Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style - Wikipedia


26 people in discussion

Article Images

Section sizes

Section size for Wikipedia:Manual of Style (155 sections)
Section name Byte
count
Section
total
(Top) 2,641 2,641
Retaining existing styles 2,782 2,782
Article titles, sections, and headings 137 12,653
Article titles 3,394 3,394
Section organization 4,739 4,739
Section headings 3,573 4,383
Heading-like material 810 810
National varieties of English 842 6,604
Consistency within articles 1,230 1,230
Opportunities for commonality 1,891 1,891
Strong national ties to a topic 1,414 1,414
Retaining the existing variety 1,227 1,227
Capital letters 648 18,740
Capitalization of The 982 982
Titles of works 1,232 1,232
Titles of people 780 780
Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines 4,974 4,974
Calendar items 701 701
Animals, plants, and other organisms 5,616 5,616
Celestial bodies 1,248 1,248
Compass points 1,206 1,206
Proper names versus generic terms 1,353 1,353
Ligatures 495 495
Abbreviations 774 8,042
Write first occurrences in full 609 609
Plural forms 245 245
Punctuation and spacing 1,170 1,170
US and U.S. 1,919 1,919
Circa 279 279
Avoid unwarranted use 662 662
Do not invent 874 874
HTML tags and templates 383 383
Ampersand 1,127 1,127
Italics 105 6,351
Emphasis 1,133 1,133
Titles 572 572
Words as words 1,310 1,310
Non-English words 746 746
Scientific names 499 499
Quotations in italics 581 581
Italics within quotations 767 767
Effect on nearby punctuation 638 638
Quotations 1,393 16,301
Original wording 2,671 2,671
Point of view 1,234 1,234
Typographic conformity 5,804 5,804
Attribution 439 439
Quotations within quotations 94 94
Linking 483 483
Block quotations 3,044 3,044
Non-English quotations 1,139 1,139
Punctuation 203 76,171
Apostrophes 2,194 2,194
Quotation marks 394 13,592
Quotation characters 1,035 1,035
Double or single 1,234 1,234
For a quotation within a quotation 869 869
Article openings 724 724
Punctuation before quotations 2,023 2,023
Names and titles 1,331 1,331
Punctuation inside or outside 3,717 3,717
Quotation marks and external links 940 940
Quotation marks and internal links 1,325 1,325
Brackets and parentheses 3,361 4,566
Brackets and linking 1,205 1,205
Ellipses 2,934 2,934
Commas 4,857 8,058
Serial commas 3,201 3,201
Colons 1,863 1,863
Semicolons 3,331 5,721
Semicolon before "however" 2,390 2,390
Hyphens 9,453 9,453
Dashes 800 15,967
In article titles 759 759
In running text 2,204 12,304
In ranges that might otherwise be expressed with to or through 3,063 3,063
In compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between 5,202 5,202
Instead of a hyphen, use an en dash when applying a prefix or suffix to a compound that itself includes a space, dash or hyphen 1,250 1,250
To separate parts of an item in a list 585 585
Other uses for en dashes 533 533
Other uses for em dashes 966 966
Other dashes 605 605
Slashes (strokes) 3,340 3,923
And/or 583 583
Symbols 595 595
Number (pound, hash) sign and numero 2,310 2,310
Terminal punctuation 737 737
Spacing 507 507
Consecutive punctuation marks 1,151 1,151
Punctuation and footnotes 2,179 2,179
Punctuation after formulae 218 218
Dates and time 361 5,078
Time of day 794 794
Dates 1,033 1,033
Months 323 323
Seasons 769 769
Years and longer periods 1,080 1,080
Current 718 718
Numbers 1,881 1,881
Currencies 1,637 1,637
Units of measurement 2,739 2,739
Common mathematical symbols 2,606 2,606
Grammar and usage 62 10,671
Possessives 158 1,918
Singular nouns 975 975
Plural nouns 523 523
Official names 262 262
Pronouns 104 3,870
First-person pronouns 1,494 1,494
Second-person pronouns 2,272 2,272
Plurals 1,996 1,996
Verb tense 2,825 2,825
Vocabulary 98 22,623
Contractions 476 476
Gender-neutral language 1,692 1,692
Contested vocabulary 256 256
Instructional and presumptuous language 2,578 2,578
Subset terms 618 618
Identity 1,959 3,615
Gender identity 1,656 1,656
Non-English terms 301 7,950
Terms without common usage in English 1,555 1,555
Terms with common usage in English 387 387
Spelling and romanization 4,836 4,836
Other non-English concerns 871 871
Technical language 1,970 1,970
Geographical items 3,370 3,370
Media files 74 2,801
Images 318 318
Other media 181 181
Avoid using images to display text 884 884
Captions 526 1,344
Formatting of captions 818 818
Bulleted and numbered lists 1,547 1,547
Links 10 1,756
Wikilinks 1,417 1,417
External links 329 329
Miscellaneous 18 12,377
Keep markup simple 1,219 1,219
Formatting issues 1,006 2,966
Color coding 1,245 1,245
Indentation 715 715
Controlling line breaks 2,356 2,356
Scrolling lists and collapsible content 3,164 3,164
Invisible comments 1,996 1,996
Pronunciation 658 658
See also 1,199 4,870
Guidance 1,242 1,242
Tools 300 300
Other community standards 523 523
Guidelines within the Manual of Style 310 1,606
Names 1,296 1,296
Notes 24 24
References 28 28
Further reading 1,206 1,206
Total 222,624 222,624
Welcome to the MOS pit

    Add a link to new discussions at top of list and indicate what kind of discussion it is (move request, RfC, open discussion, deletion discussion, etc.). Follow the links to participate, if interested. Move to Concluded when decided, and summarize conclusion. Please keep this section at the top of the page.

    (newest on top)

    Capitalization-specific:

    Move requests:

    Other discussions:

    Pretty stale but not "concluded":

    Extended content

    Capitalization-specific:

    2023

    2022

    2021

    The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

    There is consensus that ‘serve’, ‘served as’, etc. is acceptable in many contexts without concern for neutrality, and while in other contexts it may be bad writing or poor phrasing, these questions are superseded by the overwhelming consensus that the MOS should not have a rule on this language. — HTGS (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply



    In many articles about living persons, and particularly about persons in positions of authority, e.g. member of parliament, corporation CEO, city councilor, etc, the lead paragraph often uses the verb "to serve" in denoting the person's work." E.g. "Ms Smith serves/has been serving/has served as member of the XYZ Board of Directors." In this related discussion, the issue was raised about the potential for meaningless excess in that term's use. (Here's a useful essay on that.) This, of course, applies to biographies about persons no longer living.

    Comments are invited on the following options:

    • A Use any simple form of "to be," e.g. "Smith is Acme Ltd auditor."
    • B Continue to use "serve" in biographies, e.g. "Smith serves as Acme Ltd auditor."

    -The Gnome (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    So, me saying to someone Thank you for your service, for example to a veteran soldier, denotes nothing positive whatsoever; it is an abject expression of thanks for wearing a uniform, and nothing more. And, logically, I could express the same thankful sentiment to a traitor soldier. -The Gnome (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    A traitor would supposedly not be thanked. How is this relevant for this discussion, though? Gawaon (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Really you are making my point for me. Your quoted phrase does, but not because it includes the word “service”. It is positive because of the “thank you”. Had you said “I confirm your service” or “I note your service”, your comment wouldn’t have been received as positive despite the word ‘service’. Whereas, had you said “Thank you for your time in the army” or “Thank you for your work”, that would be received as a positive comment without any need to refer to serving. MapReader (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Either, see wikt:serve#Verb, particularly entries 1.2, 1.4, 8, 12. There are contexts where the word "serve" is non-neutral, such as smiling politely whilst putting meals in front of customers in restaurants despite a torrent of verbal abuse, but the original post gives "Ms Smith serves/has been serving/has served as member of the XYZ Board of Directors." as an example, and that is different from plate-juggling. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Neither Both are acceptable Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • A or some other neutral alternative that suits the context. "Serves/served/serving" is a WP:NPOV failure, in being promotional and (positively) judgmental language. An argument could possibly be made to retain those terms for military and maybe even governmental functions, but even those uses have their long-term opponents. It's entirely inappropriate for corporate and other misc. organizational (school, team/squad, nonprofit/NGO, etc.) roles. PS: The fact that we have a bunch of articles doing this just means we have a bunch of articles to clean up. Cf. WP:FAITACCOMPLI and WP:NOWORK.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  02:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment Sorry to say, but this is yet another RfC out of the blue, with no discussion on how to frame it. There certainly should have been an option C -- a new rule saying either A or B is OK, and D -- meaning nothing new added to MOS at all. This RfC is already a complete mess out of which nothing useful can possibly come. EEng 20:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • A Is there a specific case where anyone feels that "served as" is better, not just as good? Is it the case that "served as" has WP:NPOV problems in some people's idiolects, but not others? If so, does that mean that it has WP:NPOV problems? McYeee (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
      That's what consensus is for in the abstract, and the examples proffered to illustrate why served should be generally proscribed have not really attracted consensus. Remsense ‥  01:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
      I might just be out of my depth here, and I might not have been clear, but I just don't really understand any argument in favor of the usage of "served". I think my preconceived definition of the word is just less neutral than yours. I'll bow out for now. McYeee (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Aye, it's worth making explicit—no one is really saying it's superior in any or as good in all situations, but the MOS is meant to be as frugal as possible. We try to allow editors flexibility in things like word choice as much as possible, and we don't want to tell them what not to do unless it's almost always wrong (roughly, if it's more work to fix than it's good for to allow). See WP:CREEP. Remsense ‥  01:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Neither. I agree with the many comments above that there's no reason to ban either form; with Remsense about WP:CREEP; and with EEng that this is not a useful RfC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • No rule needed. Both are acceptable depending on context, but this is not the sort of wording choice that the MOS should be forcing on editors. See also WP:CREEP. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • No rule needed. The claim that "served" is pov in general has no basis. Argue specific cases on the respective talk page, but don't impose a general rule where none is needed. Zerotalk 07:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    This looks like it should be called Bibliographies of Ulysses S. Grant, since it is not a biography of Grant but a list of biographical works about Grant - ie it is a case where we should be using the plural in the article title. Better still, Ulysses S. Grant biographies, since that places the primary search term first. Thoughts please. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    The current title is bibliography, not biography - a bibliography is a list of works. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Duh Cinderella157 (talk) 12:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    If that's your response, then you still aren't getting it. The article contains a list of books—a bibliography—and not a list of bibliographies. Largoplazo (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    What would Homer do? I acknowledge my error. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Did you mean "D'oh"? That's Homer. Very different from "duh"! Largoplazo (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Please forgive me for broaching one of the subjects with dozens of previous discussions linked in the header, but this has been bugging me and it seems major enough to be a source of consistent confusion and discrepancy. Generally, articles about classical figures (or at least that's the most helpful scope I can ascertain) with Greco-Latin names ending in S like Archimedes seem to consciously diverge from MOS:'S. It seems to be a real problem, as these are among the most prominent examples of what the aforementioned guideline is meant to cover. As we seem rather unlikely to happen upon a well-defined exception for the MOS, what are we meant to do here? Remsense ‥  12:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    are you referring to adding an S after the apostrophe, or to using U+0027 ' APOSTROPHE rather than U+2019 RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The former, sorry. Archimedes' versus Archimedes's. Remsense ‥  02:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Why should it have anything to do with the date of the subject? We do not change our language to classical Greek to talk about Archimedes; why should we change it in other ways?
    But now I'm wondering about a different issue. A possessive 's or s', at least the way I would speak it, is voiced, more like a z. So is the way I would normally pronounce the s at the end of the name Archimedes. If I were more stuffy about Greek pronunciation (remembering that scene from Bill and Ted) it might be different. But for some reason, some other names ending in vowel-s (including Moses and Jesus) end with an unvoiced s for me. If I spell the possessive "Moses' " and pronounce it "Mozəz", I am substituting the final consonant rather than merely dropping a repeated consonant. But if I spell it "Moses's", and pronounce it "Mozəsəz", it seems more logical to me because I am still pronouncing both the name and the possessive the way I would expect to.
    Which is to say that I think the use of s' vs s's could reasonably be based on pronounciation rather than orthography or chronology. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    No trailing S seems the more common style in sources in those contexts, which has recently been gestured to on Archimedes' heat ray as to why it is conventional here. I don't agree with that at all, but it's an argument—one that seems to be directly contradicted by existing consensus, which is why I'm a bit flummoxed.
    I also disagree with the phonology argument, as that is surely something that varies by accent and likely cannot be clearly distinguished in many cases. Remsense ‥  07:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    There are two distinct issues.Correct grammar calls for dropping the S only after a plural ending in S. A singular ending in S has an 's possessive form.
    The other issue is what Wikipedia's policy is or should be. That, presumably, is driven by WP:RS. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Not really, as citation or quotation isn't the same thing as transcription: we're fully capable of diverging in style from our sources (in many cases we are expected to) because it obviously doesn't affect the meaning of the claims. Remsense ‥  09:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It's generally observed that Jesus and Moses do not take the apostrophe s, to avoid the ziz ziz sound: so Jesus' and Moses'. (Tangent: Suppose there are several people called Jesus, who collectively own something - it would be the Jesuses's.) However it is not generally considered categorically wrong. I forget what MoS says. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC).Reply

      The redirect MOS:NDASH: other uses has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 15 § MOS:NDASH: other uses until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 13:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Do we have a policy that covers text being displayed in a narrow column as a series of one-character lines? For example, see [1]GhostInTheMachine talk to me 13:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Pretty sure we don't. While all that color and stuff on that particular page seems pointless, "vertical" text does have its uses -- see left column of WP:MOSNUM#Specific_units. EEng 13:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Both versions (the one linked, and the current one) are bad. Just use the actual date, with correct date sorting. Gonnym (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It's a violation of proper accessibility practice. It causes anyone using a screenreader to have to sit through "jay ay en yoo ay ar wy", etc. Aside from that, there's no justification for the all-caps style or the use of colors. It's like something from 1998. Largoplazo (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    KUdos to someone for making an effort. But not a good idea. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC).Reply

    I wrote Template:Translated blockquote to standardize implementation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Non-English quotations. I'm wondering about feedback on appearance. The guideline isn't very specific. I'm particularly wondering about where the language of the quotation should be placed if it is provided. I would further appreciate confirmation of whether the brackets around the translation are appropriate. Those weren't included in most existing examples I found, but I thought they would help clarify that they are a translation and not part of the quote. Once these issues are settled, I propose that the template to be mentioned in the guideline itself. Daask (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I would much prefer the original and its translation to be shown side-by-side, but that's a matter of taste. If a language is shown, it should normally not be linked. IMO the use of brackets is consistent with citation templates. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I would appreciate the ability to specify the size of the paragraph indent: on Zhuangzi (book), I've manually set the indent for such facing quotes to 1ic, effectively matching the width of one character. Remsense ‥  04:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I propose this rule:

    • However, if any complete sentence occurs in a caption, then every sentence and every sentence fragment in that caption should end with a period.

    should be complemented by this:

    • For sentence-fragment captions, if other punctuation occurs, then that caption should also end with a period.

    See example at John Vivian, 4th Baron Swansea. It seems weird to me to have every other punctuation – but not the very last. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    That's not the sentence in the article; remove the extraneous or. The proposal sounds reasonable at first glance but could use a strong justification. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    So if a caption includes a harmless comma or dash, it must end in a period? I don't think that would be an improvement. Our current rule is simple and consistent and I can't see a good reason for such a change. Gawaon (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    A sure way to distress readers and editors would be to punctuate captions that aren't sentences with periods, as if they were sentences. That would be very weird indeed, and lead to reverts of insertions of periods or to expansions of captions into weighty sentences, which would then be reverted, and the disruption would continue until the MOS change was reverted. NebY (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

      You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:...Baby One More Time § Requested move 24 September 2024. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    We have put together a proposed MoS article for the subject of astronomy, located here: MOS:ASTRO. Is there an approval process that needs to be followed to have it be included on the {{Style}} template? I.e. to have it added to the 'By topic area' under 'Science'. I just want to understand the steps. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Hmmm… It covers a few things that are not really Style issues. Perhaps it should be entitled WP:ASTRO not MOS:ASTRO? Blueboar (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Oh, okay. Well I suppose it's more of a guideline then. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 02:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Quick question..... this is being presented by a Wikiproject? I assume there's more than just four people at the project and that this is currently the norm for these type of pages? Moxy🍁 02:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    All I was asking for was the procedure. It is in regards to WP:AST. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 04:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    It is relatively uncontroversial for WikiProjects to develop suggestions for article content and to label it as an essay, and does not require a formal RfC and encyclopedia-wide consensus; for a recent example see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers/Guidelines. Making something a binding guideline on the whole encyclopedia is a much bigger thing, and probably would require buy-in from a much wider pool of editors through a formal RfC advertised at the Village Pump etc. If you are going to call it a Manual of Style it should be limited purely to style and not content or referencing, and be more phrased as clear formatting rules than as vague "you should consider this kind of source for this kind of content" suggestions. Also, I tend to think that suggestions like "The accuracy of the image should be confirmed by an astronomy expert" go far beyond usual Wikipedia norms where we rely on verifiability through sourcing rather than credentials and personal expertise. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Thank you, David. Praemonitus (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Should this be capped? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC).Reply

    It was apparently registered as a trade mark (not an RS but see here) which would be good reason to cap. Ngrams indicate some mixed usage but not enough to argue lowercase, even though it is probably passing into lowercase usage. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    In the Common mathematical symbols section, we suggest using the insert box beneath the edit window, the edit toolbox under the edit window, in the "Math and logic" section of the edit toolbox, and in the "Insert" section of the edit toolbox, which many editors no longer have, or not usually. Assuming it's still present for enough editors to be worth mentioning, can we qualify that briefly so as not to leave many editors lost and confused? NebY (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

    @NebY: This is the "charinsert" gadget, which is enabled by default for all users and all skins, and if people no longer have it, they've been to Preferences → Gadgets and disabled the "(D) CharInsert: add a toolbar under the edit window for quickly inserting wiki markup and special characters (troubles?)" option. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I have that gadget enabled. NebY (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I have been encountering ongoing issues with User:Skitash, while I respect some of the work they have done on certain pages, they appear to have a significant bias when it comes to articles related to the Amazigh/Berber ethnic group.The first issue involves multiple pages specific to Berber history, such as Maghrawa and Banu Ifran. When I added the language tag in the lead per WP:LEADLANG for Tamazight/Berber, my edits were reverted by User I made sure to retain the foreign language , which shouldnt even be done, WP:FORLANG, in Arabic, even though it was uncited. User:Skitash justified their reversion of the Tamazight language inclusion by citing Wikipedia:No original research, despite the fact that the word "Banu Ifran" was cited twice for its tamazigh translation. The reason given was that the writing system (Neo-Tifinagh) "wasn’t used back then." However, the uncited Arabic text was allowed to remain. I need clarification: Are we prohibited from adding the lead language just because the writing system was different at the time, while keeping uncited Arabic text even though it falls under WP:FORLANG? Or should both be removed entirely? Im reaching out as i would prefer to avoid an edit war.

    The second issue pertains to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Manual of Style. On the page for Berberism, User introduced language that seemed biased, stating that the movement is closely tied to Anti-Arab racism. This was presented in a way that gave it undue weight, appearing twice on the page—once within the larger text and once in the first section on Algeria—without proper citation for the upper part. I removed the uper part, even though i believe both fully break Wikipedia:Neutral point of view , but removed the upper one as it not only breaks such but also Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability but it was reverted by him. I want to better understand the situation, whether I made an error in removing it or if Skitash’s edits were indeed problematic.

    The third issue relates to Karima Gouit and broader pages about Berbers. My understanding of Wikipedia:LEADLANG, particularly for ethnic groups with their own language and script, supports the inclusion of Neo-Tifinagh for Tamazight. However, Arabic text is used twice on these pages, while the Latinized form of Amazigh appears only once and Neo-Tifinagh is entirely absent. I need confirmation: Is it permissible to add Neo-Tifinagh, even if cited? And what about the use of Arabic, which is not the ethnic language of these ethnic groups? Returning to the issue of Karima Gouit, she is an Amazigh singer, as indicated by her public profiles outside of her wikipedia page that is fully outdated, songs, interviews, and her latest acting role. She is also a famous activist for the Amazigh cause. Skitash reverted the addition of her name in Tamazight, despite allowing the Arabic version to remain. This is in addition to the broader debate over whether to include her Berber ancestry, which two other editors argued against citing Wikipedia:Ethnicity is not notable enough for intro section, suggesting that it should only be included in the body with proper citations. Despite these discussions on the talk page, Skitash has shown little interest in further conversation even when he was the one behind the removal of the edits, and the dialogue is now largely between me and two other editors who were not initially part of the revision. But as it went on, he decided to put the page under deletion, and trying to place every "old" citation not even related to the subject as "poorly cited", I have since escalated the matter to the dispute noticeboard, but Skitash responded by filing a report against me at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YassinRi suddenly with questionable cause, while he also has another dispute with another editor relating to inclusion of berbers in their own topics. which is outside the scope of this question, apologies but just wanted to point this out..For Karima Gouit’s page, should her name translation in her native language be included or not? And in terms of dealing with Skitash, is there a more effective way to communicate with them directly, rather than constantly involving third parties in disputes regarding Berber-related topics since he clearly oppose it? TahaKahi (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

    While you do bring up some specific style issues, I get the sense that this is mostly a content dispute. I wonder if you could cut this down to those issues where you really need help interpreting the MOS, and bring up the other issues in some other forum — see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for help in finding such. --Trovatore (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I have brought it up in the Dispute resolution, it met being locked as the person that continues to try and block the Wikipedia:LEADLANG decided to put it under deletion as i mentioned earlier instead of having a conversation and trying to reach a resolution, this extented to him ignoring yet another person, who made a dispute resolution on him for yet the same subject, his disliking of anything relating to Berbers/Amazighs to be included in Berber/Amazigh related subjects, here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Algeria discussion , instead, the same person took it even further and decided to ignore it, as seen in his response to the alert made in his page when he deleted it: [2].
    I understand this matter may not reach a conclusion under MOS, but I would like clarification on one point: Can we establish a decision regarding the inclusion of Berber languages (Tamazight), which is widely spoken in North Africa, especially in Algeria and Morocco, for subjects related to their history and culture? For historical figures like Kahina or Kusaila, who are clearly Berber and not Arab or even Muslim. should they have Tamazight and its neo-script or latinized form included in their Wikipedia intros, per Wikipedia:LEADLANG? would this would apply to historical figures, kingdoms, Amazigh activists, and related topics.A clear decision on this would help prevent further edit wars. From what I've seen, other language versions of Wikipedia include Tamazight per Wikipedia:LEADLANG, but this issue persists only in the English version. It is consistently being contested by two individuals with vague reasoning, as I mentioned earlier. TahaKahi (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    What other projects do or don't do is neither here nor there. If you have a specific question regarding a specific edit, then you use the article's talk page and make your case there. Forum shopping, casting aspersions ad misrepresenting the sources to push a POV (like you did) is not acceptable. M.Bitton (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I will refer to read what I said at the start of my reply which details how this didn't work, as for why this exist, its because I was referred to make one from the dispute resolution from 2 day ago. And also i would refer to your behavior in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#c-M.Bitton-20241009175700-TahaKahi-20241009175000 TahaKahi (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Considering that this has already landed at the AN, I don't think there's anything to be done here. Gawaon (talk) 07:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The administrator noticeboard of our topic is chaotic at the moment, as many people are involved. It seems that a resolution may not be reached, as the discussion has shifted away from the main topic to something else. I don't know the exact path to take here? I was told to see the issue with Dispute resolution, then MOS and with AN i moved back and forth. TahaKahi (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    If it's not resolved there, it certainly won't be resolved here. This page is for discussions about improvements to the MOS, and your issue seems largely unrelated to that. You'll have to resolve it either at the talk pages of the articles in question or at the AN. Good luck. Gawaon (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply