Search results
Appearance
There is a page named "Wikipedia:Common-style fallacy" on Wikipedia
- general-audience sources on style, especially when ... different disciplines use conflicting styles." – WT:Manual of Style/FAQ The common-style fallacy (CSF) is the...37 KB (5,305 words) - 23:48, 2 May 2025
- extreme, of the common-style fallacy about mimicking the style of journalistic writing. A secondary implication of either version of the fallacy, sometimes...28 KB (3,746 words) - 03:12, 12 September 2024
- The tertiary-source fallacy (TSF), dictionary fallacy, encyclopedia fallacy, or style-guide fallacy is the idea that tertiary sources—such as encyclopedias...15 KB (2,226 words) - 18:12, 24 November 2024
- but absurd. It bears no resemblance to how consensus at Wikipedia is actually formed. Wikipedia:Common-style fallacy Wikipedia:Specialized-style fallacy...5 KB (624 words) - 03:06, 1 February 2025
- sources (essay: includes usage dictionaries and style guides that contain them) Wikipedia:Common-style fallacy (essay: just because bloggers or entertainment...30 KB (4,017 words) - 11:40, 28 July 2024
- Manual of Style. It includes only current guidelines, not proposals or historical pages, nor pages that now redirect outside the Manual of Style (e.g. WikiProjects'...13 KB (1,481 words) - 20:48, 25 June 2025
- Wikipedia:Use our own words (category Wikipedia essays about style)compromise with others. Wikipedia:Common-style fallacy Wikipedia:Specialized-style fallacy Wikipedia:Tertiary-source fallacy WP:UPPERCASE (WP:STICKTOSOURCES...9 KB (1,299 words) - 12:33, 6 March 2025
- contains very little content and therefore must not be notable. This is a fallacy simply because a short article may be incomplete or simply may only be...943 bytes (98 words) - 07:54, 27 November 2021
- Wikipedia:Emerson and Wilde on consistency (category Wikipedia essays about style)consistency) WP:Specialized-style fallacy – essay on why most arguments against WP's house style are wrong-headed WP:Common-style fallacy – essay on why the rest...10 KB (1,259 words) - 22:16, 20 June 2024
- their name in title case. Wikipedia:Specialist style fallacy * according to WP:Fauna name "The common name of a group of species, or an individual creature...6 KB (249 words) - 01:25, 13 March 2023
- personal preference, the specialized-style fallacy, or the common-style fallacy. Like all style guides, MoS exists so that a roster of writers can get to...29 KB (4,094 words) - 20:09, 23 February 2024
- editors should disambiguate articles (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation). The style guidelines on this page aim to give disambiguation pages a consistent appearance...56 KB (6,649 words) - 23:18, 28 June 2025
- essay. RL0919 (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia:Specialized-style fallacy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) At best, this manifesto...12 KB (1,666 words) - 13:05, 16 January 2019
- editors. Some engage on talk pages, and often make use of distraction fallacies, falling into a pattern which has been characterised as: Like someone...2 KB (243 words) - 04:56, 20 May 2022
- Wikipedia:Two wrongs don't make a right (category Wikipedia essays about Wikipedian fallacies)—MastCell, [1], in a comment about a pernicious form of the two-wrongs fallacy, in which users seeking to deflect from their own culpability (or the culpability...8 KB (1,274 words) - 01:00, 22 December 2023
- verifiability, the bedrock principles that ground Wikipedia articles. Logical fallacy Wikipedia:You Are Probably Not a Lexicologist or a Lexicographer Wikipedia:Call...1 KB (103 words) - 01:23, 5 October 2023
- significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention. There are a number of common mistakes seen in addressing this issue: Adding citations but to unreliable...6 KB (737 words) - 16:05, 21 June 2024
- Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic (section Common standards)dick, so we can ban you Wikipedia:Randy in Boise Wikipedia:Specialized-style fallacy Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great § Behavioral/cultural problems...8 KB (1,070 words) - 23:47, 8 July 2024
- Talk:Cro-Magnon 20:10, 28 June 2025 (UTC) It doesn't explain why it's a fallacy. on Talk:Junkyard tornado 05:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC) View full list – Add...943 bytes (603 words) - 03:50, 15 June 2025
- this. He was technically right, as a semantic matter, if one accepted his fallacy of equivocation about the wording. But he was clearly violating the spirit...5 KB (695 words) - 12:08, 24 April 2025
- for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance
- basically proven my point, a point which was not an ad hominem logical fallacy no matter how emphatically you say so. I'm not an IP lawyer but I don't
- introduce zombies, demons, ghost, and hungry-ghosts. I could suggest a logical fallacy is created when we choose to "create" monsters, rather than reflecting