Template talk:WikiProject Manual of Style

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Manual of Style This template falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively. This template may fall under the contentious topics procedure and be given additional attention, as it may be closely associated to the article titles policy and capitalisation. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Why do the "edit carefully" boxes appear on the talk pages?

I'm wondering why we give the discretionary sanctions notice on the talk pages rather than on the MOS pages themselves. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on updating template

I'd like to propose updating the second paragraph of the template to read: "This article may fall under the contentious topics procedure and be given additional attention, as it may be closely associated to the article titles policy and capitalisation. Both areas are subjects of debate." Bolding is to highlight my changes and is not part of the proposal.

This is due to the scope of the Manual of Style and article titles contentious topic recently being amended. The full MOS is no longer covered.

Alternatively I propose the second paragraph be removed and a new template be made with a contentious topics warning.

^signed, SpringProof _talk 06:39, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Usucha: Per WP:RFCBEFORE, please direct us to the discussions that have reached deadlock, and which has led to a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC being called. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: Thanks for the clarification of what RfC is for. I've withdrawn the RfC. I guess I'll just go ahead and WP:Be bold. Usucha (🍵) 01:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see this has been here in some form or another for some time.....why are we having this on every MOS talk when clearly the majority of pages doesn't relate to this point being said? Why do we not just have a separate template for the few pages that it would be relevant for? Moxy🍁 02:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: That's another option (in my view, the better one). Both are doable. Usucha (🍵) 02:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]