Wikipedia talk:Guide to writing better articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Subtopics

[edit] Redirect discussion

Please see User talk:Jongarrettuk/Better writing guide (current draft) for discussion of former Wikipedia guidelines redirected here. -- Rbellin 03:47, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Zanskar

Can anybody look at the structure of the article? There is difficulty with explaining with User:Mel Etitis and User:JMBell, and I do not see where it matches with the guide very well.

Mr Tan 09:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll

Just a pulse check. Dan100 (Talk) 12:04, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

People who believe newcomers will read this fully:

People who believe newcomers will glance through it:

David Kernow

People who believe newcomers will think this page is too long and just ignore it/learn through example:

David Kernow

[edit] Use of conditional to express past events

I have had a discussion at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language about this point, and propsoe an addition to the guide (below), here is the point that I made initially, and with which most respondents agreed:

This has been bothering me for a while. Often Wikipedia editors use the conditional tense to describe past events that took place after an event previously mentioned. I am sure that there is a grammatical term for this, and I'd be happy if someone could identify that. My real concern is that this usage, while not incorrect, is probably best avoided in Wikipedia because (a) it is unnecessarily grandiloquent, and (b) it is potentially confusing to non-English readers. Here is an example from today's featured article, Dogpatch USA (emphasis added):

Success seemed to be on the horizon for Odom and Dogpatch USA, but the many unforeseen events of the 1970s would, collectively, cast a dark shadow on Odom's dreams. Attendance figures throughout that decade would be woefully short of expectations. In 1973 interest rates would begin to skyrocket, and a nationwide energy crisis would keep many tourists home. TV shows with country themes would virtually disappear from the American TV screen and the popularity of hillbillies would wane. The Li'l Abner TV show and restaurant chain would never come to pass, and to top it all off, Al Capp would retire, and with that one of the greatest advertisements that Dogpatch USA ever had—the Li'l Abner comic strip—would end.

Wouldn't this be clearer if it were written in the past tense:

Success seemed to be on the horizon for Odom and Dogpatch USA, but the many unforeseen events of the 1970s cast a dark shadow on Odom's dreams. Attendance figures throughout that decade were woefully short of expectations. In 1973 interest rates began to skyrocket, and a nationwide energy crisis kept many tourists home. TV shows with country themes virtually disappeared from the American TV screen and the popularity of hillbillies waned. The Li'l Abner TV show and restaurant chain never came to pass, and to top it all off, Al Capp retired, and with that one of the greatest advertisements that Dogpatch USA ever had—the Li'l Abner comic strip—ended.

Here is what I propose to add to the guide, if others agree, or if no-one repsonds:

Use the past tense to describe past events

If an event happened in the past, the simplest way of describing it is to use a past tense, e.g., "He later joined the army and became a general", rather than, "He would later join the army and become a general."

Note that this is not a general prohibition. There may be circumstances where it is appropriate to use the condition to describe a past even from a point of view prior to the event. This note only identifies that using the past tense is the simplest way of describing a past event. Comments? Ground Zero | t 15:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It's definitely not the conditional -- I forget the name of this tense, but it's the future from a past perspective (the very same wording is also another tense -- the present from a past perspective, as in "When I was 13, I would ride my bike to the video arcade every day").

Your rewrite does change the meaning of the paragraph, and without context I can't say which of the two meanings is more appropriate. Your version is easier to read, but it's because it describes a simpler concept. Your version describes a timeline of events that happened during the '70s. The original describes the state of Dogpatch in 1970 (with the events after 1970 considered matters of fate, even if unknown at the time).

Where the objective is just to describe past events, I agree with your rule.

Bryan Henderson 22:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long article

This article is 39 kilobytes long (fascinating when the suggested limit is 32kb). My point here is not to point out contradiction, but to make a suggestion that this be split into two pages (or shortened, but it seems to me it's already very compact so splitting might work better?) What do you think? It might seem less intimidating that way. Neonumbers 06:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I started skimming after a while and then went with the "I'll do what I always do and make it up as I go" approach. Which can be a bad thing. Tom 17:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, before I start doing anything, I want to put a question to watchers of this article.

Do you think this article can be shortened without loss of essential information, to about 32kb, or is splitting a better idea? I'm reluctant to split if the first can be carried out, but I'm sceptical about the first being carried out. Neonumbers 05:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there are two articles here: "A Guide to Writing Better Articles" and "A Guide to Writing Articles". Some of this is very useful and some of it, particularly towards the end, is rather basic. Both types of advice are needed somewhere on Wikipedia, but perhaps not on the same page.qp10qp 13:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sections with links, further reading, etc

The rules for how to organize links etc are giving me some headaches. I'm working on the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) article, and cannot find a way I like and which also conforms to these rules, for how to organize its current 7 sections with links.

Possibly all this belongs elsewhere, if so feel free to tell me to move it there.

One general problem I have is with section names indicating what kind contents the sections should contain, and dividing by whether the links are external or Wiki links:

"Further Reading" sounds like a recommendation of where to go next, but it also has an alias "External Links" which does not sound like a recommendation, just a link collection. Yet both should have external links, so one cannot recommend a Wiki link for further reading here.
On the other hand, under "See Also" and "Related Topics" one can only put Wiki links, but these section names do not particularly indicate a recommendation.
And with both the variants above one can use one of the section names, but not both. If one wants a section with recommended reading, there is no section for external links which are interesting but not so much that one would call them recommended. For Wiki links, "See also" may sound like a recommendation unless one has read too many Unix manpages (where see also just means "related topics"), but one cannot have both recommended Wiki links and a section with various related topics.

"External links (also called Further reading)" says: "Note: do not add material here that you have used as a source for the article. All sources go in the References section." This does not make sense to me. If a source article is also fine to recommend for further reading, it would be better to put it in both sections. At least if there are also a bunch of other references which are less interesting for the average reader.

Some notes on the other link sections in the LDAP article:

"References": 7 links, of which are 4 Wiki links (to articles with external links to the primary sources). Is that OK? I had the impression that References should all be to external sources since wikipedia is not a primary source. But it is a lot easier this way.
"RFCs": RFCs are mostly primary sources, so it looks like they should be under "References". Some other Internet Protocol articles also have an RFCs section though. Don't know if there are article categories with their own "unofficial" standard" like that, or if these should all be moved to References?
"LDAP fora": 5 items, 4 of which have either links to the fora or description of how to get there. This one feels to me like it fits under what the "Further Reading" section is for, except a forum isn't in the list of what kind of resources to put in "External Links" or "Further Reading". Should the list get some more general language to allow for other categories of media, or is the list deliberaltey limited?
"Supporting vendors" and "LDAP implementations" might also be nice to put in a subsection of some other links section, to keep the number of sections in the TOC down if nothing else. But they contain both text, internal links and external links though, so again it doesn't fit in any current header.

HFuruseth 15:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I took a swing by, and seeing as we have articles with 50-100 references, it's not that bad. It's not always a matter of too many references, sometimes it's too little article. :-) Ronabop 03:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was too little article when I arrived:-) But I'd like to clean up the references too - except I can't understand the point of these guidelines. Why divide links other than sources by whether they go to Wikipedia or other pages, instead of by how the contents relate to the article (further reading, related topics, etc)? And why limit the media one can refer to in the "standard" sections? HFuruseth 03:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See also or related topics?

It just came to my attention that “related topics” is gradually being phased out and replaced with “see also”, because some users, namely Bluebot, think the former is incorrect. Said users/bots claim they’re putting the article in line with the Manual of Style. Well, I just checked MoS and there was no given preference for either “see also” or “related topics”, in fact, the latter is not even mentioned. So basically, said users are justifying their actions on an erroneous belief.

Anyway, I’ve always preferred “related topics” as it made more sense to me, but whatever. Since it is being actively replaced I figure it should not be included in the Guide to writing better articles as anyone who uses “related topics” is just going to see it being replaced with “see also” by bots. Regards, --Every1blowz 02:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This also goes for "Further reading". Also, "Notes" has become a standard appendix and should be included. And I've never seen "Quotations" used, aren't these meant to be either incorporated into the article or stuck at Wikiquote? Neonumbers 05:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Information about Redlinks

I think on the guide it should say something like avoid adding redlinks to articles or something.--Hamedog^Talk|@ 10:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess, in this Wikipedia which is far more developed than other languages, there's a point, but you have to be careful here. You don't want to stop people adding "good" redlinks, that is, redlinks that would do well to have an article attached to them. Not all redlinks are "good", the exact proportion I don't know, and while I would encourage people to remove "bad" redlinks or redirect them, we want to be careful that we don't give the impression we want all redlinks removed. Neonumbers 06:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on use of colours

I feel that the discussion on use of colours (and similar discussions on graphic images elsewhere) should also make it clear that it is also essential to choose colours with caution as a large number of people suffer from one form of colour blindness or the other. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I am considering merging this page with several others. Please discuss at this page. Gareth Aus 23:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

While I haven't completely merged the two articles, I'm looking to at least cut down on redundancy of this page and the "Guide to layout...." Please respond to at Gareth's Help Project page above if you have any objections. User:RockOfVictory/Appendices order draft. --J. J. 17:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I wasn't planning on merging the articles completely, but I did move the majority of the appendices information to the WP:GTL. In its place, I've listed the main appendices and a summary of each. --J. J. 20:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Positioning of TOC

I've removed the paragraph about positioning the TOC higher above the first section of text. It breaks standard usage, and users of screen readers expect no text between the TOC and the first heading. The TOC should also not be the first thing one sees on a page either. I could have replaced it with a notice, but I don't think this page should get too technical; it should be a summary of the best practices for new articles. Anyone who believes that the positioning of the TOC on an article they are editing is a problem will probably go to help:section, where I've added a note summarising what I've said above. Graham talk 11:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Honorifics Question

"Do not use honorifics or titles such as Mr, Ms, Rev, Doctor, etc."

Does it not have value to the wiki reader when we include a cite made by someone with a Ph.D on the topic of the article subject matter when compared to a cite on the same topic from a person without any specified qualifications who may have just researched the subject without any vetting of said information by an expert, except for maybe an editor or publisher? It just seems appropriate that we should use a Ph.D when we can. Maybe a problem is with the quality of the Ph.D and if so maybe that can be solved with a list of reputable universities that meet some criteria. (Simonapro 13:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC))

The guideline doesn't say not to use qualifications and credentials; honorifics are something else. An honorific serves only the purpose of honoring the subject.

On the subject of PhD's, though: First, Doctor is far more vague than PhD (there are lots of doctorates besides PhDs), so it would make more sense to say, "John Doe, PhD" than "Dr. John Doe." Second, PhD is far too vague itself, since there are lots of kinds of PhDs. If Doe has a PhD in English Literature, does it make his views on nuclear fission more credible?

I think the appropriate rule is just to qualify your source. If there's something about John Doe that makes his statements about nuclear fission credible, say it: "John Doe, who holds a PhD in nuclear physics, ..." It could as easily be something that doesn't come with a title at all: "John Doe, who designed the largest nuclear power plants in the country ..."

The origin of the word "Dr" is not in identifying people who know what they're talking about; it's in identifying people in a higher social class. Wikipedia doesn't need that.

Bryan Henderson 23:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional history tense question

I have been having difficulty getting some editors to accept present tense in their discussions of comic book material, many of them claiming "But it happened years ago!" These protests often come up when discussing a character's history, and now an editor has pointed me to this project page to say that, for instance, details from Batman's fictional life should be discussed in past tense; I disagree, however. I understand the project page to be referring to fictional history (the example is Alexander the Great and the Queen of the Amazons), not past events shown in the book. Everything recently added to the Batman entry has been shown in the present tense in the comics, and therefore should be referred to as present tense. It was not shown as history in the source material and so should not be described in such a manner. Thoughts? --Chris Griswold 12:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm one of those editors who don't accept present tense in histories of comic book characters ("fictional history") but who hasn't made the "But it happened years ago!" claim. WP:1SP says "Conversely, discussion of history is usually written in the past tense and thus 'fictional history' may be presented in that way as well." A wiki entry for a comic book character is not the same as an entry for a novel -- the character is not confined to an individual publication. (I don't know of any entries for individual comics, but there are probably some for individual graphic novels, and they could use present tense without losing clarity.) The character is on-going and has a present, past, and future. That an event was shown in present tense in the character's past doesn't make it present now. The example I pointed you to, Middle Earth#History uses past tense, even for events which took place in the books' "present". You said that present tense usage "has already been discussed on the WikiProject's talk page" in Talk:Batman, but I can't find that discussion. Can you please provide an pointer to it? -- JHunterJ 16:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been archived since, but I believe CovenantD pointed you to it in the article's history upon making tense changes again. Additionally, it's best not to cite Middle Earth entries when trying to make a grammatical point as it doesn't appear to me that those articles have a great reputation in that regard. They are known for in-world perspectives and a faliure to differentiate between fact and fiction within the article, something that we try to avoid by using the present tense to discuss fictional events. --Chris Griswold 16:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, CovenantD mentioned it in the comment to one of his edits. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 11#Literary present tense says: "When discussing a specific issue, please use literary present," which is in line with what I wrote above. Since the section on the Batman page is discussing the evolution of the character across many hundreds of issues (not a specific issue), past tense is warranted (and clearer!) when talking about events that happened in the character's past and in the comic books' past. -- JHunterJ 17:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I wrote that sentence you are citing, and it was when I was first pushing for people to use the proper tense. Since then, I and other editors have come to understand - through this and the other pages on wikipedia, as well as sources outside - that it pertains to anything shown in the present. The stylebook I am working on for the project will reflect this. --Chris Griswold 19:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

There was a consensus?
The rule will break down if extended to such lengths. The Boston Red Sox "won" the 2004 World Series, even though the broadcast owned by Major League Baseball showed it in the present. If you talk about issue #1 (of whatever comic) specifically, its events are "present", but by the time you get to issue #2, those same events are past, because you have a new work to frame your reference in. It should be possible to rewrite the entries about various characters (not works) to be clear and present-tense by making all the statements single-issue-specific, but I don't think existing entries should simply have present-tense inserted without such a rewrite. -- JHunterJ 20:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there was a consensus. I don't believe the Boston Red Sox' win is a fictional event, other than its inclusion in that awful Jimmy Fallon movie. Hold on, that's redundant: "that Jimmy Fallon movie." --Chris Griswold 18:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Where's the consensus recorded? (Really -- the archived discussion did not read as a consensus). "that it pertains to anything shown in the present" didn't restrict to fiction. I can be in consensus too, that fiction plots should be described in the present tense, with the past tense used sparingly where it preserves clarity, as in the Grinnell link below -- the rule serves the users, instead of the users serving the rule. Existing past-tense passages should not be edited with simple present-tense replacement when that reduces clarity, so that clunkers like "Four teenagers serve as Robin" can be avoided -- JHunterJ 18:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This may help: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Tense --Chris Griswold 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As may this: Grinnell College Guide to Verb Tenses -- JHunterJ 20:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am still confused about this. Is there a clear definition of "fictional history" anywhere? The example used on the article page seems to refer to reports which purport to be historical but are not, or may not be (Alexander the Great was a real person). However, the guideline "discussion of history is usually written in the past tense and thus 'fictional history' may be presented in that way as well" seems to be taken to mean, by some editors, that the history of a fictional world should be presented in an in-universe manner. Many stories deal with events which are historical from the point of view of the fictional world, eg the President of the Galaxy (Zaphod)'s adventures in the first Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy book are surely historical events from the point of view of characters in the later books. Is the key issue whether the author presents events as history in the book itself? What if the historical background to one book is not, or only partially, included in the book itself, but explained in a different book? (I am thinking specifically of the events Silmarillion being presented as "fictional history" in the Lord of the Rings Wikipedia entry, but what I am hoping for is an explanation of how fictional history is defined in principle). Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Tense, if I understood it correctly, offers suggestions for making it clear to readers when an entry is written in an in-universe style, but does not make it clear to editors when it *should be* written in an in-universe style. Hobson 19:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Principle of Least Astonishment: Huh?

I could not make sense of this section. Is the example an example of good style or bad style? And whichever it is, how is it different from the other?

Is the principle limited to links, or is it supposed to be something bigger?

Bryan Henderson 23:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Make Omissions Explicit: Not Explicit

This guidelines says the purposes are: "it entices others to contribute, and it alerts non-experts that the article they're reading doesn't yet give the full story." But the two methods given don't do that, because they're visible only by someone who is working on the article.

Seems to me the guideline should be to make it clear in the text of the article that it's incomplete. This is usually obvious, because you refer to something important and then don't say any more about it.

It makes sense to me to encourage an author to use comments and discussion page items to make suggestions to future editors for things the author isn't qualified enough or energetic to complete himself. But that's a rather different purpose.

Bryan Henderson 23:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: "use other languages sparingly"

How does this policy handle something like the long lists of foriegn translations of Disney titles seen at Pinocchio (1940 film), Alice in Wonderland (1951 film), and other locations? Should they be removed? --FuriousFreddy 06:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead Section

There is guidance on the Lead Section in at least three different Help pages.

1) The Help page Wikipedia:Lead section reads: The lead section should provide a clear and concise introduction to an article's topic, establish context, and define the terms.

2) The Help page Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles reads: should establish significances, large implications and why we should care. If the subject is amenable to definition, the first sentence should give a concise, conceptually sound definition that puts the article in context. Then proceed with a description. The definition should be as clear to the nonspecialist as the subject matter allows.

3) The Help page Wikipedia:Guide to layout reads: Lead section Normally, the first paragraph summarizes the most important points of the article. It should clearly explain the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail and the qualifications and nuances that follow.

1) mentions “define the terms”; 2) mentions “definition that puts the article in context. Then proceed with a description. The definition should be as clear”; 3) mentions “summarizes the most important points of the article. It should clearly explain the subject”.

Some articles like Marketing, Advertising and others, at least in this area, have a very short Lead Section, just an assertive definition, clearly from the industry. I think there is very little room for assertive definitions in a encyclopedia, particularly in cases when the articles subsequently mention several definitions. I wouldn’t be surprised if whoever wrote the article (in particular the Lead Section) was at least a little bit misled by the above mentioned Help pages or interpreted it according to own intentions.

I suggest the term definition be removed from the guidance to the Lead Section in the different Help pages and be replaced by some other like description, for instance, and further emphasis be put on mentioning the most important points of the article and on the explanation of the subject in the Lead Section. DavidMarciano 14:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tone

The tag Template:Inappropriate tone makes the claim that "This article or section is not written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article" and refers to this page for suggestions. The only suggestion this page has about tone is that "News style is the prose style of short, front-page newspaper stories and.. news bulletins... It encompasses... their tone". It then says "Encyclopedia articles do not have to follow news style", quite rightly in my opinion. The tag is therefore confusing, and makes demands for a style not required by any Wikipedia guidance I've been able to find. Do others think that this guidance should be altered to indicate what this "formal tone" is and advise its use, or would it be preferable to reconsider the tag? ...dave souza, talk 23:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I added the following generic definition of "formal tone" to the Other issues section:

Formal tone: Articles and other encyclopedic content should be written in a formal tone. The standards for formal tone will vary depending on the subject matter, but should follow the style typically used by reliable sources in the subject area. Formal tone does not mean that the article should be written in unintelligible argot, doublespeak, legalese, or that it should be filled with jargon; it simply means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner. Dhaluza 02:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overdoing it

"Trillian is a fictional character from Douglas Adams's radio, book and now film series The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. In the first book, Trillian is introduced to the main character Arthur Dent on a spaceship. The backstory given to her is that she was taken away from Earth when the space alien Zaphod Beeblebrox met her at a party." And so on.

The phrase "The backstory given to her is that" is pointless, and ruins the flow of the paragraph. You shouldn't need to mark every single sentence, surely! Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Montgomery County

Montgomery County is a disambiguation page, and according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) etymology does not belong on a disambiguation page. I have linked instead to List of the most common U.S. county name etymologies#Montgomery County which I think does the job just as well. CarolGray 17:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling problem

Hi, I'm trying to translate an article from the french wikipedia. I'm sure I'm making mistakes. Is there a category to put in the article to make sure some people will have a look to check the spelling and the style. Thanks. Ajor 16:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you paste it into a Word document and run a spell-checker on it? Just watch for misspelt homonyms, such as "too" and "to", and "weather" and "whether". Tony 13:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs a complete audit, IMO

I'm surprised that an article on writing better articles itself suffers from signficant problems. Take this statement:

"Use short sentences means use only necessary words, and sometimes using periods rather than commas. It does not mean use fewer words."
- We have "Use/using" four times, which is too repetitious.
- The first clause is an instruction ("use only necessary words"), while the second is a different grammatical construction ("using ..."). The result is fuzzy.
- Show me instances where commas and periods are interchangeable, please.
- Isn't using "only necessary words" going to result in "fewer words", the very opposite of the assertion?

On the last point, the article provides many instances of redundancy, which would be acceptable only if explicitly for training purposes. For example:

"Can people tell what the article is about if the first page is printed out and passed around?" It might be easier to comprehend and more authoritative if expressed this way: "Can people tell what the article is about from the first page alone?"
"15,000 characters - 30,000 characters"—Spot the redundant word. An en dash (–, not -) would be easier on the eyes; some professional editors would insist on it.

There are numerous instances of faulty prose (style, logic, and basic microproblems), such as:

"it should at least take them someplace that makes sense"—I thought it was "some place", which, in any case, is a little vague in this register.
"Computers and browsers vary, and you cannot know how much colour is presented on the recipient's machine if any." They vary in what respect? This opener needs to be logically integrated with the subsequent clause. "How much" and "if any" together are a problem.

The bit about news style and summary style is likely to confuse WPians—especially newbies. I find it hard to know what news style is from the explanation, and I shouldn't have to visit the link to find out. Why is it first, before summary style? Why do the featured article criteria mention only "summary style"? Why doesn't an article about writing better articles link to those criteria at some point? They are, after all, what the project considers the embodiment of excellent articles.

I've looked at only a small fraction of the text. I think it's embarrassing that it's touted as an official "guideline" that all "should heed". I'm certainly not going to heed it in its current form. The text needs a thorough audit and copy-edit. Tony 13:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the negative stuff from the opening. But there's more:

So relax, this article contains no rules. Remember: If rules and guidance make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them and go about your business.

I'd be irritated being told to relax; why is there even mention of being nervous and depressed? "Desirous" is oudated wording. And telling people that there are no rules in Wiki is plain silly. Does anyone object if this is removed? Tony 00:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Not me - the whole thing's a mess. Sandy (Talk) 00:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article contains significant problems. The section describing unneccessary words contains several unneeded words. Fastplanet 08:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought that part you quoted was quite poor, too. Editors should follow consistent guidelines, not ignore them on a whim. I will remove it now. --Asdfg12345 11:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is guide part of the MoS?

Is there any reasons that the MoS status loudly trumpeted at the top should not be removed. It's a guide, and its offerings, apart from being poorly expressed in many places, are often far too informal in their frame and language to sit comfortably in the MoS. A guide should not be mandatory. Please state your objection if you feel it should remain part of the MoS. Tony 12:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] offline users hate Wikipedia "shortcuts"!

The most horrible thing about wikipedia is the use of shortcuts: who the heck can figure out what the IAR in WP:IAR means unless they are online and can click on it. There should be some bot to do something about this. At least in the mouseover. You guys think everybody has ADSL. Somebody forward this complaint somewhere. Please add something about this to the main article. I drives me nuts to download some articles for offline remote reading, only to find you young whippersnappers using "WP:XYZ" thinking that "oh, the reader can just click to find out what my fun shortcut means", well no, we can't always just click. And also even if we did, why should we just to find out if we wanted to click in the first place to download another 10000 bytes just to find out what those 20 or so bytes were. Somebody mention my thought on the main article please, as I am disconnecting and can not edit... --Jidanni 2006-12-29

[edit] Check your fiction present tense examples

The first three "check your fiction" present tense examples seem fine to me, but the forth is rather odd, "Heathcliff, who is taken in by the wealthy Earnshaw family as a child, falls in love with their daughter, Catherine." It does not seem correct to have events that are separated by years and refer to them both in the present tense, especially in the same sentence. Also, I think that it is deceptive to talk about back-story in the present tense because it makes it seem like the events described will be in the book, film or play. -- Kjkolb 06:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French terms

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding French terms. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the new debate page found here. No further edits should be made to this section.

--Bob 17:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some debate as to whether or not French administrative terms need to be used in place of the commonly used English terms in articles about French departments/region etc. Department is an English word, appears in the Oxford English Dictionary, is used by the French government in English texts (see here for an example) and is used by INSEE in English language texts. The same applies to Region. Do we need to use the French terms département and région? Article names have already been translated to English per WP:UE as have categories. Now it is the time for the usage within the articles. Feedback would be welcome. --Bob 16:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is the English Wikipedia. (Though I'll take a wild guess that this has been discussed ad nauseum somewhere before). —Wknight94 (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

In English, "department" is certainly normally used. I'd imagine "region" is as well. I concur. john k 16:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

But why are we discussing this here? This seems like clearly the wrong place for it. john k 16:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitely concur. I actually had some hand on experience with this a few months back. As far as I am concerned, the differences are so small, and that coupled with the fact that "région" is a not a proper but a common noun, there is not a big reason why it shouldn't be "region". The only thing that "région" tells us is that it is a French region :) I am definitely for multicultural inclusiveness and all, but I really don't see this as serving something honestly. In any case, the definition of "région" in French and "region" in English are the same. It is not like they are "false friends" where they would sound the same but mean something different. Agree Baristarim 16:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually it seems that this issue hasn't been discussed anywhere before.

Yes, "deapartment" is an English word, but undefined it is ambiguous - it's "natural" English meaning is nothing near its French definition. Wiki articles don't have the context of the sources mentioned above - we aren't searching an article for a word in particular, nor are we reading in a demographic reference dealing exclusively with French demographical and administrative terms - so one reading "department" will most likely define "department" according to his own knowledge of the word. Département left as it is, on the other hand, clearly defines a real and existing French political entity - it cannot be interpreted to be anything else, but English "department" can have several meanings and be taken as a translation of some other term. Best use the original whenever possible.

I don't know what part of WP:UE is being referred to - there is nothing there about this sort of case. In fact, it quite clearly states: "Latin-alphabet languages, like Spanish or French, should need no transliteration, but Chinese names can use Pinyin, for example." THEPROMENADER 16:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Where should we be discussing this, john k? (looking up) Oh, right. I suggested the WP:FR talk page, but this ain't it. THEPROMENADER 16:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what's being referred to, but in this case, definitely we should use English terms, IMO. Patstuart^talk|edits 16:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

In my initial message opening this discussion I suggested using the Wikiprojects:France talk pages - since this does concern French articlese, it is the best suited, IMHO. It's also the haunt of major contributors to the same articles who it would be only fair to offer a say in this. I've opened a new heading here. THEPROMENADER 16:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that is the last place it should be discussed, as it amounts to selection of users who are more likely to object to the use of English in the English-language Wikipedia, which could be seen as an attempt to manipulate the outcome. We should use English in this wikipedia full stop, as a general policy, and not allow special interest groups that do not represent the overall user body to make exceptions. This should be determined by native English-speakers (I don't suppose any other Wikipedia suffers from more than a small fraction of the level of non-native speakers pushing for use of terms and characters that are not part of the language of the project that we get in this wikipedia). Chicheley 17:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made here. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Jamar Davies

i've sreated this page, and you've said it's in informal tone. i'd like some simple rules to explain how i should change this. post suggestions on my homepage. ps, i've seen other, more informal articles that have no such notices, do you want me to post their names on this page? Millm0w 12:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tenses

There's presently a discussion about tenses at Talk:The Vicar of Dibley#Tense. Matthew

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/u/i/Wikipedia_talk%7EGuide_to_writing_better_articles_b9a3.html"