Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:25, 22 July 2005

Policy on terminology consistency?

One thing that I've noticed in a number of articles is the inconsistent use of terms even when there are no overriding contextual reasons to do so. For example, take the abbreviation for World War II - a number of articles use the abbreviation WWII [1], and others use the abbreviation WW2 [2]. For the Nanking Massacre, some articles use that term [3], and others use "Rape of Nanking" [4]. It seems to me that there should be a MoS policy stating that barring any contextual, technical, or dialect issues, articles should use the same terminology as the primary article article. This has the added benefit of centralizing debates regarding terminology in the relevant articles; people that lose an argument on how to name article XYZ would not be able to fight their fight on the articles that link to XYZ. Comments? --Bletch 23:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Are you crazy? The last thing a big free-flowing project like this needs is a rule to stifle creativity. While it may be possible to come up with one way of saying World War II that is the best way for so doing, to remove the ability for anyone to write it as WW II because they "lost" some argument somewhere misses a whole bunch of the philosophy behind Wikipedia. Highlighted links are not meant to be "titles" which may have all sorts of constraints (including disambiguations and the fact that articles frequently encompass multiple related terms) and words in text should not be straight-jacketed into article titles either. A link is just a link, a way for the reader to explore a subject further. By holding the pointer on the link you can see the article to which that link will lead. The person writing the article (and others who modify it) may have all sorts of reasons to express things the way they do without stilting things by making links exactly match titles and vice versa. In fact, Wikipedia options for setting up links are the way they are just for the reason that good writing, scholarship, and multiple backgrounds of contributors make plasticity in this aspect of writing/editing absolutely necessary. I think your idea could have merit in only a limited number of cases at best - Marshman 01:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well much of those disambiguation justifications fall under what I previously said about contextual reasons. For obvious reasons, an article on Brazil would link to its national sport by using [[Football (soccer)|football]], whereas an article on the New England Revolution may use [[Football (soccer)|soccer]], because of the differing context. But there are many cases where inconsistency exists without any reason. --Bletch 21:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Simply because consistency within an article is a virtue (it aids the reader, the only recommendation a virtue requires), that doesn't mean that lack of consistency among articles is a sin. --Wetman 22:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NOR

Don't revert my edits, Philip, you don't own this page. Why would I need to seek consensus for adding that the NOR policy, along with NPOV, takes precedence? They both take precedence, because they're policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:04, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Guideline

illustrates standards or behaviors which some or many editors agree with in principle. However, it is not policy.

Added Guideline notice to the top of page due to the fact that it could be considered a wikipedia guideline even though it is not an official wikipedia policy. Jtkiefer 06:32, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Footnotes

Some footnote calls come before the punctuation^[1]; others, after.^[2] Some even get preceding spaces. ^[3] What's the rule? Is there one? Personal preference? All depends? (And, on a related note, why do we let the footnote template mess up line spacing to such an extent?) –Hajor 30 June 2005 23:49 (UTC)

No? Nobody? –Hajor 7 July 2005 05:07 (UTC)

I don't use footnotes, but I wonder the same thing about inline links.

Either:

(a) We're discussing how to punctuate. [5]

or

(b) We're discussing how to punctuate [6].

I do the former. If it were a question: "Are we discussing how to punctuate?" we wouldn't write:

(c) Are we discussing how to punctuate [7]? SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 7, 2005 05:22 (UTC)

The former. The punctuation is part of the statement that is being referenced. Mark ¹ 7 July 2005 05:28 (UTC)

I think it's a question of taste. Generally, in my experience as an editor, footnotes follow punctuation without an intervening space. I don't have the energy or inclination to go look it up but I'd say this is general practice and would be surprised if there was much dissent in the style guides. It is definitely so in Hart's Rules and I think so too in CMS. This makes sense particularly with a period because the alternative is rather ugly and the period does "belong" to the sentence that is being footnoted. After a comma is more tricky because the comma can be said to "belong" to both clauses that it separates. If you put it before though, it looks as though the note is only on the word that it follows.

Unless anyone has a source they feel can rival Hart's Rules or CMS, I'd go with them if we must choose. -- Grace Note

OK, thanks. And my apologies for confusing footnote calls with inline links. What CMS (14th) says is: "the superior numerals used for note reference should follow any punctuation marks except the dash (...) Whenever possible, a note number should come at the end of a sentence, or at least at end of a clause." And it prints them without an intervening space. But from a strictly aesthetic point of view, our (non-superscripted) inline links look better with a separating space, per SlimVirgin, above. Which is what I think I'll continue to do (while not tyranically imposing my preferences on other editors in the absence of a MoS guideline, of course). –Hajor 21:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use contractions, really?

Like to discuss this:

In general, we prefer formal writing. Therefore, avoid contractions — such as don't, can't and won't, except when you are quoting directly.

Avoiding contractions makes writing formal all right. It also makes it bloated and liturgical. Avoiding contractions makes everything sound like a user manual for a boring appliance. An ancient, boring appliance.

Don't we want Wikipedia articles to read like articles in great newspapers or magazines? Aren't those writers using contractions to impart rhythm to their writing?

I do not advocate slang or dialect, or even Latin abbreviations. (I say, write and so on, not etc. That's a good rule.)

Yes, some contractions are confusing. However, don't and can't and won't are proper English and hardly ambiguous.

I'm sure people disagree on this. But as writer who has (not who's, because it can mean who has or who is) followed many style guides, I object to rules that discourage an everyday, lively tone, even for an encyclopedia. Make that especially for an encyclopedia.

DavidH 1 July 2005 03:16 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more with you. If it brings rythm and eases the reading, I'm absolutely for it. --Jotomicron | talk 1 July 2005 09:41 (UTC)

Please try to remember, though, that Wikipedia's audience is international, and many of the readers here may not have as good a command of English as you. Contractions are a complication for many of those readers and I think you may find that if you really try, you can write fine prose without them.

Atlant 1 July 2005 12:02 (UTC)

I agree with DavidH - contractions are a normal part of language and it's okay to use them (but not to over-use them!). I really don't understand Atlant's point - anyone learning English learns about the contractions can't, don't, won't, shan't, daren't, shouldn't fairly quickly. The only contractions I think I wouldn't like to see are could've, would've, should've, which I don't think have ever really been accepted generally in written form, jguk 2 July 2005 08:00 (UTC)

I agree also, all the more because Wikipedia seems overall to be somewhat more accessible and informal than your average encyclopedia. I also favour the singular they of common speech as an alternative to stilted dual-gendered sentences, but that remains controversial. Deco 2 July 2005 09:04 (UTC)

I think it is better to avoid contractions. I am not sure whether sentences with contractions sound more natural. And I doubt there can be any agreement, since it is rather a personal matter in my opinion. I, however, was taught not use them in "formal writing", and I believe many were as well. I also think this is also in many manual of styles. So I simply prefer to follow the guidline mostly accepted. It's like while English is probably not the best language there is, we are not here to try to improve it. -- Taku July 2, 2005 14:04 (UTC)

...It's like while English is probably not the best language there is, we are not here to try to improve it.

Taku implies grander motives than I have. Suggesting a common, everyday tone for aticles has nothing to do with "trying to improve English." Aren't contractions pretty well established in good-enough-as-it-is English?

Can't comment on contractions as obstacles to understanding for non-native readers. I would guess that "can't" is probably less difficult to comprehend than words like "disambiguation." Don't even get me started on "i.e." and "e.g."

Maybe I should have gone more to the heart of the matter: so-called "formal writing." To me, "formal writing" is what appears on bronze plaques and in official declarations. It doesn't mean anything that's written for publication. Being a professional writer for more than 20 years, 99 percent of what I have written has not been meant to be "formal"; it was published for general audiences, not ceremonial occasions where a formal tone is expected.

Don't misinterpret this to mean "you should use contractions." If you are uncomfortable with them, by all means avoid them. I want to encourage everyone to contibute to the best of their abilities and comfort levels. -- DavidH 2 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)

I don't believe Wikipedia is in a position to be setting trends on this issue. At present, the overwhelming convention is that published or formal writing avoid contractions. As such, introducing their use to Wikipedia would, I believe, represent a compromise in quality. If it is an issue near and dear to you or others, you may wish to instead edit the Simple English Wikipedia, where contractions are perhaps acceptable.--File:Australia flag large.png Cyberjunkie ^TALK 6 July 2005 04:10 (UTC)

Oh, come on now. Have you read a book, newspaper or magazine lately? What is your basis for this statement?
At present, the overwhelming convention is that published or formal writing avoid contractions.

Sorry if you've been misled by some pedantic purist, but I've been a paid writer and editor for more than 20 years, for books, newspapers, and magazines in general circulation, and your contention is just not supported by fact (unless we're talking about a different century or something). Cheers -- DavidH July 6, 2005 04:34 (UTC)
I suspect he meant "published" in the academic sense (perhaps a refereed journal), not in the generic, "it made it to print" sense. I think contractions are discouraged in scholarly articles, and I think this is more the tone that Wikipedia strives for. Could be wrong, though... ;) —HorsePunchKid→龜 July 6, 2005 05:18 (UTC)
I should have clarified that. Yes, I meant "published" in the academic sense.--File:Australia flag large.png Cyberjunkie ^TALK 6 July 2005 05:25 (UTC)

Indeed I have read many a book, newspaper [and] magazine lately. However, it is disingenuous to suggest that these mediums use contractions as a rule. I can honestly say that aside from quotations or editorials, newspapers do not use contractions – or at least not those that I read. As for books and magazines, whether contractions are used or not is wholly dependant on style in which they are written, or indeed, for what purpose. Research journals and non-fiction/informational books do not use contractions. Wikipedia is akin to these. Novels and general/opinion magazines, I concede, will generally use contractions. However, my contention stands that contractions are a trait of speech and casual writing, and that Wikipedia, as a conveyor of information, should not use them.--File:Australia flag large.png Cyberjunkie ^TALK 6 July 2005 05:07 (UTC)

(Though I am not suggesting that novels and magazines are not conveyors of information, either. The encyclopædias I have encountered, or textbooks for that matter, do not use contractions - why should we?)--File:Australia flag large.png Cyberjunkie ^TALK 6 July 2005 05:07 (UTC)
I think what we're seeing here is yet another WP collision between Commonwealth English and American English. In my experience, Commonwealth English has style and structure that are both much more fluid than in American English. The overwhelming majority of American English publications refrain from using contractions — that is, the ones that purport to speak with a neutral voice, like newspapers and newsmagazines. Of course, many American writers do use contractions, but that's when they're writing fiction or writing opinion pieces, where a loose conversational style is appropriate. --Coolcaesar 6 July 2005 05:51 (UTC)
And to think that British English speakers are accused of snobbery, despite egalitarian views such as, "In my experience, Commonwealth English has style and structure that are both much more fluid than in American English."
I'm sorry; I couldn't resist. Let's be honest, ladies and gents, whatever you grow up with or hear every day is what sounds "fluid" to you. However, what we're talking about is writing style for an encyclopedia intended, I hope, for a general audience. Do you want it to read like an academic paper or scholarly journal, or do you want it to read like an interesting piece of magazine journalism? I quote from Woe is I, the Grammarphobe's Guide to Better English in Plain English by Patricia C. O'Connor. Who's she? A former editor of the New York Times Book Review who has also written guest columns in the "On Language" section in the New York Times Magazine:
The contraction—two words combined into one, as in don't or I'm—seldom gets a fair shake from English teachers. It may be tolerated, but it's looked down upon as a colloquial, or, according to one expert, 'dialect' (what a slur!). Yet despite its esteem problem, the humble contraction is used every day by virtually everyone, and has been for centuries. Quaint antiquities like shan't (shall not) 'tis (it is), 'twas (it was), 'twill (it will), 'twould (it would), and even 'twon't (it will not) are evidence of the contraction's long history.
Today's contractions always include a verb; the other word is usually a subject or the word 'not.'
Isn't it time we admitted that the contraction has earned its place in the sun? It has all the qualities we admire in language: it's handy, succinct, and economical, and everybody knows what it means. Contractions are obviously here to stay, so why not give them a little respect?
Couldn't have said it better myself. Maybe the distinguishing characteristic of American writers is that we are less concerned with sounding scholarly than we are with our scholarship not putting average readers to sleep. If I blaspheme, I do it with good intention. I am convinced that the writing in Wikipedia will be more lively, and more appealing to the average reader, if contractions are not banned. A lot of people feel exactly the opposite, that Wikipedia should sound scholarly, that we must avoid contractions to maintain a tone of authority, of academia. I s'pose. Anyway, we won't agree, and I don't want any more whacks from "my English teach said so!" rulers. As always, no offense meant to those who disagree, and my appreciation to all who contribute. DavidH 04:33, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
"Why not give them a little respect?" — Because that's simply not the issue. For better or worse, non-contracted forms give a piece of writing a tone of credibility and authority. I treat text differently depending on whether or not it uses contractions because that's how I've been (implicitly) trained. Lack of contractions is preferable purely because of that tone, and, weak though the justification may be, I don't feel like Wikipedia is the place to start changing this perception. I can only confidently speak for myself, but I'm pretty sure (or at least I hope!) that many others out there feel the same way. (Disclaimer: All said seriously, but in the spirit of fun ;).) —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:59, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
I do, and have previously stated so. — Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a long time since even academic English (at least in the disciplines with which I'm familiar) refused to use contractions; written English without them doesn't read to me as though it's more credible and authoritative, but as though it's constipated (which doesn't inspire confidence). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps disciplines differ significantly in the tone of their writing, then. I very, very rarely see contractions in scholarly publications in my discipline (mathematics and computer science) or in the fields that I read much in (physics, biology, linguistics). I'm pretty sure contractions would stand out to my eye; granted, I don't read as much as I used to. Anyway, opinions are unlikely to resolve this "debate". (They never do, do they?) Looks like we'll have to appeal to authority after all... ;) —HorsePunchKid→龜 19:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Just to clarify: I am an American. I prefer the stricter syntax of American English, because it reduces the amount of exception handling I have to do when I'm reading a new document. Then I can concentrate on the substantive content, rather than playing Chomsky transformative grammar games in my head to determine which words and clauses agree with each other.
As for the situation in other disciplines, I can personally verify that both law and history traditionally refrain from the use of contractions. There is one famous judge, Alex Kozinski, who often uses contractions in his writing, but he is the exception. Everyone puts up with Kozinski's funny idiosyncrasies because he writes so well (even if he talks in a rather strange way). --Coolcaesar 01:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Court Cases
It is my understanding that court cases are to be rendered in italics and with versus abbreviated as v., e.g., Roe v. Wade. Assuming I am correct, and assuming that it isn't already buried in this style guide somewhere, perhaps we should this as a rule. (I would do it myself, except that I'm not sure if perhaps there is a more specific legal manual where such an addition would be more appropriate [than in the main style manual])
Theshibboleth
OK with me. Maurreen 2 July 2005 14:21 (UTC)
My two cents: Italics don't seem necessary. In the case Roe v. Wade, blah blah blah. In Sullivan v. New York Times, the court held that...

The less italic text, the better. -- DavidH 2 July 2005 14:34 (UTC)
My fourpenn'orth: I think italics are appropriate here, though I wouldn't worry about adding the dot after the v. Certainly wherever I refer to a case in my professional life, I will always use italics, jguk 2 July 2005 16:08 (UTC)
OK, just one more pence from me: Those aren't really titles at all. They're shorthand for the actual captions on the cases, as I understand it. I'm fundamentally wary about font changes. The context in most articles would make references to cases clear.
Not a huge deal for sure. Anybody writing about court cases is competent to format as they see fit, without a specific guideline. -- DavidH
Italics are the stadard style. See Court citation for more details, and Template:Citation HCA and Template:Citation CLR for providing the proper form, and linking to online text, for Austrialian cases. If there aren't similar tempaltes for US cases, there probably should be. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases. DES 5 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)
Template:TOCright
I would like to express my concern that this template is being used to the detriment of some editors - and to the delight of others. I feel that we should not be editing the placement of the TOC because a) being at the top of the page not good. From a style perspective, it is best to place an image on the right hand side of the page. Have a look at any advertisment - this is standard practice. Having the TOC on the right-hand side of the page at the very top of the lead section is, to put it bluntly, awful. Firstly, it goes some way to negating the lead section (it becomes less clear that it is a lead section, and besides which the TOC does not list the lead section anyway!). Further, one of our great advantages is to do with consistency. Applying this template to, say Windows 2000 would not be acceptable because it would kill off the infobox. This leads me to a further point: when does the template get used? Always at the top of the article? Under the last section (an extreme point, but must be raised)? What happens if someone makes a change to the template and adds _NOTOC_? That will effect all the pages that use it. Also - if we start applying it to every page, won't this cause a performance issue for Wikipedia? This may or may not be a valid point.
I would also like to express concern that people are trying to enforce a change to the default layout of Wikipedia without gaining consensus (I certainly was never told about this, and only noticed it when it was applied to W. Mark Felt - something I changed because as a reasonably major editor of that page - I sorted out the footnotes - I was never informed about such a radical layout change). If we are going to change the layout, then it should be done via CSS on the main monobook stylesheet - I doubt that consensus to change this would be gained, however. Put simply: if some editors dislike the TOC being on the left hand side underneath the lead section then they should modify their personal style sheet.
I would like to see something hashed out of this page that addresses this issue. Soemthing about changing default elements such as the TOC. - Ta bu shi da yu 5 July 2005 02:36 (UTC)
Call for MoS
Defaults are precisely that, defaults. they are what we get when we don't make changes. Editign tools are there to be used. if we souldn't ever change the TOC placement, then the software should not provide this ability.
Your argument that this should be changed by individuals in their personal CSS, or that it should be done by the default VSS stylesheet I think is invalid. It shouldn't be done in the main stylesheet because this isn't intended to be a change to the derfault, it is intended to be a formatting change to particualr articles. It shouldn't be done in indiviuduals own personal CSS because it is intended for all readers of a particualr articel, and because many of the readers for whom it is intended neither know how to, nor care to, make such adjustments, particularly on an article by article basis.
That said, this is a mater of style, and there should, IMO, by a style guideline on when and how to use Template:TOCright and Template:TOCleft. For example, placement of them so that the TOC crosses a section boundry is probably a poor idea. Template:TOCleft doesn't look well when the adjacent text is part of a bulleted list. More generally, these tempaltes are probably betr used when the TYOC is long but not wide, and probably better used after the lead section or at least a lead paragraph, in most cases.
I think this should be discussed here, we should come to a consensus if possibl;e, and a proper MOS section should be writtne on non-default TOC placement: when and how to do it. DES 5 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)
Page layouts
I like having this option. In publishing, photographs of people should always look into the center of the page, toward the text, because the readers' eye is drawn to the direction of the body, face, or eyes, and we want the readers' eye to move toward the text. We therefore shouldn't have a rule that photographs always have to be on the top righthand side, because it isn't always possible to find a photograph that looks to the left. If we only have a photograph that looks to the right, it should on the left of the page. With a photo on the left, the TOC might look better on the right, so that's a good option to have. It's also nice in some articles to embed the TOC on the right in the text, rather than have all that white space, especially with a long TOC. I therefore see these options for editors as enhancing the content, as well as the creative input of the contributors. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 5, 2005 17:13 (UTC)
Thank you, I quite agree. That is why i created TOCleft, as an exact parallel to TOCright. DES 5 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that. I find it makes editing more interesting, being able to make some layout decisions. I get a lot of satisfaction out of trying to make a page look good, and that makes me want to make the text better too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 5, 2005 17:46 (UTC)
The analogy of a web page, such as a Wikipedia page, to a magazine page is flawed— and the flaw is instructive. A bound magazine has an outer margin, desirable for images, and a central margin, called the gutter where the page disappears. An image in this central position is said to be "guttered", and its legibility and appearance are compromised. A web page is neither recto nor verso: it is perfectly neutral. People who insist that images "must" be on the right hand edge or in the upper right corner are misinformed. They are merely exercising their authoritarian training or their current position of authority, sometimes at the expense of a good layout. --Wetman 5 July 2005 18:07 (UTC)
The analogy is imperfect but not completely without merit. As I view pages[8] (Monobook plus a few user styles), they have a pretty clear recto feel. I suspect most people using Monobook would perceive it this way, though I may be wrong. Anyway, I agree that it's unreasonable to inflict some absolute standard on all pages. There should be a guideline, however, on when it is and is not appropriate to override the Wikipedia default. Pages that are essentially long lists without much introductory text would be good candidates for deviating from the standard. —HorsePunchKid→龜 July 5, 2005 19:43 (UTC)
Floating TOC
Back on June 29 I created a section on the use of a floating TOC at Wikipedia:Section#Floating_the_TOC. You are welcome to comment and suggest any changes that might be needed. —Mike July 5, 2005 18:14 (UTC)
Mike, thank you for linking that discussion re floating the TOC. I'd already commented on the current templates for deletion proposal regarding TOCright. Your discussion regarding floating it seems quite level-headed and recommends scenarios where it might work well to position it on the right (or left) and where it may not. Currently, however, we have editors who - rightly or wrongly - feel a right-hand placement simply "looks better" generally; on an article. ...On any article. If a carefully thought-out style guidance document can be written on the template's use I am open to re-thinking my personal vote re template (currently 'delete'). I think such a document could only ever be a general guide since people above seem to concur a) personal subjectivity enters in (see Wetman) and b) on some articles it ~~may~~ will not only fail to improve the article at least in the view of editors other than the Wikipedian who re-positioned it, but will have potential to cause the page to 'look a mess' to a majority? Whitehorse1 | June 30 2024 08:36 (UTC)
A suggestion: Considering how long the discussion currently is at WP:TFD, and how long this discussion has grown already, it is probably best to copy both discussions to a separate Wikipedia article. Especially since this discussion will presumably end up setting some Wikipedia policy on the issue, that just another reason to have this discussion on a separate page.
My personal opinion on the issue is that I HATE the large amount of white space that results from long, narrow TOCs. I really don't care if the TOC ends up on the left or right, just as long as there is some way to "float" the TOC, either through the use of templates or through changes in the software. (If the WikiMedia software was changed, it would also be nice to be able to control the display of the levels of section in the TOC, so you could say only display the first and second levels—sure there are ways to fake that, but that's such a kludge). BlankVerse ∅ 5 July 2005 22:05 (UTC)
I agree 100%. Float that thing, and wrap the text around it leaving a crisp frame and a good clean white margin to set it off. (forgot to sign: Wetman 00:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Initially I was against it, but saw some good examples of its use. I really think that it should be a last resort, and mainly only used for long lists with large TOCs. violet/riga (t) 5 July 2005 23:48 (UTC)
(Responding above, so as not to move the comment relative to teh next section divide) As I see this, the heading line stops short of the image, there is a little white space, and then the image. I am using IE 6 (from work) and AOL dial up (from home) and default wikipedia display. DES 6 July 2005 02:01 (UTC)
The heading line of monobook "cuts" the template
See the image on the right: the heading line "cuts" the template. How do we sort this out? If we could find out for this template, then I would also sort out Template:Islam, which does the same thing. - Ta bu shi da yu 6 July 2005 00:10 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think that you are "off your rocker"...no offense intended. :-) Unless I misunderstand what you mean, I don't see any cutting. The TOC is whole and is not cut in that image. Maybe what you are really wanting is a margin around the TOC so that the heading line doesn't touch the TOC? I actually like the way it appears, but that is just my style preference. —Mike July 6, 2005 03:28 (UTC)
Sorry, it's sometimes hard to explain how things look :-) No offense taken (it's quite possible I am crazy...)! However, have the line go under the TOC looks like it's been slapped on as an after-thought... same with Template:Islam. I think the TOC is sorted now... - Ta bu shi da yu 7 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)
I think Mike has it exactly: a margin round the TOC would keep lines from appearing to run under it and similarly keep text from squashing up against it. Much better looking (and that is personal subjectivity!) --Wetman 00:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The thing I've noticed is that when a floating TOC is used in a "Special" page (like a talk page or a WikiProject page), the margin is hardcoded to white, when the background is light blue, it just looks wrong. Is there any way to fix that? -- Titoxd 00:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I fiddled with it before trying to get it to work and came up with the conclusion that it would require a CSS change for monobook. For some (silly) reason the monobook style is the only one that uses a different color for its "special" pages. On my notebook that light blue is almost indistinguishable from the normal white. (I have to tilt my screen at an angle to see the contrast.) —Mike 06:44, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
When and how to use
Let us leave the technical question of exactly how to properly implement this template, and return to the style questions: when and how to use it. Do most here agree that it is a good idea on some articles, and a bad idea on others? That it should not become the default style on all or almost all articles, but neither should it be banned? That it works particularly well on lists? That it tends to be a good idea on articles with a long, relatively narrow TOC, and a poor one on articles whose TOC is short, wide, or both? How about location? Should this template usually be used to float the TOC after the lead section, or at elast after the inital paragraph? And please note that the parallel template Template:TOCleft] is intended to work, and be used, in exactly the same way, except with the TOC on the left. When should this be sued? when there is an image on the upper right?
Both templates look better, i think, when they do not cross a section boundry, but that is often not possible.
Do people agree that there should be a MOS entry or section on thsi issue?
Coments on these style issues, please? DES 6 July 2005 17:26 (UTC)
Width definitions
First off, I agree that this discussion has gotten to the point where a MoS guideline has to be established. But before any debate starts ocurring, we should have at least a knowledge of what we agree on.
I agree with DES that there is a need to have these templates, and that they shouldn't be the default for Wiki's TOCs, and in my opinion, that they should be restricted to pages with images and lists (I'm flexible on this one).
If any changes are going to be made to the TOCs, I believe we all concur that they should be floated to maintain good aesthetics. So, a MoS requirement for the use of Template:TOCleft and Template:TOCright should be that they are implemented in a way that minimizes annoying whitespace. Are we all OK on that?
Now, let's start with the details... how about the templates not exceeding ~ 30% of the viewer's screen (not including the navigation sidebar) if they are used? If they exceed that, then the TOC is too wide and the default should be used. Comments are requested and encouraged. --Titoxd 7 July 2005 03:01 (UTC)
That sounds like a good plan. I have just added it to Space opera in Scientology doctrine. The TOC is long, but nessarily so. What do you think? - Ta bu shi da yu 7 July 2005 04:47 (UTC)
I think you understood perfectly my idea. --Titoxd 8 July 2005 03:34 (UTC)
I agree that non-default TOCs should normally be flaoted, and in any case I think this discussion is limited to floating TOCs. I wouldn't state absolutely that there is never a place for a non-standard, non-floating TOC, but I haven't seen one yet. I agree that the 30% width rule (I assume you meant that to apply to width, not height) is a good rule of thumb, but a user with a particularly large font size or low resolution or both may find that a TOC that occupies well under 30% for most viewers, takes up more in his or her particular case. The rule must say soemthing about an average or likely viewer, or somehow handle this case, I think. DES 7 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)
Yeah, I meant 30% width as a ballpark figure, so it doesn't obstruct too much text. So, if no one objects, then that should be placed in the MoS (I'd rather have someone with more experience and higher position do it, because I'm a Wiki newbie). But does anyone have any idea what the average Wikipedia user's screen resolution is? I use 1024x768, and I think the bare minimum nowadays is 800x600... --Titoxd 8 July 2005 03:34 (UTC)
I think that Space opera in Scientology doctrine looks good with your addition, nd this is an example where an article without an image nonethelsess is improved by flaoting the TOC. DES 7 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)
As 30% varies according to user settings, perhaps a comparison to more stable examples would help. How about comparing to the Wikipedia left-side navigation column, the width of top-of-page tabs, or the end of the "Edit summary" input field? (SEWilco 06:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
30% would translate to roughly 1 + 1/2 to 2 times the width of the left navigation bar, at least in my browser. I don't know if others with other resoultions have different results. -- Titoxd 07:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Draft proposal
Taking into account some of the issues that Mike brought from the discussion at the Section MoS, I'm submitting a draft proposal for an addition to that MoS. Please be free to put any comments, objections, or support below: Titoxd 22:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The table of contents (TOC) can, in some instances, be floated either right or left using {{TOCright}} or {{TOCleft}}. Before changing the default TOC to a floated TOC, consider the following guidelines:
If an article will be benefitted by reducing unused whitespace, float.

If an article will be adversely affected by the change, don't float.

When floating a TOC, check if the page layout will be harmed if the TOC is hidden by the user.

The TOC should not be longer than necessary, whether it is floated or not.

The default TOC is placed before the first headline, but after any introductory text (unless changed by the page's editors). If the introductory summary is long enough that a typical user has to scroll down to see the top of the TOC, you may float the TOC so it appears closer to the top of the article. However, the floating TOC should in most cases follow at least the first paragraph of article text.

Floating a wide TOC will produce a narrow column of readable text for users with low resolutions. If the TOC's width exceeds 30% of the user's visible screen (about twice the size of the Wikipedia navigation bar to the left), then it is not suitable for floating. (Percentges assume a typical user setup.)

If the TOC is placed in the general vicinity of other floated images or boxes, it can be floated as long as the flowing text column does not become narrower than 30% of the average user's visible screen width.

If the TOC is going to be placed in a long list page, it should be floated.

A left-floated TOC may affect bulleted or numbered lists. Where it does, float the TOC to the right, or do not float it.

Support
I can support this as written, but I hope we will continue to suggest improvements. DES 23:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comments
Proposed by Titoxd 22:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did a copy edit, and altered the suggestion for a TOCleft that interacts with a numbered or bulleted list to float left OR not flaot. I also added the sugestion that a TOC normally follow at least the lead paragraph. if the lead paragraph is more tha a screen long it should be rewritten anyway. DES 22:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the float-right suggestion. But sometimes, there is no plausible way to restrict the introduction to just one paragraph, so shouldn't the TOC (float or nonfloat) be placed at the end of the introductory section if that happens, instead of cutting it in half after the first paragraph? -- Titoxd 22:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One of the test cases discussed in the TfD debate used TOCright to put the TOC after the first paragraph of the introduction, thus making the first paragraph full-width, but the rest of the lead section alongside the flaoting TOC. I felt that, in that case at least, this was better than a) a defualt TOC; b) a TOC flaoted after the lead section, or c) a TOC flaoted before any text at all. That is what i advise. I don't recall the articel involved off-hand, but I can probably find it if I dig through the archives. DES 23:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I realize I misread the edit... I'm going to change it so that doesn't happen to someone else. -- Titoxd 23:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In general I don't think the TOC looks better at the end of the introductory section IF that means that a typical user must scroll down to see the TOC at all. This was part of the point in creating the floating TOC in the first place, see Intelligent design. DES 23:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... good point. A floated TOC should be floated after the first paragraph, and the scroll-down problem is what we're trying to solve here. --Titoxd 23:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good, but I have two issues. First, can someone point to an example in which {{tl:TOCleft}} is actually useful or even just aesthetically pleasing? It seems to me that it would always be a bad idea and should simply be dropped entirely from the proposal. Second, just as a general comment, any statements based on assumptions about users' resolutions are bound to be contentious, in my experience. We all think we know what resolution "most" people use, but we don't. Perhaps we can find a better, more generic way of stating these constraints in order to avoid bickering later on. At my browsing size (800x900), they sound fine, though! —HorsePunchKid→龜 23:50, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I can't think of an example in which {{TOCleft}} would be useful, and I won't use it, but there was discussion above saying that it could be in some pages with images, so that's why I drafted the proposal with TOCleft included. As for the resolutions, those are the reasons we stated the constraints by also comparing them to the Wikipedia left panel. -- Titoxd 21:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be worthwhile mentioning that the TOC should not be too long under any circumstances. Some articles have an overly long TOC and it should be cut down rather than simply floated. It might be good to have a more general discussion of the introductory layout, perhaps mentioning the use of an image to fill in some of the whitespace and advising people to check that the layout still works when the TOC is hidden. violet/riga (t) 00:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see this as a non issue. Users can set the TOC of an article to float with some very simple css, my css includes a floating TOC, and has for a long time. Let each user determine how they want pages to display, forcing specific formating is not good. Gentgeen 02:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that a tiny fraction of Wikipedia users take advantage of the CSS customizability and that a yet tinier fraction are both aware of it and capable of using it effectively. It would be irresponsible to brush this off by making users fiddle with their CSS. Perhaps MediaWiki needs a user preference that makes this particular preference explicit. I can't imagine it would be hard to code, though I'm not exactly volunteering my time... ;) —HorsePunchKid→龜 02:56, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. A discussion of introductory layout seems a bit out of the scope of this (since we just want to deal with the TOC issue) but I do agree that the TOC shouldn't be unnecessarily long (although there are times it's inevitable) and that editors should check if the whole thing works if the TOC is hidden. So, I went back and added those points to the proposal. -- Titoxd 21:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First sentence of common nouns
I've noticed a great variance in the style used for the first sentence of articles describing a common noun. (see http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=common%20noun). I think a guideline would be beneficial in this area, and I just wanted to open discussion on the topic (If it has already been discussed, please point me to the discussion.)
Compare anteater, giraffe, and bear. These three articles exemplify the three styles commonly used:
Plural: "Bears are large mammals..."

Definite article: "The bear is a large mammal..."

Indefinite article": "A bear is a large mammal..."
I believe a standard first sentence would be desirable, but I have found no reference to this topic in the MoS or Guide to Better Articles.CaseInPoint July 5, 2005 03:14 (UTC)
Probably do need a simple guideline. I think indefinite article, singular form (with plural in parenthesis if it's unusual) is most common and effective.
Examples:
A clarinet is a musical instrument in the woodwind family...

A bear is an animal in the mammal family (class mammalia)...

An I-beam is a building component that supports part of a structure...

Also, like to see common terms (animal or musical instrument) before technical ones (mammal or woodwind).

DavidH July 5, 2005 21:54 (UTC)
What an excellent topic. I'm in favor of the indefinite article - if the first sentence is to start in the manner described here. However, most encyclopaedias use a short definition in which the article (indefinite or definite) is redundant because the sentence omits the subject, and is "hanging". The following are examples from the Britannica [9]:
bear large carnivore of the family Ursidae, closely related to the dog (family Canidae) and raccoon (Procyonidae). The bear is the most recently evolved of carnivores. Its ancestral line appears to have diverged from canid stock during the Miocene and to have developed, through such forms as the Pliocene Hyaenarctos (of Europe, Asia, and North America), into modern types such...

black bear also called American Bear (Ursus americanus), forest-dwelling bear (family Ursidae) that has been reduced in population and range but is still the most common North American bear. The cinnamon bear and the blue-gray or blue-black glacier bear represent colour phases of this species. The American black bear probably constitutes only one species, rather than the more than 80 described...

polar bear also called White Bear, Water Bear, Sea Bear, or Ice Bear (Ursus maritimus, formerly Thalarctos maritimus), semiaquatic northern bear, family Ursidae, found throughout Arctic regions, generally on drifting oceanic ice floes. The polar bear is sought for its trophy value and (especially by Eskimo) for its hide, tendons, fat, and flesh; the liver, however, is inedible and often poisonous because of its high vitamin...

~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 6, 2005 02:12 (UTC)
Nope, sorry, don't like the example above. In a printed book, formatted as a dictionary, maybe. But for this, the simplest thing (and easiest to keep consistent) is to start with regular ole sentences. Especially if you're suggesting the headline start the sentence, like this:
==Bear==

large carnivore of the family Ursidae, closely related to the dog (family Canidae) and raccoon (Procyonidae).
Anyway, the original post was about singular/plural and definite/indefinite article. I think the question of starting with complete sentences is pretty well settled by the number of articles already written in that form, and by the type of headline formatting used on Wikipedia articles. -- DavidH July 6, 2005 02:33 (UTC)
There is no need to apologize, DavidH. I wasn't advocating using that form on Wikipedia, I said it's the form used in most other encyclopaedias. My intention was to show that the type of sentences in CaseInPoint's post are not the only options. I quite agree that the Wikipedia house style has, in practice, been defined. If there was a choice, I'd prefer the form noted in my original post. Since there really isn't, I'd go with the indefinite article opening - as I said earlier.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 6, 2005 04:48 (UTC)
After giving it some thought I think I should add my own opinion. I disagree with an indefinite article opener. It sounds okay at first, but think about the literal meaning of such an opening. "A bear is a large mammal of the carnivore family." What this sentence is really saying is "There exists a bear that is a large mammal of the carnivore family." That is not what we are trying to say. I also don't think a plural opening is the best, beause it is somewhat unnatural and could also be considered logically insufficient. This is why I support a definite article approach. "The bear is a large mammal..." This approach ensures that the subject includes all instances of the common noun. For more info see Entry 2 in [10] CaseInPoint July 6, 2005 12:49 (UTC)

The problem with "The bear is a large mammal..." is that it implies that there is only one bear, or only one tyupe of bear. More subtly, the formulation "the bear", "the fish", "the horse" tends to imply a greater degree of sameness than there really is about living beings, particluly in such phrases as "the evolution of the bear shows...". I would favor "Bears are large mammals" or perhaps better "The word Bear is used for any of a group of large mammals" DES 6 July 2005 14:50 (UTC)
The plural does sound natural, but it doesn't parallel the singular heading, which seems not elegant. Simple is best too. It's more obvious that the indefinite article is called for if we consider non-living things:
"A baseball bat is a cylindrical club made of wood used in the game of baseball..."

"The Baseball Bat is a metal sculpture located at the Social Security building in Chicago..."

DavidH July 6, 2005 15:52 (UTC)
I don't agree with the second option given by DES. That seems more unnatural than any of the other options too me. Actually, I think the indefinite article option is the best, because it sounds natural, isn't as reductive as the definite article, and I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that it is the most widely used style in Wikipedia. Jotomicron | talk 7 July 2005 23:40 (UTC)
Preamble to proposal
I noticed that today's Featured Article, the Island Fox, uses the definite article in its first sentence:
"The Island Fox (Urocyon littoralis) is a small fox..."
However, DavidH mentioned "baseball bat" which sounded inarguably natural with the indefinite article a. I thought I'd do some additional research.
1. I googled the topic.
All relevant resources I found endorse the use of the definite article when referring to species of animal or plant ([11] [12] [13])

Other generic nouns, such as musical instruments or inventions, are also endorsed in some but not all of these resources.

The use of the definite article sounds very formal to native speakers. [14] IMO, formal style is desirable when writing encylopedic entries.
2. I surveyed all instances of animals and plants in Wikipedia:Featured Articles
No species of plants have gained Featured Article status.

The following Featured Articles about animals used the definite article "The"
Blue Whale

Coconut crab

Humpback whale

Island Fox

Marginated Tortoise

Orca

Sperm Whale

The following Featured Article about animals used the indefinite article "A"
Mixed-breed dog. Please note that this page is not about a species of animal. It merely differentiates a subset of the dogs from the rest.
3. I thought up a few random species of animals and plants and took a look at their pages.
Each of the three possible openings (plural, definite, indefinite) are widely used.
After surveying the Featured Articles, I believe that you will agree that the definite article "The" is the most appropriate opener for pages about species of animals or plants. On that note, allow me to propose an addition to the Manual of Style, if only to enhance discussion on the topic. I'm not precisely sure where it would be inserted, but here goes.
Proposed addition
If the subject of the article is a species of animal or plant, the opening sentence should begin with the definite article "the".
The Blue Whale is a [[marine mammal]] belonging to the suborder of [[baleen whales]] .
"Avoid unnecessary interference" is a useful rule-of-thumb. Perhaps the first step is to ask the proposer to go through Wikipedia and ensure that every current article on a species of animal or plant (but not any species of protist or fungus) does begin with the definite article "the". --Wetman 08:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Comments on the proposed addition are sought. CaseInPoint 04:18, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
I don't see a need for it. As long as the first sentence reads well, I really don't care whether it starts with the definite article, the indefinite article or neither, jguk 07:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ha! Sounds good to me. Thanks for all the work. I agree that definite article sounds right for species, indefinite for other stuff. Great that you found all those examples. I can see the point "As long as the first sentence reads well..." most forms are OK. Personally I support the proposed guideline, it would help me as a relatively new user/editor. DavidH 20:40, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
It is a good idea to put something about that in it, I think. Personally, not fussy about which - whatever seems to be used most. Neonumbers 10:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Quotation Marks - Why Straight? Change proposed.
Can someone explain to me why the MoS states that straight quotation marks be used at all? They are clearly typographically incorrect, visually inferior, and the only reason they exist at all is because of ASCII (that sub‐standard blight inflicted upon computing in ages long since past). The MoS gives the reasons for this as for ?uniformity and to avoid complications?. Now I must disagree with both of these ? articles can uniformly use correct quotes, and doing so introduces no complications whatsoever. So both of the cited reasons are quite clearly invalid. Unless someone can give indisputable reasons for using them, I propose that the quotes section be amended and brought kicking and screaming into the 1980s. Nicholas 8 July 2005 12:10 (UTC)
Don't agree, and I'm a purist about typography, but mostly for printed publications. It's significant that the code you used for a hyphen ("‐") doesn't render correctly in my browser.

There are lots of reasons why using straight quotes is simple and efficient, and mandating anything else can introduce problems. I know a lot of people are bothered by not using true typographic quotes, but it's a non-issue to me and probably many others, for now at least. I would vote no to a change. DavidH July 9, 2005 03:55 (UTC)
It's significant that the code you used for a hyphen ("‐") doesn't render correctly in my browser.
That's the key for me; when I stop seeing quotes that turn into "no such character" glyphs, then I'll be ready to change away from straight quotes. But right now, there are still far too many inter-operability problems between the various browsers, text editors, word processors, mailers, and operating systems to do anything other than follow the KISS principle and stick to boring old straight quotes.
Atlant 8 July 2005 14:00 (UTC)
8208 (U+2010) is an unambiguous hyphen. I guess some OSs or browsers don't support it yet, along with thin spaces and attribution dashes. But the ASCII hyphen, em and en dashes, typographic quotes and apostrophe don't suffer from the same problem. ?Michael Z. 2005-07-8 14:54 Z
David H, I don't think anyone is proposing mandating typographic quotes. Isn't the proposal to allow them? ?Michael Z. 2005-07-9 06:46 Z
I agree with Atlant completely on this. Jonathunder 2005 July 8 15:25 (UTC)
Almost all articles use straight quotation marks, they are easy to see, and easiest to write in the edit boxes. Why make life more complicated than this? jguk 8 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)
How are the typographic quotation marks harder to see? Which web browser are you using? ?Michael Z. 2005-07-8 18:23 Z
By "see" I meant aesthetics - I can see curvy ones on Internet Explorer, they just don't look so good, jguk 8 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)
Actual quotation marks look fine to me — they're closer to what books and other printed texts use. Factitious July 9, 2005 03:12 (UTC)
Ah, but a computer screen is not print. What looks good in print does not necessarily look good on screen and vice versa. Indeed, we'd expect differences in font, font size, etc. between the two media, jguk 07:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good typography is easier on the reader and looks more professional than poor typography, anywhere. Wikipedia's default design employs fonts optimized for the screen that support the characters in question. I've seen WP on both Mac OS X and Windows XP, and there is no problem resolving typographic quotation marks. If you're still using Windows 98, then typographic display probably isn't your priority. Barring technical display foibles of particular systems or fonts, I can't imagine anyone arguing that typewriter quotes and spaced hyphens are actually better than real quotation marks and dashes.
Editing is still an issue so we can't require anyone to type typographic quotation marks and dashes, but there isn't much of an argument for banning these characters, especially since the English WP already includes hundreds of pages with Cyrillic, Chinese and Thai text. ?Michael Z. 2005-07-14 03:33 Z
For further info, you might want to read through m:Help:Special characters. —Mike 07:57, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that you are all correct. Straight quotes are easier to type in (a key feature for wiki-markup), but are rendered incorrectly. The obvious solution therefore would be for the Mediawiki software to automatically identify quote pairs, and translate them to the correct unicode characters when rendering the page. MS Word already does this, so it can't be impossible. There could also be an option to disable this in the user preferences if you don't like it. The important point is that very few users are going to have keyboards with keys devoted to all the typographic variants of quote marks, so they should not be allowed in the wikitext. - Aya 42 ^T C 19:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A) Ms-word currently does this very badly, often getting the wrong kind of quote, and there is no easy way to correct such errors. I doubt that any authomatical solution will handle all cases reliably. B) too many bouseres currently in wide use don't render these characters properly, so causing us to use them is actively harmful. If the automatic translation were off by defualt, that might be ok, but problem A remains. I oppose any use of "fancy" quotes at this time. DES 20:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that automagically changing straight quotes to directional (à la MS Word) is fraught with peril. But explicitly encoding directional quotes and optionally converting them back to straight (for display, if the browser prefers them that way) at some point along the line is an almost ideal solution, as long as they're encoded portably, and this is essentially what is advocated by Help:Special_characters#Typeset-style_Punctuation. It's significant to the debate, I think, that the Help page rather directly contradicts this MoS entry in this regard, in that it essentially condones the directional quotes. I had already (before discovering this discussion) inserted cross-references so that readers will be aware of both pieces of advice. I propose changing the MoS text to "For uniformity and to avoid complications it is best to use straight quotation marks and apostrophes. If you prefer to use directional quotes, make sure they are encoded correctly and portably; see Help:Special_characters#Typeset-style_Punctuation." Steve Summit 14:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Template:guideline
Is the {{guideline}} template intended only to be on this page, or is it meant to be on every other manual of style that's been around for a decent while (or for every other manual of style)? It's not on many (if any, I haven't checked all) of the other style guideline pages - should it be there? Neonumbers 06:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of works
I've just created Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) for discussion about the layout of discographies, filmographies, bibliographies and the like. It is an attempt to standardise these lists, as their styles currently vary greatly (order, content, layout). violet/riga (t) 16:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia_talk:Summary_style#templates_to_make_summary_style_explicit
Please take a look --MarSch 08:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Archives
I archived this in the same order as they are here at archives 12 through 14 - I haven't separated them into the categories on the archive directory. Nothing was archived whose third-to-last post was less than a month old. The page was getting really really long - hope no-one minds. Neonumbers 13:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Neonumbers.
And I found this on the archive directory Neonumbers 13:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Where do we place questions for this page?
Moved from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style--Archive Directory Hi,
I don't understand why this archive of talk pages is itself a talk page. I have some questions about it, and I don't know where to post them. I guess I have to post them here, which seems inelegant.
Anyway, do the topical archives and the miscellaneous archives both contain the same information, or are they separate? That is, if I want to find the entire archive on a topic, do I have to check the relevant Topical Archive *and* the eleven pages below it, or just the topical archive?
Thanks, -- Creidieki 15:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You could search it using the search on the left hand bar, or you could use Google (probably better). I don't know about the information overlap though. Neonumbers 13:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The topical archives are separate from the chronological archives. At one time, I had been working to put all of the archives into topical order (doing away with the chronological order). My intent was to make everything in the archives easier to find.

But I got discouraged; long story that you don't want to know. And now I'm busy with other things. Maurreen 02:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Arab" etc.
I found the following in an HTML comment:
Can someone who understands the following concept re-word the sentence for clarity? I'm not sure what it means. Thanks.
Then there was this text:
The adjectives Arab and Arabic refer to Arab things in general and specifically the language Arabic, respectively.
I think this is similar to the distinction between people-adjectives (like "Chinese") and thing-adjectives (like "Oriental"). Though I think "Arab" can non-offensively refer to both people and things. But yes, Arabic should refer only to the language, not all things or people of Arab origin. -- Please correct me if I am wrong; I am changing the text as noted. Beland 03:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be curious if you have a reference for that. Certainly the dictionary doesn't agree. —HorsePunchKid→龜 03:54, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Roman numerals, Arabic numerals, one example. DavidH 04:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry; I wasn't clear. I was hoping to see something (at least vaguely) authoritative that indicates that "Arabic" can't (or shouldn't) be applied to people (or anything other than the language, for that matter). This seems patently false to me, and the dictionary definition seems to corrobote my feeling. Compare: "I know an Arab / Arab man" and "I know an Arabic man". —HorsePunchKid→龜 07:37, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
I think you were clear, and that David was agreeing with you that there's no such restriction. Mark ¹ 08:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Plot summaries
I posted this to the village pump, but only got one response. I hope to get some more discussion. The original post was: I'm having a hard time finding any guidance on extremely lengthy summaries of books and movies. An overblown example is Harry Potter (plot). Obviously this page needs to be split into individual articles for each book, but assuming that is done, would those articles be encyclopedic? In other words, is a summary so large that it cannot be on the book or movie's own page worth having in the encyclopedia? James 22:38, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
See Check_your_fiction where it says Articles about fictional topics should not be simple book-reports, rather the topic should be explained through its significance on the work. There is nothing about length per se, but an extensive plot summery without more seems to violate at least the spirit of this injunction. Maybe this needs to be added to WP:NOT. It is my feeling that to high a ratio of plot summary to comment, or too extensive a summary, should be discourged in the MOS or some similar place. WP:FICT is another palce where this might be discussed, as is Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional series. Also relevant might be Wikipedia:Fancruft. DES 19:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the argument that a very long and detailed plot summary constitutes a derivitave work and may not be covered under fair use. There is no clear case law on that that I know of, but IANAL. DES 19:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 376: / Line 376: @@
 == Quotation Marks - Why Straight? Change proposed. ==
-Can someone explain to me why the MoS states that straight quotation marks be used at all? They are clearly typographically incorrect, visually inferior, and the only reason they exist at all is because of ASCII (that sub&#8208;standard blight inflicted upon computing in ages long since past). The MoS gives the reasons for this as for “uniformity and to avoid complications”. Now I must disagree with both of these – articles can ''uniformly'' use correct quotes, and doing so introduces ''no complications'' whatsoever. So both of the cited reasons are quite clearly invalid. Unless someone can give indisputable reasons for using them, I propose that the quotes section be amended and brought kicking and screaming into the 1980s. [[User:Nickshanks|Nicholas]] 8 July 2005 12:10 (UTC)
+Can someone explain to me why the MoS states that straight quotation marks be used at all? They are clearly typographically incorrect, visually inferior, and the only reason they exist at all is because of ASCII (that sub&#8208;standard blight inflicted upon computing in ages long since past). The MoS gives the reasons for this as for ?uniformity and to avoid complications?. Now I must disagree with both of these ? articles can ''uniformly'' use correct quotes, and doing so introduces ''no complications'' whatsoever. So both of the cited reasons are quite clearly invalid. Unless someone can give indisputable reasons for using them, I propose that the quotes section be amended and brought kicking and screaming into the 1980s. [[User:Nickshanks|Nicholas]] 8 July 2005 12:10 (UTC)
 :Don't agree, and I'm a purist about typography, but mostly for printed  publications. It's significant that the code you used for a hyphen ("&#8208;") doesn't render correctly in my browser.
@@ Line 387: / Line 387: @@
 :[[User:Atlant|Atlant]] 8 July 2005 14:00 (UTC)
-::: 8208 (U+2010) is an unambiguous hyphen.  I guess some OSs or browsers don't support it yet, along with thin spaces and attribution dashes.  But the ASCII hyphen, em and en dashes, typographic quotes and apostrophe don't suffer from the same problem.  ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]]&nbsp;<small>2005-07-8&nbsp;14:54&nbsp;Z</small>''
+::: 8208 (U+2010) is an unambiguous hyphen.  I guess some OSs or browsers don't support it yet, along with thin spaces and attribution dashes.  But the ASCII hyphen, em and en dashes, typographic quotes and apostrophe don't suffer from the same problem.  ''?[[User:Mzajac |Michael]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]]&nbsp;<small>2005-07-8&nbsp;14:54&nbsp;Z</small>''
-::: David H, I don't think anyone is proposing ''mandating'' typographic quotes.  Isn't the proposal to ''allow'' them?  ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]]&nbsp;<small>2005-07-9&nbsp;06:46&nbsp;Z</small>''
+::: David H, I don't think anyone is proposing ''mandating'' typographic quotes.  Isn't the proposal to ''allow'' them?  ''?[[User:Mzajac |Michael]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]]&nbsp;<small>2005-07-9&nbsp;06:46&nbsp;Z</small>''
 :I agree with Atlant completely on this. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] 2005 July 8 15:25 (UTC)
@@ Line 395: / Line 395: @@
 Almost all articles use straight quotation marks, they are easy to see, and easiest to write in the edit boxes. Why make life more complicated than this? [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 8 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)
-: How are the typographic quotation marks harder to see?  Which web browser are you using?  ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]]&nbsp;<small>2005-07-8&nbsp;18:23&nbsp;Z</small>''
+: How are the typographic quotation marks harder to see?  Which web browser are you using?  ''?[[User:Mzajac |Michael]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]]&nbsp;<small>2005-07-8&nbsp;18:23&nbsp;Z</small>''
 ::By "see" I meant aesthetics - I can see curvy ones on Internet Explorer, they just don't look so good, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 8 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)
@@ Line 404: / Line 404: @@
 ::::: Good typography is easier on the reader and looks more professional than poor typography, anywhere.  Wikipedia's default design employs fonts optimized for the screen that support the characters in question.  I've seen WP on both Mac OS X and Windows XP, and there is no problem resolving typographic quotation marks.  If you're still using Windows 98, then typographic display probably isn't your priority.  Barring technical display foibles of particular systems or fonts, I can't imagine anyone arguing that typewriter quotes and spaced hyphens are actually better than real quotation marks and dashes.
-::::: Editing is still an issue so we can't require anyone to type typographic quotation marks and dashes, but there isn't much of an argument for banning these characters, especially since the English WP already includes hundreds of pages with Cyrillic, Chinese and Thai text.  ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]]&nbsp;<small>2005-07-14&nbsp;03:33&nbsp;Z</small>''
+::::: Editing is still an issue so we can't require anyone to type typographic quotation marks and dashes, but there isn't much of an argument for banning these characters, especially since the English WP already includes hundreds of pages with Cyrillic, Chinese and Thai text.  ''?[[User:Mzajac |Michael]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]]&nbsp;<small>2005-07-14&nbsp;03:33&nbsp;Z</small>''
 *For further info, you might want to read through [[m:Help:Special characters]].  &mdash;[[User:Moverton|Mike]] 07:57, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
@@ Line 410: / Line 410: @@
 It seems to me that you are all correct. Straight quotes are easier to type in (a key feature for wiki-markup), but are rendered incorrectly. The obvious solution therefore would be for the Mediawiki software to automatically identify quote pairs, and translate them to the correct unicode characters when rendering the page. MS Word already does this, so it can't be impossible. There could also be an option to disable this in the user preferences if you don't like it. The important point is that very few users are going to have keyboards with keys devoted to all the typographic variants of quote marks, so they should not be allowed in the wikitext. - [[User:Aya 42|Aya 42]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Aya 42|T]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Aya 42|C]]</sup> 19:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 :A) Ms-word currently does this very badly, often getting the wrong kind of quote, and there is no easy way to correct such errors. I doubt that any authomatical solution will handle all cases reliably. B) too many bouseres currently in wide use don't render these characters properly, so causing us to use them is actively harmful. If the automatic translation were off by defualt, that might be ok, but problem A remains. I oppose any use of "fancy" quotes at this time. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] 20:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
+Agreed that automagically changing straight quotes to directional (&agrave; la MS Word) is fraught with peril.
+But explicitly encoding directional quotes and optionally converting them back to straight (for display, if the browser prefers them that way) at some point along the line is an almost ideal solution,
+as long as they're encoded portably,
+and this is essentially what is advocated by [[Help:Special_characters#Typeset-style_Punctuation]].
+It's significant to the debate, I think, that the Help page rather directly contradicts this MoS entry in this regard, in that it essentially condones the directional quotes.
+I had already (before discovering this discussion) inserted cross-references so that readers will be aware of both pieces of advice.
+I propose changing the MoS text to "For uniformity and to avoid complications it is best to use straight quotation marks and apostrophes.
+If you prefer to use directional quotes, make sure they are encoded correctly and portably; see [[Help:Special_characters#Typeset-style_Punctuation]]."
+[[User:Ummit|Steve Summit]] 14:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 == Template:guideline ==