This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. Toprawa and Ralltiir 07:56, February 25, 2012 (UTC)

There are several capitalization, punctuation, and usage errors in the Manual of Style, and at least one instance of incorrectly explaining a standard English punctuation rule. I'd like to fix these, but I don't have edit access to the page. Is my only recourse to compile a list for someone else to fix? Are there Trials I can undertake to earn edit access myself? I don't want to be an administrator; I'd just like to fix some minor issues on the page without having to use a proxy. Asithol 06:38, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

• What you see in the Manual of Style is considered official site policy, meaning material therein should not be changed or altered without formal approval by site consensus in the Consensus track forum. Making minor changes like fixing an overlooked typo or something of that nature is ok, but it sounds like you're intending to change the meaning of some sentences, which should not just be done unilaterally by anyone who happens to come along. This is why the page is protected. Your best best is to detail what you would like to see changed specifically. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:43, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
  • "Per standards of American English ... the period (full stop), comma, question and exclamation marks should be within the quotation [mark]" is an inaccurate statement of the American English standard regarding the question and exclamation marks. That is the only sentence whose meaning I would change, because the current meaning is counterfactual. None of the other fixes change the meaning of anything; I just feel that, as the official style guide, the MOS ought to use English correctly. Asithol 07:20, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
    • You're not exactly correct with your interpretation yourself, if I may say so. Ending punctuation, exclamation and question marks included, properly go inside the quotation marks when they are part of the original text and outside when they are not. This page correctly details the standards of American English punctuation. If anything, our MoS should be revised to reflect this. Toprawa and Ralltiir 07:26, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
      • Your summation of the rule is correct. It does not match what the MoS says, making the MoS incorrect. (The MoS would have users unilaterally place ? and ! inside the quotes; for the vast majority of Wookieepedia uses, this will turn out to be the right thing to do, but it is not an accurate statement of the English rule.) Since I never gave "my interpretation," other than saying the MoS statement was wrong—which you agree with—I wonder where you think I'm "not exacly correct." Asithol 07:41, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
        • Either way, it seems we agree on what the correct version should be, which is what really matters. You're certainly welcome to create a CT forum to revise that portion of the MOS to include the correct parameters as reflected on that web page. Toprawa and Ralltiir
    • As an addition to my previous statement, any such change of this nature would require a formal CT forum regardless. Toprawa and Ralltiir 07:28, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. Aside from that change, is there any way for a non-admin to gain access to make minor, non-meaning-changing fixes? Asithol 07:41, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
        • That requires lowering the protection of the page. It's probably easier for you to list specifically what changes you want to see made in this forum here, and then an admin can go through and make appropriate revisions as necessary. Toprawa and Ralltiir 07:49, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
          • It is certainly easier for me to edit the page directly.  :-) That also has the distinct advantages that the edits will be properly attributed in the page's history, and that if I find other typos in the future, I can just fix them without having to make an appearance before the Senate just to deal with an errant comma. However, if Wikia doesn't provide any finer access-control granularity than admin-or-no-one editing for protected pages, then using a proxy seems the only option. Asithol 08:19, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
            • To answer your question, there is no special user right that I or anyone can grant you that allows you to edit around the protection. That's the purpose of having a page protected. With all due respect, you haven't exactly convinced me with this forum that you're going to make edits that won't alter the intended wording of the text on this page. Even changing a sentence so it "reads better" may theoretically change the meaning or interpretation of a certain policy statement. Again, that's why we protect these pages in the first place. I'm happy to help you fix any minor typo or punctuation error that you may find, but I don't see any pressing need to lower the protection of this page at this time. You're welcome to list any errors you believe you've found on this forum. Toprawa and Ralltiir 08:28, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
              • Thank you for your answer. I am really not sure where your assumptions about my intended changes come from, since I never said anything about making something "read better" or anything like that. The sorts of things I am talking about are: various places where "real life" is being used as an adjective phrase and should be hyphenated ("real-life point of view", "real-life publications", "other real-life things"); one place where it is used as a noun phrase and should not be hyphenated ("in real life"); "Out-of-universe" being capitalized inconsistently (usually a lowercase U for "universe," but an uppercase in one place); and "particular books and guides" used where "particularly books and guides" is intended. Asithol 09:29, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
                • I believe I have revised all of these things you have pointed out. Please understand that I am not attempting to make assumptions or accusations about what your intentions might be. It's our responsibility as administrators of this wiki to maintain the protection of certain pages such as this. As I've said, pages are protected for a reason. And when considering whether to lower that protection for someone to edit, it ultimately comes down to how much trust and credibility that someone has earned in the community. With due respect, again, I don't really know who you are. I may have seen you edit in the Recent Changes a handful of times, and that's not really the type of person I'm going to just trust to start going through an important policy page like this. I'm sorry if that's harsh, but that's how our wiki operates: on merit. The more you earn, the more things you get to do. So please don't take any of this the wrong way. I'm happy to help you change anything further that may need revision. Toprawa and Ralltiir 09:57, December 9, 2011 (UTC)