Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Archives and see also 2 <noinclude> (is WP:MOS transcluded anywhere?) 3 Accents 4 Is there ever a reason to enlarge an image beyond its actual size? 5 Definite article in geographical names 6 Don't always boldface the title 6.1 Related terms 7 Quotation mark caveat added 8 List of works 9 Italicizing words-as-words 10 Left-aligned images 11 Punctuation of abbreviations and initialisms 12 Foreign terms 13 Beginning a sentence with a numeral or symbol? 14 RE: Flag Icons- New Table 15 Left-aligned image placement 16 Where to go for help? 17 That quote in the lead 18 "Whenever reasonable" 19 Non-breaking spaces: Help! 20 Numbered lists 21 Military Ranks 22 Foreign language titles 23 Spelling variable? 24 Multiple identical Wikilinks for non-consecutive terms in templates or no? 25 [sic] and Quotes? 26 First/last name 27 I Refer to Dead People 28 Comma inside or outside quotation marks: can we clarify at WP:MoS? 29 See also 30 Why not settle on a standard written English? 31 Romanization 32 Titles in picture descriptions 33 Use of the Latin Alphabet 34 cquote tag 35 Flag icons in infoboxes 36 Images 37 Alphabetization 38 Capitalization of "prime minister" 39 Universally accepted spellings 40 TV/Movie titles 41 Grammatical usage of a colon 42 Inline book references 43 HTML markup 44 Illustrations 45 Word "the" before university names 46 Style of Dating (ancient) 47 More heads needed 48 Seasons 49 Focus of the MoS 49.1 Glyph variant of quotation marks and apostrophe 50 Exclamation points 51 Prices 52 Products - past/present tense? 53 Seasons (bis) 54 Gender-neutral pronouns etc 55 Varieties of English 56 Templates to identify language variety of an article 57 Horizontal lists

[edit] Archives and see also

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

See also:

• Wikipedia talk:Establish context
• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dashes)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (titles)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Quotation marks and apostrophes)

[edit] <noinclude> (is WP:MOS transcluded anywhere?)

Hello, I am enclosing the policy page in <noinclude> tags due to recent server-thrashing vandalism [1][2][3][4][5], and I need to know if the page is transcluded anywhere. The vandalism is done by appending either {{subst:Wikipedia:Manual of Style}} or {{Wikipedia:Manual of Style}} thirty or so times to the same page, resulting in something that takes forever to load. Regards, Tuxide 03:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accents

As the use of accent marks is an issue that has taken up many hours of editors time on talk pages, I would be interested to read what people think of the suggestions in the Economist Style Guide: Accents:

On words now accepted as English, use accents only when they make a crucial difference to pronunciation: cliché, soupçon, façade, café, communiqué, exposé (but chateau, decor, elite, feted, naive).

If you use one accent (except the tilde—strictly, a diacritical sign), use all: émigré, mêlée, protégé, résumé.

Put the accents and cedillas on French names and words, umlauts on German ones, accents and tildes on Spanish ones, and accents, cedillas and tildes on Portuguese ones: Françoise de Panafieu, Wolfgang Schäuble, Federico Peña. Leave the accents off other foreign names.

Any foreign word in italics should, however, be given its proper accents.

--Philip Baird Shearer 15:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should exclude "other foreign names". It seems a bit selective to only include French, German, Spanish and Portuguese and ignore all other alphabets derived from the Latin. Andrwsc 20:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is all about learning and has a global aspect, I think it's a good idea to include accents on all foreign names and words deriving from the Roman alphabet. As for commonly used anglicizations of foreign words (chateau, decor, elite, naive, etc.), I think the American/British spelling rule should be adopted — either is fine as long as the usage is consistent throughout a given article. The main reason these markings were dropped in English usage has more to do with ignorance of the proper punctuation and the absence of appropriate typewriter keys, matters which are not so much of an issue here. An open issue, though, is the use of the German esset (ß) vs. 'ss'; the consensus is still evolving here, but appears to be moving toward deprecating use of the former in favor of the latter. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't get Philip Baird Shearer's categorisation of accents as either making or not making a difference to pronunciation. "Decor" (without accent) would be "duh-cor". "Naive" would rhyme with "knave". I'd accept "elite" (because few English speakers pronounce it "ay-leet" these days) - and many wouldn't even know it's French. However, château is such a clearly French word that it strikes me as bizarre to remove the accent, despite the fact it makes no difference to pronunciation. Stevage 01:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not my categorisation, the sentences are taken from the Economist Style Guide. Presumably the Economist editors think that an educated English speaker is expected to recognise German, French and Spanish ascents, but that they should not be expected to recognise other less familiar accents in less familiar -- to the average English reader -- languages. This is of course a POV but I expect one which many English speakers would agree with. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is there ever a reason to enlarge an image beyond its actual size?

See [6]. --NE2 16:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Not through web browsers, imo. That one wasn't even enlarged a great deal, nor does it have captions to warrant the need. Personally, I would either leave it as it is, or if it has to be done, enlarge it in an image editing program and run filters through it to clean it up. The best option is to find the same picture with a better resolution. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it looks bad and unprofessional to have pixelated images. Strad 22:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

One exception is things like screenshots of old, low-res video games and the like, that would only be a few hundred pixels if left at their native size. — Omegatron 02:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definite article in geographical names

Pgan002 06:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC) wrote: When should one use the definite article "the" before a geographical name? For example, river names often have "the" prepended, such as "the Nile" and "the Mississippi", but can also be used without, such as "Mississippi River". Is there a rule or guideline about rivers? That are "He saw Nile" or "He saw the Nile River" acceptable and preferable? Are there other geographical names that may require a definite article, such as "the Sun" vs. "Sun"?

“He saw Nile” is not idiomatic English. Neither is “Our planet revolves around Sun.” Both sentences require a definite article. I can’t think of any rivers that don’t take a definite article. Even when “River” comes before the name, we say, for example, “the Rio Grande” and “the River Thames.” We say “Lake Victoria” and “Lake Michigan,” but “the Great Salt Lake.” All the oceans take the definite article. So do all the mountain ranges I can think of, such as “the Alps” and “the Sierra Madre.” Individual mountains tend not to: “Mount Everest” and “Mount Hood,” but “the Matterhorn.” I don’t know of any rule to help you. Use what sounds right. If you can’t decide what sounds right, then ask for help, or look at what others have chosen. --Rob Kennedy 21:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't always boldface the title

It says Use boldface for the first (and only the first) appearance of the article title and any synonyms of the article title (including acronyms), but I thought we had agreed elsewhere that it should only be bolded if the title is an actual term.

For example:

• The article Colors of noise is just about the various color names given to noise. The term "colors of noise" doesn't have any special value by itself; it's just a descriptive title for a nameless topic. So it shouldn't be bolded anywhere in the article, and the wording shouldn't be twisted around to try to make the term appear in the intro if it wouldn't appear there naturally.
• "Brown noise", on the other hand, is a defined term and should be bolded and included in the intro.

Article titles that are unique names for the topic, or terminology that is defined by the article, should be bolded and appear in the first section. Article titles that merely describe what the article is about, though, don't have to appear verbatim anywhere else in the article, and if they do, they should not be bolded. Other examples:

Proper term	Descriptive title
Brown noise	Colors of noise
Loudspeaker enclosure	Electrical characteristics of a dynamic loudspeaker
Bank of Japan	Economy of Japan
Hurricane Isabel	Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware
Canadian Forces	Military history of Canada

People have this silly notion that it's mandatory to fit a bolded verbatim copy of the article title in the first sentence of the article, which often results in awkward wording and a misleading implication that the title of the article is somehow the topic's official name.

I'm not sure how to word this in the MoS, though, since "proper noun" isn't really the correct terminology. — Omegatron 22:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Distinguish between title and name. If the title is the name of something (concept, person, event, object), then bold it up front. If the title is describing the content of the article, eg. 'List of...' or 'Colors of noise', and is not a name per se, then don't bold it. Trouble is, the 'bolding' is ingrained into the psyche of many Wikipedia editors. You'll have a difficult job retraining them. Carcharoth 23:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:USSH is a case where the actual title should never be bolded in some states (see Virginia State Route 16 for example). --NE2 02:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

My preference is to include a bolded term that matches the article title where possible. The "colors of noise" may not work well as an actual phrase to use - in that case leave it out. But "Electrical characteristics of a dynamic loudspeaker" would seem to me to be workable into a sentence. When 95% of articles have a bolded term, those that don't start to look a bit weird. Stevage 02:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

My preference is to include a bolded term that matches the article title where possible.

For what reason? — Omegatron 02:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Aesthetics. Consistency. If it's good for some articles to have bolded key terms, it's good for as many articles as possible to have them, within reason. I think you and I just define "within reason" differently - you prefer to avoid stretching a key term at all if it's not natural, I set the bar a bit higher. Stevage 14:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that we shouldn't bold things unless they actually are "key terms". — Omegatron 14:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Just realised something else. The desciptive sort of titles are the ones where I've longed to link to stuff from the 'bold' bits, but been restrained by the dictum that linking from the bold bit is not our style. This is silly when you realise that a link is automatically bolded only if it is the same as the title. Compare this (unbolded descriptive title with links) with this (bolded descriptive title without links) and this (name title bolded) with this (name bit in text is linked, but appears bolded as it is the title). Does that make any sense? If this change goes through, the "no linking from bold bits" actually begins to make sense again. Carcharoth 02:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I would even hazard a guess that the "bold bit" at the start historically happened when people used to over-link, and they would link the article itself, and it automatically appeared bold, as it should, and people thought "ooh, that looks nice". And so the "use bold to highlight the subject of the article in the first sentence" 'rule' was born... Carcharoth 02:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The bolding of self-links was a feature that was added long after article titles were bolded in intro paragraphs. Prior to that, self-links appeared as ordinary links. Nohat 08:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Related terms

Should topics closely related to the article's subject be bolded as well? Take selection for example. Many words are bolded like selective pressure etc. I see this done a bit and I assume it's frowned upon, but the policy doesn't explicitly say anything about it. Richard001 08:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Alternative terms for the title should definitely be bolded. — Omegatron 16:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotation mark caveat added

Fairly recently the quotation mark section gained the caveat "However, insisting on changing to this usage, especially in articles written in American English, is deprecated; there are better and less divisive uses of time." The rationale for this is (apparently) to avoid revert wars, but it basically reads like an "opt out" of have clear style guidance on this matter at all. And since it's fairly common to see people "correcting" 'logical' to 'aesthetic' quotations -- whether on U.S. topics, UK ones, or anything else -- I doubt it'll work as claimed, anyway. Surely having a clear style preference is in the long run the better recipe for avoiding unnecessary to-and-fro: otherwise we end up with people doing so anyway, with whatever rationale they happen to find handy. (National 'ownership' of topic; style of original author; various other flavours of "I've changed this, no-one else dare change it back!") "Don't revert war" is good advice in general, but I question the wisdom of the particularisation of the principle to this instance over all others. Alai 09:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the language. I can't find any indication that this was ever discussed, and it sounds, just as you suggest, like an "opt out" clause. Bad idea, in my opinion. — Brian (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! Jimp 01:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of works

Right now there is an edit war going on at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works). Which format (viewable from the edit history) should be used? Pugno di dollari 21:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: Please give feedback at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lists of works)#Years and parentheses.

We're trying to decide on a recommended style for listing created works (bibliographies, filmographies, discographies); whether to order year first or title first, and whether years/ISBNs/notes etc should be separated with brackets or dashes. Thanks. --Quiddity 21:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Italicizing words-as-words

"Use italics when writing about words as words or letters as letters (to indicate the use-mention distinction). For example: Deuce means two."

In the above line, should two really be italicized? It is quite clear that deuce is being used as a word here, but it seems to me that two is not—rather, it is being used as a meaning. It seems to me that the sentence should be "Deuce means "two".", in order to distinguish this "two" from cases where it actually refers to a word, as in "The word deuce is synonymous with the word two.". Compare, for example, the following:

• The word sad refers to the emotion of unhappiness.
• The word sad means "unhappy".
• The word sad means the same thing as the word unhappy.

"Unhappy" in the second line seems dramatically different from unhappy in the third to me; the former is not a word referring to itself, but a word referring to a meaning or concept. And the first line illustrates that it's not always correct to italicize definitions—only words-as-words, right? So, is this an error in the text, or am I missing something? -Silence 23:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I agree with you.

It's probably neither an error nor your missing something, just that when it was written, everyone here decided (correctly or incorrectly) that that was the way then. Neonumbers 00:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Left-aligned images

This page says that when images are aligned left and would normally be placed directly under a section heading, they should instead be placed above the section heading. Wikipedia:Accessibility says that images should not be placed above the section heading. I'd tend to take the accessibility argument over the prettiness argument, but they both have merit. Which ought to be followed? --Sopoforic 00:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punctuation of abbreviations and initialisms

Should there be full-stops (periods) after abbreviated words, other than the list of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations)? In particular, for proper names, when the first and middle name are abbreviated to a first and middle initial, should there be periods, and should they be separated by spaces? -Pgan002 01:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Abbreviations (with some exceptions) generally don't have dots between letters, so e.g. GCSE not G.C.S.E.. For people's names... good question... I would think that there would be a dot/period/full-stop and separated by spaces (George W. Bush not George W Bush), or at least it seems to be what's generally happening, but couldn't really give a definite answer. Neonumbers 09:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

One common style is to use periods in initialisms that are the same as another word English word to improve readability, e.g. U.S., not US; I.T., not IT;, and M.A.N., not MAN. All other initialisms do not take periods, e.g. LAN, not L.A.N., CD-ROM, not C.D.-R.O.M. For proper names, U.S. style is to generally use a period after a middle initial, George W. Bush. Rillian 14:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Wasn’t there a US president – or a writer – whose registered middle name was but a letter? This case alone is reason enough to put the period in there if it’s an abbreviation, simple disambiguation.

In general, abbreviations should be identifiable as such, therefore they need to be in a marked case. The general case in the contemporary English usage of the roman alphabet is lowercase without punctuation.

The marked case for names (and the first word of a sentence) is an uppercase initial letter. (Sometimes they are also written in italics or with small caps, but those are extended text or rather font capabilities.) This convention is also commonly used for headlines and titles, where there are varying rules for certain words (e.g. articles) to remain lowercase.

The marked case for abbreviations traditionally is a period after each particle (“abbr.”) which is often just one letter (“i.e.”). This is collapsed sometimes into a period after the last letter only (“btw.” = “by the way”). The marked case for acronyms and initialisms, which are special kinds of abbreviations that are not expanded upon reading in general, is all-caps (“SCSI”) until they turn into real words, i.e. they are no longer recognised as being abbreviations in usual contexts (“laser”). There are also examples for acronyms with lowercase letters inside, e.g. when more than the first letter a source word is used (“HiFi” = “high fidelity”) or if the word is lowercase in title-case (“MoS” = “Manual of Style”), but such words are often left out of the abbreviation (“MP” = “Member of Parliament”). Sometimes the rule for abbreviations was also applied to acronyms (“F.B.I.”), but then they are unnecessarily marked twice; this convention (noted by User:Rillian) is only ever useful where only uppercase or only lowercase letters are available for some reason (teletypes or some news crawls for instance), because some acronyms would look like other words then (“US”), sometimes even on purpose (“PATRIOT Act”). On the other hand sometimes abbreviations are written like acronyms (“BTW”).

Then there is a (British) trend to avoid even more periods where this can’t create confusion (“Mr”, “Dr”). (Actually it is uncommon today to invent an abbreviation consisting of the initial and final letters of the abbreviated word. There is a new variant, though, as in “i18n” = “interantionalisation”.) I think this is too much, because the marked case here is just “unusual sequence of letters”. Christoph Päper 11:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign terms

I've added the following text, which one would have thought was unnecessary (but see a current conflict at Louis XIV of France, which illustrates how guidelines are often interpreted at Wikipedia):

"Foreign-language inscriptions or legends on coins, etc. are not normally italicized, except in order to reproduce the style of the inscription more accurately."

I can't imagin there'd be objections to this, but you never know: read any well-published article or book that discusses inscriptions. (Wetman 21:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC))

Actually, there is an objection. The project page states, "The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here, and Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines. Before making any major changes to these guidelines, please use the discussion page to ensure that your changes reflect consensus." Certainly we should all keep an open mind, but I am not aware of "any well-published article or book that discusses inscriptions" which also states that "Foreign-language inscriptions or legends on coins, etc. are not normally italicized." In fact, The project page also states, "If this page does not specify which usage is preferred: Use other reliable resources, such as ... The Chicago Manual of Style and Fowler's Modern English Usage [and] Mayfield Electronic Handbook of Technical & Scientific Writing and the CMS Crib Sheet by Dr. Abel Scribe." I have discussed this issue with some other WP editors, and the consensus seems to be quite the reverse -- there is no exception for foreign language inscriptions or legends on coins. Can you provide an authoritative citation for your position? (I'll retract this if you will do that.) None of the three resources cited support your position. [[7]], [[8]], [[9]]

Typesetter 19:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with these three references. If the word has been incorporated into the English language, then no italics. If the word hasn't, and then there should be italics. Thus, foreign words on coins would be italicized. Akradecki 20:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Anybody else want to weigh in on this discussion? Are foreign words and phrases not italicized if they appear as inscriptions on coins? If so, what resources support this position? Typesetter 14:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beginning a sentence with a numeral or symbol?

I don't see anything in the Wikipedia manual of style about this, but it seems to me that it is common practice in RL that if a sentence begins with a number, then the number is written out in letters. A sentence might look like this: "Twenty-four percent of the people agreed completely, while only 21% strongly disagreed." This makes it easier to read by allowing a capital letter to appear at the beginning of the sentence, so the eye can more easily find the beginning of the sentence. An alternative is to reword the sentence so a numeral doesn't come at the beginning: "Complete agreement was indicated by 24% of the people, while only 21% strongly disagreed."

See for example section 9. "Number Beginning a Sentence, Title, or Heading" at [10]. I particularly like this approach: While we would generally rather avoid beginning a sentence with a mathematical expression, we would tolerate it if avoiding it created awkwardness or ambiguity. at [11]. A Google search for "beginning sentence numeral" brings up many pages with instructions to spell out numerals at the beginnings of sentences.

I'm wondering whether it's good practice to try to have Wikipedia conform to this style, whether this is already addressed in a Wikipedia style manual, if not whether it should be added, and whether it should apply to symbols such as "ω-3" in the second paragraph of Eicosanoid. --Coppertwig 12:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This is already mentioned in the fifth item of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) in the section " Numbers in words". It says "It is considered awkward for a numeral to be the first word of a sentence: recast the sentence or spell the number out." Graham87 03:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In American legal practice, it is considered bad form to start a sentence with a symbol or a number, unless the number is too large that it would be clumsy to write it out (a judgment call, but usually fairly obvious.) For example: "Section 24 of the Code...", while the section symbol is used within the sentence; "Twenty-three people have joined the suit..."; but "6,002,540 people live in Chicago...". To give my two bits, I do think that this is the more attractive use. Cain47 06:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Cain47

[edit] RE: Flag Icons- New Table

I would like to start a debate regarding the use of a new template on various UK settlement pages, to include the union flag at the bottom, unlike the English version (Template:Infobox England place) in the hope that it will increase public awareness of the difference between England and Britain. In order to do this a concensus is necessary and I would therefore appreciate any possible support. A copy of this template can be seen on the Market Deeping page or here is the actual template Template:Infobox England place with UK flag for UK map. The current use of the England flag at the bottom of such tables lacks continuity between the map of the UK and the English flag, creating confusion. Many thanks for any support. --Ash online 18:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't use any flag icons, but if I had to use flag icons and that map I'd either use only the union flag, or both the union flag and the St George cross. DanBeale 16:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, use both. Scots and Welsh would get cranky if you removed their flags, and enormous edit wars would ensue, so for consistency you'd still need an English flag here. I think using both would illustrate ven better the difference between England and the UK as a whole. Cop 633

16:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahem! There is only one "C" in "consensus". Mentorsmentor 09:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Left-aligned image placement

Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. Instead, place the image directly above the heading.

How long has this been the rule? It looks really bad to do it this way, as it forces the following section heading over to the right to allow for the picture. Placing the image below the section heading does not, as the MoS currently claims, separate the heading from the text; the text begins immediately below the heading as usual, only moved over by the image. It looks much better to have all left-aligned section headings than to do what the MoS is currently advocating. -- — Brian 02:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, never mind. I was confusing first-level headings (==) and second-level headings (===). The MoS is discussing second-level. — — Brian (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where to go for help?

This probably isn't the place to come, except for an onward reference. Is there an expert who can help with all types of end matter (references, books written, books about, scholarly perspectives, journalism written, journalism about, speeches, interviews, see also and external links)?

The specific case is George Soros and the article has all of the above, plus remnants of an edit war from the last election. I'm overwhelmed and need some help. Smallbones 16:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That quote in the lead

Am I the only one? I find this quote in the lead, from The Chicago Manual of Style, repellent:

Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity.

Some background. Here is the way Chicago (current edition) presents the matter, with my underlining for emphasis:

As always, most Chicago rules are guidelines, not imperatives; where options are offered, the first is normally our preference. Users should break or bend rules that don’t fit their needs, as we often do ourselves. Some advice from the first edition (1906), quoted in the twelfth and thirteenth editions and invoked in the fourteenth, bears repeating: “Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity.”

Here are my objections to our perpetuating this formulation:

1. While it is part of Chicago's tradition, and is therefore quite apt to be cited in edition after edition of that guide, it is not a part of our emerging tradition, and does not automatically deserve such prominence in the lead of this crucial Wikipedia page.
2. The wording is quirky and old-fashioned. "Rock-ribbed" reads like the alliterating whim of some lackey on a slow afternoon – not a lapidary turn of phrase that commands our admiration a century later!
3. Chicago is American, and while that in itself is no problem (and the guide is universally useful), it may be taken as presuming American supremacy if it alone is cited as an eminent authority in the lead. Nor is it a solution to add selected apophthegms from the rest of the world, since the lead would then get too cluttered.
4. Wikipedia is its own authority on its own style, and while it should respect long-established precedent, it should not fawn before precedent.

I propose the following adjustments:

1. If the quote must be retained, let it be relegated to note at the end, along with any similar quotes that people feel are necessary.
2. Let the lead be re-worked slightly without any such quotes, along its present lines but with improved wording.

I'll wait for comments before acting – except that I will now take out one occurrence of the word require (since there is another in the same sentence), and replace it with demand. It's about style, folks! – Noetica 21:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never liked quoting something when original prose will do just as well (or better). You have my approval, at least. Strad 03:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't think its being quoted from the Chicago Manual is any problem. I don't think its being American is an issue at all — it's just a nice idea taken from somewhere, where it's from is irrelevant. The English, to me, is perfectly understandable.

The most important thing, though, is whether or not we agree with what the quote says. Wikipedia does not fawn before that as a precedent. It does not consider it a tradition. It agrees with the idea the quote expresses: that style guidelines aren't set in concrete, and have to be applied on a case-by-case basis. The quote expresses that very well (much better than how I just expressed it.)

It's there because it neatly sums up the nature of the manual, not because it's from Chicago. Neonumbers 10:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

So you'd be quite happy to see the same thought expressed in some other way, Neonumbers? That's good, because the thought could be expressed far more naturally than Chicago manages it. Some hack-work from 1906 has no place here, when we are perfectly able to say what we mean in our own well-chosen words. What is the positive advantage of citing Chicago, if not to appeal to authority (American authority, as it happens)? No need for such a thing! Wikipedia's style can be determined quite independently, and it needs no such cheap prefabricated rhetoric to justify its practices or its preferences. Any other opinions? – Noetica 14:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

There is neither advantage nor disadvantage of citing Chicago. You're quite right—the only thing about it is that I like the quote. If you really want to express it another way, I don't mind, I just think the quote expresses it very nicely. It is not cheap, it does not imply dependance on another manual, and it's certainly not about bowing down to Chicago. We don't use it because Chicago said so (I really don't understand why people think that). It neatly expresses a principle that Wikipedians should follow. The quote could have come from anywhere.

If we want to have it reworded, please try to make sure it says the same thing. It's a brittle concept and it'll be very easy for the quote to be slightly different in its first rewording, and then be a bit different after its next revision, and so on, until it either says, "If you don't like one of these guidelines, then break rules", or it says, "These guidelines are not binding and editors are free to choose whichever style they want" or "These guidelines should always be followed" (exaggeration).

I'm very reluctant to see the quote go. The advantage of its presence is simply that it expresses a fundamental principle in beautifully chosen words (the "beautiful" part being a point of opinion). The quote gave me, as a newcomer (a while back now), an understanding of this manual really was. Who cares where it came from? If you have an alternative, then post the wording here. Neonumbers 10:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it's a shoddy and pretentious attempt at elevated prose that deserves to be treated as purely ephemeral. The idea is quite easy to express well, in fact. We don't need someone from a century ago to give us the words to say it. I'll wait a little longer for opinions; if there is no weight of opinion in favour of quoting this ugly thing, I'll delete it and put forward an alternative expression of the thought – such as we had before. I will then consider it necessary that anyone wanting to restore it justify doing so. (Rock-ribbed, indeed! Superannuated sludge.) – Noetica 13:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's pretentious, and I don't think it's particulary better as a quote than as an inline exhortation. In fact, it's so ugly, I pre-empted this discussion and made a first stab at a new version myself. Sorry for stepping on toes. If you can improve on my hasty re-wording, go ahead.--Slashme 14:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That edit changes the meaning of the sentence. A small change, perhaps, but an important one. We are not trying to say people should be prepared to break rules. While we are trying to say that the rules aren't inflexible ("rock-ribbed law"), we also want to stress that the guidelines will work in most situations (the "average case"), and sometimes, judgement will need to be exercised ("applied with elasticity"). I don't want editors to think they're "breaking rules" or that that's an okay thing to do, plainly because one thing will lead to another and onto another until, eventually, the rules are no longer rules. "Applying rules with flexibility" is a better descriptor. I've made some changes to Slashme's version of the sentence. Even my changes don't quite weigh up.

Last time it was removed, the replacement didn't even nearly say the same thing. The most important thing is that there is something in the manual that expresses how the manual is to be applied, without saying that it's not to be applied. Incidentlly, you meant "no more weight of opinion", not "no weight of opinion", right? I'd hate to think I didn't count... Neonumbers 01:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, since people have gone in and altered the lead, I have felt free to do the same. It seemed to me that the text was too repetitious, and still retained vestiges of an antique mode of expression that doesn't fit here. So I have smoothed and shortened the lead to this:

This Manual of Style has the simple purpose of making the encyclopedia easy to read, by establishing agreed principles for its format. It is a style guide. The following rules do not claim to be the last word on Wikipedia style. One way is often as good as another, but if everyone does things the same way, Wikipedia will be easier to read and use, and easier to write and edit. These rules are not rigid: they are principles that many editors have found to work well in most circumstances, but which may be applied with flexibility. In this vein, editors of new and existing articles are asked to respect these guidelines.

Others will do what they will! Neonumbers, I certainly didn't mean to suggest that you don't count, or that your opinion doesn't count! Perhaps we have different understandings of what weight of opinion means. To me it suggests a resultant (on the analogy of forces in mechanics), or a consensus (that fleeting desideratum). As such it is something I had waited for the emergence of, disregarding what turns things might take along the way. – Noetica 01:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I made two minor changes and a major one. The first was to change "These rules are not rigid" to "These are not rigid laws" (same number of words), so that it doesn't look like a contradiction with "they are principles that...". The second was to change "may be applied with flexibility" to "should be applied with flexibility" — a very important aspect, because flexibility isn't about doing what you want to do, it's about doing what's appropriate for the situation.

The major change was to change (or revert) the last sentence to: "In this vein, editors should strive to have their articles follow these guidelines." The change to "editors [...] are asked to respect these guidelines" is fundamentally different to the old version. The focus of the Manual of Style is (or at least should be) articles, not editors. We don't reprimand editors for not following the Manual because a) it's unreasonable to expect them to be familiar with all of it and b) because many edits are the addition of information, which we want to keep but stylify (excuse the neologism). However, we certainly want all articles to follow the Manual, because that's what it's for, and that's part of being a professional encyclopedia. There's no reason why stylification and information have to be done by the same editor.

Noetica, I now understand what you meant by "weight of opinion" — apologies for the misunderstanding (I hoped it would be something like that). Neonumbers 08:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy enough with all of that, Neonumbers. What would be good is a consensus version that a large number of us would be happy to defend against petty or arbitrary change. It seems that you and I, at least, think that the lead now meets this standard. Am I right? Of course it would be possible to quibble, no matter what text we have. For example, I could take issue with the wording editors should strive to have their articles follow these guidelines, on the ground that the articles do not belong to their editors! And I could defend my alternative (editors of new and existing articles are asked to respect these guidelines) as superior because it avoids such a suggestion, and on other grounds as well. But I am not inclined to do that. I think we should compromise, and defend the result of our compromise. Good idea? What do others think? – Noetica 09:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with it as it is now. I won't say "happy", but very satisfied indeed — and I will happily defend the current version, the result of our compromise, with you. Neonumbers 23:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Whenever reasonable"

I'd have left this in the edit summary, but there wasn't enough room!

I've just changed "By default" back to "Whenever reasonable" on the quotations paragraph, because I don't think the altered version is nearly strong enough - if something is only the 'default', then almost any reason (for example, consistency with other quotes, or a different style being usual in the national variety of English being employed) would be good enough to change it. I think that the MoS needs to be much stronger than this on quotations - to alter a direct quotation in any way should be vastly the exception, and require a really pressing reason. The grammatical concerns of the editor may be valid (though I think that "whenever reasonable" is perfectly clear, by analogy with "whenever possible"), but I don't think that they're a good enough reason for such a dramatic change in meaning. TSP 23:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, TSP. While I don't agree that "by default" weakens or even significantly changes the message, I also don't need to contest the matter. I have applied a compromise that I think ought to satisfy all needs. The only objection I can foresee is that it is too wordy; and to that I would say that we ought to make the grammar unimpeachable, especially if the cost is so slight. – Noetica 05:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-breaking spaces: Help!

With the best of intentions, I have added something here and there about non-breaking spaces. But I seem to have got things wrong. From the article non-breaking space, and from the way things work in MSWord, it would seem that &nbsp; prevents a break at its location. But it doesn't seem to do so between double quotes. I'll leave my alterations in place for now: but I do hope that someone else will advise how " " can be kept intact, if &nbsp; won't do the trick. This is important, because such a break is always to be avoided, and because it certainly is a widely respected norm to have a space between adjacent quote marks. Any ideas? – Noetica 05:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Does it help to nowikify the " "?--JoergenB 00:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, JoergenB. It does seem to work. I have therefore applied it in the case of " ". But I wonder what implication this has for wider usage within Wikipedia? What are we to do in practice, if we want to separate quote marks in articles? We'd need <nowiki>'&nbsp;''</nowiki> to put a hard space between a single quote and a double quote, each time! – Noetica 02:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Numbered lists

Hi, there's a question at Wikipedia talk:Cheatsheet#Numbered lists not showing correctly that I'm not sure how to answer. The user is wondering why the 2nd level of numbered lists don't indicate their parent number. E.g.

# one
## one point one

displays as

1. one
   1. one point one

instead of

1. one
   1.1 one point one

(which is how our ToC lists are styled)

Possibly these should be standardized to one or the other style? --Quiddity 20:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The table of contents shows multiple levels of numbering for each item because that’s what the Wikipedia software generates when it text to your browser. Normal numbered lists don’t show multiple levels of numbers because neither the Wikipedia stylesheet nor the browser’s stylesheet are set up to display LI elements that way.

It’s one thing to apply the multiple-number style to headings, where such a style is common in other publications. It’s another thing to wish to apply that style to all numbered lists. I think the numbering styles are fine the way the are. --Rob Kennedy 01:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Then this page and this page are correct? It looks like they show multiple-number style lists but maybe not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.12.150.20 (talk • contribs).

In what way do they appear as multiple-number lists? The cheatsheet section has code like this:

# one
# two
## two point one
# three

To me, it renders like this:

1. one
2. two
   1. two point one
3. three

That’s how my browser interprets the HTML that Wikipedia generates:

<ol>
<li>one</li>
<li>two
<ol>
<li>two point one</li>
</ol>
</li>
<li>three</li>
</ol>

Does it appear differently to you? --Rob Kennedy 23:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, Thanks Rob. It really is my interpretation of the line "1. two point one" that looks odd out of context. Yes, both IE7 and Firefox 2 render it as shown. (should I remove these comments now that it is resolved or will they be removed as they age?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.12.150.20 (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Military Ranks

How does one treat capitalization of a phrasing of the sort "XYZ was promoted to C/captain"? Would it be any different if it was phrased "XYZ was promoted to the rank of C/captain"? The former connotes a change in formal title (to "Captain XYZ"), while the latter states the grade to which the person was elevated. TIA, Askari Mark (Talk) 03:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep them lowercase unless they’re being used as part of the person’s name, just like any other titles. “Joe Bloggs was promoted to captain. After Joe’s promotion, everyone called him Captain Bloggs.” --Rob Kennedy 18:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign language titles

WP:CAPS does not currently address the issue of foreign language titles adequately, and there are many pages that use naming conventions for English or for the native language. I've made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Proposal for foreign language titles to address the issue. ShadowHalo 21:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling variable?

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (spelling)#Spelling variable.

[edit] Multiple identical Wikilinks for non-consecutive terms in templates or no?

A template I made was recently changed to eliminate multiple Wikilinks to the same coach when they coached non-consecutive terms. See [before] and [after]. I was wondering if there is consensus for this. When I look at Template:IDGovernors, it is made in the way I originally had the coach template, with the governor linked multiple times if they served non-consecutive terms. Allowing this for governors but not for coaches would be a double standard, so consensus needs to decide which we should go with and change all the related templates accordingly. Personally, I prefer the way I originally had it since I think it is helpful to show if someone served two non-consecutive terms in the template. But, I will accept if consensus determines otherwise. VegaDark 19:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] [sic] and Quotes?

Please could someone advise me about using [sic] and quotes in Wikipedia articles. I see some discussion at the DHMO talk page and I'd like to make sure that I use [sic] appropriately, and that I don't fix things that don't need fixing. Thanks. DanBeale 15:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It’s fine to use sic when using quoted material. Don’t overuse it, though. Use it inappropriately, and it’s akin to Wikipedia saying, “Nyah, nyah, we know better than the guy we’re quoting. Look at the mistake he made.” That doesn’t help anything. (I have similar feelings when I see an article call something “incorrect.”)

Anyway, back to the topic at hand: In the case at Dihydrogen monoxide hoax, I don’t think it’s necessary. How can anyone verify what the original Web page said? The article itself tells us the original source is not available. I think it would be better to simply say the original isn’t available, and then quote the version that is available. That source spells despite correctly, and thus we postpone the issue of whether to use sic. --Rob Kennedy 18:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[Sic] should be used only sparingly. It should never be used to refer to more than one word, and especially not to an idea. It is only used respectfully when there is simply a typographical error in the cited text, to make it clear that the citing author has been diligent. Even the correction of a spelling error should sometimes just be quietly corrected. Repeated use of [sic] is only to be used when the citing author means to cause offense. Most importantly, [sic] should only be used to refer to one word {or perhaps, rarely, to a phrase: eg., if the author has mangled a turn of phrase, as in saying that "the early bird catches no flies.") But an idea or assertion can't just be followed by a [sic]; it's a misuse for good reason. Reason being, if the assertion is wrong, just explain why. Cain47 06:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Cain47

I sometimes put an HTML comment in a quote to tell other editors why that spelling is being used, such as in a quote from an old document where the original spelling is important. Such as if the original spelling of a river is related to the current spelling of a city. (SEWilco 07:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] First/last name

Maybe I'm missing it in here, but shouldn't it be listed to never refer to a person by their first name? Such as for Michael Jordan, "Mike then scored..." but to always use the last name or occasionally full name? It's probably in there and if so I apologize, I just can't find it. Quadzilla99 03:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Never? No. Surely there are occasions to refer to people by their first names. I can’t think of any good examples off-hand, though. “Never” is a strong word. Anyway, please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names. --Rob Kennedy 04:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Kings and queens ... there's a good example of such an occasion. Jimp 00:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Refer to Dead People

Is it appropriate to refer to dead people as "the late so-and-so"? If not, what is a better format?Arcayne 02:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid. There is already an active discussion about the term. --Farix (Talk) 03:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comma inside or outside quotation marks: can we clarify at WP:MoS?

Could we add an explicit statement at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation specifically stating whether commas should go inside or outside quotation marks? Or is there not enough consensus to do so? (I don't want to restart the debate over which way is better; I merely want to know whether a consensus has been reached at the English Wikipedia on this point.) --Lph 04:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

For some time it's been (more or less) stable as "put the punctuation mark inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation". That's not quite the same as "always outside", but no style guide actually uses "always outside". Does that help? Alai 01:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There are always the descenters but general consensus has for some time been in favour of logical quotation. Alai gives a good summary what this means. The Punctuation section on this page goes into more detail. Do you feel that it's either not clear or not explicite enough? Jimp 00:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. Looking at it a second time, it is pretty clear. I guess I was unsure because the examples used a period and a question mark, i.e. sentence-ending punctuation marks, and not a comma. --Lph 17:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See also

Where would I find MoS for do and don't on 'see also's sections?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There is some information at Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also (redirected from Wikipedia:See also. --Lph 17:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why not settle on a standard written English?

Allowing American, British or Indian or whatever forms of English for various articles is inconsistent and difficult to review for editing. I think we should move English Wikipedia to a standard written English.

Of course this raises the question of which form of English to use. I propose American English because 1) it has more native speakers, 2) in a very few cases it is arguably simpler, and 3) Wikipedia originates in America.

Or maybe someone can create a tool that converts British spellings and terms to American spellings and terms and vice versa? We could use the tool to translate/filter in real time the reader's preference.

I am watching comments on this - Thanks Tee Owe 17:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been proposed many times before and rejected each of those times. Use American English and you get accused of American-centric bias. Use any other version and it's that particular bias. You can make a case for any of them. Alexj2002 17:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, please see the current (on-going) discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (national varieties of English) – Kieran T ^(talk) 17:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

By using a standard form of English you may alienate people. Old habits die hard and having learnt how to spell British English (the right way to me) I will automatically write this version almost certainly without thinking about standard spellings. There is also the problem that a lot of people will spell it their own way as they don't want to spell it any other anyway.

If this were a specifically purely American project, perhaps the spelling would be changed by someone else and nobody would notice, but with so many British, Indian and other native spellers an automatic bot would cause people to take offense and change spellings back to what they think is right- causing an edit war. It could also lead to counter bots...

A particular problem to the (majority) of now and again users who would likely not be aware of any standarised rules in place- seeing a bot constantly change their spelling would likely aggravate a number of people. Bobbacon 18:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think he/she meant a javascript tool to display the user's preferred format (as is currently done with dates). That would be a great idea, but it would take a long time to write due to the many varities of English, and until then, pages should stay as they are. DB (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If this were a purely American project, then Wikipedia would have so much less information. If America only had it's own information, then America would have so much less of it. This is the beauty of the internet, it shares a lot of information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.197.69.171 (talk)

Settle on a standard ... can o' worms. The Americans will want it to be theirs citing reasons such as Tee Owe has. The Brits will want it to be theirs arguing that theirs came first. The Aussies will support the Brits but will really want Australian English to be the standard baulking at words such as lorry and aubergine. Kiwis will do similarly to the Aussies but in their own slightly different way. The Canadians will support the Brits on spelling but will prefer American vocab and they too will really want Canadian English ... it'll never work.

As for using a conversion tool ... yes, that may be a possibility. Of course, it has been suggested before and gathered somedeal of support ... opposition too. The discussion, however, seemed to peter out and was all but forgotten.

The idea was, naturally, not without its difficulties. For example, dialect differences go beyond simple questions of spelling involving vocabulary, punctuation and even grammar. Another problem brought up was what to about page titles. I believe I have found something of a solution to this. Jimp 09:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My (admittedly thoroughly unrealistic) modest proposal is at User:Angr/Unified English Spelling. —Angr 10:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

May I please warn against the pervasive corruption of AMERICAN English by Hollywood, or "Hollyork" as Fred Reed calls it (Google for "Hollyork Nation" to see discussion). The malign effect of the alien "Hollyork" on the English language generally is aggravated in respect of British English by tainting of British English through the flood of "Hollyork English" language pouring into the parlours of the native speakers of British English (that is to say, mainly the inhabitants of Australasia, South Africa, the rest of the Commonwealth except Canada, and where English is a vital second or alternative language in Commonwealth countries such as the continent of India). For example, in competent British grammars (such as the small but authoritative guide, "The Complete Plain Words") variations called "Americanisms" are acknowledged and then either accommodated or rejected with explanation. In neither American nor British English, however, is there any room for Hollyork solecisms such as (to cite but one) the abandonment of the adverbial form of "good", as in the corrupt expression "He did good" when good is NOT meant as a noun. Or such uneven constructions such as, Question: "Have you a coat?" Answer: "Yes I do" (or "No I do not") so common in cinema and TV scripts from Hollywood. In our opinion American and British English are identical grammatically and vary (legitimately) only in local geographical usages of spelling and colloquial idiom. The writer must be expected to know enough grammar to know all about these (and about his reader) when he takes up his pen. The reader must, equally, be expected also to know of these local or topical variations and how to handle them. This cannot excuse those who say (for example) "lay" when they mean "lie " even if they are on TV acting the part of a woman president of the USA or one of her White House advisors. The grammar of the English Language is common to both the USA and the Commonwealth. It seems it is simply less well taught and used in the USA; or their teaching is swamped by the immediacy of the alien Hollyork element. Mentorsmentor 10:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Romanization

Is there any established policy for romanisation? I've been looking, but can't find it stated anywhere. It seems to me there are many inconsistencies, at least for Russian, and it would be nice if we could just standardise on scientific transliteration which is a blind substitution algorithm. This does mean Boris Yeltsin becomes Boris Elcin and Nikita Khrushchev becomes Nikita Xruščëv. The spellings in use are quite arbitrary anyway, and completely foreign(!) to, say, German speakers of English, which are accustomed to Jeltsin and Chruschtschow. Anyhow, if that is too drastic, I would at least like to see a standard for simple things like -ий, which is written as -y or -ij, and -ич, which alternates between -ey and -ei. I'm sure there are similar issues for CJK which should be addressed, too. Kjetilho 02:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd support a standard romanization for the transliteration in, say, Russian grammar. But Nikita Xruščëv is absolutely ridiculous, particularly since it's even further away from Chruschtschow than Khrushchev is. Strad 00:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think any standardized schemes used elsewhere recognize that established spellings need to stay, or at least they should recognize it, although there's still "Tolstoy" and "Tolstoi" around. I'm running into problems with Yiddish poets taken from the Britannica Book of the Year volumes — the spellings are different from our article names, and sometimes there are three or four different spellings on the Internet. I think we should find whatever romanization systems are already out there and grasp whatever is most popular. And never let go. Noroton 20:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In German the man is known as Jelzin, in French it is Yeltsine if I remember correctly.

Anyhow, if you wanted to transliterate names originaly written in cyrillic into the latin/roman script, ISO 9:1995 = GOST 7.79 would be the standard of choice today. It is independent on the source language and has an 1:1 mapping of letters, which gives us Hruŝëv or instance. Likewise you would use ISO 3602 Strict instead of Hepburn romanization for Japanese names. The other option is transcription which by concept is rather vague, but more helpful to the layman. Christoph Päper 12:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Titles in picture descriptions

Currently Harold Wilson has the correct titling for the main description of his name (i.e., basically none). However, the caption of the picture describes him as "The Rt Hon Harold Wilson Baron Wilson of Rievaulx, KG, OBE, FRS, PC" Am I correct to presume that the MOS rules apply to the picture description as well and so this should be reduced to simply "Harold Wilson"? JoshuaZ 20:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That's actually the infobox title, not the caption; but, generally, no: rules applying to article titles do not necessarily apply to text within articles. In this case, I believe it's actually common practice to use the full form initially in the article, even if the title is a considerably shortened version. Kirill Lokshin 21:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the Latin Alphabet

I am trying to find a standard or comment about the use of non English characters in articles.

The basic English (Latin) alphabet does not include diacritics. For instance in the article Māori the word Maori is written as Māori all the way through. This also happens in the article Romanization of Japanese where romaji is often written rōmaji. The word Māori is not an English word, the English word is Maori. I understand it is important to include diacritics at the beginning of the article as foreign words (like Japanese) are included as a reference eg. "Kanji (Japanese: 漢字 (help·info)) are the Chinese characters ...". But using diacritics throughout the article is incorrect as it is not English.

Any thoughts or pointers to a guidline highly appreciated. Brettr 06:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

But using diacritics throughout the article is incorrect as it is not English. I don't think that's necessarily true. That certainly is the situation with Mexico (which is México in Spanish, but almost never written as such in English). But the Polish złoty uses the stroked l both in the title and text of the article, and I imagine the only reason you'd leave it out is because of technical restrictions. Mandating one practice or the other would ultimately produce unsatisfactory results (e.g., either México and złoty or Mexico and zloty). Strad 00:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply but that's not really an answer, that's just another example of what I'm talking about, a stroked l is not an English character it's a Polish character. If we allow these characters do we allow Москва́ for Moscow? Which characeters do we allow? The capital of Japan is 東京 but in English we write Tokyo losing quite a bit of meaning. The fact that Unicode allows us to mix any character from any language with English doesn't mean we should. Brettr 03:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The point that I'm trying to make is that some words are spelled with their original diacritics and others aren't. I imagine it has some correlation with how long the word has been used in English texts. Moscow is always Moscow in English and never Москва (or even Moskva); that's just the way it is. Then there is the question of when a word is really "English"—is café an English word loaned from French, or still just a French word? I suggest that when this sort of dispute arises, we should search Google Books or something similar to see if one version is preferred over the other in academic texts. Strad 03:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Diacritics are used in English. They're just not common. Some writers prefer to use them and others prefer not to. It's not all that rare to see diacritics on words such as façade and naïve. Others take things even further and come out with stuff like coöperate. Saying that the use of diacritics is not English is much like saying that spellings such as centre and metre are not English. Jimp 07:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This is usually a problem with foreign words, oftentimes place names and names of people. In general, most written English does not use accents, diaereses, cedillas, breath marks, vowel pointings and so on ('though exceptions have been noted above). In many cases there is a non-modified equivalent in general English usage, occasionally following rules, such as the replacement of Scandinavian ø with oe, æ with ae and å with aa. I would tentatively suggest that an early reference is made in an article using the full foreign panoply of letter modifications, and subsequent uses are the 'simplified' English one. Using fully accented/marked/pointed/whatever text throughout seems more like an affectation to me. That's my opinion. WLD^talk|edits 15:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been an interesting discussion but it doesn't seem that others find this as important as I do, possibly as I'm an expat. I certainly agree with WLD. Words like café are obviously accepted as English words but maintaining the use of a foreign character set because that is the way it's written in the original language (eg złoty) seems wrong to me. Brettr 04:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cquote tag

So what was the consensus? It has been discussed several times on this talk and the template was put up for TFD and was voted keep. So what does MOS have to say about these templates... nothing? Shouldn't we have something in there? Even if there is no consensus on the use of the templates, we could at least put that in there. Discuss the quotation templates and what ones are approved and what ones have disagreement among editors. I've replaced them in the past for blockquotes but I'm seeing them more and more. Heck - even Jimbo's article has one on it. Morphh ^(talk) 20:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I support the use, have used it myself, and feel that when used properly, it adds "attractiveness" to the article. I use it for longer quotes which, if used in a book, would be indented, or to highlight an important shorter quote. Yes, something should be in the MOS, though. Akradecki 23:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have read previous discussion on this and I thought the consensus was that cquote should only be used for pullout quotes. Currently the MoS already says that quotations should be formatted with <blockquote>, so no change is necessary. Also, I have been off-wiki for a while, but I vaguely remember that the cquote template should be rewritten to use a subclassed <blockquote>. Or has this already been done? Part of the reason discussions are not always followed through until a discussion is reached, is that overactive "archivers" remove discussions prematurely, making it hard to find out who said what when and why. Although perhaps that's not what happened in this case. As I said, I have been relatively off-wiki for a while, a situation that may still continue for a while. Shinobu 19:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag icons in infoboxes

I see in the archives this has come up before but I can't find anywhere which shows the consensus as to whether these are a good or bad thing - two examples of where this is an issue are the silly edit warring on Nicole Kidman regarding her nationality; and the confusing situation on Emma Watson (Union Flag and Flag of France next to her place of birth - clearly she was not born in two different countries). I'm confident that I'm not alone in thinking that a guideline or policy on this should be set out clearly somewhere to improve consistency across articles. An essay exists at WP:FLAG, but as far as I can see there is no existing policy or guideline either at the WP:MOS or the Biography WikiProject. QmunkE 15:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also appreciate some guidance wrt flags used in info boxes. The Michael J. Fox page has a slightly different problem than the one described by Qmunke above: There is no stability as it changes from canada's old flag, to their new flag, to no flag and back again (and sometimes there are also province flags, once I think there were three displayed at once). R. Baley 04:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Just ran across this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Manual of style/Archive 66 R. Baley 04:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I deal with reviewing a lot of featured articles and I seek to make the following changes:

• If there are too many images in a given article, consider using a gallery. - galleries should not be recommended here. They go in commons. Articles should deal with content, with images serving to illustrate the content. Only in extreme cases should galleries be used.
• Starting a section with a left aligned image. Such images make the text harder to read. The eye is more accustomed to reading text in the following fashion left-right-left. Text should always start to the right
• More a greater proportion of images than text in the section. This causes the [edit] button to be pushed far down.
• Images should not be placed at the end of a section

=Nichalp «Talk»= 18:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with your fourth point; I see nothing wrong with including a right-aligned image near the end of a section. For that matter a left-aligned image that results in the following header/section pushed to the right can also work if the image is sufficiently tall.

In my view, image layout is too subtle an issue to be necessarily bound to the section structure. Images need to be placed such that they work within the article as a whole; considering each section in isolation doesn't result in a better overall design. Kirill Lokshin 18:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Putting an image at the end of a section often causes a layouting glitch with the [edit] button pushed into the subsequent paragraph. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That shouldn't happen unless there's another image (or other floating element) right below it; see WP:BUNCH. The answer is not over-stacking things rather than worrying about whether they're at the end of the section or not. Kirill Lokshin 07:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabetization

Why, oh why, is there no manual of style guideline on alphabetization? I can't begin to tell you how many times one comes across completely incorrect alphabetization. For instance, in Template:India states, there is a list of states which puts "Uttarakhand" before "Uttar Pradesh". This is just wrong (it is also unfixable by me, since the current order of the list corresponds to numbering on a map, which I'm not in a position to fix). It is not how alphabetization is done, and every time we do this kind of thing it makes us look stupid and unprofessional. Can we please have a guidelines with respect to correct alphabetization? (I believe that correct alphabetization also counts "Mc" as though it is "Mac", and "St." as though it is "Saint," but I'm willing to discuss those). It certainly does not follow a "Uttarakhand" comes before "Uttar Pradesh" policy, and we ought to be clear about this. john k 18:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with John Kenney Typesetter 14:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There are different, equally valid standards for collation. Wikipedia should select one to be used throughout, though. Christoph Päper 12:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization of "prime minister"

There's a bit of a disconnect in the manual when comparing the capitaliztion styles recommended for "president" and "prime minister". In both cases, the manual says you should use lowercase when the office is meant "generically", but that word seems to be used differently, given that "the British Prime Minister" is suggested (whereas we would certainly write "the American president").

This comes up because of a dispute over how the article on the prime minister of Italy should be titled. I think it looks better at prime minister of Italy, but a couple of people have moved it to Prime Minister of Italy on the grounds that articles on other countries' prime ministers use the capital M. It could be that it's a slightly different case, given that "prime minister" (or primo ministro) is not the formal name of the office in Italian, but rather an informal description (legally, he's presidente del consiglio dei ministri). --Trovatore 16:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Intuitively, that makes all the difference for me. "Official title" status is the reason things become capitalised, surely? If it's not actually the title, but just the rôle, then it should be lower case, in the same way that one wouldn't describe the driver of a bus as the "Bus Driver" — it's a job, not a title. – Kieran T ^(talk) 16:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's one strong argument. To be honest with you, though, I think there's an even stronger one: I really think it would be odd to see in print a sentence like "Today, the Prime Minister said that...", which is apparently what the current MOS advises. Is that really what we want? Of course in front of a name you'd use it -- "Today, Prime Minister Harper said..." -- but without a name? Really? --Trovatore 07:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

...and I think it's even weirder, if there's no particular individual being referred to. That is, surely we want to say "the functions of the prime minister include..." and not "the functions of the Prime Minister include..."; that's pretty much an on-point application of the principle that generic uses take the lower case, but contradicts the rule about "the". --Trovatore 07:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think one reason Prime Minister is capitalized is that ministers and prime ministers are called by that title. Where the Americans would say "Mr President, thank you" in the Commonwealth the equivalent is "Prime Minister, thank you". Brettr 04:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, that sounds plausible, but it's not a very good reason to capitalize "minister" in the title of the article. The article is about the office, not a specific individual addressed by a title, so it's more a "generic" usage. --Trovatore 04:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have started the "requested moves" process at talk:Prime Minister of Italy; please feel free to contribute. --Trovatore 08:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Universally accepted spellings

In the Mary Wollstonecraft article there was an edit war over whether to use American or British English. It turned out that all of the disputed spellings involved "-ise" vs "ize". Since both American spelling and Oxford spelling used "-ize" for the disputed words and Oxford spelling is acceptable in British English, the dispute was resolved by agreeing to use the Oxford spelling in those cases (thus both the "British" and "American" sides won). This seems to be a logical extension of the existing directive to "Try to find words that are common to all." Since I think this might be helpful to other editors as well, I have added the following suggestion under that directive:

• If a certain spelling is acceptable universally, but another spelling is only used regionally, use the more widely accepted spelling. See Oxford spelling, for example.

I hope that is agreable to everyone. Kaldari 16:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I have removed the Sentence "See Oxford spelling, for example." as that might give some people the wrong idea, i.e. that we are universally endorsing all Oxford spelling. Kaldari 17:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am reversing the change. ** If a certain spelling is acceptable universally, but another spelling is only used regionally, use the more widely accepted spelling. because

• A, I disagree with text I have written in an article like the "English Civil War" having 'ise' changed to 'ize'
• B, I can make a case for arguing that American spelling is a "specific region/dialect" and so all of Wikipedia should use Commonwealth English/International English which is clearly not going to happen and in my opinion is not desirable. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

American spelling is a specific region/dialect. I'm saying that if a particular word has a spelling which is accepted universally, for example "globalization", we should use that spelling. Since "globalization" is considered "correct" and widely used in the U.S., Britian, and all the English-speaking world (as far as I know), why should we ever use "globalisation" (which is only inconsistantly used in Britian and some Commonwealth countries)? Of course in the case of words like "analyse" or "defence" this would not be the case, since no spelling is acceptable as correct in both America and Britian. If this doesn't seem like a good suggestion (or is too simplistic), I'll leave it be. I imagine it would be a helpful way to avoid edit wars, but maybe that's an overly optimistic idea. I admit I'm not an expert on British usage of English so maybe it wouldn't work as well as I imagine in all cases :) Kaldari 23:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Overly simplistic ... yes, that's how it seems to me. What does it mean to be "universally acceptable"? Inspite of Oxford, Fowler, etc. it is ~ise which seems to be prefered by most ordinary folk outside North America. I certainly would not swallow somebody's izeising an article that I'd spelt. Jimp 08:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Kaldari's proposed rule. Spellings do not affect intelligibility, so to a large extent this is a matter of Wikipedia faithfully reflecting the diversity of English as it exists. The only case where I might agree, would be if, for example, the first major contributor used -ize in a British-related article. Since that is also an acceptable spelling in Britain, albeit a minority one, maybe it shouldn't be changed. Now I'm just guessing, but I would say that -ize/-ise is probably about 100%/0% in the U.S. and 5%/95% in the U.K. This rule, if applied to change -ise spellings to -ize just turns into a backdoor way of eliminating what is, in practice, the British form. So my opinion is that for U.S./Canada-related articles it should be -ize; for country-neutral articles, the first one used; and for U.K.-related articles either -ise or the first one used, and this point could be debated, in view of the "nationally predominant form" criterion. Joeldl 09:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've realized since that post that there are cases where I would agree Kaldari's proposal deserves consideration. What do people think of cases like gaol/jail where intelligibility problems might reasonably arise for some people? Joeldl 09:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the proposal. Other editors have, on more than one occasion, quoted Oxford spellings or definitions to back up an argument. I know Wikipedia is not a print encyclopedia, but I think it's arguable that Oxford spelling is what would be used in a formal academic setting in areas that would use primarily British spellings. Frankly, I think it's sort of silly that we have to have this discussion in the first place ;) but in cases like Joeldl's ("gaol" vs. "jail") I also think there is an intelligibility issue to consider, so we should have some sort of more explicit guidance here.--chris.lawson 12:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The answer is surely simple, en.wikipedia.org should always use British English and there should be a us.wikipedia.org that uses the alternative version. M100 11:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny.. There is already guidance in this (see National varieties of English). In addition, I would point to other policies that specify that we should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity (see naming and abbreviation usage). Morphh ^(talk) 12:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but feel that there is a hidden deception/distraction/diversion/what-ever-y-call-it in this argument, unintentional to be sure but real. The dictionaries do not prescribe what is acceptable. Oxford may accept ~ize but does Oxford speak for all English people, all British people, all people from Commonwealth countries? Outside of North America, as I'd mentioned, it is ~ise which is overwhelmingly prefered. How then do you argue that ~ize is "universally acceptable"? Does Wikipedia want to send the message that "Your spelling is not welcome here."? As for intelligibility, ~ize vs. ~ise is a non-issue but even such spellings as gaol should not be problematic for people with a little education ... and if it is, look it up: it's an encyclopædia. Whether or not it was the intention the net effect of such a policy, if implimented, would a degree of Americanisation of Wikipedia. Jimp 01:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that if a British editor used the ize spelling in a Britain-related article, that should be changed despite its being preferred by Oxford and by some Brtitish publications? I have argued that both spellings should be accepted, except in US/Canada-related articles. Also, I don't think gaol should be disallowed on pages that are most likely to be of interest to Britons, but since it is now the minority spelling in Britain, as I read somewhere, why insist on it (where it was used first) in pages on country-neutral subjects? I think it's a bit presumptuous to say that people are uneducated if they are unfamiliar with foreign spellings. It may be unfortunate (and I think it is), but as things stand British, Canadian, Australian (...) authors have their spelling Americanized for US editions of their works, so a person could very well have read plenty of Commonwealth/Irish authors, but minus their spellings. And Wikipedia should be as accessible as possible to those who aren't as educated as you'd like, right? After all, you can't guess what gaol is by sounding it out. Joeldl 00:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It probably was somewhat presumtuous, yes. And you're right: it is not possible to guess what gaol is by sounding it out but it's not hard to look it up (especially if it's hyperlinked). I don't see there being that great a difference between gaol vs. jail and ~ise vs. ~ize: they're all acceptable spellings. Apply the rule equally: whatever was there first stays (country-neutral subjects). Why make an exception for gaol? Similarly, if an editor (British or not) used the ~ize spelling in a Britain-related article, let it stay. Jimp 04:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TV/Movie titles

There is a silly debate on the talk page of "TNA iMPACT!", with one editor saying that TV shows/movies/video games/etc. shouldn't have stuff like exclamation points and question marks in their titles (so he would want "Who Wants to Be a Millionare?" moved to "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" for example). Not only do I think he's wrong, but think it would affect a lot of articles. Thoughts? TJ Spyke 07:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Question marks shouldn't be used due to technical restrictions. And if the symbol is part of the article name, it should be fine, as long as it's not for emphasis. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have said before, although I believe I'm in the minority here, that the use of superfluous punctuation in names should be avoided. See also this excellent essay by Bill Walsh, copy editor for the Washington Post. In this case, it certainly seems that the exclamation point is used only for emphasis, and should go.--chris.lawson 07:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammatical usage of a colon

I think we should expand the section on he use of a colon beyond just "space usage." This would include when to use and when not to use a colon in lists, especially with verb complements. While reading through the various policies (which I'm sure have been proofread numerous times), I have come across several errors involving colon usage. I double-checked my corrections with my grammar textbook (yes, I own one) and I was correct. Then when I check WP:MoS, I noticed it mentions next to nothing regarding proper usage, so I am assuming this is the problem. Are there any comments or suggestions as to the way it should be worded?--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 15:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inline book references

Sorry if this the wrong place for this, but I couldn't find somewhere better.

If an article refers to an actual book (the book is not a reference), does ISBN information need to be included? From Download This Song:

The lyrics of the song are based on the book The Future of Music: Manifesto for the Digital Music Revolution (ISBN 0-87639-059-9), by Dave Kusek and Gerd Leonhard.

Is this the proper way to handle book references? I've got a reference for this statement that would go at the end of the sentence, but would the book get its own footnote with ISBN info, etc.? Please advise, thanks! —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 15:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure, but a better place to find this would be at Wikipedia:Citing sources. That page has a lot more information on how to reference various works, and you might be able to ind the answer there.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 16:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I'll take my question there. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HTML markup

I would like if it said something about adding excessive HTML for style reasons. Like bolding text to make headings instead of using the correct sub-heading markup, putting <big> tags around math markup to make it look the right size in your own browser, etc. Idiosyncratic markups that aren't carried between articles. I just want it to say something like

"in general, stuff like this is frowned upon. If you'd like to see a difference in the way articles are formatted, pursue it at the software/site-wide CSS level instead, where it can benefit everyone at once".

Ideas? — Omegatron 16:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Illustrations

I've noticed a tendency among some wikipedians to add "general interest" illustrations to articles, that is to say images of objects not refered to in the text. This [[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gothic_Revival_architecture&oldid=113077320 version]] of the article on the Gothic Revival is a case in point. I would maintain that pictures without context don't have any explanatory value, and so there is a need for a policy on this subject. Namely: illustrations must illustrate the text and that generic images should be confined to commons categories or gallery setions. Twospoonfuls 15:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What is harmed by these images? — Omegatron 15:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Meaning is harmed: pictures without context have no meaning. They ought to be explained by the text of the article. Twospoonfuls 15:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Word "the" before university names

Should the word the precede a universities name like the university of Blah or should it be just university of blah? If the word the should be there should it be capitalized? (as in say... At The University of Blah). Some 3rd party input to this would be appreciated, as this question is currently being debated at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-11 Ohio State University. Feel free to give input here in this section or at the medcab page. Thanks. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• I am a party in the current mediation case and my position is straightforward. Wikipedia should follow the usage that the school itself considers accurate. Accuracy is the guiding value of any encyclopedia. To have a policy that runs counter to accuracy is dangerous. ChicJanowicz 22:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Precisely as ChicJanowicz says, the institution will have a official, registered name, and that's what we should use. If they use other versions as well, for the purposes of marketing (or making it fit on their logo, for example!) then we can mention that in the introduction as well. – Kieran T ^(talk) 22:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• As far as the issue of capitalization is concerned, I have no position. However, if Wikipedia does not capitalize the word for usages such as "the United States" or "the Rolling Stones," I see no reason why it necessarily should for university names. ChicJanowicz 22:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• In short, no. Unless it is in a sentence where it would not make sense not to use the University of X. Now if we're talking about official names, that's a whole different story. If the school's official name is "The University of X", it is always used in University press materials, AND it can be found in common publications such as textbooks and such, then it should be called "The University of X". An example would be "The Ohio State University". There are only a few institutions where the definite article should be used. Going back to the above example, as an official name "the Ohio State University" would never be correct. Some people might say the "Ohio State University" but notice the definite article is outside of the brackets. OSU is a case where the definite article should always be used and it should always be capitalized. --Analogue Kid 22:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In general, use your ear. Does it sound like it needs a the? When the name is of the form “University of X,” then it usually takes a the beforehand, much like names of newspapers. Do not use OSU as an example upon which to base a rule. OSU is the exception. Institutions of the form “X University” generally don’t use a the. Ohio State is the only exception I know of. The reason it draws so much attention is precisely because it doesn’t sound right when the is attached to the front. When it uses the definite article, state and university end up sounding like generic nouns, as though you’re talking about that state university that happens to be in Ohio. If Ohio State wants to sound weird, fine. That’s a fight I’m willing to surrender fairly easily. But let’s not apply Ohio State’s rule to all the other universities.

Even in OSU’s case, though, there are times when the wouldn’t be capitalized. You might write, “I met the Ohio State University student at the union.” In that sentence, Ohio State University is an adjective modifying student. The adjective could be removed and still have a normal sentence. If you attach the to Ohio State University by capitalizing it, then when you remove the adjective you get *“I met student at the union” when what you really wanted was “I met the student at the union.” See this link for more. --Rob Kennedy 04:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it's not just Ohio State; I remember running into some others when doing my last round of faculty job applications. Can't remember which ones they were though. --Trovatore 04:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. There are several others. You can find a list at [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name)#Universities. All of these universities consider "The" to be an official part of the name. Wikipedia should use the correct name and include "The" in front of these institutions. Johntex\^talk 06:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If we're deferring to the university's name, the word "The" should be capitalized, since proper nouns are capitalized. So we'd write "Susan Mernit attended The Ohio State University." I think a better style rule is to omit "the" the whenever the first word in the school's name isn't University or College. This rule is more natural in common speech and will thus be easier to practice here. Google searches demonstrate that most people omit the "the" before Ohio State University. Rcade 21:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion on the Talk:Ohio State University page about the subject. I do agree that in most instances, it is inappropriate to use the definite article. An example given was Ohio University. The official name is "The Ohio University", however there are nearly 0 instances of that in use, and the university itself does not use that title. Also another important caveat is departments. The definite article shouldn't be used when referring specifically to that department. For example, you should say "Ohio State University's Department of Geology", or "Department of Geology at The Ohio State University". The difference being you're making two references in the latter and one in the former. Common usage dictates that us people in Columbus refer to OSU as simply "Ohio State". But I know for one that it's too vague a title for wikipedia, and what I say carries no weight here, since I'm just some dude, not a reliable source.--Analogue Kid 18:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Style of Dating (ancient)

The expressions B.C. and A.D. are biased, and should, in fairness to all world religions and to atheists, be replaced with:

B.C.E. (Before Current Era), and

C.E. (Current Era). -Prof.rick 06:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Try reading the Common Era article and its talk page. Your view is not without controversy and the Manual of Style's current approach steers a careful course to minimise the number of disputes. Note that BCE/CE is still centred on the nominal birth date of a particular person special to one religion, and therefore biased. A preferable, unbiased dating system is Julian Day Number, with appropriate software to translate the JDN into whichever format the reader prefers. WLD^talk|edits 09:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to point out a few other places where this has been debated. Current policy is here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Other relevant pages to read are:

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate
• Wikipedia:Eras
• Wikipedia:Eras/Compromise proposal
• Wikipedia:User preferences for BCE/CE notation
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-05-23/Dating system
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk

WLD^talk|edits 09:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your well-detailed help. Much appreciated. Prof.rick 03:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. Glad I could help. WLD^talk|edits 10:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well here's one atheist who has no problem with BC and AD. Face it: our dating system is centered around Jesus. Big deal. Strad 15:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More heads needed

There is a discussion going on over here on whether an article should be at YUI (singer) or Yui (singer). Any input from additional people would be helpful. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seasons

Hi. As someone in the southern hemisphere, I was wondering if there was any style guide to the use of northern hemisphere seasons for upcoming movie, game, etc release dates. I don't find it offensive, as such, but it seems rather biased that just because a majority of the "civilized" world is northern hemisphere based, that those seasons will be widely recognized as the seasons in question. WookMuff 11:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There is. Jimp 00:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Good. Thank you :) WookMuff 00:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Focus of the MoS

What is the main focus of the Wikipedia Manual of Style, reading or writing?

If it is the reader I cannot understand most guidances that allow multiple options (e.g. of spelling or “UK”/“U.S.”), because consistency is king, and some other rules seem to be author-centred, too (e.g. typewriter quotes).

In my opinion any featured, good and probably A-Class article should fully conform to the preferred style described in the MoS as a prerequisite. Christoph Päper 14:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The MoS is for editors. Readers aren't expected to care about why something is done the way it was.

Regarding featured articles complying with the MoS, that's something that should be covered (or discussed) at Wikipedia:Featured article review and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. I'd assume that compliance with all guidelines in Wikipedia, including those in the MoS, is one of the goals of the review of candidates, but I've not looked. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is editors who should read the MoS. My question was for whose benefit? You didn’t really answer that. Christoph Päper 16:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

i guess, IMO, the focus should be on reading. because we editors, should edit with the readers in mind. --RebSkii 17:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glyph variant of quotation marks and apostrophe

I’m a little sad this issue doesn’t raise more comments. Anyhow, let’s have a look at the introduction:

The first sentence clearly prioritises the readership. (How could I have missed that before?) I think we would agree on this again anytime. The second one explains that standards are a benefit to readers and editors alike. The rest says that no single author is forced to comply, but articles should conform in the end.

In the light of this I contest once again the rules for quotation marks. (Other guidelines may follow.) The typographic glyphs (“…”, ‘…’ and ’) are more professional and look better in the eyes of many, probably most. They pose no technical problem anymore, except for input with traditional keyboard layouts. Therefore I think the MoS should clearly state that “…” are the standard (or preferred) quotation marks in the English Wikipedia, and ’ is the apostrophe. Bots should be run to update the characters accordingly, as has been done in other language editions of WP. Authors may safely rely on copyeditors. Christoph Päper 23:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems like the MediaWiki software should be able to convert the straight marks to the properly directed ones, in which case I would support it. But otherwise I do not support using the directed marks. Even if one person goes through an entire article and changes every quotation mark, subsequent editors will just add material with straight marks, and inconsistent use of directed marks is worse than just straight marks. Using bots to change quotation marks must be a nightmare, since every instance is logged in the edit history and obscures more significant edits. Strad 01:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Other Wikipedias can do it without a built-in conversion feature, why shouldn’t the English one? It might be nice to have, though, if it worked reliably.

Many articles have only very few instances of these characters, others none at all. So after one conversion they’ll usually be fine for a long time. You can hide bot edits in your Watchlist and probably elsewhere. Christoph Päper 10:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exclamation points

There is no mention of the use of exclamation points in the punctuation section! My feeling is that their use is not scholarly and they have no place in formal writing! I would like to reference the relevant MoS section in my comments as justification to others when I remove them, but currently there is nothing to reference! (If my gratuitous use of exclamation points here hasn't motivated you to add them to the punctuation section, I don't know what will!) --67.188.0.96 09:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, as requested! –Noetica 09:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Great! --67.188.0.96 21:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Their use after exclamations is perfectly correct and scholarly ... but how often would you have exclamations in an encyclopædia? Also, of course, if you're quoting text which contains one (whether correct or not), then keep it. Otherwise, no, don't use them. Jimp 00:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prices

Wikipedia has no guidelines on protocols for writing cost or prices. I ask because over at the PS3 article, someone mentioned that in the price chart US price is pre-tax but all the European prices are post-VAT. Except the US conversions have the VAT stripped out. The whole thing is highly inconsistent. And Wikipedia doesn't seem to have any policy for writing prices or converting cost. If I'm asking the wrong place or there is a policy, let me know. Thanks. Chevinki 20:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There is WP:$ but this doesn't really mention whether or not to include tax. Jimp 02:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually kinda surprised Wiki doesn't already have a policy in place or that it hasn't come up yet. It's a bit tricky because VAT inflates European prices but it's almost impossible to get around. Taxes in the US vary by state and there are certain workarounds (ordering online). I think all prices should be pre-tax for consistency but that's IMO. Chevinki 17:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Outside of trade catalogues, its virtually unheard of, to see prices quoted without tax, in the UK. Andy Mabbett 10:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Products - past/present tense?

When a product is discontinued by the manufacturer, like the Nikon D50 camera, should the opening paragraph be changed from "The D50 is an entry-level digital single-lens reflex camera..." to "The D50 was an entry-level digital single-lens reflex camera..."? There are probably hundreds of thousands of D50s that are still in existence and used daily. Other camera articles like the Nikon F3 and Nikon F5 say "was". I noticed automobiles like the Infiniti Q45 say "was", even though many are still on the road. I have seen this argument come up in aircraft articles; the Cessna 150 hasn't been built since 1977, but it says "is" rather than "was", as does the B-17 Flying Fortress which hasn't been built since 1945. However, the B-29 Superfortress (also last built in 1945) says "was". I think we need to have an MoS entry discussing this. I looked, but could not find anything related to this, but perhaps I missed it. --rogerd 04:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Was" makes it sound like it no longer exists. "The Dodo was a bird from..." vs "The bald eagle is ...". And if I have an 8 track player, although no longer made (to my knowledge) I can still say it is something. I would go with "is". -Indolences 20:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I would go with "is" as well, but it seems that some discontinued products are in the past tense, such as Power Mac G4 Cube. Strad 21:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What I am hoping for is a consensus to actually codify this in the Manual of Style as a preferred way of referring to products that still exist but are no longer on the (new) market. --rogerd 13:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seasons (bis)

It would be good if authors avoided the use of summer/spring/winter/fall to refer to periods of the year (as distinct from the climatic sense)

For example "In August 2006, there were widespread rumours of an election to be held in the fall..." (ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_general_election%2C_2007). There are two problems with this: 1. "Fall" is not used much outside North America - mostly people use "autumn" 2. More importantly, the seasons are reversed in the southern hemisphere - when it is winter in the northern hemisphere, it is summer in the southern hemisphere. Thus is someone says "The presidential election will be held in the fall of 2007..." I - as a southern hemisphere resident - think of the March-May period, not towards the end of the year. Using "late 2007" in this case would be much clearer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.170.90.2 (talk • contribs).

Well, the example is interesting in the sense that it is located in North America. When it's an election for Quebec, Quebec's common speech may be used, such as using the word fall. As for the northern/southern hemisphere part, the time is given for the place where it takes place, instead of, for example, GMT. However, I see your point that maybe seasons should be avoided if possible. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As for seasons, this is covered at WP:DATE. I agree that if the season is not relevant, it's best to use hemisphere-neutral words. I don't see any problem with fall, for the same reasons Wirbelwind gave. It would be an interesting question though in an article that wasn't country-related. In this case fall/autumn is probably 90/10 in Canada and 0/100 in Australia. Do we invoke the "Use words common to all" rule to eliminate what is, in practice, the Canadian word? Then the Canadian word would essentially disappear from non-country-related articles. Joeldl 04:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say no; I think the "universally acceptable language" proposal was pretty thoroughly shot down. "Autumn" sounds distinctly odd in the United States. People know what it means, but it sounds like you're trying to make some sort of point. I think we stick with the current rules about national varieties of English: In articles specific to one culture, use its word-choice/spelling; otherwise go with the first non-stub version of the article and make it consistent within the article. There are nuances, of course, but that's the essence of the current approach, which works pretty well. --Trovatore 16:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I said this exact same thing, just a few pages up, and was given this handy link. WookMuff 10:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gender-neutral pronouns etc

I'm surprised not to see any mention of a policy on usage of gender-loaded terms, particularly generic 'he' and words like 'chairman'. Have I missed it somewhere? FSharpMajor 10:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there much usage of generic he in wikipedia? I see mostly they or somesuch when examples are given. Also, I am sure that chairman would only be used in relation to actual men. The term does have rather a significant history though, and is not actually sexist in meaning though political correctness has assumed it so. WookMuff 11:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed it on occasion, and without a specific policy it's not surprising to find it cropping up. You're right that 'chairman' and similar titles would be most likely to appear in reference to particular people, in which case the rule about using people's own self-designation would apply. (we can argue about whether a word is 'actually sexist': my opinion is that gender-loading tends to promote stereotypes in the reader's head - imagine if we used 'spaceman' routinely instead of 'astronaut', it would make you more likely to picture a man in your head even when a non-specific astronaut was being discussed). Still, again I can easily think of situations where an article might refer to a generic, say, "chessman", and that it would be helpful to have a policy of gender neutrality that we could point to in order to justify changing it to "chess piece".FSharpMajor 12:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Technically, "chessman" is not equivalent to "chess piece". To a chess player a "piece" excludes a pawn, while a "man" does not. And in many cases "Chairman" is still the correct official title of a specific position. When this is true we should accurately report the fact. I don't think such a general policy is a good idea, except insofar as it is already implied by WP:NPOV. DES ^(talk) 06:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Varieties of English

What is Irish English? [12] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

English as spoken in Burkina Faso Ireland. Strad 20:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates to identify language variety of an article

I'd like to propose a few templates be created to identify the variety of English settled on for articles. It would be a talk page template to help when there are discussions when people start flipping words back and forth. A good example is the flipping back and forth between "organisations" and "organisztions" on 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel. Any of the templates should point to the national varieties section of this article to provide further guidance. Suggestions for initial template names are "{{Spelling British}}" and "{{Spelling American}}". Any comments? --StuffOfInterest 16:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This might be a good idea, but I think it should focus on specific spelling issues rather than countries. While I don't think that you should mix words like colour and honor, I don't mind it if you have color and organise. Also, in Canadian English, for example, you might find honour, or, less commonly, honor. "British English" doesn't tell you whether to write -ise or -ize, although a consistent choice needs to be made. So I think the template should focus on series such as -ise/-ize, -our/-or, -re/-er and so forth, and the template should be flexible for isolated cases like tyre/tire, etc., where you can enter the words in question. Also, having a place for the dates the choices were made would help clarify whether a choice was long-standing. And I think people should only use the templates for spellings that actually occur in the article, so they can't use the template "preventively". Joeldl 20:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as it's not one of those boxes that sits at the very top of the article. The last thing we need is more of those. Putting it on the talk page or somewhere else might be good. Strad 03:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horizontal lists

Many articles include horizontal lists, often wrapping over several lines, and separated by pipes (|), bullets (•), hyphens (-) or other such characters. These characters may be spoken, intrusively, by assistive software ("bullet cat bullet dog bullet..."), and the content is not marked up, in the HTML source code, as a list, which reduces functionality on some devices and reduces semantic meaning.

There is now CSS available for horizontal lists, like this one:

using the templates {{flatlist}} and {{endflatlist}}. See, for example, areas of Birmingham. The separators are now CSS borders, and are ignored by text readers, etc.

Such lists can be used anywhere in an article, including infoboxes and templated footers.

This needs to be reflected in the relevant section of the MoS, but I'm not sure how. Can someone assist, please?

Andy Mabbett 10:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)