is better in the long run anyway. So start a new topic based on what the first thing that you want to change is. It will be discussed over a few days and you will know the feelings of the editors on that proposal. What do you think? [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 14:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, you are very right. I did too many changes at one time. Lessons learnt. But I am sure the real "contextual" change is much less than what people orginally thought since most of them are not real contextual changes. However I mixed all of my hours work together and make one single update which may be too confusing for others to review. Sorry about that.
::After all, '''it is perfectly fine for me to post the changes here first. However I wonder if there's anyone who will be willing to review it.'''--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 14:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Baby steps! Also, you need to give your proposals some time to be debated. Not everyone lives on the computer—I certainly don't. Let as many people as possible discuss this.---[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 15:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Who says we need to settle it instantly? As long as the discussion is moving, it is perfectly fine. However, last time, I have waited for nearly a week for others to ask questions or respond or specify the problems, no one responded. After all, your review is excellent. Keep it up! --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
{{user Very Happy}}{{clear}}
=== about unit of measurement ===

I have forgotten whether which is copyedit, which is proposal.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. Read them once. If you find anything problematic, state it out.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 14:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

----

====Choice====
* <strike>Try to use the international units instead of local, unless you have good reasons to use others</strike>. ——Covered under 'conversions', unless you mean something else by 'international units'. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 15:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
''What's wrong to state this out to remind editors? When someone which is unsure what unit should be chosen, they are going to read that section. The covering under 'conversions' is not clear, at least to some people.''--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
* Some non-metric units have more than one version. Be specific. For example, ''[[US gallon|U.S. gallon]]'' or ''[[imperial gallon]]'' rather than just ''gallon''. Similarly, use ''[[nautical mile]]'' or ''[[statute mile]]'' rather than just ''mile'' in aviation, space, sea and in some other contexts.
* Try to be consistent with your choice.

====Format====
* Use standard or formal (as opposed to localized or informal) abbreviations when using symbols. For example, metre is m, kilogram is kg, inch is in (''not " or ″'' ), foot is ft (''not ' or ′'' ), and [[Avoirdupois|pound]] is lb (''not #'').
** Do not append an ''s'' for plurals of unit abbreviations. For example kg, in, yd, lb; ''not kgs, ins, yds, lbs''.
* For concision purposes, please use digits for values. For example, 100 kg; ''not one hundred kg''.
* <strike>For understandability purposes,</strike> please spell out units in the text, and link to the relevant article at the first few usage.

——You must have non breaking space between the number and symbol. Here's why: I weigh 180lb and drink a 1l of water a day. Having a space is easier on the eyes and is more consistent with many technical writings.

———''However I see the non-spacing version in other formal writing, including the dictionaries. I see it uses 500g, 10km and so on.''--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

——It's not for understandability, it's the way formal writings are styled. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 15:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

===Conversions===
* Conversions should generally be included and not be removed.
* If editors cannot agree about the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second.
* If for some reason the choice of units is arbitrary, choose [[SI units]] as the main unit, with other units in parentheses. For subjects dealing with the United States, it might be more appropriate to use U.S. measurements first, i.e. mile, foot, U.S. gallon.
* Use digits and unit symbols for values in parentheses. For example, "a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 16 kilometres (10 mi) long" '''or''' "a pipe 4 inches (100 mm) in diameter and 10 miles (16 km) long".
** Do the same for measurements in tables.
* Converted values should use a similar level of precision as the source value. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth", not "(236,121 mi)".

----

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Spacing_in_unit_measurement

===About dates===
If memory serves, they are (nearly) summarised changes (copyedit).
The major change is to move all general style and formatting which can apply to the rest of the page (or date formats) in the front first.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 14:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

See the following:
----

====Wording====

=====Uncertain date=====
*When only an approximate date is available, the English word ''about'' or the abbreviation "''c.''" (Latin: ''circa''; English: "about") may be used.
* When a date is uncertain because the source is unreliable, that fact should be noted and the source should be mentioned. For example, "according to [[Livy]], the [[Roman Republic]] was founded in 509 BC", or "The [[Mahabharata]] is traditionally said to have been composed in [[1310s BCE|1316 BCE]]".

=====Seasons=====
* The seasons are reversed in each hemisphere, while areas near the [[equator]] tend to have just [[wet season|wet]] and [[dry season]]s. Neutral wording should be used to describe times of the year to avoid confusion.
** Use "in early 1990", "in the second quarter of 2003", "around September" or an exact date, rather than references to seasons, unless there is some particular need to do so (eg "the autumn harvest"). It is ambiguous to say that [[Apollo 11]] landed on the Moon in the summer of 1969 (whose summer?).

=====Eras=====
:''See [[Anno Domini]] for a discussion on what is meant by AD and BC notation, and [[Common Era]] for a discussion on what is meant by CE and BCE notation.''
*Simply speaking, AD equals CE. BC equals BCE.

*Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article.

*Note that the [[1st century BC]] is from 100 BC to 1 BC (there was no [[year 0]]) so 1700 BC would be the first year of the 17th century BC, 1800 BC would be the first year of the 18th century BC, etc. Similarly, 4000 BC was the first year of the fourth millennium BC, ''not'' the last year of the fifth millennium BC.

*Note that the [[19th century]] is 1801—1900 (but ''not 1901—2000''). It is because the [[1st century]] starts at 1 AD and ends at 100 AD.

*Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the [[Anno Domini]]/[[Common Era]], but when events span the start of the [[Anno Domini]]/[[Common Era]], use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, <nowiki>[[1 BC]]—[[1|AD 1]]</nowiki> or <nowiki>[[1 BCE]]—[[1|1 CE]]</nowiki>.

*In articles about prehistory, if you use BP ([[before present]]) or MYA ([[million years ago]]), expand these abbreviations when you first use them, as most readers will be unfamiliar with them.

====Formatting====

=====General=====
* For any formatting or style, please maintain consistency throughout an article, unless there's a good reason to do otherwise.
* If, for any special reasons, a less clearer or specific format (eg 1900-01-12 date format is chosen instead of 12 January 1900) is used. Please make it very sure that your choice does not cause any ambiguity or confusion to anyone over the world. Note that something which is certain in one country or nation may not be so in another. Thus the best way to eliminate possible ambiguity or confusion is to adding notes beside the usage (to clarify any grey area or ambiguity).
*Wikipedia respects different formatting and style as long as they are clear and unambiguous. When any of the style is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedian to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reasons for the change. For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject.
** Revert warring over optional styles is highly unacceptable; if the article is [[colour]] rather than [[color]], it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable. See also [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk]].
* Direct [[quotations]] (ie the word-for-word reproduction of a written or oral text) should ''not'' be altered to confirm any wikipedia formatting or style. It is because the original source has to be kept as intact (in verbatim) as possible. For instance, the date in the following fictional quotation should not be linked (even if it is preferred in wikipedia):
:"Tony Blair, responding to critics in his party, said 'The world has totally changed since the 11th of September.' He was echoing earlier sentiments by Lord Ronald McDonald, who said that 'nine-eleven' was the day that the American public woke up to the reality of terrorism."


=====Ranges=====
Sometimes numbers and dates are expressed in ranges, such as "14—17" for the numbers 14 to 17. It is often preferable to write this out (eg "14 through 17" (US and Canada) or "from 14 to 17"). It is to avoid confusion with "14 minus 17", which is expressed with spaces, as "14 &minus; 17".

Traditionally, ranges of numbers and dates are given with an en dash (—). Simply click the "–" button (excluding quotes) below the edit window or insert it with any software supporting this punctuation. Please avoiding typing the code &ndash; to insert en dash. It is because new editors may not understand the code. They may delete the code due to misunderstanding. Also the visually form of "—" (excluding quotes) is more visually appealing and readable in the edit screen.

However, nowadays some sources use spaced or unspaced hyphens, at least online, and some Wikipedians believe that these hyphens should not be changed to en dashes.

See [[#Dates of birth and death]] (another section in the same article) for example.

See [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes)]] for details.

=====Year, decade, century formats=====
* Always write year in full form. Do not use the shortened two-digit form to express a year. It is because the shortened formats are likely to cause confusion. The same holds true whether the years are BC or AD. For example:
** Do not use 56 or '56. Use 1956 (when referring to the decade of the 20th century)
** Do not use 80s or '80s or "the eighties". Use 1980s (when referring to the decade of the 20th century)
* It is not necessary to use an apostrophe to indicate a decade. [[1970s]] is preferred, but not [[1970's]].
* The word "century" is normally not capitalised. [[18th century]] (small capital) is normally used. [[18th Century]] (big capital) is less common.

=====Day and month formats=====
* Please express a month as a whole word. Do not use numbers, except in [[ISO 8601]] format. Do not use abbreviations like "Dec". For example, use December 1945. Do not use "12, 1945" or "12 of 1945" or "Dec 1945"
** If space is precious (eg in a table, infobox, or the like), abbreviations are preferred to numbers (eg "Oct", ''not "10"''). Numbers are discouraged because it may cause confusion to readers as to whether day or month is referred.
** The shortened two-digit format is optional at the end of a range (ie "1970—1987" or "1970—87").
* The ordering does not matter: both "February 14" and "14 February" are fine.
* It is not necessary to add ordinal suffixes. "February 14" is preferred, but not "February 14th" and "14th February".
* It is not necessary to use a comma (,) or the word "of" between a month and year. "December 1945" is preferred, but not "December, 1945" and "December of 1945".

===Unclear===

[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]], this is progress. Thank you.

But the above material does not indicate the difference between the established style guide and your desired changes.

I have asked you to address a pragraph at a time. If you won't do that, would you at least narrow it to a section or subsection at a time, whichever is smaller that is applicable? [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 18:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

===&mdash; and &ndash; entities===
I find the changes to the dash guidelines highly objectionable. &mdash; and &ndash; are easy to type, their names quite clearly indicate "this is a dash", and HTML entities are certainly no more confusing than most of the markup used in MediaWiki. I don't see any reason to disallow using the Unicode characters, but "confusing for new editors" describes a whole lot more of what goes on here than these HTML entities. Anyone playing with the sandbox will be able to see what &mdash; and &ndash; do. —[[User:Ptkfgs|ptk]]✰[[User_talk:Ptkfgs|fgs]] 18:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:The reason is most new editors who are not familiar with Unicode characters will find it confusing. That's also why Wikipedia creates Wiki codes, to make it easier for others to edit. Others like HTML are hard to understand for newbies.—[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 20:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

=== recent changes ===
I agree that it's a little sudden. They need copy-editing in a number of places, and while I like a lot of the changes, I don't like all of them. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 15:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:So sorry about the "suddenness".--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

===Removal of material from user talk page===
Some people have left notes on [[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]]'s talk page about the style guide changes. [[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] has removed them all, including my note intended to discourage such removals. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 20:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

: Removing warnings from one's own talk page is unacceptable, per [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]]. I think both [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wai_Wai&diff=69187463&oldid=69181170 this edit] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wai_Wai&diff=69260023&oldid=69245690 this one] fall into that category. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 20:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
----

They are not warnings, as per [[Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace]]. Anyway, the responses (discussions) are related here. Why don't all of you simply reply here? Forking the discussion is hard to follow, not to say others are not going to read them.

Just like this case, my responses about the removal is completely missing. As a reference, here's the previous discussion about "removing warnings": 

'''Replies to removing warnings''' 
Removing the recent notes here about your changes to the style guide is misleading. Also, from [[Wikipedia:Removing warnings]]: "Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism." [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 17:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
----
I don't understand what you mean. Anyway I have received no warning from the admin etc. at all. The 3RR is fake. I don't know if I understand correctly, but it seems to be the reverse. I posted an update. Others reverted all the changes without even trying to improve or examine. After all, I have done 2 reverts. How come I have violated 3RR (and received warning)? Weird?

Anyway I don't care much. Time should be spent on improving articles, not on trivial things.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 18:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
----
:What part of "Removing the recent notes here about your changes to the style guide is misleading" do you not understand? And to mark such removals as minor is further misleading. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 18:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::Please understand what is "[[Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace|warning]]" (in your quote) before you make your comment. Next time, for any discussion relating to the article/topic, please reply in the related talk page, instead of forking the discussions over everywhere. it is hard to follow.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 18:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

=== General comments ===
I don't have time to read through your changes in detail at the moment, but here are some general comments:
* I think your changes are more extensive than you imagine. You think they're mostly just tidying up, but I think they're rather more than that.
* I find rewriting the paragraphs as bulleted lists makes them much less readable.
* The grammar is often slightly wrong. Your English is very good, but not quite perfect. For example, a native speaker wouldn't say "Both '12 noon' and 'noon' is acceptable" but "Either '12 noon' or 'noon' is acceptable". There are many similar examples, so you should get it checked by a native speaker first.
* On MoS pages, it is conventional to proceed very cautiously, and seek consensus for all changes before making them; not to make changes and hope that they're not reverted. This is because the MoS guidance potentially affects every article on Wikipedia. You might like to compare [[User:Stephen Turner/Date Proposal|what I wrote]] before I made extensive changes to this page.
* If you are reverted by several editors, consider whether you may be doing something wrong. And take it to the talk page, rather than making your changes again.
[[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 20:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'm not specifically replying to your points above, but I thought the title "General comments" was suitable for adding this: regardless of how much reasonable they can be, changes to the Manual of Style should be carefully considered, and possibly avoided. When I joined Wikipedia the whole Manual was pretty stable. At a given moment, it began to change and has never stopped. This is too bad. It does need stability, or articles will never keep up (if nothing else because nobody wants to drive crazy for that). To put it differently: the more you change it, the more it is dead letter. —[[User:Gennaro Prota|Gennaro Prota]][[User talk:Gennaro Prota|•Talk]] 02:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding general comments, I have modified my changes based on what you say (eg bulleted lists). Let's see how others respond to the proposed changes then.—[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 20:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

== Dates, non WaiWai issue ==

I was taking a look at the changes and I noticed this (which was present in both versions)
:Elsewhere, either format is acceptable. See [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English]] for more guidance.

I would assume that in non-Commonwealth, non-US/Canada countries there is in fact a preferred style and IMHO we should stick with this. So perhaps it would be best to at least mention this (e.g. although if a national style is known, this should be used). Depending on how variable national styles are, we might even be able to include some info on national styles from non-Commonwealth, non-US/Canada countries... [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] 16:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'm OK with including "(e.g. although if a national style is known, this should be used if it does not conflict with this style guide)," with the modification at the end. But I think extra info on national styles might be too much detail. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 18:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Can you give an example of an English speaking country that was not part of the British Empire/ Commonwealth and the type of date style that is used there?---[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 19:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Very few countries use American dating. Apart from North American topics, I think the default should be International dating, which is the choice of most. BTW what does South America do, BTW? [[User:Jtdirl|'''Fear''ÉIREANN''''']][[Image:Ireland-Capitals.PNG|15px]]\[[User talk:Jtdirl|(caint)]] 20:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::I should have been clearer but reading the statement "''non-Commonwealth, non-US/Canada countries''" makes me think that there is/are other date styles besides the two that are used in the U.S./Canada and British Commonwealth —i.e. besides August 13th, 2006 or 13 August 2006 (and their slight variations). I don't want this taken the wrong way but we should only be concerned with how native English speaking counties style things. If this was Spanish Wikipedia that I would wonder how dates were styled in South America.[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 13:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Hmm... Some of my ideas: 1) If most editors here are American, does it mean only American spelling or style should be used. Not so. Wikipedia is intended to be edited by everyone in the world. 2) The stlye guide should not take editors into consideration only. 3) It is also intended to be read by everyone in the world. Some styles or formatting, even if it causes no problem to one nation or country, may cause problems on another. This style should not be used to avoid ambiguity to visitors of other nations.—[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 20:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

2006-08-15T20:31:31Z

Wai Wai: /* General comments */

==Archives==
{| class="infobox" width="270px"
|-
!align="center"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]] [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|
*[[/archive1|1]], [[/archive2|2]], [[/archive3|3]], [[/archive4|4]], [[/archive5|5]], ''[[/vote|5a]]'', [[/archive6|6]], [[/archive7|7]], [[/archive8|8]], [[/archive9|9]], [[/archive10|10]],
*[[/archive11|11]], [[/archive12|12]], [[/archive13|13]], [[/archive14|14]], ''[[/archive dash discussion/|14a]]'', [[/archive15|15]], [[/archive16|16]], [[/archive17|17]], [[/archive18|18]], [[/archive19|19]],
*[[/archive20|20]], [[/archive21|21]], [[/archive22|22]], [[/archive23|23]], [[/archive24|24]], [[/archive25|25]], [[/archive26|26]], [[/archive27|27]], [[/archive28|28]], [[/archive29|29]],
*[[/archive30|30]], [[/archive31|31]], [[/archive32|32]], [[/archive33|33]], [[/archive34|34]], [[/archive35|35]], [[/archive36|36]], [[/archive37|37]], [[/archive38|38]], [[/archive39|39]],
*[[/archive40|40]], [[/archive41|41]], [[/archive42|42]], [[/archive43|43]], [[/archive44|44]], [[/archive45|45]], [[/archive46|46]], [[/archive47|47]], [[/archive48|48]]
*[[/archive49|49]], ''[[/archive49a|49a]]'', [[/archive50|50]], [[/archive51|51]], [[/archive52|52]]
|}

See also:
* [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (calendar dates)]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Timeline standards]]
* [[Wikipedia:Measurements Debate]]
----
'''Note on Archives:'''

'''The recent discussion on linking of dates from [[9 March]] [[2006]] to [[13 April]] [[2006]] is in archives 42 through 46, plus 48. [[/archive42|42]], [[/archive43|43]], [[/archive44|44]], [[/archive45|45]], [[/archive46|46]], [[/archive48|48]]''' 

----

== Improvement about guidelines in Time ==

Quote:
{| class=wikitable
!width=100| 12-hour clock !!width=100| Not !!width=100| 24-hour clock !!width=100| Not
|-
|2 p.m. || 2pm || 14:00 || 14.00
|-
|2:34 p.m. || 2.34 PM || 14:34 || 1434
|-
|12:04:38 a.m. || 12.04 38″ A.M. || 00:04:38 or 0:04:38
|-
|noon ||12 noon || 12:00
|}

The suggestions in "time" section seems to be weird because:
# It does not even follow what other formal or official standards (eg NIST standards) suggest.
# Its guidelines even conflicts with what the referenced articles [[12-hour clock]] and [[24-hour clock]] say. They don't follow what it says.

'''Mistake: p.m, pm & PM are definitely acceptable.'''
Evidence: 
# The initialisms "AM" and "PM" are variously written in small capitals ("am" and "pm"), uppercase letters ("AM" and "PM"), or lowercase letters ("am" and "pm"). Additionally, some styles use periods (full stops), especially in combination with lowercase letters (thus "a.m." and "p.m."). -- the guide in [[12-hour clock]]
# A.M. and P.M. may either be written in all capital letters or all lower case, but choose one style and stick with it. -- englishplus.com and Oxford Advanced dictionary
# The use of period/dot (.) is optional. -- Oxford Advanced dictionary

'''Mistake: noon or 12 noon are definitely acceptable.'''
Evidence: 
#"noon" or "12:00 noon" and "midnight" or "12:00 midnight" should be used (rather than to 12:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m., respectively) to avoid confusion. -- nist.gov (mentioned also in [[12-hour clock]])
# The tables in [[12-hour clock]] and [[24-hour clock]] uses 12 noon and 12 mindinight too. -- the guide in [[12-hour clock]]

'''Mistake: For 24-hour, discretion may be used to determine if the hour has a leading zero.''' 
It's strange that the article says that. There is no discretion as to whether a leading zero is used. It is more to do as a standard or a matter of taste. If one follows formal standard strictly, 24-hour usually use leading numbers. This includes major time sites like NIST.gov, greenwichmeantime.com, and so on.

'''A better explanation on Noon and Midnight''' 
<blockquote>'''AM and PM - What is Noon and Midnight?''' 
AM and PM start immediately after Midnight and Noon (Midday) respectively.
This means that 00:00 AM or 00:00 PM (or 12:00 AM and 12:00 PM) have no meaning.
Every day starts precisely at midnight and AM starts immediately after that point in time e.g. 00:00:01 AM (see also leap seconds)
To avoid confusion timetables, when scheduling around midnight, prefer to use either 23:59 or 00:01 to avoid confusion as to which day is being referred to.
It is after Noon that PM starts e.g. 00:00:01 PM (12:00:01) -- greenwichmeantime.com </blockquote>

I'm going to update the above (to include the instructions in [[12-hour clock]] and [[24-hour clock]], and some major time sites) if no one oppose it. --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

* I can't really decide whether I like what you are proposing without seeing the exact text you plan to use. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 15:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
** The above is more or less all of the proposals. If you agree (generally) with the above, I will put the text up for a review. There is nothing new anyway. What I try to do is to make it consistent with at least what is mentioned or done in [[12-hour clock]] and [[24-hour clock]]. The existing guideline conflicts with them, which is bad. --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 16:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
*** I think we should probably permit AM and PM as an alternative to a.m. and p.m., as the upper-case versions seem to be the normal spelling in the United States. I haven't understood what other problems you perceive in the current text, which you are trying to correct — we already forbid 12 a.m. and 12 p.m., for example. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 03:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
**** They are: 1) noon and 12 noon are definitely acceptable. 2) No discretion is needed to determine if the hour has a leading zero. 12-hour normally doesn't use leading zero; 24-hour usually does (reference given above). Any opinion? --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 05:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
***** I agree with both those points in principle. I think that some people find "12 noon" [[tautology (rhetoric)|tautologous]] but I don't have a problem with it. I'd still like to see the proposed text before giving a definite yes. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 15:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have some doubt that AM and PM are preferred in the United States. And "12 noon" is redundant. It seems like such changes amount to having no style, which can be done more concisely, if that is desired. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 17:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
:People say "12 noon", to distinguish it from "24 midnight". --[[User:SuperJumbo|Jumbo]] 21:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
:I believe that both PM and p.m. should be acceptable (not, though, P.M. or pm). And 12 noon is not redundant. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 22:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, 12 noon is not redundant.
::sorry, why do either P.M. or pm is not acceptable? Anyway, I see all 4 styles in different formal writing. Read [[12 hour clock]] too. All of them should be acceptable.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:The misunderstanding here is what the MoS is for. It's not saying that PM is wrong, for example, just that we have made an arbitrary but well informed decision to use p.m.; where possible without causing flame wars we want WP to have a consistent look and feel. And we don't have to follow any external guides or standards, although they inform the debate. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'' 22:22 [[8 August]] [[2006]] (GMT).

But it is not the way it should work:
#Wikipedia is a place which respect more than 1 style and formatting.
#Multiple style should be allowed, not being biased to one single style of the particular convention or in that particular country (eg the cases of American vs British spelling).
#Wikipedia is intended to be read by different users all over the world. Your choice of formatting or style may not acheve this goal.
#Some of the suggested style do not even confront to the standards (eg discretion can be made as to whether leading zero is used in 24-hour clock format). I don't know why a rule is made to against stanards for no particlar reasons.
#Users feel free to pick any style as long as it is clear and acceptable.
#The style guide still allows "inconsistency" (in the choice of style/formatting), like this style guide will state people can choose between "AD/BC" and "CE/BCE".
#A consistent look and feel can still be achieved even if more than 1 style exist. The point is to mantain consistency with the user's choice in that article.

Also bear in mind I am '''not''' disagreeing with WP having a style, but there is something between "no style" and "one absolute style". I'm disagreeing with "one absolute style" (when other accpetable or standard styles exist) or against the Wikipedian philosophies. It is not necessary to rule out one absolute style only and ask all others to follow. Just like this style guide will state people can choose between "AD/BC" and "CE/BCE", and so on. There are quite many situations where the style ask people to choose either one and keep consistency. Why do you think '''only "one absolute style" must exist everywhere?''' Why do you think '''you must pick one only and ask all others to follow'''?

I realise you would like to keep things consistent, but accepting either one is not the '''only''' way to keep consistency. Allowing both acceptable standard and kindly ask others to maintain interally consistency also works; just like you set rules to allow using arabic numbers in some cases, using numbers in words in other cases. Otherwise why don't you just allow one format only in all cases?--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

=== About the change ===
Please read the proposed change:

===12-hour clock===
* Times in the [[12-hour clock]] end with lower case "am" or "pm". These suffixes should not be omitted.
* As to "12 pm" and "12 am", "(12) noon" and "(12) midnight" should be used for clarity purposes. Some readers may find the former ambiguous and confusing. As it is a wikipedia policy to minimise ambiguity, "(12) noon" and "(12) midnight" are much better than the former.
** Both "12 noon or midnight" and "noon or midnight" is acceptable.
* Normally no leading zero is used to distinguish from times in the [[24-hour clock]].
* Regarding capitalisation:
** It does not matter what capital form "am/pm" is used. It can be written as "AM or am" or "PM or pm". But please be consistent throughout the article.
** It does not matter whether the first letter of "noon/midnight" is capitalised.
* The dot (.) is optional in the suffix: either am/pm or a.m./p.m. is fine.
* The spacing between the number and suffix is optional: either 2:30am or 2:30 am is fine.

===24-hour clock===
* Time in the [[24-hour clock]] times have no "am/pm/noon/midnight" suffix.
* 00:00 or 24:00 refers to the midnight and 12:00 refers to noon.
** 00:00 refers to the start of a day while 24:00 refers to the end of a day. However the end of a day equal to the start of the next day. That is why 00:00 is identical to 24:00.
** Both 00:00 and 24:00 are acceptable. It does not matter which one you use.
* Normally a leading zero is added to distinguish from times in the [[12-hour clock]].

===Common formats===
* In either case, the colon (:) should be used to separate hours, minutes and seconds. The use of dot (.) as a separator is not standard. It also causes confusion with the decimal point (.) in 12.45 (amount). Do not use it.
* Do not add extra symbols like (") to indicate second.
* Example:
** Use 12:34:28 pm (''but not 12.04 38″ pm'')
** Use 00:34 (''but not 00.34 or 0.34 or 0034'')
 —[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 20:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

== Wai Wai's changes ==
I've just reverted all Wai Wai's changes made in the last 12 hours or so. Changes this extensive must be discussed on the talk page first and reach consensus here. I'm sure some of them are fine, but others are controversial, and some of them were badly phrased too. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 15:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

:They are not really big nor major proposals. Most of them are copyedit work (eg reorganization, integration, redundancy removal, inconsistency fixes, and so on). Instead of reverting all the changes which is clearly inappropriate as stated by the policy, review the edit. If you feel there are something which may not be alright, discuss it then in the talk page.
:How about if you try to read the page once now and see if there is anything which may not be alright? I deem you will find it is mostly the same wine but with a new bottle. No new nor major nor core contents have been changed or proposed. And if you think something might not be okay, you can always discuss it in the talk page. Thank you --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 16:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

::A lot of them are just copy-editing, but there are several new pieces of advice in there too. Also it's very difficult to work out everything you've done because of the number of paragraph breaks and moved sections. (Have you looked at the diff?). At a minimum, every new policy should have been discussed here first. (And I don't know what you mean by "clearly inappropriate as stated by the policy" — which policy are you referring to?) [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 16:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

::::As to the new pieces of advice, some of them may be just copied or derived from other policies. It's not something completely new. Some may be just an additional note or advice (which expand or enrich the main one).--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I agree with Stephen's reverts. Until there is a concensus reached (or at least a discussion) here first, no changes to the manual should be made. In units of measurement, a few things that Wai Wai changed that do not have a concensus: making the non-braking space optional; and not spelling out numbers (wasn't Centrx trying to get us to spell out up to 100?). Also the first sentence in "choice" about international units is covered in "conversions". So I changed some things.--[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 03:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

::: (NB I wrote this simultaneously with MJCdetroit's comments).
::: I started reverting the bits I disagreed with, but as I read through it, I found that I disagreed with almost everything you'd done.
:::* New or changed advice should never have been added to the page without discussion here first.
:::* Your reordering of sections seemed worse because there was too much preamble before getting to the important stuff.
:::* Breaking paragraphs into bulleted lists made it much less readable, as did the excessive number of sub-sub-section and sub-sub-sub-section headings.
::: So I'm sorry, but I reverted everything again. I don't like to do that, but I'm afraid I found that most of the edits made the page worse. But maybe someone else could review it and offer an opinion?
:::[[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 03:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
::::[[Status quo]] ante Wai Wai --[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 03:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

::::: See my replies below. Most, if not all, you say can be done through improvement (not reverting). The general rule applies (as stated in wikipedia's policy): '''Improve it, rather than deleting it'''.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

----
Dear [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]]: 
The word "policy" I use is not strict, that is I simply refer to some wikipedia standards or principles or philosophies. It does not necesarily mean any standalone official policy which is being voilated (eg "three revert rule" policy). Anyway, here's the extract of what reverting is deemed appropriate:
* Reverting should be used '''primarily for fighting vandalism'''. -- Help:Reverting
* Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: '''Do not simply revert changes in a dispute'''. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, '''improve the edit, rather than reverting it'''. -- Wikipedia:Resolving disputes
* Does the editor do is something very similar to vandalism? Even the update has some big problems, it is not the excuse to revert it. In the case of NPOV, people usually do it wrong by using: "'''lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete'''" Quoted from NPOV (its philosophy applies): ''Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly.'' -- NPOV
* Unless what one writes is near to completely non-sense, or useless or rubbish. Revert is not something which you should be taken lightly. The bold policy does not apply. We are bold to create/improve it, not bold to destory/delete it.
* '''Reverting should be used primarily for fighting vandalism or anything similar to the effects of vandalism'''.
I realise my edits may not be perfect, but that's the process of wikipedia. I post a preliminary edit. People will try to edit and improve it. We don't need to make sure it is 100% acceptable and perfect before it can be put. Consensus will be reached during the edit process. 
I would revert my changes first (so others have chances to improve it). According to these policies or principles, if you feel my edits are very devastating or near vandalism, feel free to revert my edits (hopefully with reasons provided, so I know how to improve it, instead of starting at ground level again). --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 06:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

----

===My role===
Some people or editors may find this iformation useful. I'm [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias| a member of countering systemic bias]]. Simply speaking, it is a bia due to the nature of the system (wikipedia). Most editors here are coming from United States or in countries where English is their mother language. Most of the information/comments are biased towards the western. Opinions or information from Africa, Asia and South America are missing.

What I am trying to do is:
# Resolve the problem that "the information and perspective in the articles or sections may not represent a worldwide view." In this case, most style tend to be one-sided and in favour of one style standard (mainly United States or western).
# Integrate contents from various articles or policies, and remove the redundancy.
# Make sure the guidelines comply with major wikipedia policies, standards or philosophies.
# Make it consistent throughout the page.
# Make it consistent throughout different guidelines and policies.
# Resolve discrepancies and conflicts occurred within the same article.
 --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

===Editing procedures and requirements===
As regards the comment of "no changes to the manual should be made until there is a concensus reached. Every change has to be discussed in the discussion page first."

It's clearly wrong unfortunately. Please read the following: 
'''Major philosophy''' (official policies): 
:''Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. However, avoid deleting information wherever possible.'' -- Wikipedia:Editing policy
:[[Wikipedia:Editing_policy|perfection isn't required]] and don't worry about messing up. It is what wikipedia is - the editing process will take care it all. -- the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|five pillars of Wikipedia]].

'''Specific guidelines''': 
:''Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.'' -- guideline of updating style pages

Explanation (Note: The following is just a rough guideline. It is never intended to be complete or extensive): 
Things which may need discussions before editing: 
* Major or fundamental proposals
* Proposals which may be against major wikipedia philosophies or policies
* Important changes which is '''not''' going to or has reflected general consensus

Things which may '''not''' need discussions before editing: 
* ideas, rules, or information copied/derived from other guidelines or policies (since they have reflected general consensus already)
* sub-proposals expanding or enriching the existing one
* Changes which is going to or has reflected general consensus (maybe supported by official policies or the like)
* Non-content-specific changes like copyedit, integration, reorganization, categorization, formatting and style etc.
* minor changes or edits

In the forthcoming days, I will try to explain some of the reasons why I make the changes. Nevertheless it is very time consuming and it is impractical to explain every single change, including copyedit and minor ones. Priority has to be decided. If anyone has any doubts about any of my changes, please specify which one and what your doubts are, so I will know which are in higher priority and focus my explanations on them. Consensus and agreement could be made in this regard.

Please give me a few days to respond. Best regards.
 --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

===Reversions===

:Wai Wai. Please try and understand this section of the MOS has come about through continual discussions and consensus of the edits. Your edits here are not the same as if you were making edits to say the article on Queen Elizabeth. Your changes here are effectively telling all editors how all other articles in wikipedia should look or not look. Therefore, in matters dealing with the MOS, I think most editors here would rather proceed with caution. --[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 14:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

::Wai Wai, you should note that your changes have been reverted four times by three people.
::You do not have consensus. Changes within style guide and elsewhere in Wikipedia namespace call for more consensus and discussion than changes in article namespace. Articles are about facts; the style guide is intended essentially as direction and advice. For you to continue as you have been appears to place your ideas above those that the community has determined.
::The best way to work toward the changes you desire is to leave the project page alone until there is clear acceptance on this page. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 14:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Wai Wai, can you please discuss your changes before making them. You have been reverted a number of times and some of your changes I object to such as changing the practice of putting spaces between digits and units for measurements in parentheses. If you are unwilling to list and discuss the changes you wish to make then you will keep being reverted. --[[User:Clawed|Clawed]] 06:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:::It is not okay to revert people's contributions, as stated in revert policies. If every change has to be discussed, the page will be locked. We feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes. Most of my update is copyedit: merge, redundancy removal. However I think I should not mix things together. Maybe I should do it bit by bit. I was concentrating too much at that time (You see, I have spent 1 whole day for this edit, and I deviate a bit from what I originally intended to do). --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 06:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wai Wai -- Do you not see that you are going against consensus? Both the established style and repeated requests for you to first discuss your changes and get agreement before making them? Do you not see how little support your changes have among other editors? [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I realise there are some problems which we have to work on. However this alone does not justify a "revert" as far as the policies are concerned. The polciy has stated '''a "revert" should be dealt primiarily with vandalism'''. Unless you think all of the updates are vandalism or near vandalism, I don't see why it justifies a "revert". Policy has also stated we should work on the problems. Improve/Modify the articles, rather than deleting/reverting it.

After all, I am willing to work on the problems or consensus issues. Please specify the problems and what your doubts are, so I will know which are in higher priority and focus my explanations on them. I will try to explain some of the reasons why I make the changes. Consensus and agreement could be made in this regard. Please give me some time to fix the problems before you make your decision.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

#This is a style guide, not an article. I pointed out some of the difference earlier.
#Given that you change so much, it is hard to analyze and list. Given that there is general disagreement with your changes, the burden is on you. Please specify -- on the talk page -- what you see as the problems. When you get consensus agreement, then it's OK to change the style guide for that aspect. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 09:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of the above rules. Would you mind tellingme where it state so, including it is the updater's burden to prove there is the general agreement before an update is possible? I have stated it already: Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes. -- guideline of updating style pages.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:They are not so much rules, but judgment common to at least several people involved with this.
:But seeing that you like to quote things …
:From [[Help:Reverting]]: "However, sometimes a revert is the best response to a less-than-great edit, so we can't just stop reverting."
:From [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]]: "Amendments to a guideline should be discussed on its talk page, not on a new page - although it's generally acceptable to edit a guideline to improve it."
:But your edits here are obviously not seen to be improvements by the other people involved.
:From the project page: "The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here."
:If the consensus is "Do X" and that is changed to "Do X, or Y, or Z" by one person and other people disagree, then it is no longer a convention established by consensus.
:You are trying to change conventions already established by consensus. Do you not see that consensus is need to change what is already established by consensus?
:It is not that every single edit anyone makes to the style guide must be pre-approved. It is that edits that engender disagreement, especially to to a policy or guideline, should be worked out on the talk page before proceeding further. Do you not see the difference?
[[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 10:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is not all are major changes. It is wrong to revert COMPLETELY because there are some problems in the update. Please read the following: 
'''Major philosophy''' (official policies): 
:''Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. However, avoid deleting information wherever possible.'' -- Wikipedia:Editing policy
:[[Wikipedia:Editing_policy|perfection isn't required]] and don't worry about messing up. It is what wikipedia is - the editing process will take care it all. -- the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|five pillars of Wikipedia]].

'''Specific guidelines''': 
:''Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.'' -- guideline of updating style pages

If every change needed to be done through discussion, why the page is not locked up? What's more, reverting should be used '''primarily for fighting vandalism''', as stated in the help:reverting page.

When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate or problematic, '''improve the edit, rather than reverting it''' as stated in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

Unless what one writes is near to completely non-sense, or useless or rubbish. Revert is not something which you should be taken lightly. The bold policy does not apply. We are bold to create/improve it, not bold to destory/delete it.

However what people doing are reverting all changes but there are only some areas problematic.

===Spacing in unit measurement===
Spacng should be optional since I find both formatting style (ie spacing or non-spacing) in different formal writing. For example, my Oxford Intermediate English Dictionary uses non-spacing one, as in "''For this recipe you need 500g (five hundred grams) of flour''".--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 06:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

: Nearly every style issue has professional style guides that advocate for different styles, but that does not mean that Wikipedia must allow all of them, or even necessarily any two of them. We develop our style guidelines based on consensus, which allows many styles on some issues, and only one or two on others. (The most common single restriction is to follow only one guideline on single issue throughout a single article.) Often these consensuses (consensi?) are carefully negotiated compromises. The real questions are, what have we negotiated for this issue, and does it still hold? ~ [[User:Jeffq|Jeff Q]] [[User talk:Jeffq|(talk)]] 07:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::I agree with Jeff. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::I agree with Wai Wai. [[User:JP06035|→'''&ensp;JARED]]'''&ensp;[[User_talk:JP06035|(t)]]&ensp; 15:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
::I am for following the almost universally recognised SI standard, prescribing a space. −[[User:Woodstone|Woodstone]] 18:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
::I agree with Jeff/Woodstone. [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 21:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
::I said this a little lower on the page, but for the record, I agree with Jeff and Woodstone.--[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 22:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
:::But, I mean, SI standards and ISO standards don't mean that it is the only way to write something. It is only a guideline for those who feel insecure without having set rules. It makes NO DIFFERENCE whether there's a space or not. Both on Wikipedia and in the real world, it should be up to the writer to decide which is asthetically better. Standards mean nothing! [[User:JP06035|→'''&ensp;JARED]]'''&ensp;[[User_talk:JP06035|(t)]]&ensp; 22:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

----
I don't see the need why we need to force all editors to use one single standard, not to say there are other kinds of problems. People tend to defend by saying "consistency", and "consistency" is always good. Really? However they forget they are making things complex and go in the other way round. Take the case of "numbers in word" (extracted):
* Whole numbers from zero to ten are spelled out as words in the body of an article. Use numerals in tables and infoboxes.
* Numbers above ten may be written out if they are expressed in two or fewer words, except in tables and infoboxes. Example: "sixteen", "eighty-four", "two hundred", "twenty million" but "3.75", "544", "21 million".
* Fractions standing alone should be spelt out unless they occur in a percentage. If fractions are mixed with whole numbers, use numerals.

<blockquote>'''Summary''': 
For number zero to ten, spell out the words. 
For number above ten, two situations: 
- expressed in two or fewer words, spell out the words. 
- otherwise, use arabic numbers. 
Fractions alone, spell out the words. 
Fractions mixed with whole numbers, use arabic numbers.</blockquote>

Where is the consistency? The rules tell us to uses numbers in words sometimes, uses arabic numbers in other times. Originally the style guide intends to keep things simple and consistent. However when people are working on it, they tend to forget their original goals and deviate from them - making rules complex, splitting hairs, trivial, inconsistency, inconvenience to editors, and so on.

People tend to forget '''simplicity is the best'''. If editors were not spending time on trivial style or formatting, much of their time saved could be used to improve the real "contents" of the article. It is what benefit the visitors most.

By the way, it is going to be a '''very minority consensus''' if you take the whole community [the world] into account. Only a very few wikipedians are engaged in the discussion.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 07:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
----

:You seem to disagree with WP having a style in general, at least to some degree. That's OK. You don't have to follow the style guide.
:Many other people do want WP to have a style. In a a way, loose style or less style can be more complicated -- editors don't need to decide which style to use, because they can refer to the style guide, where many such matters have already been decided. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::No. You get me wrong. I am '''not''' disagreeing with WP having a style, but there is something between "no style" and "one absolute style". I'm disagreeing with "one absolute style" (when other accpetable or standard styles exist) or against the Wikipedian philosophies. It is not necessary to rule out one absolute style only and ask all others to follow. Just like this style guide will state people can choose between "AD/BC" and "CE/BCE", and so on. There are quite many situations where the style ask people to choose either one and keep consistency. Why do you think '''only "one absolute style" must exist everywhere?''' Why do you think '''you must pick one only and ask all others to follow'''?
::I realise you would like to keep things consistent, but accepting either one is not the '''only''' way to keep consistency. Allowing both acceptable standard and kindly ask others to maintain interally consistency also works; just like you set rules to allow using arabic numbers in some cases, using numbers in words in other cases. Otherwise why don't you just allow one format only in all cases?--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::Another possibility is for you to work on just one paragraph at a time, or in a day. Smaller changes are easier to digest.
::I also disagree with the super-small subsections you've been making. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion taken. I'm working too hard on that day. I will try o update bit by bit next time. As to sections, section starts at 2nd level. What I'm usng is just 4th level (the 3rd type of section). There are articles which use 4th level. And I don't see why we must restrict ourselves to using 2 types of sections only (ie 2nd and 3rd level). Anyway, it is just a style issue. If all people don't like it, just undo the section formatting.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Spacing. I agree with Jeff and Maureen. There should be a non-breaking space between unit and symbol. I think that a rare exception can be made when the measurement itself actually becomes a title for something and is usually written without the space; e.g. 35mm camera, 6.1L Hemi, and the oympic events, etc. However, in those cases, I can live with the space if we don't want to make any exceptions. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 14:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Yes, I agree with the non-breaking space part too. However spacing is not always necessary. It is not rare exceptions. I have read different formal articles about that. I see there are cases where both are acceptable (eg 56 km or 56km). I don't see the reasons behind why we must prefer one style and depreciate another.
::::Beware that we should take [[systemic bias]] into consideration when generating rules. Systemic bias is the inherent tendency of a process to favor particular outcomes. The term is a [[neologism]] that generally refers to human systems; the analogous problem in non-human systems (such as scientific observations). After all, Wikipedia is intedned to be read by all people over the world.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

== The current decade ==

I am sure this has come up before, but I don't see anything on the project page. [[User:GoDot]] is insisting on calling the current decade "the 2000s" as in "bank redlining had largely diminished by the mid 2000s" ([[Seattle neighborhoods]]). I find this very confusing: if someone says "the mid-1900s" they mean around 1950, not 1905. But since this is a user with whom I repeatedly find myself disagreeing, and since the MoS doesn't yet address the matter, I'm simply bringing the question here. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 02:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
: Did you try to look at [[2000s]] or [[1900s]]? Compare to [[21st century]] and [[20th century]]. [[User:Crissov|Christoph Päper]] 13:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

== Update on Olympic Debate ==

I know it was a ''loooooooong'' time ago that we were debating on whether or not a space should be put between the number and the unit of Olympic Event names. The IOC official site does not put space, so one would expect the Wikipedia articles should do the same (e.g. '''10km'''), but according to this overcited page, it was kept according to the WP guidelines (e.g. '''10 km''').

I recently received a long awaited reply from the IOC in which the Sports Director Kelly Fairweather noted to me that the IOC is "working with the International Federations to define the exact terms to be used for disciplines and events." She stated that the project would be completed by October 2006 and the IOC website after that point would be the place to find the official terminology. Until then, "there is no one approved terminology."

I just thought some others would like to know. [[User:JP06035|→'''&ensp;JARED]]'''&ensp;[[User_talk:JP06035|(t)]]&ensp; 21:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
----
As a sidenote, I find both formatting style (ie spacing or non-spacing) in different formal writing. For example, my Oxford Intermediate English Dictionary uses non-spacing one, as in "''For this recipe you need 500g (five hundred grams) of flour''".

Anyway, I think people are getting hypercorrect. What's the difference between '''500g''' and '''500 g'''? Will people get confused when reading either style? People are wasting too much time on trivial issues, and making things complex, not to say it requires huge efforts and good memories to comply with all these trivial rules.

They tend to forget '''simplicity is the best'''. Accept both. Pick either one you like the best. How easy life would be then? After all, standards are all created by humans. No standards must be formal or informal. They are all relative in nature. If time are spent on more important issues, the world would be much better. --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 07:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Actually, I agree. The usage of either one is relative to the situation in which it is used. Different articles (topics) may require the use of different methods, but I'm really not up for arguing for it... [[User:JP06035|→'''&ensp;JARED]]'''&ensp;[[User_talk:JP06035|(t)]]&ensp; 15:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

== Indian numbering convention ==

This has probably come up before: Should the [[Indian numbering system]] (hazar, lakh, crore, arab...) be used in articles about Indian subjects? Should exponential breaks be done in the Indian system (i.e. 1,00,000 as opposed to 100,000)? Thoughts? -- [[User:Samir_(The_Scope)|'''Samir''']] [[User_talk:Samir_(The_Scope)|धर्म]] 09:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks for pointing me at that article - I came across an article with a comma after two digits once and was very confused! Are numbers other than lakhs and crores commonly used? My opinion, off the top of my head, is that it would probably be reasonable to use the Indian names and style of digits when referring to Indian subjects (thus complying with the MoS requirement to use the local form of English), but ''also'' advisable to write the number out in the more common style to avoid confusing non-Indian readers who might think it was a typographical error, e.g. "five crores (5,00,00,000 or 50,000,000)". -- [[User:Arwel_Parry|Arwel]] ([[User talk:Arwel_Parry|talk]]) 12:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

== Compound units ==

I thought there was a style recommendation for complicated units like mm•K/W, but I don't see it. How should we format things like this? — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 14:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

:I don't think the "Manual of Style" has such a recommendation, but the standard IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997 states on page 14 "Symbols. To avoid ambiguity in complicated expressions, unit symbols are preferred over unit names." I think this should go in the manual. --[[User:Gerry Ashton|Gerry Ashton]] 15:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
::I wouldn't not be against this going in the manual. However, we should insist on having a page (linked to the symbol) explaining what the unit is and how it used. Some of the symbols would be obvious, but they should still be linked to the respective article. If [[mph]] and [[km/h]] have articles about them then so should mm•K/W. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 14:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

==Wai Wai's changes, continued==
Here are some options, in alphabetical order:
#Accept Wai Wai's changes without further ado. -- Several of us disagree, so not a good choice.
#Ask to have the page protected.
#Continue the back-and-forth reversion.
#Start an RFC.
#Wai Wai could stop changing the project page, discuss the desired changes, and wait until consensus is clear to make the changes. -- Apparently unlikely, given that this has been requested several time by different people.

Comments? [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 09:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:The "Continue the back-and-forth reversion." is definitely not an option even if people here vote for it. It is because it is against Wikipedian's policies: Wikipedia does not allow revert wars! --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Takes two to tango. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 09:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:I think we are rapidly approaching the time for [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies]]. -- '''[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]([[User talk:Dalbury|Talk]])''' 09:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:After seeing the recent changes on the article page, I would say it is definitely time now for an RfC. -- '''[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]([[User talk:Dalbury|Talk]])''' 10:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Stop changing the project page, discuss the desired changes, and wait until consensus is clear. Only change the page when there is a consensus to do so. This would be the best way to go about it. In fact, isn't that the way that we have been doing it. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 12:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you really saying? Anyway, I have examined the revert policy once again. Unfortunately I'm afirad all people are wrong, at least in reverting. Stephen Turner states he was trying to be bold to revert long hours of contributions. However the "bold" policy clearly states it does not apply in terms of "reverting". Although a few people support him by doing the same, the action is wrong. '''The majority people are performing the same action does not justify the action itself. [[WP:WWIN#Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy|Wikipedia is not a democracy]]. We need to respect rules!'''

Pay attention that '''it's NOT my PERSONAL opinion. It is stated in the policies''' (eg [[WP:BOLD]]).

Please read the following rules first about revert. No one seems to care or understand about the "revert policy" - not to revert people's contributions even if it has problems. Revert is not something which should be taken lightly. "Reverting" is harmful, and so on.

:'''If you feel you are correct in reverting, please tell me which rule tells people it is justifiable to do a SIMPLE REVERT of days of contributions?'''

What's more, the recent update is not just the same as the old one. It has spent me valuable time to modify the update according to some comments (eg super-section, bullets, and spacing in unit measurement). However people keep reverting THE WHOLE PART OF IT instead of stating the questions. People seem to think it is just the same and revert it without any examination. '''THAT IS VERY RUDE'''.

Please read this: 
* Reverting should be used '''primarily for fighting vandalism'''. -- Help:Reverting
* Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: '''Do not simply revert changes in a dispute'''. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, '''improve the edit, rather than reverting it'''. -- Wikipedia:Resolving disputes
* Does the editor do is something very similar to vandalism? Even the update has some big problems, it is not the excuse to revert it. In the case of NPOV, people usually do it wrong by using: "'''lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete'''" Quoted from NPOV (its philosophy applies): ''Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly.'' -- NPOV
* Unless what one writes is near to completely non-sense, or useless or rubbish. Revert is not something which you should be taken lightly. The bold policy does not apply. We are bold to create/improve it, not bold to destory/delete it.
* '''Reverting should be used primarily for fighting vandalism or anything similar to the effects of vandalism'''.
I realise my edits may not be perfect, but that's the process of wikipedia. I post a preliminary edit. People will try to edit and improve it. We don't need to make sure it is 100% acceptable and perfect before it can be put. Consensus will be reached during the edit process.

'''I am willing to work on the problems or consensus issues. However people keep saying there is no consensus, but they are unwilling to specify where is the no consensus. Please specify the problems and what your doubts are, so I will know which are in higher priority and focus my explanations on them. I will try to explain some of the reasons why I make the changes. Consensus and agreement could be made in this regard. Please give me some time to fix the problems before you make your decision.'''--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 13:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:My suggestion would be to discuss your changes a little at a time. Don't do a large scale edit of the page. Baby steps. I think it would go smoother; it'll take longer but that is better in the long run anyway. So start a new topic based on what the first thing that you want to change is. It will be discussed over a few days and you will know the feelings of the editors on that proposal. What do you think? [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 14:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, you are very right. I did too many changes at one time. Lessons learnt. But I am sure the real "contextual" change is much less than what people orginally thought since most of them are not real contextual changes. However I mixed all of my hours work together and make one single update which may be too confusing for others to review. Sorry about that.
::After all, '''it is perfectly fine for me to post the changes here first. However I wonder if there's anyone who will be willing to review it.'''--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 14:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Baby steps! Also, you need to give your proposals some time to be debated. Not everyone lives on the computer—I certainly don't. Let as many people as possible discuss this.---[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 15:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Who says we need to settle it instantly? As long as the discussion is moving, it is perfectly fine. However, last time, I have waited for nearly a week for others to ask questions or respond or specify the problems, no one responded. After all, your review is excellent. Keep it up! --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
{{user Very Happy}}{{clear}}
=== about unit of measurement ===

I have forgotten whether which is copyedit, which is proposal.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. Read them once. If you find anything problematic, state it out.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 14:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

----

====Choice====
* <strike>Try to use the international units instead of local, unless you have good reasons to use others</strike>. ——Covered under 'conversions', unless you mean something else by 'international units'. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 15:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
''What's wrong to state this out to remind editors? When someone which is unsure what unit should be chosen, they are going to read that section. The covering under 'conversions' is not clear, at least to some people.''--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
* Some non-metric units have more than one version. Be specific. For example, ''[[US gallon|U.S. gallon]]'' or ''[[imperial gallon]]'' rather than just ''gallon''. Similarly, use ''[[nautical mile]]'' or ''[[statute mile]]'' rather than just ''mile'' in aviation, space, sea and in some other contexts.
* Try to be consistent with your choice.

====Format====
* Use standard or formal (as opposed to localized or informal) abbreviations when using symbols. For example, metre is m, kilogram is kg, inch is in (''not " or ″'' ), foot is ft (''not ' or ′'' ), and [[Avoirdupois|pound]] is lb (''not #'').
** Do not append an ''s'' for plurals of unit abbreviations. For example kg, in, yd, lb; ''not kgs, ins, yds, lbs''.
* For concision purposes, please use digits for values. For example, 100 kg; ''not one hundred kg''.
* <strike>For understandability purposes,</strike> please spell out units in the text, and link to the relevant article at the first few usage.

——You must have non breaking space between the number and symbol. Here's why: I weigh 180lb and drink a 1l of water a day. Having a space is easier on the eyes and is more consistent with many technical writings.

———''However I see the non-spacing version in other formal writing, including the dictionaries. I see it uses 500g, 10km and so on.''--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

——It's not for understandability, it's the way formal writings are styled. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 15:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

===Conversions===
* Conversions should generally be included and not be removed.
* If editors cannot agree about the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second.
* If for some reason the choice of units is arbitrary, choose [[SI units]] as the main unit, with other units in parentheses. For subjects dealing with the United States, it might be more appropriate to use U.S. measurements first, i.e. mile, foot, U.S. gallon.
* Use digits and unit symbols for values in parentheses. For example, "a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 16 kilometres (10 mi) long" '''or''' "a pipe 4 inches (100 mm) in diameter and 10 miles (16 km) long".
** Do the same for measurements in tables.
* Converted values should use a similar level of precision as the source value. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth", not "(236,121 mi)".

----

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Spacing_in_unit_measurement

===About dates===
If memory serves, they are (nearly) summarised changes (copyedit).
The major change is to move all general style and formatting which can apply to the rest of the page (or date formats) in the front first.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 14:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

See the following:
----

====Wording====

=====Uncertain date=====
*When only an approximate date is available, the English word ''about'' or the abbreviation "''c.''" (Latin: ''circa''; English: "about") may be used.
* When a date is uncertain because the source is unreliable, that fact should be noted and the source should be mentioned. For example, "according to [[Livy]], the [[Roman Republic]] was founded in 509 BC", or "The [[Mahabharata]] is traditionally said to have been composed in [[1310s BCE|1316 BCE]]".

=====Seasons=====
* The seasons are reversed in each hemisphere, while areas near the [[equator]] tend to have just [[wet season|wet]] and [[dry season]]s. Neutral wording should be used to describe times of the year to avoid confusion.
** Use "in early 1990", "in the second quarter of 2003", "around September" or an exact date, rather than references to seasons, unless there is some particular need to do so (eg "the autumn harvest"). It is ambiguous to say that [[Apollo 11]] landed on the Moon in the summer of 1969 (whose summer?).

=====Eras=====
:''See [[Anno Domini]] for a discussion on what is meant by AD and BC notation, and [[Common Era]] for a discussion on what is meant by CE and BCE notation.''
*Simply speaking, AD equals CE. BC equals BCE.

*Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article.

*Note that the [[1st century BC]] is from 100 BC to 1 BC (there was no [[year 0]]) so 1700 BC would be the first year of the 17th century BC, 1800 BC would be the first year of the 18th century BC, etc. Similarly, 4000 BC was the first year of the fourth millennium BC, ''not'' the last year of the fifth millennium BC.

*Note that the [[19th century]] is 1801—1900 (but ''not 1901—2000''). It is because the [[1st century]] starts at 1 AD and ends at 100 AD.

*Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the [[Anno Domini]]/[[Common Era]], but when events span the start of the [[Anno Domini]]/[[Common Era]], use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, <nowiki>[[1 BC]]—[[1|AD 1]]</nowiki> or <nowiki>[[1 BCE]]—[[1|1 CE]]</nowiki>.

*In articles about prehistory, if you use BP ([[before present]]) or MYA ([[million years ago]]), expand these abbreviations when you first use them, as most readers will be unfamiliar with them.

====Formatting====

=====General=====
* For any formatting or style, please maintain consistency throughout an article, unless there's a good reason to do otherwise.
* If, for any special reasons, a less clearer or specific format (eg 1900-01-12 date format is chosen instead of 12 January 1900) is used. Please make it very sure that your choice does not cause any ambiguity or confusion to anyone over the world. Note that something which is certain in one country or nation may not be so in another. Thus the best way to eliminate possible ambiguity or confusion is to adding notes beside the usage (to clarify any grey area or ambiguity).
*Wikipedia respects different formatting and style as long as they are clear and unambiguous. When any of the style is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedian to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reasons for the change. For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject.
** Revert warring over optional styles is highly unacceptable; if the article is [[colour]] rather than [[color]], it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable. See also [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk]].
* Direct [[quotations]] (ie the word-for-word reproduction of a written or oral text) should ''not'' be altered to confirm any wikipedia formatting or style. It is because the original source has to be kept as intact (in verbatim) as possible. For instance, the date in the following fictional quotation should not be linked (even if it is preferred in wikipedia):
:"Tony Blair, responding to critics in his party, said 'The world has totally changed since the 11th of September.' He was echoing earlier sentiments by Lord Ronald McDonald, who said that 'nine-eleven' was the day that the American public woke up to the reality of terrorism."


=====Ranges=====
Sometimes numbers and dates are expressed in ranges, such as "14—17" for the numbers 14 to 17. It is often preferable to write this out (eg "14 through 17" (US and Canada) or "from 14 to 17"). It is to avoid confusion with "14 minus 17", which is expressed with spaces, as "14 &minus; 17".

Traditionally, ranges of numbers and dates are given with an en dash (—). Simply click the "–" button (excluding quotes) below the edit window or insert it with any software supporting this punctuation. Please avoiding typing the code &ndash; to insert en dash. It is because new editors may not understand the code. They may delete the code due to misunderstanding. Also the visually form of "—" (excluding quotes) is more visually appealing and readable in the edit screen.

However, nowadays some sources use spaced or unspaced hyphens, at least online, and some Wikipedians believe that these hyphens should not be changed to en dashes.

See [[#Dates of birth and death]] (another section in the same article) for example.

See [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes)]] for details.

=====Year, decade, century formats=====
* Always write year in full form. Do not use the shortened two-digit form to express a year. It is because the shortened formats are likely to cause confusion. The same holds true whether the years are BC or AD. For example:
** Do not use 56 or '56. Use 1956 (when referring to the decade of the 20th century)
** Do not use 80s or '80s or "the eighties". Use 1980s (when referring to the decade of the 20th century)
* It is not necessary to use an apostrophe to indicate a decade. [[1970s]] is preferred, but not [[1970's]].
* The word "century" is normally not capitalised. [[18th century]] (small capital) is normally used. [[18th Century]] (big capital) is less common.

=====Day and month formats=====
* Please express a month as a whole word. Do not use numbers, except in [[ISO 8601]] format. Do not use abbreviations like "Dec". For example, use December 1945. Do not use "12, 1945" or "12 of 1945" or "Dec 1945"
** If space is precious (eg in a table, infobox, or the like), abbreviations are preferred to numbers (eg "Oct", ''not "10"''). Numbers are discouraged because it may cause confusion to readers as to whether day or month is referred.
** The shortened two-digit format is optional at the end of a range (ie "1970—1987" or "1970—87").
* The ordering does not matter: both "February 14" and "14 February" are fine.
* It is not necessary to add ordinal suffixes. "February 14" is preferred, but not "February 14th" and "14th February".
* It is not necessary to use a comma (,) or the word "of" between a month and year. "December 1945" is preferred, but not "December, 1945" and "December of 1945".

===Unclear===

[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]], this is progress. Thank you.

But the above material does not indicate the difference between the established style guide and your desired changes.

I have asked you to address a pragraph at a time. If you won't do that, would you at least narrow it to a section or subsection at a time, whichever is smaller that is applicable? [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 18:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

===&mdash; and &ndash; entities===
I find the changes to the dash guidelines highly objectionable. &mdash; and &ndash; are easy to type, their names quite clearly indicate "this is a dash", and HTML entities are certainly no more confusing than most of the markup used in MediaWiki. I don't see any reason to disallow using the Unicode characters, but "confusing for new editors" describes a whole lot more of what goes on here than these HTML entities. Anyone playing with the sandbox will be able to see what &mdash; and &ndash; do. —[[User:Ptkfgs|ptk]]✰[[User_talk:Ptkfgs|fgs]] 18:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:The reason is most new editors who are not familiar with Unicode characters will find it confusing. That's also why Wikipedia creates Wiki codes, to make it easier for others to edit. Others like HTML are hard to understand for newbies.—[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 20:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

=== recent changes ===
I agree that it's a little sudden. They need copy-editing in a number of places, and while I like a lot of the changes, I don't like all of them. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 15:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:So sorry about the "suddenness".--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

===Removal of material from user talk page===
Some people have left notes on [[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]]'s talk page about the style guide changes. [[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] has removed them all, including my note intended to discourage such removals. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 20:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

: Removing warnings from one's own talk page is unacceptable, per [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]]. I think both [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wai_Wai&diff=69187463&oldid=69181170 this edit] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wai_Wai&diff=69260023&oldid=69245690 this one] fall into that category. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 20:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
----

They are not warnings, as per [[Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace]]. Anyway, the responses (discussions) are related here. Why don't all of you simply reply here? Forking the discussion is hard to follow, not to say others are not going to read them.

Just like this case, my responses about the removal is completely missing. As a reference, here's the previous discussion about "removing warnings": 

'''Replies to removing warnings''' 
Removing the recent notes here about your changes to the style guide is misleading. Also, from [[Wikipedia:Removing warnings]]: "Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism." [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 17:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
----
I don't understand what you mean. Anyway I have received no warning from the admin etc. at all. The 3RR is fake. I don't know if I understand correctly, but it seems to be the reverse. I posted an update. Others reverted all the changes without even trying to improve or examine. After all, I have done 2 reverts. How come I have violated 3RR (and received warning)? Weird?

Anyway I don't care much. Time should be spent on improving articles, not on trivial things.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 18:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
----
:What part of "Removing the recent notes here about your changes to the style guide is misleading" do you not understand? And to mark such removals as minor is further misleading. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 18:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::Please understand what is "[[Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace|warning]]" (in your quote) before you make your comment. Next time, for any discussion relating to the article/topic, please reply in the related talk page, instead of forking the discussions over everywhere. it is hard to follow.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 18:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

=== General comments ===
I don't have time to read through your changes in detail at the moment, but here are some general comments:
* I think your changes are more extensive than you imagine. You think they're mostly just tidying up, but I think they're rather more than that.
* I find rewriting the paragraphs as bulleted lists makes them much less readable.
* The grammar is often slightly wrong. Your English is very good, but not quite perfect. For example, a native speaker wouldn't say "Both '12 noon' and 'noon' is acceptable" but "Either '12 noon' or 'noon' is acceptable". There are many similar examples, so you should get it checked by a native speaker first.
* On MoS pages, it is conventional to proceed very cautiously, and seek consensus for all changes before making them; not to make changes and hope that they're not reverted. This is because the MoS guidance potentially affects every article on Wikipedia. You might like to compare [[User:Stephen Turner/Date Proposal|what I wrote]] before I made extensive changes to this page.
* If you are reverted by several editors, consider whether you may be doing something wrong. And take it to the talk page, rather than making your changes again.
[[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 20:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'm not specifically replying to your points above, but I thought the title "General comments" was suitable for adding this: regardless of how much reasonable they can be, changes to the Manual of Style should be carefully considered, and possibly avoided. When I joined Wikipedia the whole Manual was pretty stable. At a given moment, it began to change and has never stopped. This is too bad. It does need stability, or articles will never keep up (if nothing else because nobody wants to drive crazy for that). To put it differently: the more you change it, the more it is dead letter. —[[User:Gennaro Prota|Gennaro Prota]][[User talk:Gennaro Prota|•Talk]] 02:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding general comments, I have modified my changes based on what you say (eg bulleted lists). Let's see how others respond to the proposed changes then.—[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 20:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

== Dates, non WaiWai issue ==

I was taking a look at the changes and I noticed this (which was present in both versions)
:Elsewhere, either format is acceptable. See [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English]] for more guidance.

I would assume that in non-Commonwealth, non-US/Canada countries there is in fact a preferred style and IMHO we should stick with this. So perhaps it would be best to at least mention this (e.g. although if a national style is known, this should be used). Depending on how variable national styles are, we might even be able to include some info on national styles from non-Commonwealth, non-US/Canada countries... [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] 16:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'm OK with including "(e.g. although if a national style is known, this should be used if it does not conflict with this style guide)," with the modification at the end. But I think extra info on national styles might be too much detail. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 18:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Can you give an example of an English speaking country that was not part of the British Empire/ Commonwealth and the type of date style that is used there?---[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 19:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Very few countries use American dating. Apart from North American topics, I think the default should be International dating, which is the choice of most. BTW what does South America do, BTW? [[User:Jtdirl|'''Fear''ÉIREANN''''']][[Image:Ireland-Capitals.PNG|15px]]\[[User talk:Jtdirl|(caint)]] 20:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::I should have been clearer but reading the statement "''non-Commonwealth, non-US/Canada countries''" makes me think that there is/are other date styles besides the two that are used in the U.S./Canada and British Commonwealth —i.e. besides August 13th, 2006 or 13 August 2006 (and their slight variations). I don't want this taken the wrong way but we should only be concerned with how native English speaking counties style things. If this was Spanish Wikipedia that I would wonder how dates were styled in South America.[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 13:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

2006-08-15T20:28:15Z

Wai Wai: /* Removal of material from user talk page */

==Archives==
{| class="infobox" width="270px"
|-
!align="center"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]] [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|
*[[/archive1|1]], [[/archive2|2]], [[/archive3|3]], [[/archive4|4]], [[/archive5|5]], ''[[/vote|5a]]'', [[/archive6|6]], [[/archive7|7]], [[/archive8|8]], [[/archive9|9]], [[/archive10|10]],
*[[/archive11|11]], [[/archive12|12]], [[/archive13|13]], [[/archive14|14]], ''[[/archive dash discussion/|14a]]'', [[/archive15|15]], [[/archive16|16]], [[/archive17|17]], [[/archive18|18]], [[/archive19|19]],
*[[/archive20|20]], [[/archive21|21]], [[/archive22|22]], [[/archive23|23]], [[/archive24|24]], [[/archive25|25]], [[/archive26|26]], [[/archive27|27]], [[/archive28|28]], [[/archive29|29]],
*[[/archive30|30]], [[/archive31|31]], [[/archive32|32]], [[/archive33|33]], [[/archive34|34]], [[/archive35|35]], [[/archive36|36]], [[/archive37|37]], [[/archive38|38]], [[/archive39|39]],
*[[/archive40|40]], [[/archive41|41]], [[/archive42|42]], [[/archive43|43]], [[/archive44|44]], [[/archive45|45]], [[/archive46|46]], [[/archive47|47]], [[/archive48|48]]
*[[/archive49|49]], ''[[/archive49a|49a]]'', [[/archive50|50]], [[/archive51|51]], [[/archive52|52]]
|}

See also:
* [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (calendar dates)]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Timeline standards]]
* [[Wikipedia:Measurements Debate]]
----
'''Note on Archives:'''

'''The recent discussion on linking of dates from [[9 March]] [[2006]] to [[13 April]] [[2006]] is in archives 42 through 46, plus 48. [[/archive42|42]], [[/archive43|43]], [[/archive44|44]], [[/archive45|45]], [[/archive46|46]], [[/archive48|48]]''' 

----

== Improvement about guidelines in Time ==

Quote:
{| class=wikitable
!width=100| 12-hour clock !!width=100| Not !!width=100| 24-hour clock !!width=100| Not
|-
|2 p.m. || 2pm || 14:00 || 14.00
|-
|2:34 p.m. || 2.34 PM || 14:34 || 1434
|-
|12:04:38 a.m. || 12.04 38″ A.M. || 00:04:38 or 0:04:38
|-
|noon ||12 noon || 12:00
|}

The suggestions in "time" section seems to be weird because:
# It does not even follow what other formal or official standards (eg NIST standards) suggest.
# Its guidelines even conflicts with what the referenced articles [[12-hour clock]] and [[24-hour clock]] say. They don't follow what it says.

'''Mistake: p.m, pm & PM are definitely acceptable.'''
Evidence: 
# The initialisms "AM" and "PM" are variously written in small capitals ("am" and "pm"), uppercase letters ("AM" and "PM"), or lowercase letters ("am" and "pm"). Additionally, some styles use periods (full stops), especially in combination with lowercase letters (thus "a.m." and "p.m."). -- the guide in [[12-hour clock]]
# A.M. and P.M. may either be written in all capital letters or all lower case, but choose one style and stick with it. -- englishplus.com and Oxford Advanced dictionary
# The use of period/dot (.) is optional. -- Oxford Advanced dictionary

'''Mistake: noon or 12 noon are definitely acceptable.'''
Evidence: 
#"noon" or "12:00 noon" and "midnight" or "12:00 midnight" should be used (rather than to 12:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m., respectively) to avoid confusion. -- nist.gov (mentioned also in [[12-hour clock]])
# The tables in [[12-hour clock]] and [[24-hour clock]] uses 12 noon and 12 mindinight too. -- the guide in [[12-hour clock]]

'''Mistake: For 24-hour, discretion may be used to determine if the hour has a leading zero.''' 
It's strange that the article says that. There is no discretion as to whether a leading zero is used. It is more to do as a standard or a matter of taste. If one follows formal standard strictly, 24-hour usually use leading numbers. This includes major time sites like NIST.gov, greenwichmeantime.com, and so on.

'''A better explanation on Noon and Midnight''' 
<blockquote>'''AM and PM - What is Noon and Midnight?''' 
AM and PM start immediately after Midnight and Noon (Midday) respectively.
This means that 00:00 AM or 00:00 PM (or 12:00 AM and 12:00 PM) have no meaning.
Every day starts precisely at midnight and AM starts immediately after that point in time e.g. 00:00:01 AM (see also leap seconds)
To avoid confusion timetables, when scheduling around midnight, prefer to use either 23:59 or 00:01 to avoid confusion as to which day is being referred to.
It is after Noon that PM starts e.g. 00:00:01 PM (12:00:01) -- greenwichmeantime.com </blockquote>

I'm going to update the above (to include the instructions in [[12-hour clock]] and [[24-hour clock]], and some major time sites) if no one oppose it. --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

* I can't really decide whether I like what you are proposing without seeing the exact text you plan to use. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 15:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
** The above is more or less all of the proposals. If you agree (generally) with the above, I will put the text up for a review. There is nothing new anyway. What I try to do is to make it consistent with at least what is mentioned or done in [[12-hour clock]] and [[24-hour clock]]. The existing guideline conflicts with them, which is bad. --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 16:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
*** I think we should probably permit AM and PM as an alternative to a.m. and p.m., as the upper-case versions seem to be the normal spelling in the United States. I haven't understood what other problems you perceive in the current text, which you are trying to correct — we already forbid 12 a.m. and 12 p.m., for example. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 03:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
**** They are: 1) noon and 12 noon are definitely acceptable. 2) No discretion is needed to determine if the hour has a leading zero. 12-hour normally doesn't use leading zero; 24-hour usually does (reference given above). Any opinion? --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 05:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
***** I agree with both those points in principle. I think that some people find "12 noon" [[tautology (rhetoric)|tautologous]] but I don't have a problem with it. I'd still like to see the proposed text before giving a definite yes. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 15:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have some doubt that AM and PM are preferred in the United States. And "12 noon" is redundant. It seems like such changes amount to having no style, which can be done more concisely, if that is desired. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 17:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
:People say "12 noon", to distinguish it from "24 midnight". --[[User:SuperJumbo|Jumbo]] 21:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
:I believe that both PM and p.m. should be acceptable (not, though, P.M. or pm). And 12 noon is not redundant. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 22:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, 12 noon is not redundant.
::sorry, why do either P.M. or pm is not acceptable? Anyway, I see all 4 styles in different formal writing. Read [[12 hour clock]] too. All of them should be acceptable.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:The misunderstanding here is what the MoS is for. It's not saying that PM is wrong, for example, just that we have made an arbitrary but well informed decision to use p.m.; where possible without causing flame wars we want WP to have a consistent look and feel. And we don't have to follow any external guides or standards, although they inform the debate. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'' 22:22 [[8 August]] [[2006]] (GMT).

But it is not the way it should work:
#Wikipedia is a place which respect more than 1 style and formatting.
#Multiple style should be allowed, not being biased to one single style of the particular convention or in that particular country (eg the cases of American vs British spelling).
#Wikipedia is intended to be read by different users all over the world. Your choice of formatting or style may not acheve this goal.
#Some of the suggested style do not even confront to the standards (eg discretion can be made as to whether leading zero is used in 24-hour clock format). I don't know why a rule is made to against stanards for no particlar reasons.
#Users feel free to pick any style as long as it is clear and acceptable.
#The style guide still allows "inconsistency" (in the choice of style/formatting), like this style guide will state people can choose between "AD/BC" and "CE/BCE".
#A consistent look and feel can still be achieved even if more than 1 style exist. The point is to mantain consistency with the user's choice in that article.

Also bear in mind I am '''not''' disagreeing with WP having a style, but there is something between "no style" and "one absolute style". I'm disagreeing with "one absolute style" (when other accpetable or standard styles exist) or against the Wikipedian philosophies. It is not necessary to rule out one absolute style only and ask all others to follow. Just like this style guide will state people can choose between "AD/BC" and "CE/BCE", and so on. There are quite many situations where the style ask people to choose either one and keep consistency. Why do you think '''only "one absolute style" must exist everywhere?''' Why do you think '''you must pick one only and ask all others to follow'''?

I realise you would like to keep things consistent, but accepting either one is not the '''only''' way to keep consistency. Allowing both acceptable standard and kindly ask others to maintain interally consistency also works; just like you set rules to allow using arabic numbers in some cases, using numbers in words in other cases. Otherwise why don't you just allow one format only in all cases?--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

=== About the change ===
Please read the proposed change:

===12-hour clock===
* Times in the [[12-hour clock]] end with lower case "am" or "pm". These suffixes should not be omitted.
* As to "12 pm" and "12 am", "(12) noon" and "(12) midnight" should be used for clarity purposes. Some readers may find the former ambiguous and confusing. As it is a wikipedia policy to minimise ambiguity, "(12) noon" and "(12) midnight" are much better than the former.
** Both "12 noon or midnight" and "noon or midnight" is acceptable.
* Normally no leading zero is used to distinguish from times in the [[24-hour clock]].
* Regarding capitalisation:
** It does not matter what capital form "am/pm" is used. It can be written as "AM or am" or "PM or pm". But please be consistent throughout the article.
** It does not matter whether the first letter of "noon/midnight" is capitalised.
* The dot (.) is optional in the suffix: either am/pm or a.m./p.m. is fine.
* The spacing between the number and suffix is optional: either 2:30am or 2:30 am is fine.

===24-hour clock===
* Time in the [[24-hour clock]] times have no "am/pm/noon/midnight" suffix.
* 00:00 or 24:00 refers to the midnight and 12:00 refers to noon.
** 00:00 refers to the start of a day while 24:00 refers to the end of a day. However the end of a day equal to the start of the next day. That is why 00:00 is identical to 24:00.
** Both 00:00 and 24:00 are acceptable. It does not matter which one you use.
* Normally a leading zero is added to distinguish from times in the [[12-hour clock]].

===Common formats===
* In either case, the colon (:) should be used to separate hours, minutes and seconds. The use of dot (.) as a separator is not standard. It also causes confusion with the decimal point (.) in 12.45 (amount). Do not use it.
* Do not add extra symbols like (") to indicate second.
* Example:
** Use 12:34:28 pm (''but not 12.04 38″ pm'')
** Use 00:34 (''but not 00.34 or 0.34 or 0034'')
 —[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 20:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

== Wai Wai's changes ==
I've just reverted all Wai Wai's changes made in the last 12 hours or so. Changes this extensive must be discussed on the talk page first and reach consensus here. I'm sure some of them are fine, but others are controversial, and some of them were badly phrased too. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 15:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

:They are not really big nor major proposals. Most of them are copyedit work (eg reorganization, integration, redundancy removal, inconsistency fixes, and so on). Instead of reverting all the changes which is clearly inappropriate as stated by the policy, review the edit. If you feel there are something which may not be alright, discuss it then in the talk page.
:How about if you try to read the page once now and see if there is anything which may not be alright? I deem you will find it is mostly the same wine but with a new bottle. No new nor major nor core contents have been changed or proposed. And if you think something might not be okay, you can always discuss it in the talk page. Thank you --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 16:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

::A lot of them are just copy-editing, but there are several new pieces of advice in there too. Also it's very difficult to work out everything you've done because of the number of paragraph breaks and moved sections. (Have you looked at the diff?). At a minimum, every new policy should have been discussed here first. (And I don't know what you mean by "clearly inappropriate as stated by the policy" — which policy are you referring to?) [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 16:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

::::As to the new pieces of advice, some of them may be just copied or derived from other policies. It's not something completely new. Some may be just an additional note or advice (which expand or enrich the main one).--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I agree with Stephen's reverts. Until there is a concensus reached (or at least a discussion) here first, no changes to the manual should be made. In units of measurement, a few things that Wai Wai changed that do not have a concensus: making the non-braking space optional; and not spelling out numbers (wasn't Centrx trying to get us to spell out up to 100?). Also the first sentence in "choice" about international units is covered in "conversions". So I changed some things.--[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 03:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

::: (NB I wrote this simultaneously with MJCdetroit's comments).
::: I started reverting the bits I disagreed with, but as I read through it, I found that I disagreed with almost everything you'd done.
:::* New or changed advice should never have been added to the page without discussion here first.
:::* Your reordering of sections seemed worse because there was too much preamble before getting to the important stuff.
:::* Breaking paragraphs into bulleted lists made it much less readable, as did the excessive number of sub-sub-section and sub-sub-sub-section headings.
::: So I'm sorry, but I reverted everything again. I don't like to do that, but I'm afraid I found that most of the edits made the page worse. But maybe someone else could review it and offer an opinion?
:::[[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 03:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
::::[[Status quo]] ante Wai Wai --[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 03:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

::::: See my replies below. Most, if not all, you say can be done through improvement (not reverting). The general rule applies (as stated in wikipedia's policy): '''Improve it, rather than deleting it'''.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

----
Dear [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]]: 
The word "policy" I use is not strict, that is I simply refer to some wikipedia standards or principles or philosophies. It does not necesarily mean any standalone official policy which is being voilated (eg "three revert rule" policy). Anyway, here's the extract of what reverting is deemed appropriate:
* Reverting should be used '''primarily for fighting vandalism'''. -- Help:Reverting
* Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: '''Do not simply revert changes in a dispute'''. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, '''improve the edit, rather than reverting it'''. -- Wikipedia:Resolving disputes
* Does the editor do is something very similar to vandalism? Even the update has some big problems, it is not the excuse to revert it. In the case of NPOV, people usually do it wrong by using: "'''lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete'''" Quoted from NPOV (its philosophy applies): ''Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly.'' -- NPOV
* Unless what one writes is near to completely non-sense, or useless or rubbish. Revert is not something which you should be taken lightly. The bold policy does not apply. We are bold to create/improve it, not bold to destory/delete it.
* '''Reverting should be used primarily for fighting vandalism or anything similar to the effects of vandalism'''.
I realise my edits may not be perfect, but that's the process of wikipedia. I post a preliminary edit. People will try to edit and improve it. We don't need to make sure it is 100% acceptable and perfect before it can be put. Consensus will be reached during the edit process. 
I would revert my changes first (so others have chances to improve it). According to these policies or principles, if you feel my edits are very devastating or near vandalism, feel free to revert my edits (hopefully with reasons provided, so I know how to improve it, instead of starting at ground level again). --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 06:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

----

===My role===
Some people or editors may find this iformation useful. I'm [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias| a member of countering systemic bias]]. Simply speaking, it is a bia due to the nature of the system (wikipedia). Most editors here are coming from United States or in countries where English is their mother language. Most of the information/comments are biased towards the western. Opinions or information from Africa, Asia and South America are missing.

What I am trying to do is:
# Resolve the problem that "the information and perspective in the articles or sections may not represent a worldwide view." In this case, most style tend to be one-sided and in favour of one style standard (mainly United States or western).
# Integrate contents from various articles or policies, and remove the redundancy.
# Make sure the guidelines comply with major wikipedia policies, standards or philosophies.
# Make it consistent throughout the page.
# Make it consistent throughout different guidelines and policies.
# Resolve discrepancies and conflicts occurred within the same article.
 --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

===Editing procedures and requirements===
As regards the comment of "no changes to the manual should be made until there is a concensus reached. Every change has to be discussed in the discussion page first."

It's clearly wrong unfortunately. Please read the following: 
'''Major philosophy''' (official policies): 
:''Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. However, avoid deleting information wherever possible.'' -- Wikipedia:Editing policy
:[[Wikipedia:Editing_policy|perfection isn't required]] and don't worry about messing up. It is what wikipedia is - the editing process will take care it all. -- the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|five pillars of Wikipedia]].

'''Specific guidelines''': 
:''Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.'' -- guideline of updating style pages

Explanation (Note: The following is just a rough guideline. It is never intended to be complete or extensive): 
Things which may need discussions before editing: 
* Major or fundamental proposals
* Proposals which may be against major wikipedia philosophies or policies
* Important changes which is '''not''' going to or has reflected general consensus

Things which may '''not''' need discussions before editing: 
* ideas, rules, or information copied/derived from other guidelines or policies (since they have reflected general consensus already)
* sub-proposals expanding or enriching the existing one
* Changes which is going to or has reflected general consensus (maybe supported by official policies or the like)
* Non-content-specific changes like copyedit, integration, reorganization, categorization, formatting and style etc.
* minor changes or edits

In the forthcoming days, I will try to explain some of the reasons why I make the changes. Nevertheless it is very time consuming and it is impractical to explain every single change, including copyedit and minor ones. Priority has to be decided. If anyone has any doubts about any of my changes, please specify which one and what your doubts are, so I will know which are in higher priority and focus my explanations on them. Consensus and agreement could be made in this regard.

Please give me a few days to respond. Best regards.
 --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

===Reversions===

:Wai Wai. Please try and understand this section of the MOS has come about through continual discussions and consensus of the edits. Your edits here are not the same as if you were making edits to say the article on Queen Elizabeth. Your changes here are effectively telling all editors how all other articles in wikipedia should look or not look. Therefore, in matters dealing with the MOS, I think most editors here would rather proceed with caution. --[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 14:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

::Wai Wai, you should note that your changes have been reverted four times by three people.
::You do not have consensus. Changes within style guide and elsewhere in Wikipedia namespace call for more consensus and discussion than changes in article namespace. Articles are about facts; the style guide is intended essentially as direction and advice. For you to continue as you have been appears to place your ideas above those that the community has determined.
::The best way to work toward the changes you desire is to leave the project page alone until there is clear acceptance on this page. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 14:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Wai Wai, can you please discuss your changes before making them. You have been reverted a number of times and some of your changes I object to such as changing the practice of putting spaces between digits and units for measurements in parentheses. If you are unwilling to list and discuss the changes you wish to make then you will keep being reverted. --[[User:Clawed|Clawed]] 06:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:::It is not okay to revert people's contributions, as stated in revert policies. If every change has to be discussed, the page will be locked. We feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes. Most of my update is copyedit: merge, redundancy removal. However I think I should not mix things together. Maybe I should do it bit by bit. I was concentrating too much at that time (You see, I have spent 1 whole day for this edit, and I deviate a bit from what I originally intended to do). --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 06:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wai Wai -- Do you not see that you are going against consensus? Both the established style and repeated requests for you to first discuss your changes and get agreement before making them? Do you not see how little support your changes have among other editors? [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I realise there are some problems which we have to work on. However this alone does not justify a "revert" as far as the policies are concerned. The polciy has stated '''a "revert" should be dealt primiarily with vandalism'''. Unless you think all of the updates are vandalism or near vandalism, I don't see why it justifies a "revert". Policy has also stated we should work on the problems. Improve/Modify the articles, rather than deleting/reverting it.

After all, I am willing to work on the problems or consensus issues. Please specify the problems and what your doubts are, so I will know which are in higher priority and focus my explanations on them. I will try to explain some of the reasons why I make the changes. Consensus and agreement could be made in this regard. Please give me some time to fix the problems before you make your decision.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

#This is a style guide, not an article. I pointed out some of the difference earlier.
#Given that you change so much, it is hard to analyze and list. Given that there is general disagreement with your changes, the burden is on you. Please specify -- on the talk page -- what you see as the problems. When you get consensus agreement, then it's OK to change the style guide for that aspect. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 09:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of the above rules. Would you mind tellingme where it state so, including it is the updater's burden to prove there is the general agreement before an update is possible? I have stated it already: Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes. -- guideline of updating style pages.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:They are not so much rules, but judgment common to at least several people involved with this.
:But seeing that you like to quote things …
:From [[Help:Reverting]]: "However, sometimes a revert is the best response to a less-than-great edit, so we can't just stop reverting."
:From [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]]: "Amendments to a guideline should be discussed on its talk page, not on a new page - although it's generally acceptable to edit a guideline to improve it."
:But your edits here are obviously not seen to be improvements by the other people involved.
:From the project page: "The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here."
:If the consensus is "Do X" and that is changed to "Do X, or Y, or Z" by one person and other people disagree, then it is no longer a convention established by consensus.
:You are trying to change conventions already established by consensus. Do you not see that consensus is need to change what is already established by consensus?
:It is not that every single edit anyone makes to the style guide must be pre-approved. It is that edits that engender disagreement, especially to to a policy or guideline, should be worked out on the talk page before proceeding further. Do you not see the difference?
[[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 10:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is not all are major changes. It is wrong to revert COMPLETELY because there are some problems in the update. Please read the following: 
'''Major philosophy''' (official policies): 
:''Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. However, avoid deleting information wherever possible.'' -- Wikipedia:Editing policy
:[[Wikipedia:Editing_policy|perfection isn't required]] and don't worry about messing up. It is what wikipedia is - the editing process will take care it all. -- the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|five pillars of Wikipedia]].

'''Specific guidelines''': 
:''Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.'' -- guideline of updating style pages

If every change needed to be done through discussion, why the page is not locked up? What's more, reverting should be used '''primarily for fighting vandalism''', as stated in the help:reverting page.

When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate or problematic, '''improve the edit, rather than reverting it''' as stated in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

Unless what one writes is near to completely non-sense, or useless or rubbish. Revert is not something which you should be taken lightly. The bold policy does not apply. We are bold to create/improve it, not bold to destory/delete it.

However what people doing are reverting all changes but there are only some areas problematic.

===Spacing in unit measurement===
Spacng should be optional since I find both formatting style (ie spacing or non-spacing) in different formal writing. For example, my Oxford Intermediate English Dictionary uses non-spacing one, as in "''For this recipe you need 500g (five hundred grams) of flour''".--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 06:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

: Nearly every style issue has professional style guides that advocate for different styles, but that does not mean that Wikipedia must allow all of them, or even necessarily any two of them. We develop our style guidelines based on consensus, which allows many styles on some issues, and only one or two on others. (The most common single restriction is to follow only one guideline on single issue throughout a single article.) Often these consensuses (consensi?) are carefully negotiated compromises. The real questions are, what have we negotiated for this issue, and does it still hold? ~ [[User:Jeffq|Jeff Q]] [[User talk:Jeffq|(talk)]] 07:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::I agree with Jeff. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::I agree with Wai Wai. [[User:JP06035|→'''&ensp;JARED]]'''&ensp;[[User_talk:JP06035|(t)]]&ensp; 15:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
::I am for following the almost universally recognised SI standard, prescribing a space. −[[User:Woodstone|Woodstone]] 18:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
::I agree with Jeff/Woodstone. [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 21:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
::I said this a little lower on the page, but for the record, I agree with Jeff and Woodstone.--[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 22:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
:::But, I mean, SI standards and ISO standards don't mean that it is the only way to write something. It is only a guideline for those who feel insecure without having set rules. It makes NO DIFFERENCE whether there's a space or not. Both on Wikipedia and in the real world, it should be up to the writer to decide which is asthetically better. Standards mean nothing! [[User:JP06035|→'''&ensp;JARED]]'''&ensp;[[User_talk:JP06035|(t)]]&ensp; 22:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

----
I don't see the need why we need to force all editors to use one single standard, not to say there are other kinds of problems. People tend to defend by saying "consistency", and "consistency" is always good. Really? However they forget they are making things complex and go in the other way round. Take the case of "numbers in word" (extracted):
* Whole numbers from zero to ten are spelled out as words in the body of an article. Use numerals in tables and infoboxes.
* Numbers above ten may be written out if they are expressed in two or fewer words, except in tables and infoboxes. Example: "sixteen", "eighty-four", "two hundred", "twenty million" but "3.75", "544", "21 million".
* Fractions standing alone should be spelt out unless they occur in a percentage. If fractions are mixed with whole numbers, use numerals.

<blockquote>'''Summary''': 
For number zero to ten, spell out the words. 
For number above ten, two situations: 
- expressed in two or fewer words, spell out the words. 
- otherwise, use arabic numbers. 
Fractions alone, spell out the words. 
Fractions mixed with whole numbers, use arabic numbers.</blockquote>

Where is the consistency? The rules tell us to uses numbers in words sometimes, uses arabic numbers in other times. Originally the style guide intends to keep things simple and consistent. However when people are working on it, they tend to forget their original goals and deviate from them - making rules complex, splitting hairs, trivial, inconsistency, inconvenience to editors, and so on.

People tend to forget '''simplicity is the best'''. If editors were not spending time on trivial style or formatting, much of their time saved could be used to improve the real "contents" of the article. It is what benefit the visitors most.

By the way, it is going to be a '''very minority consensus''' if you take the whole community [the world] into account. Only a very few wikipedians are engaged in the discussion.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 07:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
----

:You seem to disagree with WP having a style in general, at least to some degree. That's OK. You don't have to follow the style guide.
:Many other people do want WP to have a style. In a a way, loose style or less style can be more complicated -- editors don't need to decide which style to use, because they can refer to the style guide, where many such matters have already been decided. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::No. You get me wrong. I am '''not''' disagreeing with WP having a style, but there is something between "no style" and "one absolute style". I'm disagreeing with "one absolute style" (when other accpetable or standard styles exist) or against the Wikipedian philosophies. It is not necessary to rule out one absolute style only and ask all others to follow. Just like this style guide will state people can choose between "AD/BC" and "CE/BCE", and so on. There are quite many situations where the style ask people to choose either one and keep consistency. Why do you think '''only "one absolute style" must exist everywhere?''' Why do you think '''you must pick one only and ask all others to follow'''?
::I realise you would like to keep things consistent, but accepting either one is not the '''only''' way to keep consistency. Allowing both acceptable standard and kindly ask others to maintain interally consistency also works; just like you set rules to allow using arabic numbers in some cases, using numbers in words in other cases. Otherwise why don't you just allow one format only in all cases?--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::Another possibility is for you to work on just one paragraph at a time, or in a day. Smaller changes are easier to digest.
::I also disagree with the super-small subsections you've been making. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion taken. I'm working too hard on that day. I will try o update bit by bit next time. As to sections, section starts at 2nd level. What I'm usng is just 4th level (the 3rd type of section). There are articles which use 4th level. And I don't see why we must restrict ourselves to using 2 types of sections only (ie 2nd and 3rd level). Anyway, it is just a style issue. If all people don't like it, just undo the section formatting.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Spacing. I agree with Jeff and Maureen. There should be a non-breaking space between unit and symbol. I think that a rare exception can be made when the measurement itself actually becomes a title for something and is usually written without the space; e.g. 35mm camera, 6.1L Hemi, and the oympic events, etc. However, in those cases, I can live with the space if we don't want to make any exceptions. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 14:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Yes, I agree with the non-breaking space part too. However spacing is not always necessary. It is not rare exceptions. I have read different formal articles about that. I see there are cases where both are acceptable (eg 56 km or 56km). I don't see the reasons behind why we must prefer one style and depreciate another.
::::Beware that we should take [[systemic bias]] into consideration when generating rules. Systemic bias is the inherent tendency of a process to favor particular outcomes. The term is a [[neologism]] that generally refers to human systems; the analogous problem in non-human systems (such as scientific observations). After all, Wikipedia is intedned to be read by all people over the world.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

== The current decade ==

I am sure this has come up before, but I don't see anything on the project page. [[User:GoDot]] is insisting on calling the current decade "the 2000s" as in "bank redlining had largely diminished by the mid 2000s" ([[Seattle neighborhoods]]). I find this very confusing: if someone says "the mid-1900s" they mean around 1950, not 1905. But since this is a user with whom I repeatedly find myself disagreeing, and since the MoS doesn't yet address the matter, I'm simply bringing the question here. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 02:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
: Did you try to look at [[2000s]] or [[1900s]]? Compare to [[21st century]] and [[20th century]]. [[User:Crissov|Christoph Päper]] 13:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

== Update on Olympic Debate ==

I know it was a ''loooooooong'' time ago that we were debating on whether or not a space should be put between the number and the unit of Olympic Event names. The IOC official site does not put space, so one would expect the Wikipedia articles should do the same (e.g. '''10km'''), but according to this overcited page, it was kept according to the WP guidelines (e.g. '''10 km''').

I recently received a long awaited reply from the IOC in which the Sports Director Kelly Fairweather noted to me that the IOC is "working with the International Federations to define the exact terms to be used for disciplines and events." She stated that the project would be completed by October 2006 and the IOC website after that point would be the place to find the official terminology. Until then, "there is no one approved terminology."

I just thought some others would like to know. [[User:JP06035|→'''&ensp;JARED]]'''&ensp;[[User_talk:JP06035|(t)]]&ensp; 21:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
----
As a sidenote, I find both formatting style (ie spacing or non-spacing) in different formal writing. For example, my Oxford Intermediate English Dictionary uses non-spacing one, as in "''For this recipe you need 500g (five hundred grams) of flour''".

Anyway, I think people are getting hypercorrect. What's the difference between '''500g''' and '''500 g'''? Will people get confused when reading either style? People are wasting too much time on trivial issues, and making things complex, not to say it requires huge efforts and good memories to comply with all these trivial rules.

They tend to forget '''simplicity is the best'''. Accept both. Pick either one you like the best. How easy life would be then? After all, standards are all created by humans. No standards must be formal or informal. They are all relative in nature. If time are spent on more important issues, the world would be much better. --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 07:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Actually, I agree. The usage of either one is relative to the situation in which it is used. Different articles (topics) may require the use of different methods, but I'm really not up for arguing for it... [[User:JP06035|→'''&ensp;JARED]]'''&ensp;[[User_talk:JP06035|(t)]]&ensp; 15:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

== Indian numbering convention ==

This has probably come up before: Should the [[Indian numbering system]] (hazar, lakh, crore, arab...) be used in articles about Indian subjects? Should exponential breaks be done in the Indian system (i.e. 1,00,000 as opposed to 100,000)? Thoughts? -- [[User:Samir_(The_Scope)|'''Samir''']] [[User_talk:Samir_(The_Scope)|धर्म]] 09:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks for pointing me at that article - I came across an article with a comma after two digits once and was very confused! Are numbers other than lakhs and crores commonly used? My opinion, off the top of my head, is that it would probably be reasonable to use the Indian names and style of digits when referring to Indian subjects (thus complying with the MoS requirement to use the local form of English), but ''also'' advisable to write the number out in the more common style to avoid confusing non-Indian readers who might think it was a typographical error, e.g. "five crores (5,00,00,000 or 50,000,000)". -- [[User:Arwel_Parry|Arwel]] ([[User talk:Arwel_Parry|talk]]) 12:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

== Compound units ==

I thought there was a style recommendation for complicated units like mm•K/W, but I don't see it. How should we format things like this? — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 14:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

:I don't think the "Manual of Style" has such a recommendation, but the standard IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997 states on page 14 "Symbols. To avoid ambiguity in complicated expressions, unit symbols are preferred over unit names." I think this should go in the manual. --[[User:Gerry Ashton|Gerry Ashton]] 15:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
::I wouldn't not be against this going in the manual. However, we should insist on having a page (linked to the symbol) explaining what the unit is and how it used. Some of the symbols would be obvious, but they should still be linked to the respective article. If [[mph]] and [[km/h]] have articles about them then so should mm•K/W. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 14:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

==Wai Wai's changes, continued==
Here are some options, in alphabetical order:
#Accept Wai Wai's changes without further ado. -- Several of us disagree, so not a good choice.
#Ask to have the page protected.
#Continue the back-and-forth reversion.
#Start an RFC.
#Wai Wai could stop changing the project page, discuss the desired changes, and wait until consensus is clear to make the changes. -- Apparently unlikely, given that this has been requested several time by different people.

Comments? [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 09:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:The "Continue the back-and-forth reversion." is definitely not an option even if people here vote for it. It is because it is against Wikipedian's policies: Wikipedia does not allow revert wars! --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Takes two to tango. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 09:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:I think we are rapidly approaching the time for [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies]]. -- '''[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]([[User talk:Dalbury|Talk]])''' 09:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:After seeing the recent changes on the article page, I would say it is definitely time now for an RfC. -- '''[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]([[User talk:Dalbury|Talk]])''' 10:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Stop changing the project page, discuss the desired changes, and wait until consensus is clear. Only change the page when there is a consensus to do so. This would be the best way to go about it. In fact, isn't that the way that we have been doing it. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 12:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you really saying? Anyway, I have examined the revert policy once again. Unfortunately I'm afirad all people are wrong, at least in reverting. Stephen Turner states he was trying to be bold to revert long hours of contributions. However the "bold" policy clearly states it does not apply in terms of "reverting". Although a few people support him by doing the same, the action is wrong. '''The majority people are performing the same action does not justify the action itself. [[WP:WWIN#Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy|Wikipedia is not a democracy]]. We need to respect rules!'''

Pay attention that '''it's NOT my PERSONAL opinion. It is stated in the policies''' (eg [[WP:BOLD]]).

Please read the following rules first about revert. No one seems to care or understand about the "revert policy" - not to revert people's contributions even if it has problems. Revert is not something which should be taken lightly. "Reverting" is harmful, and so on.

:'''If you feel you are correct in reverting, please tell me which rule tells people it is justifiable to do a SIMPLE REVERT of days of contributions?'''

What's more, the recent update is not just the same as the old one. It has spent me valuable time to modify the update according to some comments (eg super-section, bullets, and spacing in unit measurement). However people keep reverting THE WHOLE PART OF IT instead of stating the questions. People seem to think it is just the same and revert it without any examination. '''THAT IS VERY RUDE'''.

Please read this: 
* Reverting should be used '''primarily for fighting vandalism'''. -- Help:Reverting
* Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: '''Do not simply revert changes in a dispute'''. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, '''improve the edit, rather than reverting it'''. -- Wikipedia:Resolving disputes
* Does the editor do is something very similar to vandalism? Even the update has some big problems, it is not the excuse to revert it. In the case of NPOV, people usually do it wrong by using: "'''lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete'''" Quoted from NPOV (its philosophy applies): ''Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly.'' -- NPOV
* Unless what one writes is near to completely non-sense, or useless or rubbish. Revert is not something which you should be taken lightly. The bold policy does not apply. We are bold to create/improve it, not bold to destory/delete it.
* '''Reverting should be used primarily for fighting vandalism or anything similar to the effects of vandalism'''.
I realise my edits may not be perfect, but that's the process of wikipedia. I post a preliminary edit. People will try to edit and improve it. We don't need to make sure it is 100% acceptable and perfect before it can be put. Consensus will be reached during the edit process.

'''I am willing to work on the problems or consensus issues. However people keep saying there is no consensus, but they are unwilling to specify where is the no consensus. Please specify the problems and what your doubts are, so I will know which are in higher priority and focus my explanations on them. I will try to explain some of the reasons why I make the changes. Consensus and agreement could be made in this regard. Please give me some time to fix the problems before you make your decision.'''--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 13:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:My suggestion would be to discuss your changes a little at a time. Don't do a large scale edit of the page. Baby steps. I think it would go smoother; it'll take longer but that is better in the long run anyway. So start a new topic based on what the first thing that you want to change is. It will be discussed over a few days and you will know the feelings of the editors on that proposal. What do you think? [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 14:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, you are very right. I did too many changes at one time. Lessons learnt. But I am sure the real "contextual" change is much less than what people orginally thought since most of them are not real contextual changes. However I mixed all of my hours work together and make one single update which may be too confusing for others to review. Sorry about that.
::After all, '''it is perfectly fine for me to post the changes here first. However I wonder if there's anyone who will be willing to review it.'''--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 14:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Baby steps! Also, you need to give your proposals some time to be debated. Not everyone lives on the computer—I certainly don't. Let as many people as possible discuss this.---[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 15:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Who says we need to settle it instantly? As long as the discussion is moving, it is perfectly fine. However, last time, I have waited for nearly a week for others to ask questions or respond or specify the problems, no one responded. After all, your review is excellent. Keep it up! --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
{{user Very Happy}}{{clear}}
=== about unit of measurement ===

I have forgotten whether which is copyedit, which is proposal.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. Read them once. If you find anything problematic, state it out.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 14:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

----

====Choice====
* <strike>Try to use the international units instead of local, unless you have good reasons to use others</strike>. ——Covered under 'conversions', unless you mean something else by 'international units'. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 15:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
''What's wrong to state this out to remind editors? When someone which is unsure what unit should be chosen, they are going to read that section. The covering under 'conversions' is not clear, at least to some people.''--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
* Some non-metric units have more than one version. Be specific. For example, ''[[US gallon|U.S. gallon]]'' or ''[[imperial gallon]]'' rather than just ''gallon''. Similarly, use ''[[nautical mile]]'' or ''[[statute mile]]'' rather than just ''mile'' in aviation, space, sea and in some other contexts.
* Try to be consistent with your choice.

====Format====
* Use standard or formal (as opposed to localized or informal) abbreviations when using symbols. For example, metre is m, kilogram is kg, inch is in (''not " or ″'' ), foot is ft (''not ' or ′'' ), and [[Avoirdupois|pound]] is lb (''not #'').
** Do not append an ''s'' for plurals of unit abbreviations. For example kg, in, yd, lb; ''not kgs, ins, yds, lbs''.
* For concision purposes, please use digits for values. For example, 100 kg; ''not one hundred kg''.
* <strike>For understandability purposes,</strike> please spell out units in the text, and link to the relevant article at the first few usage.

——You must have non breaking space between the number and symbol. Here's why: I weigh 180lb and drink a 1l of water a day. Having a space is easier on the eyes and is more consistent with many technical writings.

———''However I see the non-spacing version in other formal writing, including the dictionaries. I see it uses 500g, 10km and so on.''--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

——It's not for understandability, it's the way formal writings are styled. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 15:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

===Conversions===
* Conversions should generally be included and not be removed.
* If editors cannot agree about the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second.
* If for some reason the choice of units is arbitrary, choose [[SI units]] as the main unit, with other units in parentheses. For subjects dealing with the United States, it might be more appropriate to use U.S. measurements first, i.e. mile, foot, U.S. gallon.
* Use digits and unit symbols for values in parentheses. For example, "a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 16 kilometres (10 mi) long" '''or''' "a pipe 4 inches (100 mm) in diameter and 10 miles (16 km) long".
** Do the same for measurements in tables.
* Converted values should use a similar level of precision as the source value. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth", not "(236,121 mi)".

----

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Spacing_in_unit_measurement

===About dates===
If memory serves, they are (nearly) summarised changes (copyedit).
The major change is to move all general style and formatting which can apply to the rest of the page (or date formats) in the front first.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 14:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

See the following:
----

====Wording====

=====Uncertain date=====
*When only an approximate date is available, the English word ''about'' or the abbreviation "''c.''" (Latin: ''circa''; English: "about") may be used.
* When a date is uncertain because the source is unreliable, that fact should be noted and the source should be mentioned. For example, "according to [[Livy]], the [[Roman Republic]] was founded in 509 BC", or "The [[Mahabharata]] is traditionally said to have been composed in [[1310s BCE|1316 BCE]]".

=====Seasons=====
* The seasons are reversed in each hemisphere, while areas near the [[equator]] tend to have just [[wet season|wet]] and [[dry season]]s. Neutral wording should be used to describe times of the year to avoid confusion.
** Use "in early 1990", "in the second quarter of 2003", "around September" or an exact date, rather than references to seasons, unless there is some particular need to do so (eg "the autumn harvest"). It is ambiguous to say that [[Apollo 11]] landed on the Moon in the summer of 1969 (whose summer?).

=====Eras=====
:''See [[Anno Domini]] for a discussion on what is meant by AD and BC notation, and [[Common Era]] for a discussion on what is meant by CE and BCE notation.''
*Simply speaking, AD equals CE. BC equals BCE.

*Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article.

*Note that the [[1st century BC]] is from 100 BC to 1 BC (there was no [[year 0]]) so 1700 BC would be the first year of the 17th century BC, 1800 BC would be the first year of the 18th century BC, etc. Similarly, 4000 BC was the first year of the fourth millennium BC, ''not'' the last year of the fifth millennium BC.

*Note that the [[19th century]] is 1801—1900 (but ''not 1901—2000''). It is because the [[1st century]] starts at 1 AD and ends at 100 AD.

*Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the [[Anno Domini]]/[[Common Era]], but when events span the start of the [[Anno Domini]]/[[Common Era]], use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, <nowiki>[[1 BC]]—[[1|AD 1]]</nowiki> or <nowiki>[[1 BCE]]—[[1|1 CE]]</nowiki>.

*In articles about prehistory, if you use BP ([[before present]]) or MYA ([[million years ago]]), expand these abbreviations when you first use them, as most readers will be unfamiliar with them.

====Formatting====

=====General=====
* For any formatting or style, please maintain consistency throughout an article, unless there's a good reason to do otherwise.
* If, for any special reasons, a less clearer or specific format (eg 1900-01-12 date format is chosen instead of 12 January 1900) is used. Please make it very sure that your choice does not cause any ambiguity or confusion to anyone over the world. Note that something which is certain in one country or nation may not be so in another. Thus the best way to eliminate possible ambiguity or confusion is to adding notes beside the usage (to clarify any grey area or ambiguity).
*Wikipedia respects different formatting and style as long as they are clear and unambiguous. When any of the style is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedian to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reasons for the change. For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject.
** Revert warring over optional styles is highly unacceptable; if the article is [[colour]] rather than [[color]], it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable. See also [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk]].
* Direct [[quotations]] (ie the word-for-word reproduction of a written or oral text) should ''not'' be altered to confirm any wikipedia formatting or style. It is because the original source has to be kept as intact (in verbatim) as possible. For instance, the date in the following fictional quotation should not be linked (even if it is preferred in wikipedia):
:"Tony Blair, responding to critics in his party, said 'The world has totally changed since the 11th of September.' He was echoing earlier sentiments by Lord Ronald McDonald, who said that 'nine-eleven' was the day that the American public woke up to the reality of terrorism."


=====Ranges=====
Sometimes numbers and dates are expressed in ranges, such as "14—17" for the numbers 14 to 17. It is often preferable to write this out (eg "14 through 17" (US and Canada) or "from 14 to 17"). It is to avoid confusion with "14 minus 17", which is expressed with spaces, as "14 &minus; 17".

Traditionally, ranges of numbers and dates are given with an en dash (—). Simply click the "–" button (excluding quotes) below the edit window or insert it with any software supporting this punctuation. Please avoiding typing the code &ndash; to insert en dash. It is because new editors may not understand the code. They may delete the code due to misunderstanding. Also the visually form of "—" (excluding quotes) is more visually appealing and readable in the edit screen.

However, nowadays some sources use spaced or unspaced hyphens, at least online, and some Wikipedians believe that these hyphens should not be changed to en dashes.

See [[#Dates of birth and death]] (another section in the same article) for example.

See [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes)]] for details.

=====Year, decade, century formats=====
* Always write year in full form. Do not use the shortened two-digit form to express a year. It is because the shortened formats are likely to cause confusion. The same holds true whether the years are BC or AD. For example:
** Do not use 56 or '56. Use 1956 (when referring to the decade of the 20th century)
** Do not use 80s or '80s or "the eighties". Use 1980s (when referring to the decade of the 20th century)
* It is not necessary to use an apostrophe to indicate a decade. [[1970s]] is preferred, but not [[1970's]].
* The word "century" is normally not capitalised. [[18th century]] (small capital) is normally used. [[18th Century]] (big capital) is less common.

=====Day and month formats=====
* Please express a month as a whole word. Do not use numbers, except in [[ISO 8601]] format. Do not use abbreviations like "Dec". For example, use December 1945. Do not use "12, 1945" or "12 of 1945" or "Dec 1945"
** If space is precious (eg in a table, infobox, or the like), abbreviations are preferred to numbers (eg "Oct", ''not "10"''). Numbers are discouraged because it may cause confusion to readers as to whether day or month is referred.
** The shortened two-digit format is optional at the end of a range (ie "1970—1987" or "1970—87").
* The ordering does not matter: both "February 14" and "14 February" are fine.
* It is not necessary to add ordinal suffixes. "February 14" is preferred, but not "February 14th" and "14th February".
* It is not necessary to use a comma (,) or the word "of" between a month and year. "December 1945" is preferred, but not "December, 1945" and "December of 1945".

===Unclear===

[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]], this is progress. Thank you.

But the above material does not indicate the difference between the established style guide and your desired changes.

I have asked you to address a pragraph at a time. If you won't do that, would you at least narrow it to a section or subsection at a time, whichever is smaller that is applicable? [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 18:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

===&mdash; and &ndash; entities===
I find the changes to the dash guidelines highly objectionable. &mdash; and &ndash; are easy to type, their names quite clearly indicate "this is a dash", and HTML entities are certainly no more confusing than most of the markup used in MediaWiki. I don't see any reason to disallow using the Unicode characters, but "confusing for new editors" describes a whole lot more of what goes on here than these HTML entities. Anyone playing with the sandbox will be able to see what &mdash; and &ndash; do. —[[User:Ptkfgs|ptk]]✰[[User_talk:Ptkfgs|fgs]] 18:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:The reason is most new editors who are not familiar with Unicode characters will find it confusing. That's also why Wikipedia creates Wiki codes, to make it easier for others to edit. Others like HTML are hard to understand for newbies.—[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 20:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

=== recent changes ===
I agree that it's a little sudden. They need copy-editing in a number of places, and while I like a lot of the changes, I don't like all of them. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 15:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:So sorry about the "suddenness".--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

===Removal of material from user talk page===
Some people have left notes on [[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]]'s talk page about the style guide changes. [[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] has removed them all, including my note intended to discourage such removals. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 20:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

: Removing warnings from one's own talk page is unacceptable, per [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]]. I think both [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wai_Wai&diff=69187463&oldid=69181170 this edit] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wai_Wai&diff=69260023&oldid=69245690 this one] fall into that category. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 20:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
----

They are not warnings, as per [[Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace]]. Anyway, the responses (discussions) are related here. Why don't all of you simply reply here? Forking the discussion is hard to follow, not to say others are not going to read them.

Just like this case, my responses about the removal is completely missing. As a reference, here's the previous discussion about "removing warnings": 

'''Replies to removing warnings''' 
Removing the recent notes here about your changes to the style guide is misleading. Also, from [[Wikipedia:Removing warnings]]: "Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism." [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 17:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
----
I don't understand what you mean. Anyway I have received no warning from the admin etc. at all. The 3RR is fake. I don't know if I understand correctly, but it seems to be the reverse. I posted an update. Others reverted all the changes without even trying to improve or examine. After all, I have done 2 reverts. How come I have violated 3RR (and received warning)? Weird?

Anyway I don't care much. Time should be spent on improving articles, not on trivial things.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 18:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
----
:What part of "Removing the recent notes here about your changes to the style guide is misleading" do you not understand? And to mark such removals as minor is further misleading. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 18:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::Please understand what is "[[Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace|warning]]" (in your quote) before you make your comment. Next time, for any discussion relating to the article/topic, please reply in the related talk page, instead of forking the discussions over everywhere. it is hard to follow.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 18:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

=== General comments ===

I don't have time to read through your changes in detail at the moment, but here are some general comments:
* I think your changes are more extensive than you imagine. You think they're mostly just tidying up, but I think they're rather more than that.
* I find rewriting the paragraphs as bulleted lists makes them much less readable.
* The grammar is often slightly wrong. Your English is very good, but not quite perfect. For example, a native speaker wouldn't say "Both '12 noon' and 'noon' is acceptable" but "Either '12 noon' or 'noon' is acceptable". There are many similar examples, so you should get it checked by a native speaker first.
* On MoS pages, it is conventional to proceed very cautiously, and seek consensus for all changes before making them; not to make changes and hope that they're not reverted. This is because the MoS guidance potentially affects every article on Wikipedia. You might like to compare [[User:Stephen Turner/Date Proposal|what I wrote]] before I made extensive changes to this page.
* If you are reverted by several editors, consider whether you may be doing something wrong. And take it to the talk page, rather than making your changes again.
[[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 20:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'm not specifically replying to your points above, but I thought the title "General comments" was suitable for adding this: regardless of how much reasonable they can be, changes to the Manual of Style should be carefully considered, and possibly avoided. When I joined Wikipedia the whole Manual was pretty stable. At a given moment, it began to change and has never stopped. This is too bad. It does need stability, or articles will never keep up (if nothing else because nobody wants to drive crazy for that). To put it differently: the more you change it, the more it is dead letter. —[[User:Gennaro Prota|Gennaro Prota]][[User talk:Gennaro Prota|•Talk]] 02:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

== Dates, non WaiWai issue ==

I was taking a look at the changes and I noticed this (which was present in both versions)
:Elsewhere, either format is acceptable. See [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English]] for more guidance.

I would assume that in non-Commonwealth, non-US/Canada countries there is in fact a preferred style and IMHO we should stick with this. So perhaps it would be best to at least mention this (e.g. although if a national style is known, this should be used). Depending on how variable national styles are, we might even be able to include some info on national styles from non-Commonwealth, non-US/Canada countries... [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] 16:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'm OK with including "(e.g. although if a national style is known, this should be used if it does not conflict with this style guide)," with the modification at the end. But I think extra info on national styles might be too much detail. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 18:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Can you give an example of an English speaking country that was not part of the British Empire/ Commonwealth and the type of date style that is used there?---[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 19:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Very few countries use American dating. Apart from North American topics, I think the default should be International dating, which is the choice of most. BTW what does South America do, BTW? [[User:Jtdirl|'''Fear''ÉIREANN''''']][[Image:Ireland-Capitals.PNG|15px]]\[[User talk:Jtdirl|(caint)]] 20:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::I should have been clearer but reading the statement "''non-Commonwealth, non-US/Canada countries''" makes me think that there is/are other date styles besides the two that are used in the U.S./Canada and British Commonwealth —i.e. besides August 13th, 2006 or 13 August 2006 (and their slight variations). I don't want this taken the wrong way but we should only be concerned with how native English speaking counties style things. If this was Spanish Wikipedia that I would wonder how dates were styled in South America.[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 13:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

2006-08-15T20:20:27Z

Wai Wai: /* &mdash; and &ndash; entities */

==Archives==
{| class="infobox" width="270px"
|-
!align="center"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]] [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|
*[[/archive1|1]], [[/archive2|2]], [[/archive3|3]], [[/archive4|4]], [[/archive5|5]], ''[[/vote|5a]]'', [[/archive6|6]], [[/archive7|7]], [[/archive8|8]], [[/archive9|9]], [[/archive10|10]],
*[[/archive11|11]], [[/archive12|12]], [[/archive13|13]], [[/archive14|14]], ''[[/archive dash discussion/|14a]]'', [[/archive15|15]], [[/archive16|16]], [[/archive17|17]], [[/archive18|18]], [[/archive19|19]],
*[[/archive20|20]], [[/archive21|21]], [[/archive22|22]], [[/archive23|23]], [[/archive24|24]], [[/archive25|25]], [[/archive26|26]], [[/archive27|27]], [[/archive28|28]], [[/archive29|29]],
*[[/archive30|30]], [[/archive31|31]], [[/archive32|32]], [[/archive33|33]], [[/archive34|34]], [[/archive35|35]], [[/archive36|36]], [[/archive37|37]], [[/archive38|38]], [[/archive39|39]],
*[[/archive40|40]], [[/archive41|41]], [[/archive42|42]], [[/archive43|43]], [[/archive44|44]], [[/archive45|45]], [[/archive46|46]], [[/archive47|47]], [[/archive48|48]]
*[[/archive49|49]], ''[[/archive49a|49a]]'', [[/archive50|50]], [[/archive51|51]], [[/archive52|52]]
|}

See also:
* [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (calendar dates)]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Timeline standards]]
* [[Wikipedia:Measurements Debate]]
----
'''Note on Archives:'''

'''The recent discussion on linking of dates from [[9 March]] [[2006]] to [[13 April]] [[2006]] is in archives 42 through 46, plus 48. [[/archive42|42]], [[/archive43|43]], [[/archive44|44]], [[/archive45|45]], [[/archive46|46]], [[/archive48|48]]''' 

----

== Improvement about guidelines in Time ==

Quote:
{| class=wikitable
!width=100| 12-hour clock !!width=100| Not !!width=100| 24-hour clock !!width=100| Not
|-
|2 p.m. || 2pm || 14:00 || 14.00
|-
|2:34 p.m. || 2.34 PM || 14:34 || 1434
|-
|12:04:38 a.m. || 12.04 38″ A.M. || 00:04:38 or 0:04:38
|-
|noon ||12 noon || 12:00
|}

The suggestions in "time" section seems to be weird because:
# It does not even follow what other formal or official standards (eg NIST standards) suggest.
# Its guidelines even conflicts with what the referenced articles [[12-hour clock]] and [[24-hour clock]] say. They don't follow what it says.

'''Mistake: p.m, pm & PM are definitely acceptable.'''
Evidence: 
# The initialisms "AM" and "PM" are variously written in small capitals ("am" and "pm"), uppercase letters ("AM" and "PM"), or lowercase letters ("am" and "pm"). Additionally, some styles use periods (full stops), especially in combination with lowercase letters (thus "a.m." and "p.m."). -- the guide in [[12-hour clock]]
# A.M. and P.M. may either be written in all capital letters or all lower case, but choose one style and stick with it. -- englishplus.com and Oxford Advanced dictionary
# The use of period/dot (.) is optional. -- Oxford Advanced dictionary

'''Mistake: noon or 12 noon are definitely acceptable.'''
Evidence: 
#"noon" or "12:00 noon" and "midnight" or "12:00 midnight" should be used (rather than to 12:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m., respectively) to avoid confusion. -- nist.gov (mentioned also in [[12-hour clock]])
# The tables in [[12-hour clock]] and [[24-hour clock]] uses 12 noon and 12 mindinight too. -- the guide in [[12-hour clock]]

'''Mistake: For 24-hour, discretion may be used to determine if the hour has a leading zero.''' 
It's strange that the article says that. There is no discretion as to whether a leading zero is used. It is more to do as a standard or a matter of taste. If one follows formal standard strictly, 24-hour usually use leading numbers. This includes major time sites like NIST.gov, greenwichmeantime.com, and so on.

'''A better explanation on Noon and Midnight''' 
<blockquote>'''AM and PM - What is Noon and Midnight?''' 
AM and PM start immediately after Midnight and Noon (Midday) respectively.
This means that 00:00 AM or 00:00 PM (or 12:00 AM and 12:00 PM) have no meaning.
Every day starts precisely at midnight and AM starts immediately after that point in time e.g. 00:00:01 AM (see also leap seconds)
To avoid confusion timetables, when scheduling around midnight, prefer to use either 23:59 or 00:01 to avoid confusion as to which day is being referred to.
It is after Noon that PM starts e.g. 00:00:01 PM (12:00:01) -- greenwichmeantime.com </blockquote>

I'm going to update the above (to include the instructions in [[12-hour clock]] and [[24-hour clock]], and some major time sites) if no one oppose it. --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

* I can't really decide whether I like what you are proposing without seeing the exact text you plan to use. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 15:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
** The above is more or less all of the proposals. If you agree (generally) with the above, I will put the text up for a review. There is nothing new anyway. What I try to do is to make it consistent with at least what is mentioned or done in [[12-hour clock]] and [[24-hour clock]]. The existing guideline conflicts with them, which is bad. --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 16:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
*** I think we should probably permit AM and PM as an alternative to a.m. and p.m., as the upper-case versions seem to be the normal spelling in the United States. I haven't understood what other problems you perceive in the current text, which you are trying to correct — we already forbid 12 a.m. and 12 p.m., for example. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 03:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
**** They are: 1) noon and 12 noon are definitely acceptable. 2) No discretion is needed to determine if the hour has a leading zero. 12-hour normally doesn't use leading zero; 24-hour usually does (reference given above). Any opinion? --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 05:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
***** I agree with both those points in principle. I think that some people find "12 noon" [[tautology (rhetoric)|tautologous]] but I don't have a problem with it. I'd still like to see the proposed text before giving a definite yes. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 15:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have some doubt that AM and PM are preferred in the United States. And "12 noon" is redundant. It seems like such changes amount to having no style, which can be done more concisely, if that is desired. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 17:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
:People say "12 noon", to distinguish it from "24 midnight". --[[User:SuperJumbo|Jumbo]] 21:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
:I believe that both PM and p.m. should be acceptable (not, though, P.M. or pm). And 12 noon is not redundant. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 22:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, 12 noon is not redundant.
::sorry, why do either P.M. or pm is not acceptable? Anyway, I see all 4 styles in different formal writing. Read [[12 hour clock]] too. All of them should be acceptable.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:The misunderstanding here is what the MoS is for. It's not saying that PM is wrong, for example, just that we have made an arbitrary but well informed decision to use p.m.; where possible without causing flame wars we want WP to have a consistent look and feel. And we don't have to follow any external guides or standards, although they inform the debate. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'' 22:22 [[8 August]] [[2006]] (GMT).

But it is not the way it should work:
#Wikipedia is a place which respect more than 1 style and formatting.
#Multiple style should be allowed, not being biased to one single style of the particular convention or in that particular country (eg the cases of American vs British spelling).
#Wikipedia is intended to be read by different users all over the world. Your choice of formatting or style may not acheve this goal.
#Some of the suggested style do not even confront to the standards (eg discretion can be made as to whether leading zero is used in 24-hour clock format). I don't know why a rule is made to against stanards for no particlar reasons.
#Users feel free to pick any style as long as it is clear and acceptable.
#The style guide still allows "inconsistency" (in the choice of style/formatting), like this style guide will state people can choose between "AD/BC" and "CE/BCE".
#A consistent look and feel can still be achieved even if more than 1 style exist. The point is to mantain consistency with the user's choice in that article.

Also bear in mind I am '''not''' disagreeing with WP having a style, but there is something between "no style" and "one absolute style". I'm disagreeing with "one absolute style" (when other accpetable or standard styles exist) or against the Wikipedian philosophies. It is not necessary to rule out one absolute style only and ask all others to follow. Just like this style guide will state people can choose between "AD/BC" and "CE/BCE", and so on. There are quite many situations where the style ask people to choose either one and keep consistency. Why do you think '''only "one absolute style" must exist everywhere?''' Why do you think '''you must pick one only and ask all others to follow'''?

I realise you would like to keep things consistent, but accepting either one is not the '''only''' way to keep consistency. Allowing both acceptable standard and kindly ask others to maintain interally consistency also works; just like you set rules to allow using arabic numbers in some cases, using numbers in words in other cases. Otherwise why don't you just allow one format only in all cases?--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

=== About the change ===
Please read the proposed change:

===12-hour clock===
* Times in the [[12-hour clock]] end with lower case "am" or "pm". These suffixes should not be omitted.
* As to "12 pm" and "12 am", "(12) noon" and "(12) midnight" should be used for clarity purposes. Some readers may find the former ambiguous and confusing. As it is a wikipedia policy to minimise ambiguity, "(12) noon" and "(12) midnight" are much better than the former.
** Both "12 noon or midnight" and "noon or midnight" is acceptable.
* Normally no leading zero is used to distinguish from times in the [[24-hour clock]].
* Regarding capitalisation:
** It does not matter what capital form "am/pm" is used. It can be written as "AM or am" or "PM or pm". But please be consistent throughout the article.
** It does not matter whether the first letter of "noon/midnight" is capitalised.
* The dot (.) is optional in the suffix: either am/pm or a.m./p.m. is fine.
* The spacing between the number and suffix is optional: either 2:30am or 2:30 am is fine.

===24-hour clock===
* Time in the [[24-hour clock]] times have no "am/pm/noon/midnight" suffix.
* 00:00 or 24:00 refers to the midnight and 12:00 refers to noon.
** 00:00 refers to the start of a day while 24:00 refers to the end of a day. However the end of a day equal to the start of the next day. That is why 00:00 is identical to 24:00.
** Both 00:00 and 24:00 are acceptable. It does not matter which one you use.
* Normally a leading zero is added to distinguish from times in the [[12-hour clock]].

===Common formats===
* In either case, the colon (:) should be used to separate hours, minutes and seconds. The use of dot (.) as a separator is not standard. It also causes confusion with the decimal point (.) in 12.45 (amount). Do not use it.
* Do not add extra symbols like (") to indicate second.
* Example:
** Use 12:34:28 pm (''but not 12.04 38″ pm'')
** Use 00:34 (''but not 00.34 or 0.34 or 0034'')
 —[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 20:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

== Wai Wai's changes ==
I've just reverted all Wai Wai's changes made in the last 12 hours or so. Changes this extensive must be discussed on the talk page first and reach consensus here. I'm sure some of them are fine, but others are controversial, and some of them were badly phrased too. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 15:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

:They are not really big nor major proposals. Most of them are copyedit work (eg reorganization, integration, redundancy removal, inconsistency fixes, and so on). Instead of reverting all the changes which is clearly inappropriate as stated by the policy, review the edit. If you feel there are something which may not be alright, discuss it then in the talk page.
:How about if you try to read the page once now and see if there is anything which may not be alright? I deem you will find it is mostly the same wine but with a new bottle. No new nor major nor core contents have been changed or proposed. And if you think something might not be okay, you can always discuss it in the talk page. Thank you --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 16:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

::A lot of them are just copy-editing, but there are several new pieces of advice in there too. Also it's very difficult to work out everything you've done because of the number of paragraph breaks and moved sections. (Have you looked at the diff?). At a minimum, every new policy should have been discussed here first. (And I don't know what you mean by "clearly inappropriate as stated by the policy" — which policy are you referring to?) [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 16:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

::::As to the new pieces of advice, some of them may be just copied or derived from other policies. It's not something completely new. Some may be just an additional note or advice (which expand or enrich the main one).--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I agree with Stephen's reverts. Until there is a concensus reached (or at least a discussion) here first, no changes to the manual should be made. In units of measurement, a few things that Wai Wai changed that do not have a concensus: making the non-braking space optional; and not spelling out numbers (wasn't Centrx trying to get us to spell out up to 100?). Also the first sentence in "choice" about international units is covered in "conversions". So I changed some things.--[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 03:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

::: (NB I wrote this simultaneously with MJCdetroit's comments).
::: I started reverting the bits I disagreed with, but as I read through it, I found that I disagreed with almost everything you'd done.
:::* New or changed advice should never have been added to the page without discussion here first.
:::* Your reordering of sections seemed worse because there was too much preamble before getting to the important stuff.
:::* Breaking paragraphs into bulleted lists made it much less readable, as did the excessive number of sub-sub-section and sub-sub-sub-section headings.
::: So I'm sorry, but I reverted everything again. I don't like to do that, but I'm afraid I found that most of the edits made the page worse. But maybe someone else could review it and offer an opinion?
:::[[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 03:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
::::[[Status quo]] ante Wai Wai --[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 03:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

::::: See my replies below. Most, if not all, you say can be done through improvement (not reverting). The general rule applies (as stated in wikipedia's policy): '''Improve it, rather than deleting it'''.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

----
Dear [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]]: 
The word "policy" I use is not strict, that is I simply refer to some wikipedia standards or principles or philosophies. It does not necesarily mean any standalone official policy which is being voilated (eg "three revert rule" policy). Anyway, here's the extract of what reverting is deemed appropriate:
* Reverting should be used '''primarily for fighting vandalism'''. -- Help:Reverting
* Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: '''Do not simply revert changes in a dispute'''. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, '''improve the edit, rather than reverting it'''. -- Wikipedia:Resolving disputes
* Does the editor do is something very similar to vandalism? Even the update has some big problems, it is not the excuse to revert it. In the case of NPOV, people usually do it wrong by using: "'''lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete'''" Quoted from NPOV (its philosophy applies): ''Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly.'' -- NPOV
* Unless what one writes is near to completely non-sense, or useless or rubbish. Revert is not something which you should be taken lightly. The bold policy does not apply. We are bold to create/improve it, not bold to destory/delete it.
* '''Reverting should be used primarily for fighting vandalism or anything similar to the effects of vandalism'''.
I realise my edits may not be perfect, but that's the process of wikipedia. I post a preliminary edit. People will try to edit and improve it. We don't need to make sure it is 100% acceptable and perfect before it can be put. Consensus will be reached during the edit process. 
I would revert my changes first (so others have chances to improve it). According to these policies or principles, if you feel my edits are very devastating or near vandalism, feel free to revert my edits (hopefully with reasons provided, so I know how to improve it, instead of starting at ground level again). --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 06:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

----

===My role===
Some people or editors may find this iformation useful. I'm [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias| a member of countering systemic bias]]. Simply speaking, it is a bia due to the nature of the system (wikipedia). Most editors here are coming from United States or in countries where English is their mother language. Most of the information/comments are biased towards the western. Opinions or information from Africa, Asia and South America are missing.

What I am trying to do is:
# Resolve the problem that "the information and perspective in the articles or sections may not represent a worldwide view." In this case, most style tend to be one-sided and in favour of one style standard (mainly United States or western).
# Integrate contents from various articles or policies, and remove the redundancy.
# Make sure the guidelines comply with major wikipedia policies, standards or philosophies.
# Make it consistent throughout the page.
# Make it consistent throughout different guidelines and policies.
# Resolve discrepancies and conflicts occurred within the same article.
 --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

===Editing procedures and requirements===
As regards the comment of "no changes to the manual should be made until there is a concensus reached. Every change has to be discussed in the discussion page first."

It's clearly wrong unfortunately. Please read the following: 
'''Major philosophy''' (official policies): 
:''Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. However, avoid deleting information wherever possible.'' -- Wikipedia:Editing policy
:[[Wikipedia:Editing_policy|perfection isn't required]] and don't worry about messing up. It is what wikipedia is - the editing process will take care it all. -- the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|five pillars of Wikipedia]].

'''Specific guidelines''': 
:''Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.'' -- guideline of updating style pages

Explanation (Note: The following is just a rough guideline. It is never intended to be complete or extensive): 
Things which may need discussions before editing: 
* Major or fundamental proposals
* Proposals which may be against major wikipedia philosophies or policies
* Important changes which is '''not''' going to or has reflected general consensus

Things which may '''not''' need discussions before editing: 
* ideas, rules, or information copied/derived from other guidelines or policies (since they have reflected general consensus already)
* sub-proposals expanding or enriching the existing one
* Changes which is going to or has reflected general consensus (maybe supported by official policies or the like)
* Non-content-specific changes like copyedit, integration, reorganization, categorization, formatting and style etc.
* minor changes or edits

In the forthcoming days, I will try to explain some of the reasons why I make the changes. Nevertheless it is very time consuming and it is impractical to explain every single change, including copyedit and minor ones. Priority has to be decided. If anyone has any doubts about any of my changes, please specify which one and what your doubts are, so I will know which are in higher priority and focus my explanations on them. Consensus and agreement could be made in this regard.

Please give me a few days to respond. Best regards.
 --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

===Reversions===

:Wai Wai. Please try and understand this section of the MOS has come about through continual discussions and consensus of the edits. Your edits here are not the same as if you were making edits to say the article on Queen Elizabeth. Your changes here are effectively telling all editors how all other articles in wikipedia should look or not look. Therefore, in matters dealing with the MOS, I think most editors here would rather proceed with caution. --[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 14:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

::Wai Wai, you should note that your changes have been reverted four times by three people.
::You do not have consensus. Changes within style guide and elsewhere in Wikipedia namespace call for more consensus and discussion than changes in article namespace. Articles are about facts; the style guide is intended essentially as direction and advice. For you to continue as you have been appears to place your ideas above those that the community has determined.
::The best way to work toward the changes you desire is to leave the project page alone until there is clear acceptance on this page. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 14:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Wai Wai, can you please discuss your changes before making them. You have been reverted a number of times and some of your changes I object to such as changing the practice of putting spaces between digits and units for measurements in parentheses. If you are unwilling to list and discuss the changes you wish to make then you will keep being reverted. --[[User:Clawed|Clawed]] 06:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:::It is not okay to revert people's contributions, as stated in revert policies. If every change has to be discussed, the page will be locked. We feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes. Most of my update is copyedit: merge, redundancy removal. However I think I should not mix things together. Maybe I should do it bit by bit. I was concentrating too much at that time (You see, I have spent 1 whole day for this edit, and I deviate a bit from what I originally intended to do). --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 06:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wai Wai -- Do you not see that you are going against consensus? Both the established style and repeated requests for you to first discuss your changes and get agreement before making them? Do you not see how little support your changes have among other editors? [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I realise there are some problems which we have to work on. However this alone does not justify a "revert" as far as the policies are concerned. The polciy has stated '''a "revert" should be dealt primiarily with vandalism'''. Unless you think all of the updates are vandalism or near vandalism, I don't see why it justifies a "revert". Policy has also stated we should work on the problems. Improve/Modify the articles, rather than deleting/reverting it.

After all, I am willing to work on the problems or consensus issues. Please specify the problems and what your doubts are, so I will know which are in higher priority and focus my explanations on them. I will try to explain some of the reasons why I make the changes. Consensus and agreement could be made in this regard. Please give me some time to fix the problems before you make your decision.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

#This is a style guide, not an article. I pointed out some of the difference earlier.
#Given that you change so much, it is hard to analyze and list. Given that there is general disagreement with your changes, the burden is on you. Please specify -- on the talk page -- what you see as the problems. When you get consensus agreement, then it's OK to change the style guide for that aspect. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 09:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of the above rules. Would you mind tellingme where it state so, including it is the updater's burden to prove there is the general agreement before an update is possible? I have stated it already: Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes. -- guideline of updating style pages.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:They are not so much rules, but judgment common to at least several people involved with this.
:But seeing that you like to quote things …
:From [[Help:Reverting]]: "However, sometimes a revert is the best response to a less-than-great edit, so we can't just stop reverting."
:From [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]]: "Amendments to a guideline should be discussed on its talk page, not on a new page - although it's generally acceptable to edit a guideline to improve it."
:But your edits here are obviously not seen to be improvements by the other people involved.
:From the project page: "The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here."
:If the consensus is "Do X" and that is changed to "Do X, or Y, or Z" by one person and other people disagree, then it is no longer a convention established by consensus.
:You are trying to change conventions already established by consensus. Do you not see that consensus is need to change what is already established by consensus?
:It is not that every single edit anyone makes to the style guide must be pre-approved. It is that edits that engender disagreement, especially to to a policy or guideline, should be worked out on the talk page before proceeding further. Do you not see the difference?
[[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 10:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is not all are major changes. It is wrong to revert COMPLETELY because there are some problems in the update. Please read the following: 
'''Major philosophy''' (official policies): 
:''Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. However, avoid deleting information wherever possible.'' -- Wikipedia:Editing policy
:[[Wikipedia:Editing_policy|perfection isn't required]] and don't worry about messing up. It is what wikipedia is - the editing process will take care it all. -- the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|five pillars of Wikipedia]].

'''Specific guidelines''': 
:''Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.'' -- guideline of updating style pages

If every change needed to be done through discussion, why the page is not locked up? What's more, reverting should be used '''primarily for fighting vandalism''', as stated in the help:reverting page.

When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate or problematic, '''improve the edit, rather than reverting it''' as stated in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

Unless what one writes is near to completely non-sense, or useless or rubbish. Revert is not something which you should be taken lightly. The bold policy does not apply. We are bold to create/improve it, not bold to destory/delete it.

However what people doing are reverting all changes but there are only some areas problematic.

===Spacing in unit measurement===
Spacng should be optional since I find both formatting style (ie spacing or non-spacing) in different formal writing. For example, my Oxford Intermediate English Dictionary uses non-spacing one, as in "''For this recipe you need 500g (five hundred grams) of flour''".--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 06:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

: Nearly every style issue has professional style guides that advocate for different styles, but that does not mean that Wikipedia must allow all of them, or even necessarily any two of them. We develop our style guidelines based on consensus, which allows many styles on some issues, and only one or two on others. (The most common single restriction is to follow only one guideline on single issue throughout a single article.) Often these consensuses (consensi?) are carefully negotiated compromises. The real questions are, what have we negotiated for this issue, and does it still hold? ~ [[User:Jeffq|Jeff Q]] [[User talk:Jeffq|(talk)]] 07:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::I agree with Jeff. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::I agree with Wai Wai. [[User:JP06035|→'''&ensp;JARED]]'''&ensp;[[User_talk:JP06035|(t)]]&ensp; 15:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
::I am for following the almost universally recognised SI standard, prescribing a space. −[[User:Woodstone|Woodstone]] 18:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
::I agree with Jeff/Woodstone. [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 21:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
::I said this a little lower on the page, but for the record, I agree with Jeff and Woodstone.--[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 22:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
:::But, I mean, SI standards and ISO standards don't mean that it is the only way to write something. It is only a guideline for those who feel insecure without having set rules. It makes NO DIFFERENCE whether there's a space or not. Both on Wikipedia and in the real world, it should be up to the writer to decide which is asthetically better. Standards mean nothing! [[User:JP06035|→'''&ensp;JARED]]'''&ensp;[[User_talk:JP06035|(t)]]&ensp; 22:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

----
I don't see the need why we need to force all editors to use one single standard, not to say there are other kinds of problems. People tend to defend by saying "consistency", and "consistency" is always good. Really? However they forget they are making things complex and go in the other way round. Take the case of "numbers in word" (extracted):
* Whole numbers from zero to ten are spelled out as words in the body of an article. Use numerals in tables and infoboxes.
* Numbers above ten may be written out if they are expressed in two or fewer words, except in tables and infoboxes. Example: "sixteen", "eighty-four", "two hundred", "twenty million" but "3.75", "544", "21 million".
* Fractions standing alone should be spelt out unless they occur in a percentage. If fractions are mixed with whole numbers, use numerals.

<blockquote>'''Summary''': 
For number zero to ten, spell out the words. 
For number above ten, two situations: 
- expressed in two or fewer words, spell out the words. 
- otherwise, use arabic numbers. 
Fractions alone, spell out the words. 
Fractions mixed with whole numbers, use arabic numbers.</blockquote>

Where is the consistency? The rules tell us to uses numbers in words sometimes, uses arabic numbers in other times. Originally the style guide intends to keep things simple and consistent. However when people are working on it, they tend to forget their original goals and deviate from them - making rules complex, splitting hairs, trivial, inconsistency, inconvenience to editors, and so on.

People tend to forget '''simplicity is the best'''. If editors were not spending time on trivial style or formatting, much of their time saved could be used to improve the real "contents" of the article. It is what benefit the visitors most.

By the way, it is going to be a '''very minority consensus''' if you take the whole community [the world] into account. Only a very few wikipedians are engaged in the discussion.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 07:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
----

:You seem to disagree with WP having a style in general, at least to some degree. That's OK. You don't have to follow the style guide.
:Many other people do want WP to have a style. In a a way, loose style or less style can be more complicated -- editors don't need to decide which style to use, because they can refer to the style guide, where many such matters have already been decided. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::No. You get me wrong. I am '''not''' disagreeing with WP having a style, but there is something between "no style" and "one absolute style". I'm disagreeing with "one absolute style" (when other accpetable or standard styles exist) or against the Wikipedian philosophies. It is not necessary to rule out one absolute style only and ask all others to follow. Just like this style guide will state people can choose between "AD/BC" and "CE/BCE", and so on. There are quite many situations where the style ask people to choose either one and keep consistency. Why do you think '''only "one absolute style" must exist everywhere?''' Why do you think '''you must pick one only and ask all others to follow'''?
::I realise you would like to keep things consistent, but accepting either one is not the '''only''' way to keep consistency. Allowing both acceptable standard and kindly ask others to maintain interally consistency also works; just like you set rules to allow using arabic numbers in some cases, using numbers in words in other cases. Otherwise why don't you just allow one format only in all cases?--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::Another possibility is for you to work on just one paragraph at a time, or in a day. Smaller changes are easier to digest.
::I also disagree with the super-small subsections you've been making. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion taken. I'm working too hard on that day. I will try o update bit by bit next time. As to sections, section starts at 2nd level. What I'm usng is just 4th level (the 3rd type of section). There are articles which use 4th level. And I don't see why we must restrict ourselves to using 2 types of sections only (ie 2nd and 3rd level). Anyway, it is just a style issue. If all people don't like it, just undo the section formatting.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Spacing. I agree with Jeff and Maureen. There should be a non-breaking space between unit and symbol. I think that a rare exception can be made when the measurement itself actually becomes a title for something and is usually written without the space; e.g. 35mm camera, 6.1L Hemi, and the oympic events, etc. However, in those cases, I can live with the space if we don't want to make any exceptions. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 14:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Yes, I agree with the non-breaking space part too. However spacing is not always necessary. It is not rare exceptions. I have read different formal articles about that. I see there are cases where both are acceptable (eg 56 km or 56km). I don't see the reasons behind why we must prefer one style and depreciate another.
::::Beware that we should take [[systemic bias]] into consideration when generating rules. Systemic bias is the inherent tendency of a process to favor particular outcomes. The term is a [[neologism]] that generally refers to human systems; the analogous problem in non-human systems (such as scientific observations). After all, Wikipedia is intedned to be read by all people over the world.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

== The current decade ==

I am sure this has come up before, but I don't see anything on the project page. [[User:GoDot]] is insisting on calling the current decade "the 2000s" as in "bank redlining had largely diminished by the mid 2000s" ([[Seattle neighborhoods]]). I find this very confusing: if someone says "the mid-1900s" they mean around 1950, not 1905. But since this is a user with whom I repeatedly find myself disagreeing, and since the MoS doesn't yet address the matter, I'm simply bringing the question here. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 02:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
: Did you try to look at [[2000s]] or [[1900s]]? Compare to [[21st century]] and [[20th century]]. [[User:Crissov|Christoph Päper]] 13:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

== Update on Olympic Debate ==

I know it was a ''loooooooong'' time ago that we were debating on whether or not a space should be put between the number and the unit of Olympic Event names. The IOC official site does not put space, so one would expect the Wikipedia articles should do the same (e.g. '''10km'''), but according to this overcited page, it was kept according to the WP guidelines (e.g. '''10 km''').

I recently received a long awaited reply from the IOC in which the Sports Director Kelly Fairweather noted to me that the IOC is "working with the International Federations to define the exact terms to be used for disciplines and events." She stated that the project would be completed by October 2006 and the IOC website after that point would be the place to find the official terminology. Until then, "there is no one approved terminology."

I just thought some others would like to know. [[User:JP06035|→'''&ensp;JARED]]'''&ensp;[[User_talk:JP06035|(t)]]&ensp; 21:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
----
As a sidenote, I find both formatting style (ie spacing or non-spacing) in different formal writing. For example, my Oxford Intermediate English Dictionary uses non-spacing one, as in "''For this recipe you need 500g (five hundred grams) of flour''".

Anyway, I think people are getting hypercorrect. What's the difference between '''500g''' and '''500 g'''? Will people get confused when reading either style? People are wasting too much time on trivial issues, and making things complex, not to say it requires huge efforts and good memories to comply with all these trivial rules.

They tend to forget '''simplicity is the best'''. Accept both. Pick either one you like the best. How easy life would be then? After all, standards are all created by humans. No standards must be formal or informal. They are all relative in nature. If time are spent on more important issues, the world would be much better. --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 07:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Actually, I agree. The usage of either one is relative to the situation in which it is used. Different articles (topics) may require the use of different methods, but I'm really not up for arguing for it... [[User:JP06035|→'''&ensp;JARED]]'''&ensp;[[User_talk:JP06035|(t)]]&ensp; 15:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

== Indian numbering convention ==

This has probably come up before: Should the [[Indian numbering system]] (hazar, lakh, crore, arab...) be used in articles about Indian subjects? Should exponential breaks be done in the Indian system (i.e. 1,00,000 as opposed to 100,000)? Thoughts? -- [[User:Samir_(The_Scope)|'''Samir''']] [[User_talk:Samir_(The_Scope)|धर्म]] 09:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks for pointing me at that article - I came across an article with a comma after two digits once and was very confused! Are numbers other than lakhs and crores commonly used? My opinion, off the top of my head, is that it would probably be reasonable to use the Indian names and style of digits when referring to Indian subjects (thus complying with the MoS requirement to use the local form of English), but ''also'' advisable to write the number out in the more common style to avoid confusing non-Indian readers who might think it was a typographical error, e.g. "five crores (5,00,00,000 or 50,000,000)". -- [[User:Arwel_Parry|Arwel]] ([[User talk:Arwel_Parry|talk]]) 12:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

== Compound units ==

I thought there was a style recommendation for complicated units like mm•K/W, but I don't see it. How should we format things like this? — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 14:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

:I don't think the "Manual of Style" has such a recommendation, but the standard IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997 states on page 14 "Symbols. To avoid ambiguity in complicated expressions, unit symbols are preferred over unit names." I think this should go in the manual. --[[User:Gerry Ashton|Gerry Ashton]] 15:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
::I wouldn't not be against this going in the manual. However, we should insist on having a page (linked to the symbol) explaining what the unit is and how it used. Some of the symbols would be obvious, but they should still be linked to the respective article. If [[mph]] and [[km/h]] have articles about them then so should mm•K/W. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 14:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

==Wai Wai's changes, continued==
Here are some options, in alphabetical order:
#Accept Wai Wai's changes without further ado. -- Several of us disagree, so not a good choice.
#Ask to have the page protected.
#Continue the back-and-forth reversion.
#Start an RFC.
#Wai Wai could stop changing the project page, discuss the desired changes, and wait until consensus is clear to make the changes. -- Apparently unlikely, given that this has been requested several time by different people.

Comments? [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 09:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:The "Continue the back-and-forth reversion." is definitely not an option even if people here vote for it. It is because it is against Wikipedian's policies: Wikipedia does not allow revert wars! --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Takes two to tango. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 09:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:I think we are rapidly approaching the time for [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies]]. -- '''[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]([[User talk:Dalbury|Talk]])''' 09:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:After seeing the recent changes on the article page, I would say it is definitely time now for an RfC. -- '''[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]([[User talk:Dalbury|Talk]])''' 10:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Stop changing the project page, discuss the desired changes, and wait until consensus is clear. Only change the page when there is a consensus to do so. This would be the best way to go about it. In fact, isn't that the way that we have been doing it. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 12:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you really saying? Anyway, I have examined the revert policy once again. Unfortunately I'm afirad all people are wrong, at least in reverting. Stephen Turner states he was trying to be bold to revert long hours of contributions. However the "bold" policy clearly states it does not apply in terms of "reverting". Although a few people support him by doing the same, the action is wrong. '''The majority people are performing the same action does not justify the action itself. [[WP:WWIN#Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy|Wikipedia is not a democracy]]. We need to respect rules!'''

Pay attention that '''it's NOT my PERSONAL opinion. It is stated in the policies''' (eg [[WP:BOLD]]).

Please read the following rules first about revert. No one seems to care or understand about the "revert policy" - not to revert people's contributions even if it has problems. Revert is not something which should be taken lightly. "Reverting" is harmful, and so on.

:'''If you feel you are correct in reverting, please tell me which rule tells people it is justifiable to do a SIMPLE REVERT of days of contributions?'''

What's more, the recent update is not just the same as the old one. It has spent me valuable time to modify the update according to some comments (eg super-section, bullets, and spacing in unit measurement). However people keep reverting THE WHOLE PART OF IT instead of stating the questions. People seem to think it is just the same and revert it without any examination. '''THAT IS VERY RUDE'''.

Please read this: 
* Reverting should be used '''primarily for fighting vandalism'''. -- Help:Reverting
* Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: '''Do not simply revert changes in a dispute'''. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, '''improve the edit, rather than reverting it'''. -- Wikipedia:Resolving disputes
* Does the editor do is something very similar to vandalism? Even the update has some big problems, it is not the excuse to revert it. In the case of NPOV, people usually do it wrong by using: "'''lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete'''" Quoted from NPOV (its philosophy applies): ''Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly.'' -- NPOV
* Unless what one writes is near to completely non-sense, or useless or rubbish. Revert is not something which you should be taken lightly. The bold policy does not apply. We are bold to create/improve it, not bold to destory/delete it.
* '''Reverting should be used primarily for fighting vandalism or anything similar to the effects of vandalism'''.
I realise my edits may not be perfect, but that's the process of wikipedia. I post a preliminary edit. People will try to edit and improve it. We don't need to make sure it is 100% acceptable and perfect before it can be put. Consensus will be reached during the edit process.

'''I am willing to work on the problems or consensus issues. However people keep saying there is no consensus, but they are unwilling to specify where is the no consensus. Please specify the problems and what your doubts are, so I will know which are in higher priority and focus my explanations on them. I will try to explain some of the reasons why I make the changes. Consensus and agreement could be made in this regard. Please give me some time to fix the problems before you make your decision.'''--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 13:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:My suggestion would be to discuss your changes a little at a time. Don't do a large scale edit of the page. Baby steps. I think it would go smoother; it'll take longer but that is better in the long run anyway. So start a new topic based on what the first thing that you want to change is. It will be discussed over a few days and you will know the feelings of the editors on that proposal. What do you think? [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 14:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, you are very right. I did too many changes at one time. Lessons learnt. But I am sure the real "contextual" change is much less than what people orginally thought since most of them are not real contextual changes. However I mixed all of my hours work together and make one single update which may be too confusing for others to review. Sorry about that.
::After all, '''it is perfectly fine for me to post the changes here first. However I wonder if there's anyone who will be willing to review it.'''--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 14:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Baby steps! Also, you need to give your proposals some time to be debated. Not everyone lives on the computer—I certainly don't. Let as many people as possible discuss this.---[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 15:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Who says we need to settle it instantly? As long as the discussion is moving, it is perfectly fine. However, last time, I have waited for nearly a week for others to ask questions or respond or specify the problems, no one responded. After all, your review is excellent. Keep it up! --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
{{user Very Happy}}{{clear}}
=== about unit of measurement ===

I have forgotten whether which is copyedit, which is proposal.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. Read them once. If you find anything problematic, state it out.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 14:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

----

====Choice====
* <strike>Try to use the international units instead of local, unless you have good reasons to use others</strike>. ——Covered under 'conversions', unless you mean something else by 'international units'. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 15:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
''What's wrong to state this out to remind editors? When someone which is unsure what unit should be chosen, they are going to read that section. The covering under 'conversions' is not clear, at least to some people.''--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
* Some non-metric units have more than one version. Be specific. For example, ''[[US gallon|U.S. gallon]]'' or ''[[imperial gallon]]'' rather than just ''gallon''. Similarly, use ''[[nautical mile]]'' or ''[[statute mile]]'' rather than just ''mile'' in aviation, space, sea and in some other contexts.
* Try to be consistent with your choice.

====Format====
* Use standard or formal (as opposed to localized or informal) abbreviations when using symbols. For example, metre is m, kilogram is kg, inch is in (''not " or ″'' ), foot is ft (''not ' or ′'' ), and [[Avoirdupois|pound]] is lb (''not #'').
** Do not append an ''s'' for plurals of unit abbreviations. For example kg, in, yd, lb; ''not kgs, ins, yds, lbs''.
* For concision purposes, please use digits for values. For example, 100 kg; ''not one hundred kg''.
* <strike>For understandability purposes,</strike> please spell out units in the text, and link to the relevant article at the first few usage.

——You must have non breaking space between the number and symbol. Here's why: I weigh 180lb and drink a 1l of water a day. Having a space is easier on the eyes and is more consistent with many technical writings.

———''However I see the non-spacing version in other formal writing, including the dictionaries. I see it uses 500g, 10km and so on.''--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

——It's not for understandability, it's the way formal writings are styled. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 15:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

===Conversions===
* Conversions should generally be included and not be removed.
* If editors cannot agree about the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second.
* If for some reason the choice of units is arbitrary, choose [[SI units]] as the main unit, with other units in parentheses. For subjects dealing with the United States, it might be more appropriate to use U.S. measurements first, i.e. mile, foot, U.S. gallon.
* Use digits and unit symbols for values in parentheses. For example, "a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 16 kilometres (10 mi) long" '''or''' "a pipe 4 inches (100 mm) in diameter and 10 miles (16 km) long".
** Do the same for measurements in tables.
* Converted values should use a similar level of precision as the source value. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth", not "(236,121 mi)".

----

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Spacing_in_unit_measurement

===About dates===
If memory serves, they are (nearly) summarised changes (copyedit).
The major change is to move all general style and formatting which can apply to the rest of the page (or date formats) in the front first.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 14:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

See the following:
----

====Wording====

=====Uncertain date=====
*When only an approximate date is available, the English word ''about'' or the abbreviation "''c.''" (Latin: ''circa''; English: "about") may be used.
* When a date is uncertain because the source is unreliable, that fact should be noted and the source should be mentioned. For example, "according to [[Livy]], the [[Roman Republic]] was founded in 509 BC", or "The [[Mahabharata]] is traditionally said to have been composed in [[1310s BCE|1316 BCE]]".

=====Seasons=====
* The seasons are reversed in each hemisphere, while areas near the [[equator]] tend to have just [[wet season|wet]] and [[dry season]]s. Neutral wording should be used to describe times of the year to avoid confusion.
** Use "in early 1990", "in the second quarter of 2003", "around September" or an exact date, rather than references to seasons, unless there is some particular need to do so (eg "the autumn harvest"). It is ambiguous to say that [[Apollo 11]] landed on the Moon in the summer of 1969 (whose summer?).

=====Eras=====
:''See [[Anno Domini]] for a discussion on what is meant by AD and BC notation, and [[Common Era]] for a discussion on what is meant by CE and BCE notation.''
*Simply speaking, AD equals CE. BC equals BCE.

*Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article.

*Note that the [[1st century BC]] is from 100 BC to 1 BC (there was no [[year 0]]) so 1700 BC would be the first year of the 17th century BC, 1800 BC would be the first year of the 18th century BC, etc. Similarly, 4000 BC was the first year of the fourth millennium BC, ''not'' the last year of the fifth millennium BC.

*Note that the [[19th century]] is 1801—1900 (but ''not 1901—2000''). It is because the [[1st century]] starts at 1 AD and ends at 100 AD.

*Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the [[Anno Domini]]/[[Common Era]], but when events span the start of the [[Anno Domini]]/[[Common Era]], use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, <nowiki>[[1 BC]]—[[1|AD 1]]</nowiki> or <nowiki>[[1 BCE]]—[[1|1 CE]]</nowiki>.

*In articles about prehistory, if you use BP ([[before present]]) or MYA ([[million years ago]]), expand these abbreviations when you first use them, as most readers will be unfamiliar with them.

====Formatting====

=====General=====
* For any formatting or style, please maintain consistency throughout an article, unless there's a good reason to do otherwise.
* If, for any special reasons, a less clearer or specific format (eg 1900-01-12 date format is chosen instead of 12 January 1900) is used. Please make it very sure that your choice does not cause any ambiguity or confusion to anyone over the world. Note that something which is certain in one country or nation may not be so in another. Thus the best way to eliminate possible ambiguity or confusion is to adding notes beside the usage (to clarify any grey area or ambiguity).
*Wikipedia respects different formatting and style as long as they are clear and unambiguous. When any of the style is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedian to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reasons for the change. For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject.
** Revert warring over optional styles is highly unacceptable; if the article is [[colour]] rather than [[color]], it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable. See also [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk]].
* Direct [[quotations]] (ie the word-for-word reproduction of a written or oral text) should ''not'' be altered to confirm any wikipedia formatting or style. It is because the original source has to be kept as intact (in verbatim) as possible. For instance, the date in the following fictional quotation should not be linked (even if it is preferred in wikipedia):
:"Tony Blair, responding to critics in his party, said 'The world has totally changed since the 11th of September.' He was echoing earlier sentiments by Lord Ronald McDonald, who said that 'nine-eleven' was the day that the American public woke up to the reality of terrorism."


=====Ranges=====
Sometimes numbers and dates are expressed in ranges, such as "14—17" for the numbers 14 to 17. It is often preferable to write this out (eg "14 through 17" (US and Canada) or "from 14 to 17"). It is to avoid confusion with "14 minus 17", which is expressed with spaces, as "14 &minus; 17".

Traditionally, ranges of numbers and dates are given with an en dash (—). Simply click the "–" button (excluding quotes) below the edit window or insert it with any software supporting this punctuation. Please avoiding typing the code &ndash; to insert en dash. It is because new editors may not understand the code. They may delete the code due to misunderstanding. Also the visually form of "—" (excluding quotes) is more visually appealing and readable in the edit screen.

However, nowadays some sources use spaced or unspaced hyphens, at least online, and some Wikipedians believe that these hyphens should not be changed to en dashes.

See [[#Dates of birth and death]] (another section in the same article) for example.

See [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes)]] for details.

=====Year, decade, century formats=====
* Always write year in full form. Do not use the shortened two-digit form to express a year. It is because the shortened formats are likely to cause confusion. The same holds true whether the years are BC or AD. For example:
** Do not use 56 or '56. Use 1956 (when referring to the decade of the 20th century)
** Do not use 80s or '80s or "the eighties". Use 1980s (when referring to the decade of the 20th century)
* It is not necessary to use an apostrophe to indicate a decade. [[1970s]] is preferred, but not [[1970's]].
* The word "century" is normally not capitalised. [[18th century]] (small capital) is normally used. [[18th Century]] (big capital) is less common.

=====Day and month formats=====
* Please express a month as a whole word. Do not use numbers, except in [[ISO 8601]] format. Do not use abbreviations like "Dec". For example, use December 1945. Do not use "12, 1945" or "12 of 1945" or "Dec 1945"
** If space is precious (eg in a table, infobox, or the like), abbreviations are preferred to numbers (eg "Oct", ''not "10"''). Numbers are discouraged because it may cause confusion to readers as to whether day or month is referred.
** The shortened two-digit format is optional at the end of a range (ie "1970—1987" or "1970—87").
* The ordering does not matter: both "February 14" and "14 February" are fine.
* It is not necessary to add ordinal suffixes. "February 14" is preferred, but not "February 14th" and "14th February".
* It is not necessary to use a comma (,) or the word "of" between a month and year. "December 1945" is preferred, but not "December, 1945" and "December of 1945".

===Unclear===

[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]], this is progress. Thank you.

But the above material does not indicate the difference between the established style guide and your desired changes.

I have asked you to address a pragraph at a time. If you won't do that, would you at least narrow it to a section or subsection at a time, whichever is smaller that is applicable? [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 18:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

===&mdash; and &ndash; entities===
I find the changes to the dash guidelines highly objectionable. &mdash; and &ndash; are easy to type, their names quite clearly indicate "this is a dash", and HTML entities are certainly no more confusing than most of the markup used in MediaWiki. I don't see any reason to disallow using the Unicode characters, but "confusing for new editors" describes a whole lot more of what goes on here than these HTML entities. Anyone playing with the sandbox will be able to see what &mdash; and &ndash; do. —[[User:Ptkfgs|ptk]]✰[[User_talk:Ptkfgs|fgs]] 18:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:The reason is most new editors who are not familiar with Unicode characters will find it confusing. That's also why Wikipedia creates Wiki codes, to make it easier for others to edit. Others like HTML are hard to understand for newbies.—[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 20:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

=== recent changes ===
I agree that it's a little sudden. They need copy-editing in a number of places, and while I like a lot of the changes, I don't like all of them. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 15:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:So sorry about the "suddenness".--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

===Removal of material from user talk page===

Some people have left notes on [[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]]'s talk page about the style guide changes. [[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] has removed them all, including my note intended to discourage such removals. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 20:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

: Removing warnings from one's own talk page is unacceptable, per [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]]. I think both [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wai_Wai&diff=69187463&oldid=69181170 this edit] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wai_Wai&diff=69260023&oldid=69245690 this one] fall into that category. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 20:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

=== General comments ===

I don't have time to read through your changes in detail at the moment, but here are some general comments:
* I think your changes are more extensive than you imagine. You think they're mostly just tidying up, but I think they're rather more than that.
* I find rewriting the paragraphs as bulleted lists makes them much less readable.
* The grammar is often slightly wrong. Your English is very good, but not quite perfect. For example, a native speaker wouldn't say "Both '12 noon' and 'noon' is acceptable" but "Either '12 noon' or 'noon' is acceptable". There are many similar examples, so you should get it checked by a native speaker first.
* On MoS pages, it is conventional to proceed very cautiously, and seek consensus for all changes before making them; not to make changes and hope that they're not reverted. This is because the MoS guidance potentially affects every article on Wikipedia. You might like to compare [[User:Stephen Turner/Date Proposal|what I wrote]] before I made extensive changes to this page.
* If you are reverted by several editors, consider whether you may be doing something wrong. And take it to the talk page, rather than making your changes again.
[[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 20:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'm not specifically replying to your points above, but I thought the title "General comments" was suitable for adding this: regardless of how much reasonable they can be, changes to the Manual of Style should be carefully considered, and possibly avoided. When I joined Wikipedia the whole Manual was pretty stable. At a given moment, it began to change and has never stopped. This is too bad. It does need stability, or articles will never keep up (if nothing else because nobody wants to drive crazy for that). To put it differently: the more you change it, the more it is dead letter. —[[User:Gennaro Prota|Gennaro Prota]][[User talk:Gennaro Prota|•Talk]] 02:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

== Dates, non WaiWai issue ==

I was taking a look at the changes and I noticed this (which was present in both versions)
:Elsewhere, either format is acceptable. See [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English]] for more guidance.

I would assume that in non-Commonwealth, non-US/Canada countries there is in fact a preferred style and IMHO we should stick with this. So perhaps it would be best to at least mention this (e.g. although if a national style is known, this should be used). Depending on how variable national styles are, we might even be able to include some info on national styles from non-Commonwealth, non-US/Canada countries... [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] 16:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'm OK with including "(e.g. although if a national style is known, this should be used if it does not conflict with this style guide)," with the modification at the end. But I think extra info on national styles might be too much detail. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 18:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Can you give an example of an English speaking country that was not part of the British Empire/ Commonwealth and the type of date style that is used there?---[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 19:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Very few countries use American dating. Apart from North American topics, I think the default should be International dating, which is the choice of most. BTW what does South America do, BTW? [[User:Jtdirl|'''Fear''ÉIREANN''''']][[Image:Ireland-Capitals.PNG|15px]]\[[User talk:Jtdirl|(caint)]] 20:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::I should have been clearer but reading the statement "''non-Commonwealth, non-US/Canada countries''" makes me think that there is/are other date styles besides the two that are used in the U.S./Canada and British Commonwealth —i.e. besides August 13th, 2006 or 13 August 2006 (and their slight variations). I don't want this taken the wrong way but we should only be concerned with how native English speaking counties style things. If this was Spanish Wikipedia that I would wonder how dates were styled in South America.[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 13:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

2006-08-15T20:13:02Z

Wai Wai: /* Improvement about guidelines in Time */

==Archives==
{| class="infobox" width="270px"
|-
!align="center"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]] [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|
*[[/archive1|1]], [[/archive2|2]], [[/archive3|3]], [[/archive4|4]], [[/archive5|5]], ''[[/vote|5a]]'', [[/archive6|6]], [[/archive7|7]], [[/archive8|8]], [[/archive9|9]], [[/archive10|10]],
*[[/archive11|11]], [[/archive12|12]], [[/archive13|13]], [[/archive14|14]], ''[[/archive dash discussion/|14a]]'', [[/archive15|15]], [[/archive16|16]], [[/archive17|17]], [[/archive18|18]], [[/archive19|19]],
*[[/archive20|20]], [[/archive21|21]], [[/archive22|22]], [[/archive23|23]], [[/archive24|24]], [[/archive25|25]], [[/archive26|26]], [[/archive27|27]], [[/archive28|28]], [[/archive29|29]],
*[[/archive30|30]], [[/archive31|31]], [[/archive32|32]], [[/archive33|33]], [[/archive34|34]], [[/archive35|35]], [[/archive36|36]], [[/archive37|37]], [[/archive38|38]], [[/archive39|39]],
*[[/archive40|40]], [[/archive41|41]], [[/archive42|42]], [[/archive43|43]], [[/archive44|44]], [[/archive45|45]], [[/archive46|46]], [[/archive47|47]], [[/archive48|48]]
*[[/archive49|49]], ''[[/archive49a|49a]]'', [[/archive50|50]], [[/archive51|51]], [[/archive52|52]]
|}

See also:
* [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (calendar dates)]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Timeline standards]]
* [[Wikipedia:Measurements Debate]]
----
'''Note on Archives:'''

'''The recent discussion on linking of dates from [[9 March]] [[2006]] to [[13 April]] [[2006]] is in archives 42 through 46, plus 48. [[/archive42|42]], [[/archive43|43]], [[/archive44|44]], [[/archive45|45]], [[/archive46|46]], [[/archive48|48]]''' 

----

== Improvement about guidelines in Time ==

Quote:
{| class=wikitable
!width=100| 12-hour clock !!width=100| Not !!width=100| 24-hour clock !!width=100| Not
|-
|2 p.m. || 2pm || 14:00 || 14.00
|-
|2:34 p.m. || 2.34 PM || 14:34 || 1434
|-
|12:04:38 a.m. || 12.04 38″ A.M. || 00:04:38 or 0:04:38
|-
|noon ||12 noon || 12:00
|}

The suggestions in "time" section seems to be weird because:
# It does not even follow what other formal or official standards (eg NIST standards) suggest.
# Its guidelines even conflicts with what the referenced articles [[12-hour clock]] and [[24-hour clock]] say. They don't follow what it says.

'''Mistake: p.m, pm & PM are definitely acceptable.'''
Evidence: 
# The initialisms "AM" and "PM" are variously written in small capitals ("am" and "pm"), uppercase letters ("AM" and "PM"), or lowercase letters ("am" and "pm"). Additionally, some styles use periods (full stops), especially in combination with lowercase letters (thus "a.m." and "p.m."). -- the guide in [[12-hour clock]]
# A.M. and P.M. may either be written in all capital letters or all lower case, but choose one style and stick with it. -- englishplus.com and Oxford Advanced dictionary
# The use of period/dot (.) is optional. -- Oxford Advanced dictionary

'''Mistake: noon or 12 noon are definitely acceptable.'''
Evidence: 
#"noon" or "12:00 noon" and "midnight" or "12:00 midnight" should be used (rather than to 12:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m., respectively) to avoid confusion. -- nist.gov (mentioned also in [[12-hour clock]])
# The tables in [[12-hour clock]] and [[24-hour clock]] uses 12 noon and 12 mindinight too. -- the guide in [[12-hour clock]]

'''Mistake: For 24-hour, discretion may be used to determine if the hour has a leading zero.''' 
It's strange that the article says that. There is no discretion as to whether a leading zero is used. It is more to do as a standard or a matter of taste. If one follows formal standard strictly, 24-hour usually use leading numbers. This includes major time sites like NIST.gov, greenwichmeantime.com, and so on.

'''A better explanation on Noon and Midnight''' 
<blockquote>'''AM and PM - What is Noon and Midnight?''' 
AM and PM start immediately after Midnight and Noon (Midday) respectively.
This means that 00:00 AM or 00:00 PM (or 12:00 AM and 12:00 PM) have no meaning.
Every day starts precisely at midnight and AM starts immediately after that point in time e.g. 00:00:01 AM (see also leap seconds)
To avoid confusion timetables, when scheduling around midnight, prefer to use either 23:59 or 00:01 to avoid confusion as to which day is being referred to.
It is after Noon that PM starts e.g. 00:00:01 PM (12:00:01) -- greenwichmeantime.com </blockquote>

I'm going to update the above (to include the instructions in [[12-hour clock]] and [[24-hour clock]], and some major time sites) if no one oppose it. --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

* I can't really decide whether I like what you are proposing without seeing the exact text you plan to use. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 15:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
** The above is more or less all of the proposals. If you agree (generally) with the above, I will put the text up for a review. There is nothing new anyway. What I try to do is to make it consistent with at least what is mentioned or done in [[12-hour clock]] and [[24-hour clock]]. The existing guideline conflicts with them, which is bad. --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 16:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
*** I think we should probably permit AM and PM as an alternative to a.m. and p.m., as the upper-case versions seem to be the normal spelling in the United States. I haven't understood what other problems you perceive in the current text, which you are trying to correct — we already forbid 12 a.m. and 12 p.m., for example. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 03:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
**** They are: 1) noon and 12 noon are definitely acceptable. 2) No discretion is needed to determine if the hour has a leading zero. 12-hour normally doesn't use leading zero; 24-hour usually does (reference given above). Any opinion? --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 05:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
***** I agree with both those points in principle. I think that some people find "12 noon" [[tautology (rhetoric)|tautologous]] but I don't have a problem with it. I'd still like to see the proposed text before giving a definite yes. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 15:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have some doubt that AM and PM are preferred in the United States. And "12 noon" is redundant. It seems like such changes amount to having no style, which can be done more concisely, if that is desired. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 17:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
:People say "12 noon", to distinguish it from "24 midnight". --[[User:SuperJumbo|Jumbo]] 21:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
:I believe that both PM and p.m. should be acceptable (not, though, P.M. or pm). And 12 noon is not redundant. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 22:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, 12 noon is not redundant.
::sorry, why do either P.M. or pm is not acceptable? Anyway, I see all 4 styles in different formal writing. Read [[12 hour clock]] too. All of them should be acceptable.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:The misunderstanding here is what the MoS is for. It's not saying that PM is wrong, for example, just that we have made an arbitrary but well informed decision to use p.m.; where possible without causing flame wars we want WP to have a consistent look and feel. And we don't have to follow any external guides or standards, although they inform the debate. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'' 22:22 [[8 August]] [[2006]] (GMT).

But it is not the way it should work:
#Wikipedia is a place which respect more than 1 style and formatting.
#Multiple style should be allowed, not being biased to one single style of the particular convention or in that particular country (eg the cases of American vs British spelling).
#Wikipedia is intended to be read by different users all over the world. Your choice of formatting or style may not acheve this goal.
#Some of the suggested style do not even confront to the standards (eg discretion can be made as to whether leading zero is used in 24-hour clock format). I don't know why a rule is made to against stanards for no particlar reasons.
#Users feel free to pick any style as long as it is clear and acceptable.
#The style guide still allows "inconsistency" (in the choice of style/formatting), like this style guide will state people can choose between "AD/BC" and "CE/BCE".
#A consistent look and feel can still be achieved even if more than 1 style exist. The point is to mantain consistency with the user's choice in that article.

Also bear in mind I am '''not''' disagreeing with WP having a style, but there is something between "no style" and "one absolute style". I'm disagreeing with "one absolute style" (when other accpetable or standard styles exist) or against the Wikipedian philosophies. It is not necessary to rule out one absolute style only and ask all others to follow. Just like this style guide will state people can choose between "AD/BC" and "CE/BCE", and so on. There are quite many situations where the style ask people to choose either one and keep consistency. Why do you think '''only "one absolute style" must exist everywhere?''' Why do you think '''you must pick one only and ask all others to follow'''?

I realise you would like to keep things consistent, but accepting either one is not the '''only''' way to keep consistency. Allowing both acceptable standard and kindly ask others to maintain interally consistency also works; just like you set rules to allow using arabic numbers in some cases, using numbers in words in other cases. Otherwise why don't you just allow one format only in all cases?--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

=== About the change ===
Please read the proposed change:

===12-hour clock===
* Times in the [[12-hour clock]] end with lower case "am" or "pm". These suffixes should not be omitted.
* As to "12 pm" and "12 am", "(12) noon" and "(12) midnight" should be used for clarity purposes. Some readers may find the former ambiguous and confusing. As it is a wikipedia policy to minimise ambiguity, "(12) noon" and "(12) midnight" are much better than the former.
** Both "12 noon or midnight" and "noon or midnight" is acceptable.
* Normally no leading zero is used to distinguish from times in the [[24-hour clock]].
* Regarding capitalisation:
** It does not matter what capital form "am/pm" is used. It can be written as "AM or am" or "PM or pm". But please be consistent throughout the article.
** It does not matter whether the first letter of "noon/midnight" is capitalised.
* The dot (.) is optional in the suffix: either am/pm or a.m./p.m. is fine.
* The spacing between the number and suffix is optional: either 2:30am or 2:30 am is fine.

===24-hour clock===
* Time in the [[24-hour clock]] times have no "am/pm/noon/midnight" suffix.
* 00:00 or 24:00 refers to the midnight and 12:00 refers to noon.
** 00:00 refers to the start of a day while 24:00 refers to the end of a day. However the end of a day equal to the start of the next day. That is why 00:00 is identical to 24:00.
** Both 00:00 and 24:00 are acceptable. It does not matter which one you use.
* Normally a leading zero is added to distinguish from times in the [[12-hour clock]].

===Common formats===
* In either case, the colon (:) should be used to separate hours, minutes and seconds. The use of dot (.) as a separator is not standard. It also causes confusion with the decimal point (.) in 12.45 (amount). Do not use it.
* Do not add extra symbols like (") to indicate second.
* Example:
** Use 12:34:28 pm (''but not 12.04 38″ pm'')
** Use 00:34 (''but not 00.34 or 0.34 or 0034'')
 —[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 20:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

== Wai Wai's changes ==
I've just reverted all Wai Wai's changes made in the last 12 hours or so. Changes this extensive must be discussed on the talk page first and reach consensus here. I'm sure some of them are fine, but others are controversial, and some of them were badly phrased too. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 15:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

:They are not really big nor major proposals. Most of them are copyedit work (eg reorganization, integration, redundancy removal, inconsistency fixes, and so on). Instead of reverting all the changes which is clearly inappropriate as stated by the policy, review the edit. If you feel there are something which may not be alright, discuss it then in the talk page.
:How about if you try to read the page once now and see if there is anything which may not be alright? I deem you will find it is mostly the same wine but with a new bottle. No new nor major nor core contents have been changed or proposed. And if you think something might not be okay, you can always discuss it in the talk page. Thank you --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 16:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

::A lot of them are just copy-editing, but there are several new pieces of advice in there too. Also it's very difficult to work out everything you've done because of the number of paragraph breaks and moved sections. (Have you looked at the diff?). At a minimum, every new policy should have been discussed here first. (And I don't know what you mean by "clearly inappropriate as stated by the policy" — which policy are you referring to?) [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 16:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

::::As to the new pieces of advice, some of them may be just copied or derived from other policies. It's not something completely new. Some may be just an additional note or advice (which expand or enrich the main one).--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I agree with Stephen's reverts. Until there is a concensus reached (or at least a discussion) here first, no changes to the manual should be made. In units of measurement, a few things that Wai Wai changed that do not have a concensus: making the non-braking space optional; and not spelling out numbers (wasn't Centrx trying to get us to spell out up to 100?). Also the first sentence in "choice" about international units is covered in "conversions". So I changed some things.--[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 03:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

::: (NB I wrote this simultaneously with MJCdetroit's comments).
::: I started reverting the bits I disagreed with, but as I read through it, I found that I disagreed with almost everything you'd done.
:::* New or changed advice should never have been added to the page without discussion here first.
:::* Your reordering of sections seemed worse because there was too much preamble before getting to the important stuff.
:::* Breaking paragraphs into bulleted lists made it much less readable, as did the excessive number of sub-sub-section and sub-sub-sub-section headings.
::: So I'm sorry, but I reverted everything again. I don't like to do that, but I'm afraid I found that most of the edits made the page worse. But maybe someone else could review it and offer an opinion?
:::[[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 03:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
::::[[Status quo]] ante Wai Wai --[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 03:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

::::: See my replies below. Most, if not all, you say can be done through improvement (not reverting). The general rule applies (as stated in wikipedia's policy): '''Improve it, rather than deleting it'''.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

----
Dear [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]]: 
The word "policy" I use is not strict, that is I simply refer to some wikipedia standards or principles or philosophies. It does not necesarily mean any standalone official policy which is being voilated (eg "three revert rule" policy). Anyway, here's the extract of what reverting is deemed appropriate:
* Reverting should be used '''primarily for fighting vandalism'''. -- Help:Reverting
* Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: '''Do not simply revert changes in a dispute'''. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, '''improve the edit, rather than reverting it'''. -- Wikipedia:Resolving disputes
* Does the editor do is something very similar to vandalism? Even the update has some big problems, it is not the excuse to revert it. In the case of NPOV, people usually do it wrong by using: "'''lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete'''" Quoted from NPOV (its philosophy applies): ''Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly.'' -- NPOV
* Unless what one writes is near to completely non-sense, or useless or rubbish. Revert is not something which you should be taken lightly. The bold policy does not apply. We are bold to create/improve it, not bold to destory/delete it.
* '''Reverting should be used primarily for fighting vandalism or anything similar to the effects of vandalism'''.
I realise my edits may not be perfect, but that's the process of wikipedia. I post a preliminary edit. People will try to edit and improve it. We don't need to make sure it is 100% acceptable and perfect before it can be put. Consensus will be reached during the edit process. 
I would revert my changes first (so others have chances to improve it). According to these policies or principles, if you feel my edits are very devastating or near vandalism, feel free to revert my edits (hopefully with reasons provided, so I know how to improve it, instead of starting at ground level again). --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 06:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

----

===My role===
Some people or editors may find this iformation useful. I'm [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias| a member of countering systemic bias]]. Simply speaking, it is a bia due to the nature of the system (wikipedia). Most editors here are coming from United States or in countries where English is their mother language. Most of the information/comments are biased towards the western. Opinions or information from Africa, Asia and South America are missing.

What I am trying to do is:
# Resolve the problem that "the information and perspective in the articles or sections may not represent a worldwide view." In this case, most style tend to be one-sided and in favour of one style standard (mainly United States or western).
# Integrate contents from various articles or policies, and remove the redundancy.
# Make sure the guidelines comply with major wikipedia policies, standards or philosophies.
# Make it consistent throughout the page.
# Make it consistent throughout different guidelines and policies.
# Resolve discrepancies and conflicts occurred within the same article.
 --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

===Editing procedures and requirements===
As regards the comment of "no changes to the manual should be made until there is a concensus reached. Every change has to be discussed in the discussion page first."

It's clearly wrong unfortunately. Please read the following: 
'''Major philosophy''' (official policies): 
:''Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. However, avoid deleting information wherever possible.'' -- Wikipedia:Editing policy
:[[Wikipedia:Editing_policy|perfection isn't required]] and don't worry about messing up. It is what wikipedia is - the editing process will take care it all. -- the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|five pillars of Wikipedia]].

'''Specific guidelines''': 
:''Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.'' -- guideline of updating style pages

Explanation (Note: The following is just a rough guideline. It is never intended to be complete or extensive): 
Things which may need discussions before editing: 
* Major or fundamental proposals
* Proposals which may be against major wikipedia philosophies or policies
* Important changes which is '''not''' going to or has reflected general consensus

Things which may '''not''' need discussions before editing: 
* ideas, rules, or information copied/derived from other guidelines or policies (since they have reflected general consensus already)
* sub-proposals expanding or enriching the existing one
* Changes which is going to or has reflected general consensus (maybe supported by official policies or the like)
* Non-content-specific changes like copyedit, integration, reorganization, categorization, formatting and style etc.
* minor changes or edits

In the forthcoming days, I will try to explain some of the reasons why I make the changes. Nevertheless it is very time consuming and it is impractical to explain every single change, including copyedit and minor ones. Priority has to be decided. If anyone has any doubts about any of my changes, please specify which one and what your doubts are, so I will know which are in higher priority and focus my explanations on them. Consensus and agreement could be made in this regard.

Please give me a few days to respond. Best regards.
 --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 10:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

===Reversions===

:Wai Wai. Please try and understand this section of the MOS has come about through continual discussions and consensus of the edits. Your edits here are not the same as if you were making edits to say the article on Queen Elizabeth. Your changes here are effectively telling all editors how all other articles in wikipedia should look or not look. Therefore, in matters dealing with the MOS, I think most editors here would rather proceed with caution. --[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 14:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

::Wai Wai, you should note that your changes have been reverted four times by three people.
::You do not have consensus. Changes within style guide and elsewhere in Wikipedia namespace call for more consensus and discussion than changes in article namespace. Articles are about facts; the style guide is intended essentially as direction and advice. For you to continue as you have been appears to place your ideas above those that the community has determined.
::The best way to work toward the changes you desire is to leave the project page alone until there is clear acceptance on this page. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 14:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Wai Wai, can you please discuss your changes before making them. You have been reverted a number of times and some of your changes I object to such as changing the practice of putting spaces between digits and units for measurements in parentheses. If you are unwilling to list and discuss the changes you wish to make then you will keep being reverted. --[[User:Clawed|Clawed]] 06:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:::It is not okay to revert people's contributions, as stated in revert policies. If every change has to be discussed, the page will be locked. We feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes. Most of my update is copyedit: merge, redundancy removal. However I think I should not mix things together. Maybe I should do it bit by bit. I was concentrating too much at that time (You see, I have spent 1 whole day for this edit, and I deviate a bit from what I originally intended to do). --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 06:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wai Wai -- Do you not see that you are going against consensus? Both the established style and repeated requests for you to first discuss your changes and get agreement before making them? Do you not see how little support your changes have among other editors? [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I realise there are some problems which we have to work on. However this alone does not justify a "revert" as far as the policies are concerned. The polciy has stated '''a "revert" should be dealt primiarily with vandalism'''. Unless you think all of the updates are vandalism or near vandalism, I don't see why it justifies a "revert". Policy has also stated we should work on the problems. Improve/Modify the articles, rather than deleting/reverting it.

After all, I am willing to work on the problems or consensus issues. Please specify the problems and what your doubts are, so I will know which are in higher priority and focus my explanations on them. I will try to explain some of the reasons why I make the changes. Consensus and agreement could be made in this regard. Please give me some time to fix the problems before you make your decision.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

#This is a style guide, not an article. I pointed out some of the difference earlier.
#Given that you change so much, it is hard to analyze and list. Given that there is general disagreement with your changes, the burden is on you. Please specify -- on the talk page -- what you see as the problems. When you get consensus agreement, then it's OK to change the style guide for that aspect. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 09:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of the above rules. Would you mind tellingme where it state so, including it is the updater's burden to prove there is the general agreement before an update is possible? I have stated it already: Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes. -- guideline of updating style pages.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:They are not so much rules, but judgment common to at least several people involved with this.
:But seeing that you like to quote things …
:From [[Help:Reverting]]: "However, sometimes a revert is the best response to a less-than-great edit, so we can't just stop reverting."
:From [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]]: "Amendments to a guideline should be discussed on its talk page, not on a new page - although it's generally acceptable to edit a guideline to improve it."
:But your edits here are obviously not seen to be improvements by the other people involved.
:From the project page: "The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here."
:If the consensus is "Do X" and that is changed to "Do X, or Y, or Z" by one person and other people disagree, then it is no longer a convention established by consensus.
:You are trying to change conventions already established by consensus. Do you not see that consensus is need to change what is already established by consensus?
:It is not that every single edit anyone makes to the style guide must be pre-approved. It is that edits that engender disagreement, especially to to a policy or guideline, should be worked out on the talk page before proceeding further. Do you not see the difference?
[[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 10:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is not all are major changes. It is wrong to revert COMPLETELY because there are some problems in the update. Please read the following: 
'''Major philosophy''' (official policies): 
:''Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. However, avoid deleting information wherever possible.'' -- Wikipedia:Editing policy
:[[Wikipedia:Editing_policy|perfection isn't required]] and don't worry about messing up. It is what wikipedia is - the editing process will take care it all. -- the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|five pillars of Wikipedia]].

'''Specific guidelines''': 
:''Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.'' -- guideline of updating style pages

If every change needed to be done through discussion, why the page is not locked up? What's more, reverting should be used '''primarily for fighting vandalism''', as stated in the help:reverting page.

When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate or problematic, '''improve the edit, rather than reverting it''' as stated in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

Unless what one writes is near to completely non-sense, or useless or rubbish. Revert is not something which you should be taken lightly. The bold policy does not apply. We are bold to create/improve it, not bold to destory/delete it.

However what people doing are reverting all changes but there are only some areas problematic.

===Spacing in unit measurement===
Spacng should be optional since I find both formatting style (ie spacing or non-spacing) in different formal writing. For example, my Oxford Intermediate English Dictionary uses non-spacing one, as in "''For this recipe you need 500g (five hundred grams) of flour''".--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 06:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

: Nearly every style issue has professional style guides that advocate for different styles, but that does not mean that Wikipedia must allow all of them, or even necessarily any two of them. We develop our style guidelines based on consensus, which allows many styles on some issues, and only one or two on others. (The most common single restriction is to follow only one guideline on single issue throughout a single article.) Often these consensuses (consensi?) are carefully negotiated compromises. The real questions are, what have we negotiated for this issue, and does it still hold? ~ [[User:Jeffq|Jeff Q]] [[User talk:Jeffq|(talk)]] 07:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::I agree with Jeff. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::I agree with Wai Wai. [[User:JP06035|→'''&ensp;JARED]]'''&ensp;[[User_talk:JP06035|(t)]]&ensp; 15:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
::I am for following the almost universally recognised SI standard, prescribing a space. −[[User:Woodstone|Woodstone]] 18:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
::I agree with Jeff/Woodstone. [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 21:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
::I said this a little lower on the page, but for the record, I agree with Jeff and Woodstone.--[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 22:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
:::But, I mean, SI standards and ISO standards don't mean that it is the only way to write something. It is only a guideline for those who feel insecure without having set rules. It makes NO DIFFERENCE whether there's a space or not. Both on Wikipedia and in the real world, it should be up to the writer to decide which is asthetically better. Standards mean nothing! [[User:JP06035|→'''&ensp;JARED]]'''&ensp;[[User_talk:JP06035|(t)]]&ensp; 22:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

----
I don't see the need why we need to force all editors to use one single standard, not to say there are other kinds of problems. People tend to defend by saying "consistency", and "consistency" is always good. Really? However they forget they are making things complex and go in the other way round. Take the case of "numbers in word" (extracted):
* Whole numbers from zero to ten are spelled out as words in the body of an article. Use numerals in tables and infoboxes.
* Numbers above ten may be written out if they are expressed in two or fewer words, except in tables and infoboxes. Example: "sixteen", "eighty-four", "two hundred", "twenty million" but "3.75", "544", "21 million".
* Fractions standing alone should be spelt out unless they occur in a percentage. If fractions are mixed with whole numbers, use numerals.

<blockquote>'''Summary''': 
For number zero to ten, spell out the words. 
For number above ten, two situations: 
- expressed in two or fewer words, spell out the words. 
- otherwise, use arabic numbers. 
Fractions alone, spell out the words. 
Fractions mixed with whole numbers, use arabic numbers.</blockquote>

Where is the consistency? The rules tell us to uses numbers in words sometimes, uses arabic numbers in other times. Originally the style guide intends to keep things simple and consistent. However when people are working on it, they tend to forget their original goals and deviate from them - making rules complex, splitting hairs, trivial, inconsistency, inconvenience to editors, and so on.

People tend to forget '''simplicity is the best'''. If editors were not spending time on trivial style or formatting, much of their time saved could be used to improve the real "contents" of the article. It is what benefit the visitors most.

By the way, it is going to be a '''very minority consensus''' if you take the whole community [the world] into account. Only a very few wikipedians are engaged in the discussion.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 07:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
----

:You seem to disagree with WP having a style in general, at least to some degree. That's OK. You don't have to follow the style guide.
:Many other people do want WP to have a style. In a a way, loose style or less style can be more complicated -- editors don't need to decide which style to use, because they can refer to the style guide, where many such matters have already been decided. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::No. You get me wrong. I am '''not''' disagreeing with WP having a style, but there is something between "no style" and "one absolute style". I'm disagreeing with "one absolute style" (when other accpetable or standard styles exist) or against the Wikipedian philosophies. It is not necessary to rule out one absolute style only and ask all others to follow. Just like this style guide will state people can choose between "AD/BC" and "CE/BCE", and so on. There are quite many situations where the style ask people to choose either one and keep consistency. Why do you think '''only "one absolute style" must exist everywhere?''' Why do you think '''you must pick one only and ask all others to follow'''?
::I realise you would like to keep things consistent, but accepting either one is not the '''only''' way to keep consistency. Allowing both acceptable standard and kindly ask others to maintain interally consistency also works; just like you set rules to allow using arabic numbers in some cases, using numbers in words in other cases. Otherwise why don't you just allow one format only in all cases?--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::Another possibility is for you to work on just one paragraph at a time, or in a day. Smaller changes are easier to digest.
::I also disagree with the super-small subsections you've been making. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion taken. I'm working too hard on that day. I will try o update bit by bit next time. As to sections, section starts at 2nd level. What I'm usng is just 4th level (the 3rd type of section). There are articles which use 4th level. And I don't see why we must restrict ourselves to using 2 types of sections only (ie 2nd and 3rd level). Anyway, it is just a style issue. If all people don't like it, just undo the section formatting.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Spacing. I agree with Jeff and Maureen. There should be a non-breaking space between unit and symbol. I think that a rare exception can be made when the measurement itself actually becomes a title for something and is usually written without the space; e.g. 35mm camera, 6.1L Hemi, and the oympic events, etc. However, in those cases, I can live with the space if we don't want to make any exceptions. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 14:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Yes, I agree with the non-breaking space part too. However spacing is not always necessary. It is not rare exceptions. I have read different formal articles about that. I see there are cases where both are acceptable (eg 56 km or 56km). I don't see the reasons behind why we must prefer one style and depreciate another.
::::Beware that we should take [[systemic bias]] into consideration when generating rules. Systemic bias is the inherent tendency of a process to favor particular outcomes. The term is a [[neologism]] that generally refers to human systems; the analogous problem in non-human systems (such as scientific observations). After all, Wikipedia is intedned to be read by all people over the world.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

== The current decade ==

I am sure this has come up before, but I don't see anything on the project page. [[User:GoDot]] is insisting on calling the current decade "the 2000s" as in "bank redlining had largely diminished by the mid 2000s" ([[Seattle neighborhoods]]). I find this very confusing: if someone says "the mid-1900s" they mean around 1950, not 1905. But since this is a user with whom I repeatedly find myself disagreeing, and since the MoS doesn't yet address the matter, I'm simply bringing the question here. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 02:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
: Did you try to look at [[2000s]] or [[1900s]]? Compare to [[21st century]] and [[20th century]]. [[User:Crissov|Christoph Päper]] 13:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

== Update on Olympic Debate ==

I know it was a ''loooooooong'' time ago that we were debating on whether or not a space should be put between the number and the unit of Olympic Event names. The IOC official site does not put space, so one would expect the Wikipedia articles should do the same (e.g. '''10km'''), but according to this overcited page, it was kept according to the WP guidelines (e.g. '''10 km''').

I recently received a long awaited reply from the IOC in which the Sports Director Kelly Fairweather noted to me that the IOC is "working with the International Federations to define the exact terms to be used for disciplines and events." She stated that the project would be completed by October 2006 and the IOC website after that point would be the place to find the official terminology. Until then, "there is no one approved terminology."

I just thought some others would like to know. [[User:JP06035|→'''&ensp;JARED]]'''&ensp;[[User_talk:JP06035|(t)]]&ensp; 21:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
----
As a sidenote, I find both formatting style (ie spacing or non-spacing) in different formal writing. For example, my Oxford Intermediate English Dictionary uses non-spacing one, as in "''For this recipe you need 500g (five hundred grams) of flour''".

Anyway, I think people are getting hypercorrect. What's the difference between '''500g''' and '''500 g'''? Will people get confused when reading either style? People are wasting too much time on trivial issues, and making things complex, not to say it requires huge efforts and good memories to comply with all these trivial rules.

They tend to forget '''simplicity is the best'''. Accept both. Pick either one you like the best. How easy life would be then? After all, standards are all created by humans. No standards must be formal or informal. They are all relative in nature. If time are spent on more important issues, the world would be much better. --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 07:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Actually, I agree. The usage of either one is relative to the situation in which it is used. Different articles (topics) may require the use of different methods, but I'm really not up for arguing for it... [[User:JP06035|→'''&ensp;JARED]]'''&ensp;[[User_talk:JP06035|(t)]]&ensp; 15:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

== Indian numbering convention ==

This has probably come up before: Should the [[Indian numbering system]] (hazar, lakh, crore, arab...) be used in articles about Indian subjects? Should exponential breaks be done in the Indian system (i.e. 1,00,000 as opposed to 100,000)? Thoughts? -- [[User:Samir_(The_Scope)|'''Samir''']] [[User_talk:Samir_(The_Scope)|धर्म]] 09:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks for pointing me at that article - I came across an article with a comma after two digits once and was very confused! Are numbers other than lakhs and crores commonly used? My opinion, off the top of my head, is that it would probably be reasonable to use the Indian names and style of digits when referring to Indian subjects (thus complying with the MoS requirement to use the local form of English), but ''also'' advisable to write the number out in the more common style to avoid confusing non-Indian readers who might think it was a typographical error, e.g. "five crores (5,00,00,000 or 50,000,000)". -- [[User:Arwel_Parry|Arwel]] ([[User talk:Arwel_Parry|talk]]) 12:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

== Compound units ==

I thought there was a style recommendation for complicated units like mm•K/W, but I don't see it. How should we format things like this? — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 14:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

:I don't think the "Manual of Style" has such a recommendation, but the standard IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997 states on page 14 "Symbols. To avoid ambiguity in complicated expressions, unit symbols are preferred over unit names." I think this should go in the manual. --[[User:Gerry Ashton|Gerry Ashton]] 15:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
::I wouldn't not be against this going in the manual. However, we should insist on having a page (linked to the symbol) explaining what the unit is and how it used. Some of the symbols would be obvious, but they should still be linked to the respective article. If [[mph]] and [[km/h]] have articles about them then so should mm•K/W. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 14:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

==Wai Wai's changes, continued==
Here are some options, in alphabetical order:
#Accept Wai Wai's changes without further ado. -- Several of us disagree, so not a good choice.
#Ask to have the page protected.
#Continue the back-and-forth reversion.
#Start an RFC.
#Wai Wai could stop changing the project page, discuss the desired changes, and wait until consensus is clear to make the changes. -- Apparently unlikely, given that this has been requested several time by different people.

Comments? [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 09:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:The "Continue the back-and-forth reversion." is definitely not an option even if people here vote for it. It is because it is against Wikipedian's policies: Wikipedia does not allow revert wars! --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 09:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Takes two to tango. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 09:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:I think we are rapidly approaching the time for [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies]]. -- '''[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]([[User talk:Dalbury|Talk]])''' 09:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:After seeing the recent changes on the article page, I would say it is definitely time now for an RfC. -- '''[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]([[User talk:Dalbury|Talk]])''' 10:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Stop changing the project page, discuss the desired changes, and wait until consensus is clear. Only change the page when there is a consensus to do so. This would be the best way to go about it. In fact, isn't that the way that we have been doing it. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 12:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you really saying? Anyway, I have examined the revert policy once again. Unfortunately I'm afirad all people are wrong, at least in reverting. Stephen Turner states he was trying to be bold to revert long hours of contributions. However the "bold" policy clearly states it does not apply in terms of "reverting". Although a few people support him by doing the same, the action is wrong. '''The majority people are performing the same action does not justify the action itself. [[WP:WWIN#Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy|Wikipedia is not a democracy]]. We need to respect rules!'''

Pay attention that '''it's NOT my PERSONAL opinion. It is stated in the policies''' (eg [[WP:BOLD]]).

Please read the following rules first about revert. No one seems to care or understand about the "revert policy" - not to revert people's contributions even if it has problems. Revert is not something which should be taken lightly. "Reverting" is harmful, and so on.

:'''If you feel you are correct in reverting, please tell me which rule tells people it is justifiable to do a SIMPLE REVERT of days of contributions?'''

What's more, the recent update is not just the same as the old one. It has spent me valuable time to modify the update according to some comments (eg super-section, bullets, and spacing in unit measurement). However people keep reverting THE WHOLE PART OF IT instead of stating the questions. People seem to think it is just the same and revert it without any examination. '''THAT IS VERY RUDE'''.

Please read this: 
* Reverting should be used '''primarily for fighting vandalism'''. -- Help:Reverting
* Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: '''Do not simply revert changes in a dispute'''. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, '''improve the edit, rather than reverting it'''. -- Wikipedia:Resolving disputes
* Does the editor do is something very similar to vandalism? Even the update has some big problems, it is not the excuse to revert it. In the case of NPOV, people usually do it wrong by using: "'''lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete'''" Quoted from NPOV (its philosophy applies): ''Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly.'' -- NPOV
* Unless what one writes is near to completely non-sense, or useless or rubbish. Revert is not something which you should be taken lightly. The bold policy does not apply. We are bold to create/improve it, not bold to destory/delete it.
* '''Reverting should be used primarily for fighting vandalism or anything similar to the effects of vandalism'''.
I realise my edits may not be perfect, but that's the process of wikipedia. I post a preliminary edit. People will try to edit and improve it. We don't need to make sure it is 100% acceptable and perfect before it can be put. Consensus will be reached during the edit process.

'''I am willing to work on the problems or consensus issues. However people keep saying there is no consensus, but they are unwilling to specify where is the no consensus. Please specify the problems and what your doubts are, so I will know which are in higher priority and focus my explanations on them. I will try to explain some of the reasons why I make the changes. Consensus and agreement could be made in this regard. Please give me some time to fix the problems before you make your decision.'''--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 13:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:My suggestion would be to discuss your changes a little at a time. Don't do a large scale edit of the page. Baby steps. I think it would go smoother; it'll take longer but that is better in the long run anyway. So start a new topic based on what the first thing that you want to change is. It will be discussed over a few days and you will know the feelings of the editors on that proposal. What do you think? [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 14:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, you are very right. I did too many changes at one time. Lessons learnt. But I am sure the real "contextual" change is much less than what people orginally thought since most of them are not real contextual changes. However I mixed all of my hours work together and make one single update which may be too confusing for others to review. Sorry about that.
::After all, '''it is perfectly fine for me to post the changes here first. However I wonder if there's anyone who will be willing to review it.'''--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 14:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Baby steps! Also, you need to give your proposals some time to be debated. Not everyone lives on the computer—I certainly don't. Let as many people as possible discuss this.---[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 15:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Who says we need to settle it instantly? As long as the discussion is moving, it is perfectly fine. However, last time, I have waited for nearly a week for others to ask questions or respond or specify the problems, no one responded. After all, your review is excellent. Keep it up! --[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
{{user Very Happy}}{{clear}}
=== about unit of measurement ===

I have forgotten whether which is copyedit, which is proposal.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. Read them once. If you find anything problematic, state it out.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 14:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

----

====Choice====
* <strike>Try to use the international units instead of local, unless you have good reasons to use others</strike>. ——Covered under 'conversions', unless you mean something else by 'international units'. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 15:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
''What's wrong to state this out to remind editors? When someone which is unsure what unit should be chosen, they are going to read that section. The covering under 'conversions' is not clear, at least to some people.''--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
* Some non-metric units have more than one version. Be specific. For example, ''[[US gallon|U.S. gallon]]'' or ''[[imperial gallon]]'' rather than just ''gallon''. Similarly, use ''[[nautical mile]]'' or ''[[statute mile]]'' rather than just ''mile'' in aviation, space, sea and in some other contexts.
* Try to be consistent with your choice.

====Format====
* Use standard or formal (as opposed to localized or informal) abbreviations when using symbols. For example, metre is m, kilogram is kg, inch is in (''not " or ″'' ), foot is ft (''not ' or ′'' ), and [[Avoirdupois|pound]] is lb (''not #'').
** Do not append an ''s'' for plurals of unit abbreviations. For example kg, in, yd, lb; ''not kgs, ins, yds, lbs''.
* For concision purposes, please use digits for values. For example, 100 kg; ''not one hundred kg''.
* <strike>For understandability purposes,</strike> please spell out units in the text, and link to the relevant article at the first few usage.

——You must have non breaking space between the number and symbol. Here's why: I weigh 180lb and drink a 1l of water a day. Having a space is easier on the eyes and is more consistent with many technical writings.

———''However I see the non-spacing version in other formal writing, including the dictionaries. I see it uses 500g, 10km and so on.''--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

——It's not for understandability, it's the way formal writings are styled. [[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 15:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

===Conversions===
* Conversions should generally be included and not be removed.
* If editors cannot agree about the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second.
* If for some reason the choice of units is arbitrary, choose [[SI units]] as the main unit, with other units in parentheses. For subjects dealing with the United States, it might be more appropriate to use U.S. measurements first, i.e. mile, foot, U.S. gallon.
* Use digits and unit symbols for values in parentheses. For example, "a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 16 kilometres (10 mi) long" '''or''' "a pipe 4 inches (100 mm) in diameter and 10 miles (16 km) long".
** Do the same for measurements in tables.
* Converted values should use a similar level of precision as the source value. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth", not "(236,121 mi)".

----

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Spacing_in_unit_measurement

===About dates===
If memory serves, they are (nearly) summarised changes (copyedit).
The major change is to move all general style and formatting which can apply to the rest of the page (or date formats) in the front first.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 14:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

See the following:
----

====Wording====

=====Uncertain date=====
*When only an approximate date is available, the English word ''about'' or the abbreviation "''c.''" (Latin: ''circa''; English: "about") may be used.
* When a date is uncertain because the source is unreliable, that fact should be noted and the source should be mentioned. For example, "according to [[Livy]], the [[Roman Republic]] was founded in 509 BC", or "The [[Mahabharata]] is traditionally said to have been composed in [[1310s BCE|1316 BCE]]".

=====Seasons=====
* The seasons are reversed in each hemisphere, while areas near the [[equator]] tend to have just [[wet season|wet]] and [[dry season]]s. Neutral wording should be used to describe times of the year to avoid confusion.
** Use "in early 1990", "in the second quarter of 2003", "around September" or an exact date, rather than references to seasons, unless there is some particular need to do so (eg "the autumn harvest"). It is ambiguous to say that [[Apollo 11]] landed on the Moon in the summer of 1969 (whose summer?).

=====Eras=====
:''See [[Anno Domini]] for a discussion on what is meant by AD and BC notation, and [[Common Era]] for a discussion on what is meant by CE and BCE notation.''
*Simply speaking, AD equals CE. BC equals BCE.

*Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article.

*Note that the [[1st century BC]] is from 100 BC to 1 BC (there was no [[year 0]]) so 1700 BC would be the first year of the 17th century BC, 1800 BC would be the first year of the 18th century BC, etc. Similarly, 4000 BC was the first year of the fourth millennium BC, ''not'' the last year of the fifth millennium BC.

*Note that the [[19th century]] is 1801—1900 (but ''not 1901—2000''). It is because the [[1st century]] starts at 1 AD and ends at 100 AD.

*Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the [[Anno Domini]]/[[Common Era]], but when events span the start of the [[Anno Domini]]/[[Common Era]], use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, <nowiki>[[1 BC]]—[[1|AD 1]]</nowiki> or <nowiki>[[1 BCE]]—[[1|1 CE]]</nowiki>.

*In articles about prehistory, if you use BP ([[before present]]) or MYA ([[million years ago]]), expand these abbreviations when you first use them, as most readers will be unfamiliar with them.

====Formatting====

=====General=====
* For any formatting or style, please maintain consistency throughout an article, unless there's a good reason to do otherwise.
* If, for any special reasons, a less clearer or specific format (eg 1900-01-12 date format is chosen instead of 12 January 1900) is used. Please make it very sure that your choice does not cause any ambiguity or confusion to anyone over the world. Note that something which is certain in one country or nation may not be so in another. Thus the best way to eliminate possible ambiguity or confusion is to adding notes beside the usage (to clarify any grey area or ambiguity).
*Wikipedia respects different formatting and style as long as they are clear and unambiguous. When any of the style is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedian to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reasons for the change. For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject.
** Revert warring over optional styles is highly unacceptable; if the article is [[colour]] rather than [[color]], it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable. See also [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk]].
* Direct [[quotations]] (ie the word-for-word reproduction of a written or oral text) should ''not'' be altered to confirm any wikipedia formatting or style. It is because the original source has to be kept as intact (in verbatim) as possible. For instance, the date in the following fictional quotation should not be linked (even if it is preferred in wikipedia):
:"Tony Blair, responding to critics in his party, said 'The world has totally changed since the 11th of September.' He was echoing earlier sentiments by Lord Ronald McDonald, who said that 'nine-eleven' was the day that the American public woke up to the reality of terrorism."


=====Ranges=====
Sometimes numbers and dates are expressed in ranges, such as "14—17" for the numbers 14 to 17. It is often preferable to write this out (eg "14 through 17" (US and Canada) or "from 14 to 17"). It is to avoid confusion with "14 minus 17", which is expressed with spaces, as "14 &minus; 17".

Traditionally, ranges of numbers and dates are given with an en dash (—). Simply click the "–" button (excluding quotes) below the edit window or insert it with any software supporting this punctuation. Please avoiding typing the code &ndash; to insert en dash. It is because new editors may not understand the code. They may delete the code due to misunderstanding. Also the visually form of "—" (excluding quotes) is more visually appealing and readable in the edit screen.

However, nowadays some sources use spaced or unspaced hyphens, at least online, and some Wikipedians believe that these hyphens should not be changed to en dashes.

See [[#Dates of birth and death]] (another section in the same article) for example.

See [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes)]] for details.

=====Year, decade, century formats=====
* Always write year in full form. Do not use the shortened two-digit form to express a year. It is because the shortened formats are likely to cause confusion. The same holds true whether the years are BC or AD. For example:
** Do not use 56 or '56. Use 1956 (when referring to the decade of the 20th century)
** Do not use 80s or '80s or "the eighties". Use 1980s (when referring to the decade of the 20th century)
* It is not necessary to use an apostrophe to indicate a decade. [[1970s]] is preferred, but not [[1970's]].
* The word "century" is normally not capitalised. [[18th century]] (small capital) is normally used. [[18th Century]] (big capital) is less common.

=====Day and month formats=====
* Please express a month as a whole word. Do not use numbers, except in [[ISO 8601]] format. Do not use abbreviations like "Dec". For example, use December 1945. Do not use "12, 1945" or "12 of 1945" or "Dec 1945"
** If space is precious (eg in a table, infobox, or the like), abbreviations are preferred to numbers (eg "Oct", ''not "10"''). Numbers are discouraged because it may cause confusion to readers as to whether day or month is referred.
** The shortened two-digit format is optional at the end of a range (ie "1970—1987" or "1970—87").
* The ordering does not matter: both "February 14" and "14 February" are fine.
* It is not necessary to add ordinal suffixes. "February 14" is preferred, but not "February 14th" and "14th February".
* It is not necessary to use a comma (,) or the word "of" between a month and year. "December 1945" is preferred, but not "December, 1945" and "December of 1945".

===Unclear===

[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]], this is progress. Thank you.

But the above material does not indicate the difference between the established style guide and your desired changes.

I have asked you to address a pragraph at a time. If you won't do that, would you at least narrow it to a section or subsection at a time, whichever is smaller that is applicable? [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 18:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

===&mdash; and &ndash; entities===
I find the changes to the dash guidelines highly objectionable. &mdash; and &ndash; are easy to type, their names quite clearly indicate "this is a dash", and HTML entities are certainly no more confusing than most of the markup used in MediaWiki. I don't see any reason to disallow using the Unicode characters, but "confusing for new editors" describes a whole lot more of what goes on here than these HTML entities. Anyone playing with the sandbox will be able to see what &mdash; and &ndash; do. —[[User:Ptkfgs|ptk]]✰[[User_talk:Ptkfgs|fgs]] 18:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

=== recent changes ===
I agree that it's a little sudden. They need copy-editing in a number of places, and while I like a lot of the changes, I don't like all of them. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 15:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:So sorry about the "suddenness".--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] ([[User talk:Wai Wai|talk]]) 15:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

===Removal of material from user talk page===

Some people have left notes on [[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]]'s talk page about the style guide changes. [[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] has removed them all, including my note intended to discourage such removals. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 20:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

: Removing warnings from one's own talk page is unacceptable, per [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]]. I think both [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wai_Wai&diff=69187463&oldid=69181170 this edit] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wai_Wai&diff=69260023&oldid=69245690 this one] fall into that category. [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 20:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

=== General comments ===

I don't have time to read through your changes in detail at the moment, but here are some general comments:
* I think your changes are more extensive than you imagine. You think they're mostly just tidying up, but I think they're rather more than that.
* I find rewriting the paragraphs as bulleted lists makes them much less readable.
* The grammar is often slightly wrong. Your English is very good, but not quite perfect. For example, a native speaker wouldn't say "Both '12 noon' and 'noon' is acceptable" but "Either '12 noon' or 'noon' is acceptable". There are many similar examples, so you should get it checked by a native speaker first.
* On MoS pages, it is conventional to proceed very cautiously, and seek consensus for all changes before making them; not to make changes and hope that they're not reverted. This is because the MoS guidance potentially affects every article on Wikipedia. You might like to compare [[User:Stephen Turner/Date Proposal|what I wrote]] before I made extensive changes to this page.
* If you are reverted by several editors, consider whether you may be doing something wrong. And take it to the talk page, rather than making your changes again.
[[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 20:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'm not specifically replying to your points above, but I thought the title "General comments" was suitable for adding this: regardless of how much reasonable they can be, changes to the Manual of Style should be carefully considered, and possibly avoided. When I joined Wikipedia the whole Manual was pretty stable. At a given moment, it began to change and has never stopped. This is too bad. It does need stability, or articles will never keep up (if nothing else because nobody wants to drive crazy for that). To put it differently: the more you change it, the more it is dead letter. —[[User:Gennaro Prota|Gennaro Prota]][[User talk:Gennaro Prota|•Talk]] 02:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

== Dates, non WaiWai issue ==

I was taking a look at the changes and I noticed this (which was present in both versions)
:Elsewhere, either format is acceptable. See [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English]] for more guidance.

I would assume that in non-Commonwealth, non-US/Canada countries there is in fact a preferred style and IMHO we should stick with this. So perhaps it would be best to at least mention this (e.g. although if a national style is known, this should be used). Depending on how variable national styles are, we might even be able to include some info on national styles from non-Commonwealth, non-US/Canada countries... [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] 16:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'm OK with including "(e.g. although if a national style is known, this should be used if it does not conflict with this style guide)," with the modification at the end. But I think extra info on national styles might be too much detail. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 18:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::Can you give an example of an English speaking country that was not part of the British Empire/ Commonwealth and the type of date style that is used there?---[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 19:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Very few countries use American dating. Apart from North American topics, I think the default should be International dating, which is the choice of most. BTW what does South America do, BTW? [[User:Jtdirl|'''Fear''ÉIREANN''''']][[Image:Ireland-Capitals.PNG|15px]]\[[User talk:Jtdirl|(caint)]] 20:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::I should have been clearer but reading the statement "''non-Commonwealth, non-US/Canada countries''" makes me think that there is/are other date styles besides the two that are used in the U.S./Canada and British Commonwealth —i.e. besides August 13th, 2006 or 13 August 2006 (and their slight variations). I don't want this taken the wrong way but we should only be concerned with how native English speaking counties style things. If this was Spanish Wikipedia that I would wonder how dates were styled in South America.[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 13:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Acronis

2006-08-15T08:34:45Z

Wai Wai: correct link

'''Acronis''' is a technology company producing [[file system]]-related [[Computer software|software]] tools, including disaster recovery, backup and restore, [[Partition (computing)|partitioning]], boot management, privacy, [[data migration]], and other storage management products for enterprises, corporations and home users. Its products include [[Acronis Disk Director Suite]] and [[Acronis True Image]].

== External links ==
* [http://www.acronis.com.sg/ Acronis official website]

[[Category:Software companies]]

{{tech-corp-stub}}

Bubble tea

2006-08-13T15:00:52Z

Wai Wai: /* External links */ same as below

{{not verified}}

[[Image:Pearl_Milktea.jpg|thumb|Bubble tea from [[Quickly]]]]

'''Bubble tea''' is a [[tea]] [[drink|beverage]] with tapioca (pearl) balls mixed in.

Bubble tea is generally split into two types: fruit-flavored teas, and milk teas. Milk teas may use dairy or non-dairy creamers. Originating in [[Taiwan]], bubble tea is especially popular in many Asian regions such as [[mainland China]], [[Hong Kong]], [[Macau]], [[South Korea]], [[Malaysia]], the [[Philippines]], and [[Singapore]]. The drink is also popular in [[Europe]], [[Canada]], and the [[United States]].

==Recipe==
Bubble tea is a mixture of iced or hot sweetened tea, milk, and often other flavorings. It is shaken to mix thoroughly, which produces the small bubbles characteristic of the drink. Black gummy balls made of tapioca (or, more commonly in East Asia, yam starch), called "pearls," may sit at the bottom of the cup, although tapioca pearls are not necessary for bubble tea. The pearls are larger than those found in [[tapioca pudding]], with a diameter of at least 6 millimeters, but smaller ones are occasionally used. They are transluscent brown with a darker brown center. The pearls are sucked through a wide straw along with the drink, providing something to chew on between sips.

The recipes for bubble tea vary, but flavoring is usually added to hot black or green tea, which is shaken in a [[cocktail shaker]] or mixed in [[blender (device)|blender]] with ice until chilled. The mixture is usually combined with milk and cooked tapioca pearls. Some cafes that serve bubble tea use a machine to seal the top of the cup with plastic cellophane, which a drinker pierces with a straw. Other cafes still use plastic dome-shaped lids.

The flavourings added to bubble tea can be in the form of powder, fruit juice, pulp, or syrup. Some examples of flavors are strawberry, passion fruit, chocolate, and coconut.

Bubble tea can be made with hot [[Cantonese cuisine|Cantonese-style]] [[milk tea]] with tapioca pearls.

==Pearls==
The Tapioca pearls are made from the [[Cassava]] root. The balls are prepared by boiling for 25 minutes, until they are cooked thoroughly but have not lost pliancy, then cooled for 25 minutes. After cooking they last about 7 hours. [http://www.bobateadirect.com/Free-Recipes-p-3.html] The pearls have little taste, and are usually soaked in sugar or honey solutions.

==Variants==
An alternative to the traditional tapioca balls is [[nata de coco|coconut jelly]] or [[konjac]] jelly. The jelly is served in small cubes or rectangular strips, and has a pliant, chewy consistency. They may be ordered 'half and half,' in a drink with half pearls and half jelly. There are also other jellies such as lychee jelly, coffee jelly, and rainbow jelly, a fruit mixture.

Another alternative is called pearl sago (milk) tea. It is used for canned varieties in which pearl sago (西米 in [[Chinese language|Chinese]]; xīmǐ in [[Standard Mandarin|Putonghua]]; sai1 mai5 in [[Cantonese language|Cantonese]]) is used instead of tapioca

==Culture==
When ordering, customers may be asked whether they want 'pearls' or 'boba' in their drinks, and both terms refer to the tapioca balls. The tapioca pearls require an hour for preparation, and they expand considerably when cooked. After they are cooked through but before they become too soft, the pearls are drained and poured into a sugar water solution, and are ready for use.

Some cafes use a non-dairy milk substitute instead of milk, which adds a distinct flavour and consistency to the drink. One possible reason for using milk substitute is [[lactose intolerance]], although a more likely explanation is that powdered substitutes are cheaper and more convenient than regular milk.

As time has moved on new generations of bubble drinks have came into being, such as, the 'Snow Bubble.' This 'Snow Bubble' drink is a slushie-like drink where you choose one of many fruit flavours and it is mixed in with shaved ice to make a smooth refreshing drink, after that the boba balls can be added from their assorted types, black boba which are the original, coloured, lychee bubbles, and rainbow boba those some of the many that are offered today.

==Availability==
Bubble tea is available at small dedicated cafes and some restaurants. Most bubble tea shops serve a variety of drinks, including [[coffee]], juices, fruit smoothies, and fruit freezes, which are sometimes also called bubble tea, though they do not contain any tea ingredients. These drinks can include flavors less familiar to non-Asians, such as [[taro]], [[honeydew]], or [[lychee]], as well as the more familiar [[chocolate]], [[Ovaltine]], [[Nestlé Milo|Milo]] (in Australia), [[Horlicks]] (in England), or [[strawberry]]. Hot bubble tea with pearls are also common, though coconut or konjac jelly are usually not added to hot drinks. In addition to tapioca (pearls), jellies such as coconut jelly, apple, etc, and puddings can be added to each drink.

==History==
There are two shops that claim to be the first creator of Bubble Tea. One is Liu Han Chie (劉漢介), who worked in Chun Shui Tang teahouse(春水堂), [[Taichung City]] in the early 1980s, and experimented with cold [[milk tea]] by adding [[fruit]], syrup, [[sweet potato|candied yams]], and [[tapioca]] balls. Although the drink was not popular at first, a [[Japan]]ese television show generated interest among businessmen. The drink became well-known in most parts of East and Southeast Asia during the 1990s.

An alternative origin the is Hanlin Teahouse(翰林茶館) in [[Tainan City]], owned by Tu tsong He(涂宗和). Hanlin Bubble tea is made by adding traditional white "Fenyuan"(粉圓), which have an appearance of pearls, supposedly resulting in the so-called 'pearl tea'. Shortly after, Hanlin changed the white Fengyuan to the black, as it is today.

In the late 1990s, bubble tea began to gain popularity in the major North American cities with large Asian populations, especially those on the [[West Coast of the United States|West Coast]] and [[East Coast of the United States|East Coast]]. The trend in the United States started in the city of [[San Gabriel, California]] and quickly spread throughout Southern California.{{fact}} The beverage has received much attention from mainstream American media, including covers on [[National Public Radio]] [[radio show|show]] [[Morning Edition]] and the [[Los Angeles Times]]. Bubble tea has spread internationally through [[Chinatown]]s and other overseas Asian communities.

In the U.S., franchises such as [[Quickly]] and [[Lollicup]] are expanding into suburban areas, particularly those with large Asian populations. Bubble tea can also be found in major European cities such as [[London]] and [[Paris]].

In [[Canada]], [[Waterloo, Ontario]] is becoming a minor centre of bubble teas, fuelled by the relatively high population of Chinese-descent, Hong Kong-, Singapore-, Mainland China-migrant-students, and the cultural awareness that the presence of these communities has raised in the non-Oriental population of the [[University of Waterloo]]. With both a currently-under-renovation franchise of Bubbletease, and Sweet Dreams Teashop offering these beverages, as well with other restaurants including Ben Thanh, the beverages are widely circulating in the UW Student market. Furthermore, the beverages, though not as yet popular enough to offer serious competition to [[Tim Hortons]]' Iced Caps, are becoming one of the many cool caffeinated beverage choices for both Waterloo residents and students.

Bubble tea is also gaining in mass popularity on the Canadian west coast, more particularly in [[Vancouver]], [[British Columbia]] where there is a high concentration of Asian immigrants and descendants. Small independently-owned restaurants that sell bubble tea are very popular in Vancouver suburbs such as [[Burnaby]] and [[Richmond, British Columbia|Richmond]], where the drink is catching on with various ethnic groups.

Further to this, [[Winnipeg, Manitoba]] now has the Bubble Tea House on [[Pembina Highway]] which is open until 0300hrs and provides a place for nearby university students to study. As seen here, the bubble tea shops are generally a fixture of [[Chinese culture|Chinese]] [[pop culture]] with this shop having two televisions playing Chinese programs, and a large selection of Chinese magazines.

[[Austin, Texas]] has also been a center of Bubble tea business, largely due to the high Asian American population of the [[University of Texas]]. Evidence of this is seen in the fact that there are seven places that serve bubble tea within a mile of the UT campus.

==Names==
The [[Chinese language|Chinese]] name for bubble tea translates to "''Pearl milk tea''" ([[Traditional Chinese]]:珍珠奶茶). When tea is shaken, a thin layer of bubbles forms on the surface. Because of the foaming process, any tea that is shaken during preparation can be called bubble tea. "Foam black tea" (泡沫紅茶; or bubble [[black tea]]) and "foam [[green tea]]" (泡沫綠茶; or bubble green tea) are also common drinks made by shaking sweetened tea. After pearl milk tea was brought to non-Asian countries, it was given the name "bubble tea." Since the most notable difference between bubble tea and other tea is the tapioca at the bottom of the drink, some assumed that the "bubble" in "bubble tea" referred to the [[tapioca]]. The pearls in "pearl milk tea," however, do refer to the tapioca "pearls."

===Different names===
Bubble (milk) tea has many other names, including:

====English====
* pearl (milk) tea or drink
* milk pearl tea or drink
* black pearl (milk) tea or drink
* (milk) tea pearl
* boba (milk) tea or drink
* tapioca (milk) tea or drink
* pearl smoothie

====Chinese====
* 泡沫奶茶 (short form 泡奶): literally bubble milk tea, used mainly in [[Taiwan]]
* 波霸奶茶 (short form 波奶) (''bōbà nǎichá'' in [[Standard Mandarin|Putonghua]]): literally " ''large balls (boba 波霸)'' milk tea", used mainly in southern [[Taiwan]] to mean pearl milk tea with large pearls; while those with small pearls are called "pearl milk tea".
* 珍珠奶茶 (short form 珍奶) (zhēnzhū nǎichá in [[Standard Mandarin|Putonghua]]): literally "pearl milk tea" in [[Taiwanese language|Taiwanese]] and mainly [[Chinese language|Chinese]] usage
* 黑珍珠奶茶, literally "black pearl milk tea" in [[Taiwanese language|Taiwanese]] and mainly [[Chinese language|Chinese]] usage
* (奶)茶珍珠, literally "(milk) tea pearl" (less common)

====Others====
* 보바 드링크, 보바 티 ([[Korean language|Korean]]): literally "Boba drink/tea"
* タピオカティー ([[Japanese language|Japanese]]): literally "tapioca tea"
* ชาไข่มุก, ชามุก ([[Thai language|Thai]]): literally "pearl tea"
* ''trà trân châu'' ([[Vietnamese language|Vietnamese]]): literally "tea pearl"

==Trivia==
In September 2004, while defending a US$18 billion weapon purchase plan, the [[ROC Ministry of National Defense]] used bubble tea as an example of the overall cost of the proposed purchase. The Ministry stated that the total cost of the weapons systems would be equivalent to the money saved if all Taiwanese people had one less pearl milk tea per week, over a period of twenty years.[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6063203/]

A reference to Bubble Tea was made on the Canadian television show [[Radio Free Roscoe]] in the episode "Lil' and Grace" when Robbie brings Travis Bubble Tea during lunch. Travis mentions that the drink was popular at his old school in Hong Kong and identifies the flavor of his drink to be lychee.

==See also==

===General info===
*[[Taiwanese tea culture]]
*[[Cuisine of Taiwan]]

===Bubble tea vendors===
* [[Easy Way]]
* [[Fantasia Coffee & Tea]] in the [[San Francisco Bay Area]]
* [[Lollicup]]
* [[Q-Cup]]
* [[Quickly]]
* [[Boba-Loca]]
* [[Tapioca Express]]
* [http://www.bubbleisland.biz Bubble Island] - Chain of stores in western [[Washington]] State

==External links==
{{cookbook}}

===Recipe===
* [http://www.bubbletearecipe.com/ Free bubble tea - boba tea recipes]
* [http://www.whatscookingamerica.net/BubbleTea.htm Bubble Tea - History and Recipe] at What's Cooking America
* [http://www.ellenskitchen.com/recipebox/bubblet.html Bubble Tea at Home] at Ellen's Kitchen
* [http://chinesefood.about.com/od/bubbleteaandotherdrinks/r/bubbletea.htm Bubble Tea Recipe - Asian drinks] at about.com

===History and tales===
* [http://www.chinatownconnection.com/chinese_bubble_tea.htm Bubble Tea History]
* [http://www.jorbins.com/food-drink-magazine/articles/bubble-tea-origin.html The Tale of "The Bubble Tea Origin"]
* [http://www.cnn.com/2000/FOOD/news/11/27/bubble.tea.ap/ CNN - Tapioca milk tea creating waves as fun coffee alternative]

===Cafe and rating party===
* [http://www.caferating.com Cafe Rating Bureau]
* [http://www.bobafind.com/ US Bubble tea cafe locator]

===Website===
* [http://dmoz.org/Shopping/Food/Beverages/Coffee_and_Tea/Tea/Bubble_Tea/ List of Bubble Tea websites] at Open Directory Project

===Others===
* [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6063203/ MSNBC - Can drinking less tea defend a nation?]
* [http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200409/s1204428.htm NBC - Taiwanese urged to cut tea to pay for US arms]

[[Category:Chinese dessert]]
[[Category:Taiwanese cuisine]]
[[Category:Tea]]

[[fr:Thé aux perles]]
[[id:Bubble tea]]
[[ja:タピオカティー]]
[[vi:Trà trân châu]]
[[zh:珍珠奶茶]]

Bubble tea

2006-08-13T14:57:17Z

Wai Wai: link mgt, link+

{{not verified}}

[[Image:Pearl_Milktea.jpg|thumb|Bubble tea from [[Quickly]]]]

'''Bubble tea''' is a [[tea]] [[drink|beverage]] with tapioca (pearl) balls mixed in.

Bubble tea is generally split into two types: fruit-flavored teas, and milk teas. Milk teas may use dairy or non-dairy creamers. Originating in [[Taiwan]], bubble tea is especially popular in many Asian regions such as [[mainland China]], [[Hong Kong]], [[Macau]], [[South Korea]], [[Malaysia]], the [[Philippines]], and [[Singapore]]. The drink is also popular in [[Europe]], [[Canada]], and the [[United States]].

==Recipe==
Bubble tea is a mixture of iced or hot sweetened tea, milk, and often other flavorings. It is shaken to mix thoroughly, which produces the small bubbles characteristic of the drink. Black gummy balls made of tapioca (or, more commonly in East Asia, yam starch), called "pearls," may sit at the bottom of the cup, although tapioca pearls are not necessary for bubble tea. The pearls are larger than those found in [[tapioca pudding]], with a diameter of at least 6 millimeters, but smaller ones are occasionally used. They are transluscent brown with a darker brown center. The pearls are sucked through a wide straw along with the drink, providing something to chew on between sips.

The recipes for bubble tea vary, but flavoring is usually added to hot black or green tea, which is shaken in a [[cocktail shaker]] or mixed in [[blender (device)|blender]] with ice until chilled. The mixture is usually combined with milk and cooked tapioca pearls. Some cafes that serve bubble tea use a machine to seal the top of the cup with plastic cellophane, which a drinker pierces with a straw. Other cafes still use plastic dome-shaped lids.

The flavourings added to bubble tea can be in the form of powder, fruit juice, pulp, or syrup. Some examples of flavors are strawberry, passion fruit, chocolate, and coconut.

Bubble tea can be made with hot [[Cantonese cuisine|Cantonese-style]] [[milk tea]] with tapioca pearls.

==Pearls==
The Tapioca pearls are made from the [[Cassava]] root. The balls are prepared by boiling for 25 minutes, until they are cooked thoroughly but have not lost pliancy, then cooled for 25 minutes. After cooking they last about 7 hours. [http://www.bobateadirect.com/Free-Recipes-p-3.html] The pearls have little taste, and are usually soaked in sugar or honey solutions.

==Variants==
An alternative to the traditional tapioca balls is [[nata de coco|coconut jelly]] or [[konjac]] jelly. The jelly is served in small cubes or rectangular strips, and has a pliant, chewy consistency. They may be ordered 'half and half,' in a drink with half pearls and half jelly. There are also other jellies such as lychee jelly, coffee jelly, and rainbow jelly, a fruit mixture.

Another alternative is called pearl sago (milk) tea. It is used for canned varieties in which pearl sago (西米 in [[Chinese language|Chinese]]; xīmǐ in [[Standard Mandarin|Putonghua]]; sai1 mai5 in [[Cantonese language|Cantonese]]) is used instead of tapioca

==Culture==
When ordering, customers may be asked whether they want 'pearls' or 'boba' in their drinks, and both terms refer to the tapioca balls. The tapioca pearls require an hour for preparation, and they expand considerably when cooked. After they are cooked through but before they become too soft, the pearls are drained and poured into a sugar water solution, and are ready for use.

Some cafes use a non-dairy milk substitute instead of milk, which adds a distinct flavour and consistency to the drink. One possible reason for using milk substitute is [[lactose intolerance]], although a more likely explanation is that powdered substitutes are cheaper and more convenient than regular milk.

As time has moved on new generations of bubble drinks have came into being, such as, the 'Snow Bubble.' This 'Snow Bubble' drink is a slushie-like drink where you choose one of many fruit flavours and it is mixed in with shaved ice to make a smooth refreshing drink, after that the boba balls can be added from their assorted types, black boba which are the original, coloured, lychee bubbles, and rainbow boba those some of the many that are offered today.

==Availability==
Bubble tea is available at small dedicated cafes and some restaurants. Most bubble tea shops serve a variety of drinks, including [[coffee]], juices, fruit smoothies, and fruit freezes, which are sometimes also called bubble tea, though they do not contain any tea ingredients. These drinks can include flavors less familiar to non-Asians, such as [[taro]], [[honeydew]], or [[lychee]], as well as the more familiar [[chocolate]], [[Ovaltine]], [[Nestlé Milo|Milo]] (in Australia), [[Horlicks]] (in England), or [[strawberry]]. Hot bubble tea with pearls are also common, though coconut or konjac jelly are usually not added to hot drinks. In addition to tapioca (pearls), jellies such as coconut jelly, apple, etc, and puddings can be added to each drink.

==History==
There are two shops that claim to be the first creator of Bubble Tea. One is Liu Han Chie (劉漢介), who worked in Chun Shui Tang teahouse(春水堂), [[Taichung City]] in the early 1980s, and experimented with cold [[milk tea]] by adding [[fruit]], syrup, [[sweet potato|candied yams]], and [[tapioca]] balls. Although the drink was not popular at first, a [[Japan]]ese television show generated interest among businessmen. The drink became well-known in most parts of East and Southeast Asia during the 1990s.

An alternative origin the is Hanlin Teahouse(翰林茶館) in [[Tainan City]], owned by Tu tsong He(涂宗和). Hanlin Bubble tea is made by adding traditional white "Fenyuan"(粉圓), which have an appearance of pearls, supposedly resulting in the so-called 'pearl tea'. Shortly after, Hanlin changed the white Fengyuan to the black, as it is today.

In the late 1990s, bubble tea began to gain popularity in the major North American cities with large Asian populations, especially those on the [[West Coast of the United States|West Coast]] and [[East Coast of the United States|East Coast]]. The trend in the United States started in the city of [[San Gabriel, California]] and quickly spread throughout Southern California.{{fact}} The beverage has received much attention from mainstream American media, including covers on [[National Public Radio]] [[radio show|show]] [[Morning Edition]] and the [[Los Angeles Times]]. Bubble tea has spread internationally through [[Chinatown]]s and other overseas Asian communities.

In the U.S., franchises such as [[Quickly]] and [[Lollicup]] are expanding into suburban areas, particularly those with large Asian populations. Bubble tea can also be found in major European cities such as [[London]] and [[Paris]].

In [[Canada]], [[Waterloo, Ontario]] is becoming a minor centre of bubble teas, fuelled by the relatively high population of Chinese-descent, Hong Kong-, Singapore-, Mainland China-migrant-students, and the cultural awareness that the presence of these communities has raised in the non-Oriental population of the [[University of Waterloo]]. With both a currently-under-renovation franchise of Bubbletease, and Sweet Dreams Teashop offering these beverages, as well with other restaurants including Ben Thanh, the beverages are widely circulating in the UW Student market. Furthermore, the beverages, though not as yet popular enough to offer serious competition to [[Tim Hortons]]' Iced Caps, are becoming one of the many cool caffeinated beverage choices for both Waterloo residents and students.

Bubble tea is also gaining in mass popularity on the Canadian west coast, more particularly in [[Vancouver]], [[British Columbia]] where there is a high concentration of Asian immigrants and descendants. Small independently-owned restaurants that sell bubble tea are very popular in Vancouver suburbs such as [[Burnaby]] and [[Richmond, British Columbia|Richmond]], where the drink is catching on with various ethnic groups.

Further to this, [[Winnipeg, Manitoba]] now has the Bubble Tea House on [[Pembina Highway]] which is open until 0300hrs and provides a place for nearby university students to study. As seen here, the bubble tea shops are generally a fixture of [[Chinese culture|Chinese]] [[pop culture]] with this shop having two televisions playing Chinese programs, and a large selection of Chinese magazines.

[[Austin, Texas]] has also been a center of Bubble tea business, largely due to the high Asian American population of the [[University of Texas]]. Evidence of this is seen in the fact that there are seven places that serve bubble tea within a mile of the UT campus.

==Names==
The [[Chinese language|Chinese]] name for bubble tea translates to "''Pearl milk tea''" ([[Traditional Chinese]]:珍珠奶茶). When tea is shaken, a thin layer of bubbles forms on the surface. Because of the foaming process, any tea that is shaken during preparation can be called bubble tea. "Foam black tea" (泡沫紅茶; or bubble [[black tea]]) and "foam [[green tea]]" (泡沫綠茶; or bubble green tea) are also common drinks made by shaking sweetened tea. After pearl milk tea was brought to non-Asian countries, it was given the name "bubble tea." Since the most notable difference between bubble tea and other tea is the tapioca at the bottom of the drink, some assumed that the "bubble" in "bubble tea" referred to the [[tapioca]]. The pearls in "pearl milk tea," however, do refer to the tapioca "pearls."

===Different names===
Bubble (milk) tea has many other names, including:

====English====
* pearl (milk) tea or drink
* milk pearl tea or drink
* black pearl (milk) tea or drink
* (milk) tea pearl
* boba (milk) tea or drink
* tapioca (milk) tea or drink
* pearl smoothie

====Chinese====
* 泡沫奶茶 (short form 泡奶): literally bubble milk tea, used mainly in [[Taiwan]]
* 波霸奶茶 (short form 波奶) (''bōbà nǎichá'' in [[Standard Mandarin|Putonghua]]): literally " ''large balls (boba 波霸)'' milk tea", used mainly in southern [[Taiwan]] to mean pearl milk tea with large pearls; while those with small pearls are called "pearl milk tea".
* 珍珠奶茶 (short form 珍奶) (zhēnzhū nǎichá in [[Standard Mandarin|Putonghua]]): literally "pearl milk tea" in [[Taiwanese language|Taiwanese]] and mainly [[Chinese language|Chinese]] usage
* 黑珍珠奶茶, literally "black pearl milk tea" in [[Taiwanese language|Taiwanese]] and mainly [[Chinese language|Chinese]] usage
* (奶)茶珍珠, literally "(milk) tea pearl" (less common)

====Others====
* 보바 드링크, 보바 티 ([[Korean language|Korean]]): literally "Boba drink/tea"
* タピオカティー ([[Japanese language|Japanese]]): literally "tapioca tea"
* ชาไข่มุก, ชามุก ([[Thai language|Thai]]): literally "pearl tea"
* ''trà trân châu'' ([[Vietnamese language|Vietnamese]]): literally "tea pearl"

==Trivia==
In September 2004, while defending a US$18 billion weapon purchase plan, the [[ROC Ministry of National Defense]] used bubble tea as an example of the overall cost of the proposed purchase. The Ministry stated that the total cost of the weapons systems would be equivalent to the money saved if all Taiwanese people had one less pearl milk tea per week, over a period of twenty years.[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6063203/]

A reference to Bubble Tea was made on the Canadian television show [[Radio Free Roscoe]] in the episode "Lil' and Grace" when Robbie brings Travis Bubble Tea during lunch. Travis mentions that the drink was popular at his old school in Hong Kong and identifies the flavor of his drink to be lychee.

==See also==

===General info===
*[[Taiwanese tea culture]]
*[[Cuisine of Taiwan]]

===Bubble tea vendors===
* [[Easy Way]]
* [[Fantasia Coffee & Tea]] in the [[San Francisco Bay Area]]
* [[Lollicup]]
* [[Q-Cup]]
* [[Quickly]]
* [[Boba-Loca]]
* [[Tapioca Express]]
* [http://www.bubbleisland.biz Bubble Island] - Chain of stores in western [[Washington]] State

==External links==
{{cookbook}}

===Recipe===
* [http://www.bubbletearecipe.com/ Free bubble tea - boba tea recipes]
* [http://www.whatscookingamerica.net/BubbleTea.htm Bubble Tea - History and Recipe] at What's Cooking America
* [http://www.ellenskitchen.com/recipebox/bubblet.html Bubble Tea at Home] at Ellen's Kitchen
* [http://chinesefood.about.com/od/bubbleteaandotherdrinks/r/bubbletea.htm Bubble Tea Recipe - Asian drinks] at about.com

===History and tales===
* [http://www.chinatownconnection.com/chinese_bubble_tea.htm Bubble Tea History]
* [http://www.jorbins.com/food-drink-magazine/articles/bubble-tea-origin.html The Tale of "The Bubble Tea Origin"]
* [http://www.cnn.com/2000/FOOD/news/11/27/bubble.tea.ap/ CNN - Tapioca milk tea creating waves as fun coffee alternative]

===Cafe and rating party===
* [http://www.caferating.com Cafe Rating Bureau]
* [http://www.bobafind.com/ US Bubble tea cafe locator]

===Others===
* [http://dmoz.org/Shopping/Food/Beverages/Coffee_and_Tea/Tea/Bubble_Tea/ List of Bubble Tea websites] at Open Directory Project
* [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6063203/ MSNBC - Can drinking less tea defend a nation?]
* [http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200409/s1204428.htm NBC - Taiwanese urged to cut tea to pay for US arms]

[[Category:Chinese dessert]]
[[Category:Taiwanese cuisine]]
[[Category:Tea]]

[[fr:Thé aux perles]]
[[id:Bubble tea]]
[[ja:タピオカティー]]
[[vi:Trà trân châu]]
[[zh:珍珠奶茶]]

Pearl (disambiguation)

2006-08-13T14:42:21Z

Wai Wai: /* Food and drink */

{{wiktionary|pearl}}
'''Pearl''' may refer to the following:

==Most frequent usage==
* [[Pearl]] (jewelry), a round shiny object produced by molluscs and used in jewelry
* [[Pearl (color)]], a whitish iridescent color similar to the color of pearls

==Food and drink==
* Pearl (see [[bubble tea]]), edible tapioca pearls (dark black balls) made from the [[Cassava]] root

==Computing==
* [[PEARL programming language]] (Process and Experiment Automation Realtime Language)
* Original name of [[Perl]] (Practical Extraction and Report Language), a programming language

==Place==
* [[Pearl, Mississippi]]
* [[Pearl Harbor]], the harbor in [[Oahu, Hawaii]] which was bombed by Japanese on [[December 7, 1941]]

==Law==
* [[The Pearl]] is the name of an [[1867]] US Supreme Court case (See: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_72 volume #72])

==Music and song==
* [[Pearl (album)|''Pearl'' (album)]], an album by [[Janis Joplin]]
* [[Pearls (album)|''Pearls'' (album)]], an album by [[Elkie Brooks]]
* [[The Pearl (album)|''The Pearl'' (album)]] a 1984 album by [[Harold Budd]] and [[Brian Eno]]

==Film and TV==
* [[The Pearl (film)|''The Pearl'' (film)]], a 1947 Mexican film based on [[Steinbeck]]'s novel
* [[Pearl (miniseries)|''Pearl'' (miniseries)]], a 1978 television miniseries
* [[Pearl (TV series)|''Pearl'' (TV series)]], a 1996-1997 sitcom starring [[Rhea Perlman]] and [[Malcolm McDowell]]
* [[Pearl (Final Fantasy)]], a holy-elemental magic spell in the videogame ''[[Final Fantasy VI]]''
* [[DHARMA Initiative stations#Station 5: The Pearl|Station 5: ''The Pearl'']], the fifth DHARMA Initiative station in the television show ''[[Lost (TV series)|Lost]]''
* [[Pearl (SpongeBob SquarePants)]], the name of a character on ''[[SpongeBob SquarePants]]''

==Literature==
* [[The Pearl (novel)|''The Pearl'' (novel)]], a novel by [[John Steinbeck]] and the motion picture based on the novel
* [[The Pearl (erotica)|''The Pearl'' (erotica)]], a Victorian era erotic literature magazine
* [[Pearl (poem)|''Pearl'' (poem)]]'', an alliterative poem written in Middle English
* [[Pearl (Scarlet Letter character)]], the name of a main character in the novel, ''[[The Scarlet Letter]]''
* [[Pearl (User Friendly character)]], the name of a character in the webcomic ''[[User Friendly]]''
* Pearl, a 1985 novel by [[Anne Leaton]]

==Organization==
* Short for [[Television Broadcasts Limited|TVB Pearl]], a TV station in [[Hong Kong]]
* Short for [[Pearl Brewing Company]], an American brewery, established in 1881 in [[San Antonio]], [[Texas]]
* Short for [[Pearl Art and Craft Supply]] (Pearl), a chain of retail art supply stores

{{disambig}}

[[de:Pearl]]
[[fr:Pearl]]
[[nl:The Pearl]]

Pearl (disambiguation)

2006-08-13T14:37:34Z

Wai Wai: sp.

{{wiktionary|pearl}}
'''Pearl''' may refer to the following:

==Most frequent usage==
* [[Pearl]] (jewelry), a round shiny object produced by molluscs and used in jewelry
* [[Pearl (color)]], a whitish iridescent color similar to the color of pearls

==Food and drink==
* Pearl (see [[bubble tea]]), edible tapioca pearls made from the [[Cassava]] root

==Computing==
* [[PEARL programming language]] (Process and Experiment Automation Realtime Language)
* Original name of [[Perl]] (Practical Extraction and Report Language), a programming language

==Place==
* [[Pearl, Mississippi]]
* [[Pearl Harbor]], the harbor in [[Oahu, Hawaii]] which was bombed by Japanese on [[December 7, 1941]]

==Law==
* [[The Pearl]] is the name of an [[1867]] US Supreme Court case (See: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_72 volume #72])

==Music and song==
* [[Pearl (album)|''Pearl'' (album)]], an album by [[Janis Joplin]]
* [[Pearls (album)|''Pearls'' (album)]], an album by [[Elkie Brooks]]
* [[The Pearl (album)|''The Pearl'' (album)]] a 1984 album by [[Harold Budd]] and [[Brian Eno]]

==Film and TV==
* [[The Pearl (film)|''The Pearl'' (film)]], a 1947 Mexican film based on [[Steinbeck]]'s novel
* [[Pearl (miniseries)|''Pearl'' (miniseries)]], a 1978 television miniseries
* [[Pearl (TV series)|''Pearl'' (TV series)]], a 1996-1997 sitcom starring [[Rhea Perlman]] and [[Malcolm McDowell]]
* [[Pearl (Final Fantasy)]], a holy-elemental magic spell in the videogame ''[[Final Fantasy VI]]''
* [[DHARMA Initiative stations#Station 5: The Pearl|Station 5: ''The Pearl'']], the fifth DHARMA Initiative station in the television show ''[[Lost (TV series)|Lost]]''
* [[Pearl (SpongeBob SquarePants)]], the name of a character on ''[[SpongeBob SquarePants]]''

==Literature==
* [[The Pearl (novel)|''The Pearl'' (novel)]], a novel by [[John Steinbeck]] and the motion picture based on the novel
* [[The Pearl (erotica)|''The Pearl'' (erotica)]], a Victorian era erotic literature magazine
* [[Pearl (poem)|''Pearl'' (poem)]]'', an alliterative poem written in Middle English
* [[Pearl (Scarlet Letter character)]], the name of a main character in the novel, ''[[The Scarlet Letter]]''
* [[Pearl (User Friendly character)]], the name of a character in the webcomic ''[[User Friendly]]''
* Pearl, a 1985 novel by [[Anne Leaton]]

==Organization==
* Short for [[Television Broadcasts Limited|TVB Pearl]], a TV station in [[Hong Kong]]
* Short for [[Pearl Brewing Company]], an American brewery, established in 1881 in [[San Antonio]], [[Texas]]
* Short for [[Pearl Art and Craft Supply]] (Pearl), a chain of retail art supply stores

{{disambig}}

[[de:Pearl]]
[[fr:Pearl]]
[[nl:The Pearl]]

Talk:Pearl (disambiguation)

2006-08-13T14:31:57Z

Wai Wai: reorganise messy talk page, comment+

{{Talkheader}}

==Should Perl be included?==
"(cur) (last) 21:19, 21 Oct 2004 ZeroOne (PEARL is not related to Perl. Perl *was* initially called Pearl until the author realized that the name had already been taken.)"

Shouldn't PERL be listed here anyway? Given that it *was* once called Pearl and the very frequent confusion by novices to call it Pearl. {{unsigned|Themightychris}}
----
Dear Themightychris, 
I am not too sure, but I think it is okay although most people should know Perl only. Since one might link the word "Pearl" to mean "Perl" (although much less common), to be on the safe side, this may be a valid reason to include it.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 14:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

==Clitoris==
I think we should add clitoris in here, as pearl is a popular slang term for a [[clitoris]]. {{unsigned|24.26.176.7}}

MSXbox

2006-08-13T14:20:01Z

Wai Wai: add tag

{{unreferenced}}

{{cvg-web-stub}}

'''MSXbox''' was a gaming web site dedicated exclusively to the [[Microsoft]] [[Xbox]]. In [[2001]], it merged with [[TeamXbox]].

[[Category:Xbox]]
[[Category:Internet forums]]
[[Category:Computer and video game websites]]
[[Category:Defunct websites]]

Talk:Xbox (console)

2006-08-13T14:19:37Z

Wai Wai: MSXbox - expand or delete or merge to Xbox?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TeamXbox 2

2006-08-13T14:11:40Z

Wai Wai: /* TeamXbox */ updated

===[[TeamXbox]]===
This page has been deleted five times and even has another AfD ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TeamXbox]]). It has also been speedied quite a few times [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/TeamXbox]. Well, I guess it's time to clear the mess now. Let's gather consensus and settle this for once and for all.'''—♦♦ [[User:SoothingR|''S''ʘʘ''THING'']][[User talk:SoothingR|(Я)]]''' 12:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
* '''Comment''': As you said it was deleted a few times (about 4, I think), I think you may consider [[wikipedia:speedy deletion]] in this case under the reason of '''[[Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#General_criteria|Recreation of deleted material]]'''.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 14:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TeamXbox 2

2006-08-13T14:08:07Z

Wai Wai: /* TeamXbox */

===[[TeamXbox]]===
This page has been deleted five times and even has another AfD ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TeamXbox]]). It has also been speedied quite a few times [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/TeamXbox]. Well, I guess it's time to clear the mess now. Let's gather consensus and settle this for once and for all.'''—♦♦ [[User:SoothingR|''S''ʘʘ''THING'']][[User talk:SoothingR|(Я)]]''' 12:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
* '''Comment''': I think you should consider [[wikipedia:speedy deletion]] in this case under the reason of '''[[Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#General_criteria|Recreation of deleted material]]'''.--[[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] (<big>[[User talk:Wai Wai|☎]]</big>) 14:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Pearl (disambiguation)

2006-08-13T14:03:48Z

Wai Wai: Wiktionary link+ etc.

{{wiktionary|pearl}}
'''Pearl''' may refer to the following:

==Most frequent usage==
* [[Pearl]] (jewelry), a round shiny object produced by molluscs and used in jewelry
* [[Pearl (color)]], a whitish iridescent color similar to the color of pearls

==Food and drink==
* Pearl (see [[bubble tea]]), eatable tapioca pearls made from the [[Cassava]] root

==Computing==
* [[PEARL programming language]] (Process and Experiment Automation Realtime Language)
* Original name of [[Perl]] (Practical Extraction and Report Language), a programming language

==Place==
* [[Pearl, Mississippi]]
* [[Pearl Harbor]], the harbor in [[Oahu, Hawaii]] which was bombed by Japanese on [[December 7, 1941]]

==Law==
* [[The Pearl]] is the name of an [[1867]] US Supreme Court case (See: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_72 volume #72])

==Music and song==
* [[Pearl (album)|''Pearl'' (album)]], an album by [[Janis Joplin]]
* [[Pearls (album)|''Pearls'' (album)]], an album by [[Elkie Brooks]]
* [[The Pearl (album)|''The Pearl'' (album)]] a 1984 album by [[Harold Budd]] and [[Brian Eno]]

==Film and TV==
* [[The Pearl (film)|''The Pearl'' (film)]], a 1947 Mexican film based on [[Steinbeck]]'s novel
* [[Pearl (miniseries)|''Pearl'' (miniseries)]], a 1978 television miniseries
* [[Pearl (TV series)|''Pearl'' (TV series)]], a 1996-1997 sitcom starring [[Rhea Perlman]] and [[Malcolm McDowell]]
* [[Pearl (Final Fantasy)]], a holy-elemental magic spell in the videogame ''[[Final Fantasy VI]]''
* [[DHARMA Initiative stations#Station 5: The Pearl|Station 5: ''The Pearl'']], the fifth DHARMA Initiative station in the television show ''[[Lost (TV series)|Lost]]''
* [[Pearl (SpongeBob SquarePants)]], the name of a character on ''[[SpongeBob SquarePants]]''

==Literature==
* [[The Pearl (novel)|''The Pearl'' (novel)]], a novel by [[John Steinbeck]] and the motion picture based on the novel
* [[The Pearl (erotica)|''The Pearl'' (erotica)]], a Victorian era erotic literature magazine
* [[Pearl (poem)|''Pearl'' (poem)]]'', an alliterative poem written in Middle English
* [[Pearl (Scarlet Letter character)]], the name of a main character in the novel, ''[[The Scarlet Letter]]''
* [[Pearl (User Friendly character)]], the name of a character in the webcomic ''[[User Friendly]]''
* Pearl, a 1985 novel by [[Anne Leaton]]

==Organization==
* Short for [[Television Broadcasts Limited|TVB Pearl]], a TV station in [[Hong Kong]]
* Short for [[Pearl Brewing Company]], an American brewery, established in 1881 in [[San Antonio]], [[Texas]]
* Short for [[Pearl Art and Craft Supply]] (Pearl), a chain of retail art supply stores

{{disambig}}

[[de:Pearl]]
[[fr:Pearl]]
[[nl:The Pearl]]