Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:53, 2 February 2006

Archives and see also

Archives are at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style--Archive Directory

Quotation marks

I would like the quotation mark wording to be changed to:

As there is currently no consensus on which should be preferred, either is acceptable. If straight quotes are converted to curved quotes in an article, this change should be accepted.

Also, the Quotations and Quotation marks sections cover the same thing, and should be merged. — Omegatron 22:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. There's absolutely no point in allowing inconsistency on a point so immaterial to the content. Deco 22:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency? — Omegatron 00:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. When some articles use one type of quote and others use others, we have less consistency of presentation and the articles become more products of independent authors and less part of an integral whole. This is a small issue, but I fear it may become a slippery slope — the web demonstrates the unfortunate result of allowing each author to choose all aspects of their own style. It might have been better to consistently use "smart" quotes throughout, but it'd be far too difficult to fix them all now, and I'd favour consistency over making a few people a little happier in this case. Deco 00:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there was concensus to use smart quotes, I'm sure someone could write a bot to mass-change all the normal quotes. I would prefer one or the other though for consistency. Kaldari 01:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording is inconsistent. The current wording says that both are acceptable. Both types of quotes are currently in use, and the MoS currently says we have to accept either. I am asking to change the wording so that we are allowed to change them all to "smart" quotes with bots and scripts and such. — Omegatron 02:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I hadn't read that part in a while — it changed on me. I submit that we change it back to a strict requirement for straight quotes throughout. Besides the fact that less time and effort would be involved in expunging the violations this way, it's a lot easier for users adding new content with standard keyboards to use straight quotes. Deco 06:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. :-) — Omegatron 18:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support to move back to straight quotes only. The difference is invisible anyway and much easier to edit. −Woodstone 08:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't let's have a straw poll on this again. We've been there before, everything has been said, and clearly there is no consensus. Arbor 10:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But please look above, at #Disputed. There was no consensus at the last several repolls, sure, but at some prior point in the past, there was consensus for straight quotes only. Somebody changed the guideline on 26 September 2005 to say there was no consensus anymore. I've observed a lot of policy strawpolls, and have never heard of any other case before where a prior consensus, being repolled and resulting in no consensus, results in a change to "editor's preference" rather than status quo ante. I'm still very confused about how this came about, and just from the historical record, it looks to me like that editor last September was sneaking a fast one past everyone in a flurry of edits. I'd like to be proven wrong, but I think this is a case where everyone watching the MoS just managed to miss this change. --TreyHarris 18:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, before Wipikedia-EN switched to UTF-8 there was a pretty sound technical reason to prefer straights. Curlies would either have been an enormous mess (being coded and/or interpreted wrong), or led to unreadable source-code (using HTML entities). After the switch, that reasoning went the way of the Dodo, which explains the sudden shift in many editors' attitude. Arbor 19:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fleminra's sentiment here that we should use the correct characters in the markup and downgrade them for display for the people who don't want them.

Another alternative is the wiki way; change Mediawiki to display curly quotes when the wikitext has straight ones, and use nowiki tags for the exceptions. Other markup languages like textile do this. — Omegatron 20:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curly quotes are more correct, but I oppose any non-automated requirement for all editors to use curly quotes because it would be unenforcable - nobody would do it. People just don't go out of their way to type fancy characters that aren't on their keyboard. The result would be a massive workload on our laps for little more than an aesthetic touch. Deco 23:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gender pronouns

Occasionally, I've noticed articles referring to entities of unknown or undetermined gender using just male or female pronouns, which has been interpreted as sexist. There's at least a written tradition for the use of male pronouns, but the use of female pronouns is about as silly and about as widely accepted in formal writing as the word "womyn". In particular, style guides such as Strunk and White explicitly recommend against this backlash usage. I personally favour the use of conversion to plural language and/or the use of singular they (which is informal, but widely accepted in spoken speech and I think fitting to Wikipedia's generally informal style). Is there any particular policy or past discussion on this issue? Should there be a policy or should this be left to individual penchants? Thanks. Deco 22:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one of the previous discussion of this issue: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_37#Gender_Pronouns. I feel like I'm becoming the memory of the Style Guide :) Kaldari 01:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion seems vague. Of course we should say "reword where possible", but it's not always possible. Do we need a guideline for this? Deco 06:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, of course, have voiced (?) this opinion before. I am strongly against using "they" as a singular pronoun. Wikipedia's style may be informal, but should we encourage incorrect grammar? JJ 21:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar is as grammar is spoken. The singular "they" has a long pedigree, including Shakespeare. It is "incorrect" only insofar as you choose to follow the dictums of prescriptivists. See singular they.--TreyHarris 23:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno if an encyclopedia should sound like common speech, eh? Like, what if Britannica did it. Wikipedia, ’tis not Shagespeare, forsooth.

It's often possible to use the indeterminate pronoun one, but not always. She sounds a bit self-concious, but it doesn't bother me if not overused—in some writing I alternate examples using he and she. Singular they in formal writing just sounds wrong to me, or if obviously used to avoid accusations of sexism, then it seems even more self-conciously politically correct than she does.

In the end though, there's nothing wrong with sticking to the formal "he"—people should find more important things to get uptight about. [cringes in anticipation of a flame] —Michael Z. 2006-01-18 23:20 Z

You make my point in your own comment. What is considered "formal speech" today would have been considered quite casual 100 years ago. Generally speaking, the mechanism in English (and many other languages) for many hundreds of years has been for formal writing to gain new locutions from casual speech after such locutions are extant for a few decades. Singular they—specifically as a mechanism for avoiding the implied sexism of indeterminate he—has been in the speech for at least four decades. Its use as the referent of a bound variable (e.g., "Will everyone please return to their seat?") has existed for centuries. It seems like only a matter of time until it is as well-accepted as split infinitives are — still railed against by the curmudgeons, but for the most part in unremarkable and widespread use. There's no English Academy to make a big announcement when this has become the case; at some point, it simply will be undeniably true. I think it's already good enough for Wikipedia, whose "formality" has never been to the point of stuffiness. (I'm not taking the bait as to what's "wrong" with indeterminate he.) --TreyHarris 00:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realise there have been enough flamewars over the use of singular they. Perhaps we can have a policy similar to American/British English - reword to avoid it where possible, and otherwise just be consistent within an article and don't go changing stuff around for no good reason. Deco 23:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just read "singular they"—good article. It gives a number of good examples using they/their/them to refer back to an indeterminate number. But I think it can't replace he/she/one in every instance. Let's not over-specify grammar—it all depends on the specific circumstances and the editor's writing ability. —Michael Z. 2006-01-18 23:30 Z

Lest we forget

47 rules for writers. "The passive voice should never be used," "Avoid cliches like the plague," and my all-time favorite "No sentence fragments." -- Jmabel | Talk 09:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! Neonumbers 10:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something but...

... was there consensus on the large, recent excisions from this document? - Jmabel | Talk 05:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summery says they were moved, and cites a talk page discussion but I don't see any such discussiuon and i am not convinced that this move is a good idea. DES ^(talk) 22:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be stronger about unnecessary Latin

I'm fairly sure it's not good Wikipedia style to use unnecessary Latin phrases and abbreviations when a perfectly good English version is available. The most common examples are e.g. and i.e.. These should be replaced with "for example" and "that is". Alternatively, the sentence containing the abbreviation should be rewritten entirely, because these abbreviations also seem to serve as flags that the writing around them is unclear and the writer is trying desperately to clarify things by sounding more important.

Would it be reasonable to add a note warning against e.g. and i.e. under the paragraph about unnecessary foreign phrases?

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, e.g., i.e., and etc. in particular are rather debatable when used properly, since they're widely understood, although I try to eliminate them. I think less controversial would be elimination of all other Latin, such as N.B., viz., and other Latin terms that have become unfamiliar among many audiences. Deco 20:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree about "widely understood" as I often ask folks whose work I'm reviewing what they stand for and mean, and so far I've met very few who had any idea. OTOH, I do spell out Nota Bene from time to time. Yes, I'd like a strong warning, and agree that it usually means it was copied without undertanding (often from an academic source, or here the 1911 encyclopedia), and is therefore a strong indication of need to re-write.

--William Allen Simpson 00:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a note about not using Latin abbreviations in the usage section. I don't know if it would be appropriate to move it to the foreign phrases section, as the latin terms in questions aren't really "foreign", they're just academic. And yes, I've met plenty of people who have no idea what "i.e." or "e.g." mean, much less "n.b." or "viz.". I think "etc." might be the lone exception. Kaldari 00:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree it's not really "foreign". As for how well people understand i.e. and e.g., it's true that people often have at best a vague sense of where the two are used and often mix them up in their own writing, but at least they aren't bewildered on seeing them. I still prefer "for example" and "that is", though — they're usually short enough. Deco 00:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never met a person who did not know what e.g means in practice, even if they did not know the words behind the letters. Frankly, if they don't, they should sue their teacher for incompetence. They are used universally in English worldwide (and no, not academic English. They feature in The Sun, Britain's leading tabloid). Dumbing down language to the standard of a comic is not an option in an encyclopaedia. Perhaps you might like to request that people don't use colons and semi-colons, given that many people seem not to understand what they are too. And while we are at it, why not ban commas altogether, given how few people seem to understand them. In addition many people don't seem to know capitalisation rules. So lets abolish capitalisation also. Then there's pesky words with more than two syllables. This really is the most astonishing conversation. How it could ever feature in an encyclopaedia is mind-boggling. If people are so illiterate that they do not know what i.e. and e.g. are, then link them to articles in the same way footnote citations are linked. Even tabloids use both of them. Are we seriously suggesting that people are so illiterate that we should aim for a sub-tabloid standard of English? Or has the education system in the US really sunk to such a level of ignorance of basic language? Even if it has, English speakers on the rest of the language still use NB, e.g., i.e., etc. As Wikipedia policy has made clear, US standards of English do not set the standards of Wikipedia contributions. British-English, English-English, Hiberno-English and the many other forms of English, all of which still use i.e., e.g. et al are perfectly valid on Wikipedia and will continue to be used on Wikipedia. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how using plain English phrases such as "for example" is "dumbing down" Wikipedia. It is simply using the more commonly known expressions. And just because the U.S. does not use latin abbreviations does not mean we are ignoramuses. I suppose you think we spell things differently out of sheer stupidity as well. You should appreciate that cultural differences do not necessarily equal inferiority. Kaldari 01:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think what we're seeing here is yet another collision between American English and Commonwealth English. E.g. and i.e. are rarely used in American newspapers and periodicals, but are common in formal academic journals and legal documents written by lawyers and judges. It sounds like as if Commonwealth English is using e.g. and i.e. in what Americans would consider to be informal contexts.

There may also be a collision going on between the early onset of the American Plain English movement and its delayed spread to the rest of the English-speaking world. --Coolcaesar 01:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not contest that ignorance of the exact mechanics of a construction are unnecessary for reading comprehension, or that most readers are at least vaguely familiar with i.e. and e.g.. I don't think these abbreviations should be prohibited, but in the many situations where plain English is applicable, it's often easier to read and less stilted. Latin abbreviations are also often a flag for long-winded or overly-complicated language. Additionally, many of our readers only read at an intermediate level of English, and avoiding advanced constructions can help them out (although that's more the mission of the Basic English Wikipedia). Deco 02:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference, here are my estimations of the popularity of various latin abbreviations in the U.S.:

etc. - Very common and universally understood. Used more often than any equivalent phrases.
e.g., i.e. - Not common in popular media. Usually understood. Almost no one knows what they actually stand for. Other phrases or abbreviations are far more common.
et al. - Almost exclusively used in academic or legal contexts. Most Americans with college degrees probably understand what it means.
n.b., cf., q.v., viz. - Never used outside of academic or legal contexts. Few Americans, even among those with college degrees, are familiar with these abbreviations.

Kaldari 03:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds about right to me, with the notable exception that people with legal or medical degrees tend to be more familiar with Latin abbreviations than most. Deco 03:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should be more firmly against it, but I've already said this on my user page. It's not dumbing down; it's removing pointless archaisms. — Omegatron 04:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are probably not very familiar with the publishing world. "Archaisms" like "i.e.", "etc." and "e.g." are around because they convey well understood terminologies in a minimal amount of (print) space. I'm not sure conserving space is any real concern at Wikipedia (seems like it should be), but all sorts of abbreviations exist in print for the reason that space usually always eventually becomes a premium in information transfer. Your assessment that these are pointless simply rerflects a lack of knowledge of the subject. That these are latin abbreviations seems archaic, but latin occupies a rather special place in the world languages. I do agree with Kaldari's assessment of common understanding of these latin abbreviations, as most come from specific fields (like the biology, or library science, or literature). There is no doubt that, at the expense of creating a longer phrase, most could be replaced, but that does seem a shame and a bit dumbing down to me. But I'd agree with the guidelines that Kaldari seems to be suggesting. - Marshman 04:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the other thing. Wikipedia isn't paper. These abbrevations were made for publications in which space is at a premium. With two million words per penny, conserving space isn't important at all. There's no reason to use dead language abbrevations when whole english words will convey the exact same meaning. — Omegatron 06:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I use i.e. and e.g. all the time, but I don't much mind using that is and for example instead. I do somewhat worry about that is being misinterpreted, though. For example, "I often use neologisms (that is, words that have recently come into the lexicon) and then explain what they mean in a parenthetical." I could see that sentence getting changed by a well-meaning copyeditor to "I often use words that have recently come into the lexicon and then explain what they mean in a parenthetical.", where I think it would be less likely had I used i.e. instead. I.e., to me, has not only the denotation of "that is", but also the connotation of "i am intentionally defining something in-place at this point."

Is it safe to assume that etc. is still fair game? "A, B, and so on" sounds painfully informal to my ears. --TreyHarris 05:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a fan of "and so on", but even I occasionally use etc.. In your example, you might consider "defined as", "meaning", "in other words", or simply omitting the connector: "I often use neologisms (words that have recently come into the lexicon) and then explain what they mean in a parenthetical." The Simple English Wikipedia has made a common practice of the last of these. Deco 07:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience with Wikipedia articles, Latin abbreviations, especially "etc.", are a sort of linguistic shortcut that more often than not are a manisfetation of muddled thinking on the part of the writer. I find that most of the time I encounter abbreviations like "etc.", and "i.e.", they are red flags that indicate that the entire paragraph needs to be carefully looked at to make sure it is sensical. I think that encouraging editors to write sentences that would sound equally fluid when read aloud—and Latin abbreviations never sound fluid when read aloud—would be an excellent way to generally improve the writing quality of articles. The argument that the abbreviations are shorter than their English equivalents is completely inapplicable on Wikipedia because Wikipedia Is Not Paper. So basically they amount to little more than phrases that are understood by a smaller group of people than that the group that can understand the equivalent English translations. As such, I don't see that they serve any purpose other than to reduce the clarity and therefore the accessibility of the articles they are used in. However, whenever this is pointed out, the response is that we shouldn't "dumb down" articles—a response which completely misunderstands the concept of clarity. Being clear does not mean simplifying or "dumbing down" ideas. Being "clear" just means expressing ideas in a way that is not muddled by unnecessary ellipsis, fancy vocabulary, and foreign phrases, including those hidden behind abbreviations. It seems no amount of appealing to the fact that articles are invariably better when Latin abbreviations have been removed is sufficient to dissuade editors from using them. So the Manual of Style doesn't recommend against them (although it should), but whenever I edit text that contains them, I always recast the sentences so as to exclude them, and I encourage everyone else to do likewise. Nohat 07:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but virtually every use of X is a sort of linguistic shortcut that is a manifestation of muddled thinking is a defense used for almost every linguistic prescriptivism; just replace X with "split infinitive", "singular they", "passive voice", "dangling preposition", or any other grammatical bugaboo. Provide some URLs to sample diffs, please, showing where you corrected "muddled thinking" by eliminating etc. or i.e.? (Sorry to be so blunt, but I'm a linguist by training and I don't believe anything said about language without data. :-) --TreyHarris 18:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right on. I have no problem with avoiding latinized abbreviations in favor of "clearer" sentenence structure, but do not buy the argument that what most regard as "clearer" writing (avoiding all that "difficult" vocabulary) is not a form of dumbing the language. Sure, in many cases, too many flowery statements obscures; but in many other cases avoiding certain words because they sound high-brow misses a clarity that people with poor vocabularies do not have. We should not make simplyfying the language a major goal here - Marshman 18:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I consider "etc." to be an exception as "et cetera" has become a normalized English phrase. Of all the latin phrases we use abbreviations for, it is the only one to be used in spoken English, and quite commonly in fact. Kaldari 16:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not "only"—I speak and hear "i.e." and "e.g." with some frequency, though certainly not as often as "etc." Of course, unlike "et cetera", people say "eye ee" and "ee gee", not "id est" and "exempli gratia". --TreyHarris 16:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this is where the nail meets the head: "i.e." and "e.g." are English words, and they mean "that is" and "for example". Yes, they do have an etymological history as Latin abbreviations, but they are almost certainly not "foreign words" - e.g., in particular, seems to be replacing "for example" in both speech and print because it is shorter to say. Scott Ritchie 09:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the latest comments. I use i.e. and e.g. quite often, and they are indeed part of the English language, like it or not. I appreciate that one shouldn't use them ad nauseam, but that applies to any word/phrase/expression. PizzaMargherita 14:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't part of the English language. Not even as loanwords like "bonus" or "virus". The vast majority of people do not "speak and hear" these abbreviations as words. The vast majority of people do not use them in normal conversation, or even in highly technical or specialized conversation.

Even if they were English words, would you advocate using "callipygian", "defenestrated", and "molendinaceous" in articles where their written-out English equivalents could be used with no loss of information or connotation? They're part of the English language, too.

Articles in Wikipedia should be accessible to the widest possible audience. For most articles, this means accessible to a general audience.

See Make technical articles accessible, meta:Reading level — Omegatron 16:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean:

Even if they were English words, would you support using "callipygian", "defenestrated", and "molendinaceous" in articles where their written-out English twin could be used with no loss of facts or hidden meanings? They're part of English, too.

Articles in Wikipedia should be easy to understand for the biggest possible audience. For most articles, this means easy to understand for a general audience.

See Make hard articles easy to understand, meta:Reading level

C'mon. The idea that a word, just because it's a cognate with Latin, is therefore harder to understand is condescending. Oops, I mean just because it's a sound-alike with Latin, saying it's harder to understand is a put-down. --TreyHarris 18:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both m-w and Cambridge report e.g. and i.e. on par with virus, so I'd say they are part of the English language, unless you can provide references that state otherwise. No, I would not advocate using the words you mention, but we do not have a separate list for them, do we? So for the same reason, even if i.e. and e.g. should be black-listed (which I moderately disagree with), that should not be done explicitly. PizzaMargherita 17:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I think the goal is to make articles well-written, readable and easy to understand. I don't think there's any point making a special issue of Latin. Use/avoidance of Latin-derived words and abbreviations is not all that strongly correlated with ease of understanding. "A sheaf of germs" isn't any easier to understand than "a canonical symplectic 2-form." They're both highly technical terms and I don't personally have a clue as to what either of them means.

Second, the writing style ought to vary within an article. Introductions should be comprehensible to a very wide audience. As one proceeds deeper into more technical sections, the writing should become more technical. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bulleted items

Do bulleted items have to have periods to end them? Some bulleted items are sentence fragments and don't look proper with a period to end them such as:

1997.
Academy Award.

Should the rule be that if it is more than one sentence then it should get a period? Such as:

Academy Award and Golden Globe (fragment with no period)
He won the Academy Award that year. He also won the Golden Globe. (full sentence with period)

What do you think? How do other style guides handle them? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No periods always seems to work best, since they are not sentences. It's also probably best not to mix bulleted points with and without periods; so rewrite the last one, or just use a period in the middle but not at the end. Bulleted points are best if they're brief; if you need too much punctuation, consider rewriting the list as a paragraph or removing some information to the text or footnotes. —Michael Z. 2006-01-20 18:39 Z

In some cases, including discussion on talk pages, a bulleted list where each entry is a paragraph works well. When most items in a list are naturaly short, making some into sentances is probably a poor idea. DES ^(talk) 18:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases bulleted lists have all but the last ending in a comma or semicolon, and the last ending in a period. But more conventionally I either see all periods or no periods, based on whether or not the items are complete sentences. Deco 22:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I hope you don't mind my grabbing a bullet and jumping in here. My question is also about bullets but, in a way, is sort of the question directly after the one you address: what else can you lose after you lose that period, comma or semicolon? I think I'd already conceded to myself that punctuation may as well be dropped from the end of each bullet. I might have asked this page about it myself if I hadn't also begun running into bigger questions about how to field sentence structures in bulleted lists (Talk:Ignacio_Zuloaga). I started to break down my sentences for "bullet-ization" and became concerned about how much might be too much--then stopped to reassess. There came a level where what was just bearable in a paragraph ("He does this ... He does that ...") becomes a string of personal pronouns all in a vertical line--and then its obvious that they have got to go. So then you have a bunch of verb-object/(prepositional-phrase) constructs. Would it be accurate enough to just say that a bulleted item need be no more than a cogent phrase (or even one word, say "birth"?) adequately describing some event, and that this criterion trumps other conventional structures? I feel like I could draw the line somewhere this side of the pale, but I want a better idea of where the bounds/conventions are. Do any style manuals address this? I have a couple of lesser ones that don't mention it. -cheers, EN1-UTE- (Talk) 12:33, 28 August 2024 UTC [refresh] </nowiki> -->Onceler (Talk) (Mail) 09:42, 24 January 2006

PS: (Another posting on this page reminds me to ask: where does that old proscription of "no sentence fragments" fit in here? -Onceler 10:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the new W:MOS bullets section. I guess it clears up my concerns in in as much as degree of fragmentation is not the right question. It's more important to be consistent one way or the other, whether by bits or bytes. -thanks, Onceler 12:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed paragaph on date linking

I just removed the following paragraph "In a biography, for example, Wikipedia only requires that the birth date and year and death date and year be wikified in biographies. Ask yourself: will clicking on the year bring any useful information to the reader?" The first sentace is not correct -- there is no current guideline (mich less a policy) which requires such links -- it is in fact much disputed whether they should even be standard, and until recently the MOS dates & numbers page pretty celarly reccomended agaisnt them. I myself tend to remove them whenever I find them. DES ^(talk) 22:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, though I didn't write that text. I would have thought that most biographies would include day, month, and year, in which case the MoS is pretty clear that you wikilink. Otherwise user preferences for date formats do not work. So you're referring only to cases where the day of birth or death are not known, only the year? --TreyHarris 22:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i am refering to cases where the only date given in the lead is the year, which is not at all uncommon for birthdates, particualarly for people born a long time ago. (Prefs also do not work if the month and year, but no day, is given, which is less common but does happen.) There is an ongoing debate about this on the talk page of the relevant MoS page -- see that for more details. DES ^(talk) 23:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. Here is the entry: [[1]]

I was saying that biographies require the birth and death dates wikified. I was trying to convey that there is no need to wikify every year you see in an article. Such as:

He moved to Jersey City in 1928, then in 1930 his parents moved to Hoboken. By 1935 he was working as a lawyer, and he married in June of 1941. In 1942 he enlisted in the Navy, where he won the Navy Cross.

I ask: will clicking on the link be useful, or is part of the wiki-clutter? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a poll now ongoing on the talk page about whether those examples should remain linked, since the paragraph above says that years not part of full dates generally should not be linked. The examples show biography lead dates as being linked, but nothing in the text says that such links are required (asming that no full date is present) DES ^(talk) 23:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Usage of links for date preferences. See also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Year links in examples (year of birth/death) and subsequent discussion. DES ^(talk) 23:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling proposal

Consensus has led to the following widely accepted "rule":

"Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the spelling of that country."

But what about "neutral" articles, articles that are not related to any English-speaking country, like dream or fish?
I think we need a simple rule for these articles. What do you think about the following proposal?

Generally, articles should use Oxford spelling (see OED, section "Spelling"). Oxford spelling is based on British conventions, but it deviates from common practice in several ways: The most important difference from usual British spelling is the use of -ize instead of -ise. At first glance, one might think: "It's basically British spelling with -ize". However, the -ize-suffixes are very common. In fact, they are the most common spelling variations in academic texts. Oxford spelling is used by the majority of international organizations, because it is often considered the best compromise. Many will now think: this approach favours British spelling too much, and they are right. That's why I propose the following "counterweight": All neutral articles with titles that have multiple spelling should conform to Webster's preferred spelling: color, honor, defense... It think that would be a fair approach and would give a clear answer to the question what kind of spelling should be used for any given article:

- Related to any English-speaking country? -> That country's spelling. Example: United States

- Neutral and title with variant spelling -> US spelling. Example: Honor

- Neutral and title without variant spelling -> Oxford spelling. Example: Dream

NeutralLang 23:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An intersting idea, but I oppose this. It is just asking for too many edit wars if we try to prescribe a particular set of speeligns from among valid regonal alternatives. DES ^(talk) 23:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose it. Gene Nygaard 16:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But what about "neutral" articles, articles that are not related to any English-speaking country, like dream or fish?

Original contributor rule. — Omegatron 20:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question re normally italicized text in already italicized block?

Greetings.

How should one treat text that one would want to italicize (parenthesized literal text in a foreign language) within a block of text that is already italicized (translation from that language)? Currently I am using (a) parenthesized "scare" quotes, but I don't know whether I should (b) UN-italicize without quotes or (c) only parenthesize ... or maybe anything goes? I was looking for a mention of this case in the MOS but didn't happen to see one. I don't think I have a strong preference myself, right now, but it would be nice to know if there is any consensus about it. -thanks, Onceler 00:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The usual convention is to unitalicize italicized text in an italicized block. This isn't exactly the most visually effective form of emphasis, but I've seen it used a lot and it jibes nicely with the wikisyntax for it, which is the same as ordinary italics. Deco 00:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what LaTeX's \em command does: it toggles between italics and upright for nested emphases. PizzaMargherita 14:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since asking this question, I also wondered whether there were other applications of it--good enough to warrant adding something to the WMOS--and I have not been able to think of any. The admittedly awkward motivation for my question was that there was a word in a block quote of translated text that was ambiguous--various interpretations would serve the same purpose and some license by the translator was unavoidable. I had included this word within the italicized block but have since moved it to a Notes section indexed via footnote. This seems to be a more conventional way to treat such cases and I expect go this route from now on. Thanks all for your feedback. -regards, EN1-UTE- (Talk) 12:33, 28 August 2024 UTC [refresh] </nowiki> -->Onceler (Talk) (Mail) 21:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, block quotes should not be italicized or quoted. The indention and spacing already serves to indicate that they are quotes. Deco 22:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used the italics not just because this is a quote, but because it is a quote that I translated, as part of translating an entire article. Though this does not fall under the sense of being a "foreign word" per the WMOS, there is no mention of how to treat translations, and so I gave it the benefit of the doubt. If they are misapplied I'll remove them. So, just to confirm: one should go without italics even for a translated quote? -thanks, EM1-UTE- (Talk) 12:33, 28 August 2024 UTC [refresh] </nowiki> -->---Onceler 18:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parenthetical information

I removed this recently added edit. I don't see any basis for it and there was no discussion of this that I can discern. I don't necessarily object to the examples given, but I think it could easily be interpreted as deprecating any parenthetical information. older ≠ wiser 15:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which do you think should be the preferred method of adding new information to the text of an article? Adding it in parenthesis, or integrating it directly into the text:

Charles M. Vest (President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) said ...

Charles M. Vest, President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said ...

or

In 1954 he attended MIT (and graduated in 1958)

He started at MIT in 1954 and graduated in 1958

Wikipedia should standardize on a single way. People tend to add new information parenthetically rather than attempting to integrate it into the narrative of the article. When I find parenthetical information I integrate it so that the article reads as a single continuous narrative. What do you think? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the examples you cite, the latter. However, there are cases where I think a parenthetical aside is fine (can't think of an example just now though). The wording seems that it could apply to ANY sort of parenthetical information, even say DOB and DOD in bios. older ≠ wiser 17:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct in that it is used in the following:

"Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )" for year of birth and death
"Richard Arthur Norton (born September 1958- )" in biographies
"Head of Research (1990-2005)" but I prefer: "Head of Research from 1990 through 2005" so as to not confuse birth and deaths with lengths of reign
In acronyms: "Department of Justice (DOJ)"

Absolutely not. This is a matter of style, and a single way should not be mandated. Parenthetic phrases can be set off with commas, dashes, or parentheses in good English writing. Sometimes they can be integrated without being set off, as in the second graduation example above. By the way, the Vest comma example above is missing its second parenthetic comma. —Michael Z. 2006-01-23 16:51 Z

Hear, hear! Puffball 17:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And that is why this section is called "Manual of Style". We have to make the difficult, and often arbitraty style decisions, so that Wikipedia has a consistent "look and feel". So the question is: Should new information be added parenthetically or should it be integrated into the narrative? Does anyone else have an opinion on which style should become canonical? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

Yes, and for consistency, let's just always write "double-plus" instead of very, extremely, acutely, amply, profoundly, terribly, or extraordinarily. This is a guide to style, not the elimination of style. —Michael Z. 2006-01-23 17:34 Z

It is true, it is a guide to style and not its elimination. However, this isn't one of those instances where it'd be elimination — actually, let me rephrase that; with care taken it shouldn't be.

Then again, this is probably one of those things where if you do include it, it'll probably get misinterpreted as a hard-and-fast; and to actually come up with a detailed, proper guideline (e.g. acronyms should use parentheses) might be a bit long. I'd say it's one of those things where, if it's right, you should just go and change it because sometimes, it's better writing, and sometimes, it's not.

With respect to those examples, I agree with the latter in both, but do people actually write things like that? That's shocking style.

If people do, then an addition would work, as long as it was kept specific which as I said can be difficult. Neonumbers 04:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't require that editors pass a composition examination before editing. Some editors will always be more stylistically trained and inclined than others. I just took a look through my past few weeks of contributions for various parentheticals—whether using round brackets, em dashes, commas, or semicolons. It strikes me that Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has set up a bit of a strawman here with his example. Surely there are cases where parentheses are misused (and you won't hear me disputing this). But a blanket rule, such as that proposed, seems to miss the point; the language is rich in nuance, which cannot be captured in a few bullet points in the MoS. (To the contrary: any such list of bullet points is liable, as Neonumbers and Mzajac point out, to be read as inviolate law leading to the elimination rather than furtherance of style.) If you find a stylistically inappropriate use of parentheses, or em dashes, or question marks for that matter, edit the page and fix it. You don't need the blessing of the MoS to do so. --TreyHarris 06:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal

I think the following part of the MoS should be deleted:

When abbreviating United States, please use "U.S."; that is the more common style in that country, is easier to search for automatically, and we want one uniform style on this. When referring to the United States in a long abbreviation (USA, USN, USAF), periods should not be used.
When including the United States in a list of countries, do not abbreviate the United States (for example, "France and the United States", not "France and the U.S.").

Reason: Too specific. These two points would appear in a U.S. English style guide. I agree that both guidelines are preferable for articles using American English, but they should not be a general "rule". In British and Australian English, "US" without periods/full stops is preferred. One might argue that if the guidelines above are included, the following should be included as well:

When abbreviating United Kingdom, please use "UK"; that is the more common style in that country, is easier to search for automatically, and we want one uniform style on this.
When giving a percentage in an article related to the United Kingdom, please use "per cent" instead of "percent" because it is the more common spelling in that country.

... and so on. NeutralLang 14:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These should stay, because they are very common and the best way to do it is not obvious to a new editor. Regarding the counter-examples:

UK and other abbreviations are covered by Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Acronyms and abbreviations (currently missing in action); the treatment of U.S. is an exception to the rule, because it's similar to the word us
This is not a hard-and-fast rule; both are acceptable British English usage (correct me if I'm wrong)

—Michael Z. 2006-01-23 17:41 Z

I agree with the original comment. There's no particularly good reason to have such a specific rule in there, other than that lots of Wikipedians are Americans. It just makes the MoS seem even more US-biased. The "it is easier to search for automatically" is spurious - who searches Wikipedia for "U.S."? Why not just go to United States and see what links there? I also doubt the "We want one uniform style on this" - who does? Americans? We have different styles on lots of other things, including spelling. Stevage 19:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Stevage. These rules are US-biased. In reply to Michael's comments: U.S. is more common in the U.S. than "US" just as "per cent" is more common in the UK than "percent".

I wanted to show how similar the "per cent" argument is. In the U.S. both "US" and "U.S." are used, but for some reason, it is tolerated that the MoS prescribes that "U.S." should be used throughout Wikipedia ("we want one uniform style on this"). By the way, the latest edition of the "Chicago Manual of Style", the most influential American English style guide, even prefers "US" to "U.S."! The other point about when to spell out United States is too specific and too US-centred as well. If we allow guidelines like this, the MoS will continue to grow. The MoS should be short, details can be discussed on sub-pages. NeutralLang 20:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the original comment. And by the way, yet another problem that this proposal could solve once and for all. PizzaMargherita 20:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but this goes in two different ways.

I don't see this as "too specific", and for the record, I'm not American. We list this because it is an exception to the rule, "never use full-stops in acronyms". It is perfectly acceptable for every acronym except for "U.S." to not have dots and for every "U.S." to be written so — you still get consistency, because the same "rule" can be applied to everything. ("Rule plus exception" still counts as "rule".)

As for whether or not the rule should exist, well, people, flip a coin. Honestly. The abbreviation stands for "United States", so of course it's allowed to be United States-centric — compare this to how the U.S. is probably the last country not to switch to the metric system: measurement is not American. The arguments "to avoid confusion with 'us'" and "it's in all-caps anyway so it shouldn't matter" are both logical, even if they contradict.

If the Americans want control over their own name, so be it; 'cos otherwise, they'll just go see what other places they can gain control of ;-) (just joking.)

But seriously, it doesn't matter which way, it really doesn't, and this isn't "it shouldn't be debated", this is "it really doesn't matter because either way works". Neonumbers 04:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not from the U.S. either, in case you thought so. If you're so worried about Wikipedia becoming U.S.-centric then why quote the Chicago Manual of Style? —Michael Z. 2006-01-24 06:54 Z

Are you referring to my comment? Because Neonumbers didn't quote the Chicago Manual of Style, I did. I think this style guide shouldn't prescribe the spellings of single words. The rule is not followed anyways, at least in UK-related articles, there are even five "US" in the United States article! I doubt there is consensus about the "U.S." rule. It makes sense for US-related articles, so I propose moving it to a sub-page of the MoS NeutralLang 13:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid question: Why is so much time wasted on these issues if they don't matter? PizzaMargherita 08:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase myself: "it doesn't really matter as long as one is chosen and stuck to because either way works". Meaning, one should be chosen, but we needn't spend three decades deciding which. Neonumbers 10:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've debated the issue of U.S. v. US twice before. The last time I checked, U.S. is still preferred by the Bluebook, and nearly all U.S. lawyers and judges are trained in Bluebook style. As I have stated before, articles on American law and government should use U.S. simply because that is how the vast majority of American lawyers (and law-trained government bureaucrats) do it — or else we will have huge edit wars. But I concede that allowing US in articles not specifically relevant to American law and government may be a good idea. --Coolcaesar 03:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we allow both U.S. and US in articles, as long as each article is consistent, except in contexts where "US" in ambiguous. I suggest article titles exclusively use "U.S." for consistency. This seems to fit more with what's actually current practice. Deco 22:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No-no. Nay. No. That's not why we're here. That's not why this document exists.

This thing exists to make recommendations, to leave no-one in doubt as to what's best. While writers and editors aren't required to follow these, articles are.

This matter is a trivial enough one to be able to pick one and stick to it very little cost. Unless there are actually circumstances where U.S. works better, and circumstances where US is the better alternative, we can pick one, and we should. Now, let's not have any "compromise" or lack of specification with this one — the consequences of not having a preference in this case are far more disastrous than that of just picking one — any one — and sticking by it. Neonumbers 03:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't perceive any disastrous consequences, but I agree that it's probably better to be consistent where there's no clear advantage for one. On the other hand, people will continue to use both no matter what we say - someone has to be responsible for cleaning up the articles to match the guideline. Deco 02:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not so much "disastrous" as "worse"... slight mishap in selection of wording, whoops. Neonumbers 11:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will move the guideline to the abbreviation section and add "In U.S.-related articles". I think that's a fair approach. It's inappropriate to impose "U.S." in UK-related articles for example. The rule clashes with the widely accepted rule that articles related to a specific country should conform to that country's spelling and usage. On top of that, in an otherwise very neutral MoS, it's the only guideline that tries to prescribe a certain US-specific usage for all articles. That's why this guideline shouldn't have been included in the first place. Both justifications of the rule ("we want unform style" and "it's easier to search for") cannot be taken seriously. NeutralLang 16:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, as I've said before, the United States have a right to specify their own abbreviation. There is no benefit either way, the benefit comes from having one consistent style. I say again, we may as well flip a coin, but the coin is not allowed to land on its side.

This a very very important principle. The manual has that very principle stated at the top, "One way is often as good as another, but if everyone does it the same way, Wikipedia will be easier to read and use, not to mention easier to write and edit." This is one of those cases.

One is to be preferred for all cases, for this reason. Consistency is half if not most of the reason for this manual's existence. Incidentally, this case of consistency is not a foolish one.

I'm sorry, I cannot accept that change because I don't see enough support in this discussion, for the moment, it looks very much split. A change to this rule must be to prefer "US" in all cases, which as people have said, is not ideal. Neonumbers 11:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Consistency is half if not most of the reason for this manual's existence." ...and what a miserable failure the current guidelines for National varieties of English are at that. Not only do they fail preventing WP articles from being inconsistent, they are themselves inconsistent. Again, you may want to look at this proposal for one possible solution. PizzaMargherita 11:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I thought the edit by NeutralLang was good. PizzaMargherita 21:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the National varieties of English guideline is a failure at that, but it's one of the few there's no way around (unless there's a way to standardise either British or American usage — and I have seen the proposal to incorporate it into markup so that user preferences can be set, and I'd support that because it's a solution and not a compromise.)

(For that matter, I'd also support a change to mandate "US", but I never support changes to allow either or either-in-certain-situations where consistency is a better option, whichever way.) Neonumbers 09:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(You say you would support the proposal—so why don't you? There's plenty of opposers in denial or even in complete contradiction with their own "mission statement" on that proposal, we really don't need any shy supporters...) :) PizzaMargherita 17:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(lol... I guess I was a bit too lazy to actually get into that debate... I'll try and get round there sometime, just to drop a word... (I admit though that I wouldn't recommend using that idea for this particular issue because I don't perceive this as a spelling difference, of course that is a trivial and unimportant issue and I couldn't care less if people perceive this otherwise.)) Neonumbers 05:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, Neonumbers, you seem to like consistency and that's of course what a style guide is about. But the rule that articles related to an English-speaking country should conform to that country's usage and spelling is one of the oldest consensus-based rules. Prescribing "U.S." for all articles challenges that rule. Try to change several "US" to "U.S." in a UK-related article (virtually all UK-related articles use "US") and somebody will revert the changes and will tell you to stop doing that because it's a UK-related article. NeutralLang 21:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colouring in tables

Have a look at the table in National Football League championships#List of Championships by Team; take note of the coloured backgrounds. Compare to New Zealand general election, 2005#Official election results table.

Now, I know that maybe the NFL has two colours per team, but that's not the point. Does anyone find the colouring in the NFL page hard to read? Personally, even though I can read it fine, I find it annoying.

I don't plan on actually doing anything about this or adding a provision to the manual unless someone else wants to. I'd just like to get opinions on it, to get a general idea of whether it is or isn't a good idea.

Note that even though the manual asks for no colour-coding, this isn't really "colour-coding" as such, because the colours aren't "codes". Neonumbers 04:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've used colour coding in the past in situations where I thought it was really helpful, but this is simply horrifying. Just changing the background colour between teams might be okay, but changing both the text and background colour makes it look like a rainbow exploded all over the page. Deco 02:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What an unprofessional eye sore, get rid of it. You can always add a small column that just contains the colours. PizzaMargherita 13:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. That is dreadful. this is still an encyclopaedia, isn't it? The colour-box approach used in Canada, UK and NZ elections could be employed effectively here. The secondary colour could even be incorporated by putting an initial letter in the colour box, e.g., "D" for Dallas. Ground Zero | t 14:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See what I've done: National Football League championships#Championships by Team. Ground Zero | t 14:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Very nice. I'd go as far as to remove the colouring in NFL, AFL, etc. at the top, and just link them all, the colouring there's so not needed — in fact, I'll do that now. But the table looks way better now. Neonumbers 10:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

When are all capital letters to be used if ever? I see some companies listed as all capital letters and winder what the rule is. (other than acronyms like "IBM"). As I look at the official listings of the companies in Hoovers and others they are listed with just a single capital. What shall we standardize on? Do we agree that all capitals should not be used FOR EMPHASIS. My rules od thumb are:

reduce newspaper headlines from all caps to this: "War Begins Today"
reduce court decisons from all caps to: "Norton v. Everyone Else"
reduce emphasis from all caps to italics

What do you think? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen quite a number of requested moves over time to make the name of a company all upper case or to change from all caps to normal mixed case. Every single one that I saw reached consensus to use normal mixed case. (Names that are or were initialisms, such as AT&T and IBM, are exceptions, of course.) Jonathunder 22:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO when all-caps are used for emphasis withign quoted content, they should be left unchanged as in general quoted content should be reproduced as exactly as possible. Otherwise the use of caps for emphasis should be discouraged. It might be acceptable for a single isolated word which might otehwise be overlooked with a major change of meaning (for example "not") but even there italics or bold should be enough. In some cases a corporation or institution may have an all-capitols name as its official style, in which case we should probably use that style when using the full name. All this IMO of course. DES ^(talk) 22:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All caps should generally be used only for acronyms (with exceptions like scuba) or in quotes. Never ever for emphasis - if you see these, fix them. If this isn't already in the Manual it should be. It might also be okay for subjects whose name is normally written that way. Deco 22:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rule of thumb: Don't use all caps for emphasis, fully agreed. (Exceptions may arise, but they are very very few and far apart, and that's true with any guideline, really.) (Acronyms don't count, of course) Neonumbers 09:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US vs UK Capitalization

This change was good. We should keep the MoS short, else nobody will read it. There, we've discussed it now and it's pretty much consensual. Could you possibly stop reverting now sheriff? Thanks. PizzaMargherita 00:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that change would make the whole paragraph a general one about use of capitals, not specific about titles. Therefore I propose we move it (as edited by ProhibitOnions) as an intro to the Capital letters section. PizzaMargherita 10:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Martin 10:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. User:Noisy | Talk 11:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,PizzaMargherita, I originally removed that sentence ("Commonwealth English uses capitals more widely than American English does," etc.) from the MOS, as it seemed both inaccurate and superfluous. There was, furthermore, no discussion of the matter on the talk page (and thus no "consensus version"), so its immediate reversion without comment wasn't terribly helpful. While I would abstain in a vote that concerned only my own edit, I like your suggestion about turning the paragraph into a general one about capitalization, thus I Agree. ProhibitOnions 11:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

standard and consistent internal formatting

At [2] Omegatron and I have discussed which standard for section headings and external link lists to choose as the preferred baseline standard. Basically the options we have discussed so far would be, for section headings, either

== Heading 1 ==

Text 1

== Heading 2 ==

Text 2

or

==Heading 1==
Text 1

==Heading 2==
Text 2

and for lists either

== External links ==

* [http://www.whatever.org Caption for the link]

or

== External links ==

*[http://www.whatever.org Caption for the link]

(emphasis on the space character after the "*" either being present or not)

I'd like to get a consensus here, for either one of these alternatives, or perhaps some other baseline for section headers and External links list items. There is also some recent discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bevo#.22std_fmt.22, and also at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rdsmith4#.22std_fmt.22_edits - Bevo 16:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a discussion here at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_39#Improving_the_source_text. If we can't agree on a style, then we all have to stop what we're doing, because it will be counterproductive. I think this is what the MoS currently says; "don't change other peoples' styles". And this is probably exactly why it says that. :-)

I would prefer, though, if we could decide on one that is best and use scripts/bots/Mediawiki itself to keep the formatting consistent and readable.

My preferred spacing format is as follows:

== Heading 1 ==

[[Image:image.png|thumb|caption]]

Text goes here.  [[here here|Here]] is a link.

== Heading 2 ==

=== Heading 3 ===

Here is some more text, and a list:

* List item 1
* List item 2
*# Numbered list as part of that list
*# Numbered list item 2
* List item 3

== External links ==

* [http://www.example.com First link]
* [http://www.example.com 2nd link]
* [http://www.example.com 3rd link]

My rationale:

Whitespace is good for separating things visually; makes it easier to parse each object with your eyes
Headings are spaced the way the Mediawiki software spaces them when you press + on a Talk: page or use the &section=new function in the URL.
Lists always work with the spaces. Without spaces there are a small number of cases that don't work, like list items that start with a colon, asterisk, or number sign:
:-) — Omegatron 16:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with Omegatron. — Dan | talk 19:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great to me, except where a section contains only a list, omitting the line space seems clear and compact. I also often omit the line space after a sub-heading. These conventions help reinforce the relationship of headings and sub-headings, but maybe it's not worth codifying exceptions which complicate the rule. —Michael Z. 2006-01-29 21:10 Z

== Main section ==

=== Sub-section ===
Starting right into the text. . .

== External links ==
* [[Example 1]]
* [[Example 2]]
* [[Example 3]]

I think the extra white space looks awful and is confusing (relatively speaking of course). Plus a few clicks of the random page button shows that no white space under headings is much more popular. Martin 21:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also prefer the least amount of whitespace necessary. Apparently for lists, there may be times when the extra space after the "*" is needed to avoid ambiguity. The extra whole lines of whitespace after section headings may be largely a matter of personal opinion as to readability. I prefer the section headings that occur before actual text to not be separated from that text in the markup. - Bevo 21:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I used to agree about not having a newline after the headings. Then I was writing a script to remove extra newlines, and had to decide which heading style to use. I checked and Mediawiki itself puts a newline after the heading, so that's what I used. Now that I've started using it, I like it better. — Omegatron 00:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, we do realise that this is behind the scenes (differences can't be seen from the "outside" and so is less important than other guidelines here.

Personally, I'm lazy, and I just can't be bothered sticking those extra spaces in the wiki-syntax, but of course I don't mind when someone changes it to make it more readable or whatever. (Similar idea goes for double spaces after full stops.)

So, I am going to express a small opposition to any standardisation of this; I don't expect to be recognised if no-one's with me. While this might make things easier to edit, in my opinion, because it can't be seen by readers, it's not important. Neonumbers 00:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A related idea is that no matter the particular style in use in an article, I believe it important that the article be formatted with a consistent internal style. - Bevo 02:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's visible on the outside is more important (comparative not positive) than what's hidden behind the scenes — this is my only statement that I hold undeniable. I can't say that this is a stupid or crazy idea, it's not; as I've said above, I can only express a personal distaste for it and wonder who's in my position. There's no need to answer this wondering for me, if I'm the only one, I'll know. Neonumbers 05:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against this level of standardisation if:

It ends up in a separate page from the main MoS
People don't complain too loudly when "fixing" other editors' "bad" wikitext
Any robots used to enforce it are tested thoroughly

PizzaMargherita 07:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of bots, I don't see why Mediawiki itself couldn't do the formatting. Be as lazy as you want typing, and when you save, it is automatically parsed and formatted according to a certain style. Same as "pipe trick" links and the like. For now, I'm just using a javascript on pages that are especially messy. — Omegatron 16:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That, Omegatron, is a good idea — I like it because I'm lazy and I can't be bothered with that extra whitespace. I said earlier that, despite having a mild opposition, I can't deny this is a good idea; I should also mention that, despite having a mild personal opposition, I can't deny that whitespace in the instances above except for directly beneath headers is probably better, if I don't have to do anything about it. Neonumbers 06:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am always in favor of menial human labor being offloaded onto computers. Hail laziness!

Ideally, we wouldn't have to worry about any of this Manual of Style stuff. The computers would take care of it for us and we could concentrate on content. — Omegatron 18:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far I don't see any concensus developing regarding even the broad issue of minimal -vs- maximal whitespace preferences in the internal formatting style for the Wiki markup for section heading and External links internal formatting. For now, I'll edit towards keeping whatever style already exists in the majority of headings and External links list items in an article, and edit towards the goal of simple consistency. That way I won't be disturbing any person's strong preference (who initially used a particular style, or who took the time to impose a certain style on an existing article). - Bevo 23:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current system (no standardization) is excellent; people who edit the article -- the vast majority of articles have just a few or one major editors -- use whatever style they prefer. Mediawiki ensures that it looks the same no matter which style is used. It seems that standardization would make many people unhappy with zero apparent benefit; what is the motivation for it? Christopher Parham (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It makes the markup easier to parse visually if it's always styled the same way. If there are many different styles, you have to spend more time looking at it to figure out what it is. If an article uses my recommended style above with maximum whitespace, and then someone else adds a paragraph or two with some headings in it and everything crammed together, it won't look like headings until you really look at it. When the markup is really complicated and an article is long, it can be hard to find things. ... I'm getting wordy. How about this:

It's nicer if everything's consistent.

This is why things like GNU Coding Standards exist; the compiler ignores the whitespace, but it's a lot easier for many humans to work on the same source code when it's formatted consistently. See also Indent style, Programming style, and especially Programming style#Spacing — Omegatron 18:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that in this case, most articles are not worked on by many humans, they are worked on by just a few humans, aside from fairly minor editing. What you're saying is that hundreds of thousands of articles that you will never touch should be standardized not with the editors of those articles in mind, but with the general population in mind, which is a mistake. With no standardization each article's source is in a style that is convenient for its major editors; why would we change our technology to deliberately eliminate this useful feature. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost daily experiences with the issues of Programming style at work, make me sensitive to the value of consistency. - Bevo 19:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don't perceive words quickly, having a space between the "==" markup and the actual heading content is very helpful. Also good is the space after the bullet. For those who don't need the whitespace, I would think they could read it pretty much as well with the space, although I couldn't say for sure.

The blank line after a heading does not seem so necessary to me; it is easy enough to spot a heading with or without one, as long as there is a blank line preceeding the heading.

Apparently some people are running 'bots that remove the "== heading ==" spaces; I suppose they think it is a good thing, but it makes it worse for some of us. -R. S. Shaw 05:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contrast (internally has blank line after heading)

==Lyrics==

{{listen|filename=Dixie (1916).ogg|title="Dixie"|description=1916 Dixie rendition|description=1916 rendition of Dixie by the Metropolitan Mixed Chorus, with [[Frank Stanley]], [[Ada Jones]], and [[Billy Murray (singer)|Billy Murray]]|format=[[Ogg]]}}

The lyrics of "Dixie" reflect the mood of the United States in the late 1850s.

with (no blank line after heading in internal markup)

==Lyrics==
{{listen|filename=Dixie (1916).ogg|title="Dixie"|description=1916 Dixie rendition|description=1916 rendition of Dixie by the Metropolitan Mixed Chorus, with [[Frank Stanley]], [[Ada Jones]], and [[Billy Murray (singer)|Billy Murray]]|format=[[Ogg]]}}

The lyrics of "Dixie" reflect the mood of the United States in the late 1850s.

Actual article with this construction is found at Dixie (song).

Is there something in the "listen" template that causes the difference in the external formatting that results from the two alternatives? Can "listen" be changed to allow both internal markup styles to give the same external format? - Bevo 20:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that's a bug in the pipe table markup rendering. Check the source code for User:Omegatron/Sandbox/ExtraBR. Sometimes things get an extra <p><br></p> before them. — Omegatron 19:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of changing {{listen}} to not use a table for visual formatting anyway... — Omegatron 20:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Special Care with Mormonism

I removed the following sentence from the section about religions, deities, and etc: "Mormonism requires special care — see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mormonism)."

If Wikipedia will maintain a NPOV in regard to religions, there is no need to single out Mormonism as a religion that needs special care when being referenced in a Wikipedia article. -- backburner001 00:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bold article titles

I have boldly went and mentioned the normal practice of putting alternative article titles in bold: this is particularly important when the alternatives link to an article by a redirect, but as the River Plate demonstrates it can also be appropriate when the link is by a disambiguation page....dave souza: talk 21:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Language indicator for external links

There is a discussion going on Template talk:Languageicon about what style the language indicator should be. I suppose there may also be room to debate whether template is even desireable. -- Netoholic @ 22:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 549: / Line 549: @@
 ==Bold article titles==
 I have boldly went and mentioned the normal practice of putting alternative article titles in bold: this is particularly important when the alternatives link to an article by a redirect, but as the [[River Plate]] demonstrates it can also be appropriate when the link is by a disambiguation page....[[User:Dave souza|dave souza]]: [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 21:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
+== Language indicator for external links ==
+There is a discussion going on [[Template talk:Languageicon]] about what style the language indicator should be.  I suppose there may also be room to debate whether template is even desireable. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 22:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)