Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:04, 21 August 2006

Archives and see also

Archives are at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style--Archive Directory

See also:

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

Directions in French or English?

Captain scarlet claims that "Périphérique Intérieur" rather than "Périphérique inner" should be used - for instance on - because that is the "official name". However, we don't use French for directions like sud; we translate as south. Is there any reason not to translate "Intérieur"? --SPUI (T - C) 12:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with CS, the translation is wrong (adjective should go before noun in English barring rare exceptions or for pomposity) and is anyway uncalled for. And I would keep "sud" as "sud" if it were part of, say, the name of a station. PizzaMargherita 14:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say it should be either "Périphérique Intérieur" or "Inner Ring Road". One should not mix translated and non-translated terms. −Woodstone 14:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This is in directions - like "the ramp merges with A13 south" or "the ramp merges with Périphérique inner". Inner is sometimes used as a direction like north and south in the U.S. --SPUI (T - C) 15:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

A direction? How? You can say "drive north", but can you say "drive inner"? Anyway, here "Périphérique Intérieur" is the official name. Partial translations are ugly and nonsensical and should be avoided. Shinobu 16:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If used as a direction I could imagine it to mean "clockwise". For a ring road "north" etc have no meaning. The only directions are clockwise (driving right on the inside), or anticlockwise (outside). −Woodstone

The Naming Conflicts guideline, while not strictly applying, has this:

Where a name includes geographical directions such as North, East, South or West (in a local language), the full name should be translated into English: hence East Timor, not Timor-Leste; South Ossetia, not Yuzhnaya Osetiya; West Java, not Jawa Barat.

which seems a fair guide to apply in this case. At least in the case of road directions it would seem most helpful to use the direction in English (that may depend on whether the two directions of the Périphérique are correctly considered as one road or two; but as far as I know it's considered as one road, and the directions are simply directions); so it should be "Périphérique clockwise".

As for "Périphérique" or "ring road", it depends which is most commonly used, in English, of that particular road. In my experience, in the case of the Paris road, it is usually called the Périphérique, which our article naming seems to support (Périphérique (Paris) not Paris ring road; but I don't think that "Périphérique Intérieur" has entered the English language in the same way as "Périphérique" has. (For the ring road of any other French city, it should probably be 'ring road'.)

I've never heard "inner" used as a direction in UK English, so it's probably best avoided in favour of "clockwise", which I think is recognised worldwide. TSP 20:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I still think P.que inner sounds very odd. If P.que is properly ingrained in the English language, we could use Inner P.que. As for the article, it uses a mish-mash of French and English terms, and it is generally very confusing. Shinobu 23:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Percentage signs

In the Johannesburg article, there are dozens of percentages which are given with a space between the number and the percentage sign. This means that something like 53 % is sometimes split over two lines, with the % sign being orphaned onto the second line. Perhaps worth adding a note to the manual of style about no spaces before % signs, similar to the one about colons? --Ott2 17:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It part of the SI standard to leave a space between a number and a percent sign. If you like, you can make it a non-breaking space by entering  . −Woodstone 19:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This does not mean it is a good idea or that it should be standard format on Misplaced Pages. The non-SI style is vastly more common. —Centrx→talk • 19:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference either way, but perhaps it would be worthwhile mentioning this in the manual of style. --Ott2 13:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Proposal for section Percentages. This proposal is about a different matter, but at the moment, it looks as though we may include both examples of "12%" and "12 %", in order to cleanly distinguish the proposal from this separate matter. —Centrx→talk • 00:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (dates_and_numbers)/archive13#Percent symbol with space.3F for an earlier, inconclusive discussion. This is only an issue because someone did use a bot to change all the "45 percent" occurrences to "45 %" in the article (see ), which is exactly the problem outlined in the discussion. I don't want to see bot-of-the-week flip this from state to state! --Ott2 16:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If the breaking across lines is an issue use a non-breaking space like this 53 % Rich Farmbrough 09:16 6 August 2006 (GMT).

missing commas

Could a English punctuation expert write a section for this manual on the use of commas? I do Wiki copyedit work and I find most of the changes I make involve missing commas. Commonsense guidance on the usage of commas by Wiki authors might help in the writing and reading of articles, without so much copyedit additions of commas, as I and probably others do. Thanks Hmains 23:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Image sizes

In the article Pac-Man, I think the arcade screenshots would be less-than-useful in anything but their original size of 224x288px. They couldn't be clearly read, and one would probably end up clicking on a bunch of them to see them full-size. However, this size is larger than the default thumbnail width. I propose that we establish the following image size guidelines:

• If the pixelation of an image is important, and its full width is less than 400px, it should be displayed full size.
• All other images outside tables, except inline icons, should be thumbnails.
• The images in a table row should not have a combined width of more than 550px (400px if there is substantial text in the row, 300px for floating tables such as infoboxes).

_SeahenNeonMerlin 15:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

So... what's the problem with making the user click the images to see them full-size? I thought that was the whole purpose of scaling down images that would otherwise be too big to display. EVula 17:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No. The purpose of scaling down images is to make sure that they don't intrude in the text to make it more tedious to read and don't extend beyond the size of the browser window or paper (when printed).

Having thumbnails that are indiscernible is useless - in those cases a link is used. (Often a larger picture is used if that doesn't intrude on the text too much - but beware! You can't know the relative size available to the picture and what might appear perfectly okay to you might be problematically large for someone else.)

That said, I tried the main screenshot from Pac-man on for thumb size and it fitted. So unless the picture is really indiscernible or appears corrupted at thumb size, I think we should use thumbnails. Which strikes me as a good general rule too. Shinobu 12:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Clicking is inconvenient because it means either opening (yet) another browser window or tab, or else moving away from the article and having to reload it. NeonMerlin 19:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

But having size-fixed images even more so. Not everyone lives in a world where the original size is just a small bit of their browser window. How about people who are using a mobile device? Or about people who don't open their browser full-screen because they've got work to do in other windows that they want to be able to keep an eye on? How about people who just want to compare two webpages side by side? There is a very good reason that users can configure the "thumb" size. If you fix the size this ability is lost.

There are very few images for which pixelation is a real issue. Even for the pac-man images pixelation isn't an issue. Granted, you don't see the full detail, but the images are still discernable and if the reader wants to see more detail, he can always click on the image. *click* *look at the image* *back button* Not as laborious as you make it seem.

The problem with the rule you're proposing is that it specifies pixel sizes, and you just don't know what a pixel is. Ever. Not even if you use the W3C's convoluted definition (which most popular brosers ignore anyway). You don't even know what a centimeter is, for that matter, as long as you don't know the size of the output device. Shinobu 15:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the guideline should just say use a thumbnail at the default size, unless there's a good editorial reason (supported by consensus if necessary) to override the user's preference. For some specific pics it does make sense to set an exact pixel size; in the Pac-man article I'd say the image is too big and a thumbnail would be fine. Sometimes I remove specific pixel sizes when they seem done for "promotional" reasons, but I'd leave the Pac-man one up to the article editors. Phr (talk) 11:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Empty sections

Is there guidance anywhere about adding empty sections to an article for consistency with some project template? I don't think a section should be added unless there is content for the section, but I couldn't find any mention. older ≠ wiser 16:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's probably fine to have sections temporarily empty when an article is being actively worked on, but they certainly shouldn't exist in a more finished product. (One obvious subtlety would be whether a section that contains no text in its own body, but only a group of sub-sections—an extra heading grouping some related sub-headings, in other words—counts as "empty" here.) Kirill Lokshin 16:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't count that as empty. I agree that empty sections should not exist. If they are in the midst of being worked on they can easily be hidden in "<!-- -->"s. --Jimp 08:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

How to treat spelling conflicts in the lead paragraph

Many articles have to deal with the issue of differing spelling in different parts of the world. I've noticed that some users are getting rid of the AmE and BrE notations and putting in a single link to American and British English differences instead. I object to this because it actually creates more confusion. A reader not totally familiar with either dialect (a child or a nonnative English speaker) would have to read the gigantic "differences" article to find out which term is used by which dialect, when it is simpler to just indicate that information in parentheticals in an article lead. For example, Curb (road) in its current version has no indicator that kerb is British and curb is American. I know which is which because I'm American, but a French or Spanish teenager learning English in secondary school might not. The point is, we need to have a consistent policy on this. Either the "differences" article has to get a lot shorter, which is probably not going to happen because so much of its content is true and essential, or we should simply show dialect origins in the lead paragraph (or paragraphs) as necessary.--Coolcaesar 17:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: The problem is, with the link, we force users to read the entire article just to find what they are looking for, when they could have simply obtained the desired information in two seconds from a parenthetical notation. Yes, some browsers have a "Find" feature, but I've noticed from watching less experienced computer users that they are usually unaware of the Find feature, and it would clog up the "differences" article to put directions on how to use that feature in the lead paragraph. Plus it varies significantly from browser to browser, with Explorer using a modal dialog box while Firefox uses a toolbar. And Find doesn't work really well for blind or disabled users.

As a lawyer, I'm trained to read long, dense documents full of text that makes the eyes glaze over, and even I have difficulty sorting through the mess in the dialect differences article! --Coolcaesar 17:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the information can be kept in a footnote? (I know I've turned extended remarks into alternate names for the subject into footnotes before.) It will keep the lead relatively uncluttered while still providing an easy reference on the subtleties. Kirill Lokshin 18:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes are generally deprecated for things like this. But Coolcaesar, you are defending the indefensible.

1. In many cases, saying which dialect uses which spelling is not so simple (e.g. yogurt).

2. Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary.

3. Appropriate articles deal with spelling differences, so why fragment the info across articles?

4. Spelling regional indicators would uselessly clutter up the article with irrelevant information that would just sidetrack the reader. Basically everyone who looks up curb or kerb doesn't give a damn about spelling.

5. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, for example, doesn't have anything like that.

6. Nonnative English speakers? Following the spelling differences link, learners of English (even children, FTM) would just strike it rich---that page is a GOLD MINE for them.

7. The "spelling differences" links save space.

8. Just clicking on the "what links here" button on the spelling difference page you will ultimately find all the articles whose names feature spelling variations.

9. Is there really anyone who is unaware of the "Find" feature? Come on, even Notepad has it.

JackLumber. 19:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

A few selected responses:

1. It is precisely in those cases that a more extended discussion is of interest to readers.

2. This is usually interpreted quite narrowly. Once we have an article that goes beyond a dictionary definition, there is nothing preventing us from mentioning issues of terminology and linguistics insofar as they relate to the topic.

5. Well, of course it doesn't. Britannica, being a British publication, uses the associated spelling rules exclusively.

6. It's also quite long and full of irrelevant information.

7. Footnotes would save even more. This is hardly the best argument for anything.

8 & 9. "What links here" and "Find" generally work quite poorly when an article is printed. Kirill Lokshin 19:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

1. No, it is not. The average reader interested in yogurt doesn't give a damn if the Canadian Oxford Dictionary prioritizes yogourt but Canadians normally use yogurt. But if the reader is interested s/he has just to check out the _appropriate_ article, to wit, spelling differences.

2. The caveat is, they relate to the topic only in few cases (e.g. aluminium---in such articles, a note on spelling IS desirable). They mostly don't.

5. The Encyclopedia Britannica company is American, and its encyclopedia is the best. It just says, "colour also spelled color" or something like that.

6. Not to learners of English. And whippersnappers who learn English usually know how to use the Find whatchamacallit.

7. No they definitely wouldn't, any. How can you say that?

8 & 9. Why print the article? If you _REALLY_ want to know which dialect uses which spelling, go to the damn page, save it, and possibly search it offline, if you are on dial-up. But you can print the page you get by clicking on "What links here"---again, if you _REALLY_ are interested.

JackLumber. 20:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Not the average reader, perhaps; hence the idea of having a footnote.

5. Current corporate affiliations aside, Britannica does still follow British style guides. (And the quality is, of course, a matter of much debate ;-)

7. Because you're replacing several words ("see spelling differences") with a single number (""). Space at the bottom of the article for the footnote itself is irrelevant, in my opinion; good articles tend to have so many footnotes that a few more or less will make no difference at all.

8 & 9. Well, suppose you're planning to, say, publish a print edition of Misplaced Pages? (Or even a WikiReader, for those who prefer more immediate results?) Kirill Lokshin 20:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Well, those who want to know how a word is spelled usually look it up in a dictionary. Anyway, the information is not lost, it's just located at its natural place.

5. Yes, but that doesn't impact the scenario. Maybe in a few years people will regard Misplaced Pages as the best?...

7. The footnote does not save space as far as bytes go, which is what matters most. And this shows up when you consider all such articles together---along with information duplication. Indeed, you would be forced to write out all the variant spellings twice (not to prioritize one variant over the others: e.g. A yogurt, yogourt, yoghourt, or yogourt --- footnote: yogurt is used in American English and to a lesser extent in British English; yoghourt is usual in the Commonwealth except Canada, where yada yada yada.) Kinda cumbersome. Additionally, overemphasizing differences in spelling or language can lead to unwanted jingoistic run-ins, and doesn't help regard English as one language. If an article reads, say, "color (American English) or colour (British English - or Commonwealth, whatever it means)," it looks like color and colour are two different words, or even two different languages.

8 & 9. There's a long long ways to go. Many articles heavily hinge on multimedia features, and in the future many others will, and even more. And in case, the "spelling differences" link would simply turn into a cross-reference.

JackLumber. 21:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

1. There's no particular reason why the information can't be in two places at once. Nobody is disupting that the spelling differences article should contain a full list of differences, but it may be useful to readers to also have this information directly in the article they're viewing.

7. Bytes don't matter in the least (except for the case where an increase in page size would cause browser loading problems, but these have been eliminated in all but the most bizarre and antiquated browsers. What matters is space on the screen and words in the text (particularly words which interrupt the natural flow of a sentence); disks are so dirt cheap, however, that actual storage space isn't an issue we need even consider. (The issue of jingoistic run-ins is a rather separate one, and of somewhat broader scope than emphasizing spelling differences. I would actually think that giving some space to fully document all the various options would lead to less confrontation than arbitrarily picking some particular usage.) Kirill Lokshin 22:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

1. It may, but it may be not too, as per 1, 2, and 4 in my original post. Those who care follow the link---such people might be curious to learn more about spelling differences too, so the link would be doubly useful to them. Plus, fragmented information is less maintainable---e.g., it may lead to sneaking inconsistencies.

7. Three words between parentheses are as disrupting as a footnote. Alternately, we can write

'''Colour''', ] '''color''', yada yada,

that is,

Colour, also spelled color, yada yada.

A particular usage sure is to be picked, but not arbitrarily; a reader should be cross-referenced to the MoS for such things. Users should be aware that 1) there's just one English language, and 2) spelling rules are not as hard-and-fast as somebody might think. Do you want to explain every time the -ize/-ise thing for such articles as caramelization? I've been told that Australians are taught that -ise is British spelling and -ize is American spelling. (!) Somebody thinks that -ise is the "Commonwealth" spelling. (!!) Somebody thinks that -ize endings were invented by Webster (!!!!!) and somebody even put that up on wikipedia (!!!!!!) If one wants to know the truth, s/he has just to follow the link. JackLumber. 23:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Gotta go now. Bye. ;-)

Meh, fair enough; your suggestion ("Colour, also spelled color...") is probably the cleanest way of doing this. I would still encourage people to not rely solely on the central article, though; in the cases where there may be significant points to be made about dialectic differences (aluminium, which you mentioned, likely being the canonical case; but there are probably others), having this material directly in the article (in a footnote or otherwise) is still appropriate. Kirill Lokshin 23:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

← There are many good reasons why I believe that a more neutral description of spelling differences in the opening of WP articles should become part of our Manual of Style. Jack Lumber has named a lot of them, and I would like to add three (well, give numbers to points made elsewhere in one form or another in this discussion), and expand on one of his:

1. In many cases, saying which dialect uses which spelling is not so simple (e.g. yogurt). It's not just many cases, largely because of the delightfully flexible spelling habits of Canadians. It's not often that a spelling choice can be described as U.S. vs. "rest of native English-speaking world" (and saying just "rest of world" makes the problem even more complicated, of course.

10. There has, in fact, already been a natural tendency to adopt this method of referencing spelling differences. So there has been a natural Misplaced Pages community move in this direction anyway. Go to and start looking up the words listed there in Misplaced Pages. (But I've made a few of the changes to the way the differences are described, so discount those.)

11. The "Link" method is ultimately more instructive.

12. The "Link" method is, or at least appears to be, less normative. By this I mean: the "humor or humour" version of the description (or "also spelled" version -- not quite as good in my view, see below) of spelling differences means that the description doesn't take on any hint of the form "Normal / non-normal." This will perhaps help our community -- if only in some small way -- become less divided. More importantly, the larger, non-native-English speaking world will be less inclined to feel forced into a choice of "Normal or British English" or (depending) "Normal or American English." I believe in letting spelling "be free." Kinda goofy, perhaps, but I think it's a Good. Giving the impression -- which, ultimately, is entirely accurate, notwithstanding odd changes occasioned by the use of word processers -- that spelling is not cast in stone seems like a good idea. It might even get WP orthographic imperialists and orthographic obsessives (I'm one of the latter, to be sure) to reconsider their positions. Who knows!

My preference is the way the Color page currently is set up:

Color or colour (see spelling differences)

But I'd be perfectly happy with a footnote.

The "also spelled" version I could live with, but many people will (incorrectly, true, but that doesn't matter) think of the "also spelled" variant as less normal or normative. The main point, though is number 1 above. The existing, "... in American English"/"... in Commonwealth English" descriptions of the spelling differences are simply false in almost all cases. We should all be able to agree that that's a problem. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-11 10:37 (UTC)

So, how about the following change to the MoS:

• If the spelling appears in an article name, you should:

• make a redirect page to accommodate the other variant, as with Artefact and Artifact;
• list both spellings in the lead sentence of the article, with a link to the Misplaced Pages page about English spelling differences, as follows.

Color or colour (see spelling differences) is a property of light that is determined by its ...

which can be produced by typing:

'''Color''' or '''colour''' (see ]) is a property of light that is determined by its ...

• when possible and reasonable, a neutral word might be chosen as with stevedore.
• when the question of spelling is unusually complicated, such as with aluminum, a "Note on spelling" or "Etymology/Nomenclature history" section can be included in the article itself, with a parenthetical note in the first line of the article referring to the section.

We could make it "list both spellings (or all, where there are three or more)..." but that might be unnecessarily complicated. As for ize/ise differences, that might not be worth saying anything about, until confusion/debate arises about it.

--Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-11 19:19 (UTC) P.S. I'm using :* to make the last two indented bullets because I don't know how to prevent a new line from turning an indented bullet into two bullets, but someone else surely knows how to do this!

Here's my response to JackLumber's response above: You're failing to think through carefully what's helpful to Misplaced Pages's users. Have you ever actually tutored young children in reading? Most children (under the age of 14) do not have the reading skill or attention span to read the entire spelling differences page, especially when much of it is not relevant to the one particular difference they would be interested in.

A child who is interested in spelling (e.g. color vs. colour) either looks it up in a dictionary or in the very spelling differences article. A child who looks up color on WP most likely wants to know more about color. I said above that WP is not a dictionary—yet Webster's 3rd (America's No. 1 dictionary) deals with regional variant spellings in exactly the same way as we suggest.

As for adults, most adults would consider reading the entire spelling differences page to be a tangent into linguistics and therefore a waste of time. Keep in mind that Misplaced Pages, like all Web sites, is competing for people's eyeballs and more importantly, their precious time. Only retirees, homeless people, and unemployed people have time to burn (children have homework and extracurricular activities nowadays). Nearly all people consider linguistics to be mind-numbingly boring, including myself before I went to college and studied philosophy. Try striking up conversations with random people in public about linguistics and see how they like it (they tend to flee).

Hm. Either you're kidding me or you can't read. Quoting myself, "Spelling regional indicators would uselessly clutter up the article with irrelevant information that would just sidetrack the reader. Basically everyone who looks up curb or kerb doesn't give a damn about spelling." Those who are interested in spelling differences sure will find the time to check out the article where the related information is kept. Children sure will find the time. Otherwise they'd just look it up in a cottonpicking dictionary.

If I am a roadgeek interested in roads, I would be interested in knowing that kerb is British and curb is American in five seconds and that's it. I do not want to spend 25 minutes reading the entire spelling differences article! The same argument goes for nonnative speakers, who may be living in countries with lower living standards and thus would be even more constrained for time.

Yes, so you'd write "curb is U.S. and kerb is UK." Then someone changes it to "curb is U.S. and kerb is Commonwealth" (which is false). Then someone else, "curb is U.S. and kerb is International English" (which is improper). Enter another customer, "curb is U.S. and Canada and kerb is UK and Australia" (which is not "international" in scope). Unmaintainable, among other things. Not to mention that these notes tend to unnecessarily compartmentalize the language—overemphasizing differences in spelling or language doesn't help regard English as one language. If an article reads, say, "color (American English) or colour (British English - or Commonwealth, whatever it means)," it looks like color and colour are two different words, or even two different languages.

Next, the spelling differences are relevant to articles because by noting them, we minimize edit wars between editors who see other dialects' spellings as misspellings. Otherwise they'll keep saying, "Oh, I didn't see that part of the spelling differences article, the damn thing is too long to read!"

No, the phrase "see spelling differences" or equivalent already serves as a heads-up. See also CF below.

Finally, as for the Find feature, most computer users do not understand most of the features of Web browsers. You need to get out more often and try working with computer users from a variety of ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds, including senior citizens and people who did not go to college (the majority of human beings). For many computer illiterates, it is hard enough to understand the difference between clicking and double-clicking a mouse, and learning the appropriate timing for keyboard combinations is even harder. The "Find" feature is on the moon as far as those users are concerned.

To those computer illiterates, Misplaced Pages itself is on the moon too. Young whippersnappers and rugrats sure know how to use their cottonpicking browsers. The majority of human beings. Whoa. You need to get out more often. Whoa. I guess it's pretty safe to assume the number of people who don't know how to use a Web browser AND who are Misplaced Pages users AND who are looking for spelling information in a WP article about, say, color is pretty close to zero. Get real, mister. JackLumber. 21:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

--Coolcaesar 20:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You are drawing a false dichotomy between expert Web users and total novices as if there is nothing in between. The difference is that there are many users in between, who understand the concept of links and clicks but don't understand all the advanced features; indeed, most users fall into the "in between" category. Please read a basic college textbook on user interface design before you make a fool of yourself.

You are also attacking a straw man by attacking the idea of people who read Misplaced Pages specifically for the sole purpose of finding information on spelling differences. I never made that narrow and indefensible assertion.

I simply pointed out that spelling differences are relevant to topics where multiple spellings exist and that it would be helpful to note that information where it is strongly relevant to the article so that we don't get into edit wars over spelling by people who don't have 25 minutes to read the entire spelling differences article and will instead think that they'll take a minute to help Misplaced Pages by fixing what looks like a typo to them. --Coolcaesar 06:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

aHA, now you're apparently wimping out. "...to note that information where it is strongly relevant to the article..." (emphasis added.) That's what I've been saying all along. Aluminium, fetus, sulfur. But not curb or color. Nobody ain't asking them damn users to read the whole friggin' spelling article. People willing to contribute have just to look at the article title. Color? "Well, if I am not a malicious user now I just have to spell it color throughout." No additional notes necessary. As I said, the spelling differences link is a heads-up—with such a link a user can't possibly think that color (or curb, or yoghurt) is a typo. But if, say, an American is not familiar with British spelling but nonetheless wants to edit an article written in British style, the spelling differences page will just tell him/her everything s/he needs to know. Strange as it may seem, back in college I minored in Computer Science; I remember a lot about algorithms and data structures, but I am by no means an expert Web user—I don't even have an internet connection at home. Btw, if you check out the history of Organization you will find all possible arrangements—dialect compartmentalization (inaccurate and goofy), usage note (lengthy and irrelevant), and link to spelling differences (and I didn't put it there.) What's best? Best, JackLumber. 12:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the current arrangement in Organization 100%, but I will concede that it is a workable approach for some users. Very well, then. How about this: we compromise by having a policy that major differences (like aluminum) be noted, but minor differences should be noted with a parenthetical note on suffixes (-ize v. -ise, -yze v. -yse, etc.) that links to the proper section of the spelling differences article.

Objection sustained.

After much reflection, I realized what I'm really worried about clarifying smoothly are not spelling differences but really differences of idiom. For example, see Workers' compensation, where the difference in Australian and American idiom cannot be easily reconciled with a brief link to spelling differences because the two terms are so fundamentally different. The original version of this article did not indicate which dialect used which one ("workers' comp" versus "compo") and I had to run some Google searches to find out that Australians used "compo," which no self-respecting North American would ever use because it sounds too much like "compost." That's the situation that I'm really concerned about. --Coolcaesar 19:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha! Lexicon—that's where it's at. Spelling has nothing to do with language, but *vocabulary* is really the main source of dialect differentiation—and it weighs more than pronunciation, since it affects both written and spoken language. Additionally, lexical differences, unlike spelling differences, usually are both relevant and interesting (see e.g. cookie). Btw, Australians are deeply in love with shortened & altered words (compo, bikkie, servo), while we have never liked them that much (American exceptions are movie, roomie, and combo); we prefer shortening (comp) to shortening & alteration (compo). More at carburetor... JackLumber. 20:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The question of what's helpful to Misplaced Pages users is an important one to keep in mind, but we can't let it force us to provide inaccurate information. Specifically, catering Misplaced Pages to the badly formulated questions of users shouldn't be our goal. "Which is the American spelling, 'color' or 'colour'?" If one had to pick one of the two spellings, and give the "correct" answer to the "incorrect" question, the choice would of course be "color." But "color" is also one of the Canadian spellings (and is a Shakespearean spelling, and a Latin spelling, etc., etc.). The fact that such niceties are minor to most roadjocks is irrelevant.

As for ways to prevent orthographic edit wars, I don't see how noting anything about geographic or national distribution of different spellings will change anything. People who change spellings against guidelines do so either maliciously, or cluelessly. In both cases, the way we frame the different ways of spelling a word in the article's title won't make a difference.

As for the Find feature: we could include a link to the relevant section in the "... Differences ..." article. The article would need some rewriting, but I'd be happy to contribute to that effort. I suspect many others would, as well. --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-23 08:42 (UTC)

P.S. What we'd type to direct the user to the -or/-our section of the Spelling Differences page would be:

'''Color''' or '''colour''' (see ]) is a property of light that is determined by its ...

But, of course, it's easy enough for users just to click on the appropriate entry in the table of contents of the Spelling Differences article.

--Cultural Freedom 2006-07-25 22:24 (UTC)

Boldface usage

I don't see any guidelines here. Where would I find them? Clarityfiend 19:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Bolding is normally reserved for the article title the first time it appears in the text; see Article_titles. —Wayward 10:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes it is italics. There is a somewhat bizarre distinction between long and short poems. I questionned this weirdness at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Why_do_some_articles_use_italics_in_the_title.3F. bobblewik 19:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Quotation marks using Cquote tag

I noticed there is nothing in the Manual of Style in regard to the Cquote tag. Could someone add the Misplaced Pages recommendations on its use. I noticed it on the Thomas Jefferson article. Morphh 15:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally I'm opposed to the {{Cquote}} tag. - FrancisTyers · 16:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If we want this behaviour, it should be part of the normal Misplaced Pages blockquote formatting. I think the cquote template should be deleted. The template only introduces inconsistency. Shinobu 17:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistency has existed for a while. See category:Quotation templates: {{quotation}}, {{quotebox}} and {{quote box}} all lack quotation marks. Circeus 17:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

And they're all different. I think we should ditch all the formatting and turn them in bare blockquotes. I note some of the templates do something marginally useful (right align a name); we can leave that in. But the rest should be up to the skin. Shinobu 23:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Shinobu. As a rule, where we can avoid it, we should not be making style/presentation decisions, only content decisions. The blockquote is a semantic object that should be rendered according to the skin. Deco 23:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm Ok.. so is anyone going to add something to Look of quotation marks and apostrophes? Something should be included as it is used and people need to know that it is available and either desirable / not desirable to Misplaced Pages standards. Morphh 22:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Normal block quotations don't need any of this additional formatting—it's definitely overkill. A pull-quote or epigraph can be formatted to stand out a bit more (for example, at the beginning of some sections in T-34), but it still doesn't need big purple graphical quotation marks—Misplaced Pages articles should not be made to look like weblog discussions.

I have proposed a minor tweak of the default style sheet formatting for block quotations, following traditional typesetting conventions. Please see MediaWiki talk:Monobook.css#Block quotations. —Michael Z. 2006-08-04 14:51 Z

Okay. So what will we do with the templates? I think the solution to {{cquote}} is, to 1) replace content with normal blockquote 2) subst 3) delete. {{quotation}} can be changed to a normal blockquote, although I don't necessarily see it's use. A {{quotebox}} in the right margin can be okay, perhaps, but this one uses nonstandard colours (images, which also appear in the margin, use different colours for their box). Also, it's limited to quotes - I'd rather see e.g. {{floatbox}}. Maybe I'll make it myself, it would take care of the ad hoc formatting used in e.g. the Ozymandias article. And why, oh why, are {{quotebox}} and {{quote box}} different? Shinobu 12:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

As for the last question, I suspect that {{quotebox}} was created by someone unaware of the existence of {{quote box}}. The older one ({{quote box}}) is a bit better looking and more flexible, though as its creator I may be biased. Both are obviously based on the same concept; one should be killed and replaced with the other.

In this discussion, the distinction between a "pullout quote", which is a quote set off from the main text, and a "block quote", which is in the flow of the article as a part of the text, should be emphasized. Every discussion I've read about quotation templates conflates these two very different things.

The "quote box" templates are a way of formatting pullout quotes. They function like an image, setting off a quote from the surrounding text. Like other images, a pullout quote is there for the sake of visual variety or added emphasis. I think we should have this option, especially for articles that lack other images. It's not an unusual device; variations can often be found in magazines. If we use pullout quotes, we'd obviously want a visual style appropriate for Misplaced Pages.

A "block quote", on the other hand, is part of the text. It should never be set off in a box, contrary to what the the instructions for {{quotation}} suggest. It seems that the creator of that template originally started with a "quote box" variant, but along the way it was misinterpreted as something that should be used with a block quote. This needs to be fixed: putting a block quote inside a box is unusual, ugly, and amateurish. In the short run, the instructions for {{quotation}} need to be revised to make it clear that it should be used for pullout quotes and not block quotes. In the long run, the three pullout "quote box" templates ({{quotation}}, {{quotebox}}, and {{quote box}}) should be merged into one.

Finally, that leaves {{Cquote}}. Based on what I've seen, people seem to be using this template to decorate standard block quotes, rather than for a pullout quote. I've never used it, but it looks like a nice, subtle option. I don't think it's based on any standard publishing approach, however. My guess is that it, like {{quotation}}, began life as something inspired by pullout quotes (some magazines use a similar graphic), but was confused with block quote formatting. A variation, {{Rquote}}, is being used for pullout quotes. Without a border, however, this makes for some odd looking articles, as in this article. Yuck!

So I think there are two basic issues here that are sometimes conflated:

1. Should block quotes ever be decorated? If so, is {{Cquote}} the way to do it?
2. Should we have a template to create "pullout" quotes? If so, should it look like {{quotation}}, {{quotebox}}, {{quote box}}, {{Cquote}}, {{Rquote}}, or something else? Should there be one standard template, or a variety?

--Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 15:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of that, except that template:cquote, which decorates a text block with oversized (larger than the full font height!), coloured quotation marks like a weblog comment, shouldn't be used for normal block quotations.

In standard typography, block quotations are usually simply indented, and possibly set in smaller or italic font to provide a subtle contrast with the body text. In Misplaced Pages, they are often indented using a colon, but semantically the best solution would be to enclose them in HTML <blockquote> elements. —Michael Z. 2006-08-07 17:59 Z

Okay, I believe that's a "no" for question one. What about question #2? --Kevin | (complaint dept.) 19:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Not for me. Simple indentation and italic font served perfectly well in T-34 (although I'm now thinking that both quotation marks and italics isn't even necessary). —Michael Z. 2006-08-07 20:14 Z

Ellipsis

Are there guidelines for use of an ellipsis? (i.e. should it be ". . ." or "...", etc.?) David aukerman 02:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've always seen "..." --maru (talk) contribs 02:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Mostly "..." is used, but it's really the job of the font to decide. You can use "…" (&hellip;) if you want; you can also insert this character by clicking on it after Insert: below the edit box. Shinobu 17:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Bringhurst's Elements of Typographic Style, it depends on the typographer's preference and the character and size of the font. But he writes that a full space between each dot is a "Victorian eccentricity" with too much separation—he suggests using flush dots, or thin-spaced dots (M/5), or the prefabricated ellipsis character (&hellip; … ). Thin spaces must be avoided on Misplaced Pages, because they cannot be displayed reliably on some important platforms . In the middle of a sentence, the dots ... should be spaced fore-and-aft, to separate them from the text: I use a non-breaking space before the dots, so they won't wrap to the beginning of a new line. But where they occur next to other punctuation, they should be combined with it.... Examples in Bringhurst include:

composed with separate dots:

i ... j

k....

l..., l

l, ... l

m...?

n...!

composed with the ellipsis character:

i … j

k….

l…, l

l, … l

m…?

n…!

In my chosen Misplaced Pages font (Lucida Grande), the plain dot looks subtly bolder next to a precomposed ellipsis, but all of the spacing is the consistent. I just use plain dots for consistency and ease of editing. —Michael Z. 2006-07-28 04:40 Z

Sentence case in headings

I don't know if this is the right place for this, so feel free to move this comment to the right place and/or tell me. I tried to use sentence case headings in Srebrenica massacre but was reverted. Can people take a look and see if what I was doing was wrong? Thanks. bobblewik 18:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Your edit was in line with MoS:HEAD guidelines. --Muchness 18:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I just fixed the headings in said article. Shinobu 22:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. bobblewik 19:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

defining "encyclopedic tone"

In terms of defining "encyclopedic tone", is there a specific guidelines policies that explicitly mention it? I.E. there are cleanup templates for this as well, but I've had new users ask what this means specifically - and I guess "the formal tone expected of an encylclopedia" isn't good enough. Any good way to explain this? RN 18:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Blank lines

I'm always irritated by unnecessary blank lines, for example, blank lines that appear when using more than one blank line to separate paragraphs. This usually happens between sections. The result is almost always ugly, so I always change it to a single blank line. Should there be something in the MoS advising against unnecessary whitespace? (Frankly, I never liked how newer MediaWiki software would insert extra blank lines, and liked it much better when an explicit <br/> was needed. But I'm guessing that change was made for good.) - furrykef (Talk at me) 22:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, am I the only one who cares about this? A very large proportion of my edits lately are fixing unnecessary blank lines. I'd guess that more than 90% of the time that I find extra blank lines, they're just ugly and intrusive. - furrykef (Talk at me) 05:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you're not the only one, I fully agree with you. I think the software should automatically collapse any string of 3 or more newlines to 2 newlines. Pending that, we need a bot programmer. Shinobu 12:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Capital letters: Institutions

LemonJuice recently added a paragraph to the Institutions section stating this: “Nevertheless, if the context clearly identifies the term as a specific institution, it may be acceptable to capitalize the first letter in references subsequent to the first.”

I have reverted that change for three reasons:

1. It seems to negate the point of the guideline, which is to say that generic institution terms such as university and hospital should not be capitalized by themselves.
2. Whether the word is capitalized has nothing to do with whether it’s the first reference.
3. It’s vague. If the addendum is going to stay, it needs to have some examples that allow editors to distinguish when it’s OK to capitalize generic terms and when it’s not.

--Rob Kennedy 03:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested moves of subtopics

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Moved, there were a few others too, found in the list of submanuals. —Centrx→talk • 20:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/(Ethiopia-related articles) → Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (Ethiopia-related articles)
• Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/(Islam-related articles) → Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)
• Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/(ALL CAPS) → Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (ALL CAPS)

Rationale: Polar Deluge performed a mass move of all “Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (subtopic)” pages to “Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/(subtopic)” without any consultation. The new names are problematic because (a) they are subpages, which are discouraged on Misplaced Pages, except for certain specific uses detailed in Misplaced Pages:Subpages and (b) this renaming broke links to the talk pages archives on several pages. I reverted the moves in all the cases I could, with the four cases above being the ones I could not fix. (This was a mistake on my part; I realized after I was partway through the reversion that perhaps I should simply apply the move template to all of the pages, since there's a clear dispute.) I will shortly be creating a discussion topic on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style. — DLJessup (talk) 04:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

• Support per above. There's no need to make them subpages with the {{style}} template, and as stated by DLJ, the subpages created did not fall under one of the allowed uses for creating a subpage. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 04:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support, what on earth was someone thinking? --Dhartung | Talk 06:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support for all the reasons we use parenthesis in mainspace.—Scott5114↗ 21:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support for obvious reasons. --Siva1979 20:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above. EVula 20:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. --Coolcaesar 20:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support it makes the most sense the original way. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support Why are we even discussing this? Let me move them, please!!! — D. Wo. 02:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

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

'Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (tables)'

Hi,

I created a subpage on tables, found here. I would like it to become part of the "Manual of Style," though, so I would appreciate any feedback.

Thanks,

HQCentral

Without objection.--HQCentral 23:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to it, but it seems too long and complicated. Don't over-legislate, people will be more likely to just Ignore all rules than to follow the guide if they can't find the relevant recommendation. Keep each section short, each with a few bullet points of one or two sentences. Make the section titles more descriptive so that a person coming to the guide can easily get to the section that they want (and not be confused by the name "Stub" which has another meaning on Misplaced Pages). Most people are going will want a recommendation on a specific style issue they are dealing with, and real examples are helpful examples (use wiki tables). See, for example, Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers): A reader wanting to know about percentages finds in the table of contents a section titled "Percentages" and in that section two bullet points, each short. A reader wanting to know what the standard or recommended style is for birth dates, so they find in the TOC a section "Dates of birth and death", and they find several examples. —Centrx→talk • 03:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Way too long - we already have How to pages for tables. We don't need to duplicate those here. Rmhermen 04:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The help page covers how to write commands for tables. I wrote on styling tables. Centrix, I could add some examples, but I would have to upload them as pictures from MS Word because I possess only a basic familiarity with HTML. Styling tables is one of the most complicated things a writer can do. There are many more things to think about than when styling lists or links. I see what you mean about the "Stub" subheading, but the other subheadings seem pretty self explanatory. Most of the entry can't be compressed because it contains too much information. I can shorten it slightly, but too much of that would make it choppy and omit important information. I understand that large articles tend to frighten and confuse readers, but some subjects simply cannot be explained quickly.--HQCentral 04:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think what you are trying to do is what our Manual of Style does. "There are many more things to think about than when styling lists or links." That isn't what the MOS is about. Some of your proposed procedures are not followed on Misplaced Pages, others are not worth mentioning. I believe I could easily cut out half the text. Rmhermen 05:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Try listing this at the Misplaced Pages:Village Pump. It cannot be an approved policy without a lot more eyeballs and comments. Rmhermen 05:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetical order

I can't track down guidance on listing people by surname, forename. I can find it on categorising, but not listing. Any help? Do we not have a style guide for lists beyond the proposed and probably needing resurrecting Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/(lists of works)? Steve block Talk 19:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Most list are alphabetized as last name, first name but are presented as first name last name. Rmhermen 23:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Article titles

The section on Article titles is not actually about article titles, but the content and formatting of the initial text of the article. In fact, it doesn't mention article title conventions at all... -Harmil 20:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"born" and "died" vs. "b." and "d."

I've noticed that in older individual year pages (basically pre-20th and 21st century), there seems to be a preference for using "born" when giving the birth year in the list of people who died, and "died" in the list of people who were born (as opposed to "b." and "d."), which seems to conform with the current style guide. But most of the more current years use "b." and "d." Is there a stated exception for this somewhere, or should they be changed? Elizabeyth 20:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Conformity is the aim of MoS.--BlaiseMuhaddib 08:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

See also sections

I noticed that there isn't really a description for the see also section which is in my opinion typically massively under-utilised. It irks me when I have to scroll through an article to find links to where I actually want to get, instead I would like to use the see also section but I notice that editors seem to consider links in the text of much greater priority. Is there any discussion or guideline on this? MLA 06:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the long-standing consensus at WP:FAC has been that "see also" sections are signs of weak writing, and are to be avoided in favor of discussing the relevant term in the text. Kirill Lokshin 11:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll just have to live with it then. With user hat rather than editor hat on, it's very frustrating. MLA 14:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the word "also" is being taken as "in addition to the links in the article" rather than "in addition to this article". Perhaps it should be retitled "See" - (on no!). Rich Farmbrough 09:20 6 August 2006 (GMT).

JA: WP:FAC aside, as these sorts of standards are hopefully not cast in stone, yet, many editors find that See Also sections can form a useful Synopsis of the subject, and thus see no harm, and indeed some benefit, in repeating the more important topics in one place. A well-organized See Also section is also quite useful in long-term article development, for coordinating the articles in a group of related articles. When a subject matter eventually stabilizes over the long haul, people who like templates can turn parts of the See Also into a template. Jon Awbrey 16:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Embedded lists

There is a page called Misplaced Pages:Embedded list which is not policy or guideline (at least it is not labeled as either.) Never-the-less, it is sometimes referenced as if it were a guidleine. I have proposed an ammendment to this pseudo-guideline at Wikipedia_talk:Embedded_list. Please see that page if you wish to participate in the discussion about appropriate circumstances for using a bulleted list within an article. Johntex\ 21:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Period before or after citation?

From the article on Hezbollah:

• Hezbollah is one of the two main organizations representing the Shia community, Lebanon's largest religious bloc, but the only militant one.
• Throughout most of the Arab and Muslim worlds, Hezbollah is highly regarded as a legitimate resistance movement.

Which is the correct format for period placement? Before or after the <ref>...</ref> tags. --Roxi2 16:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Before. Placing a period after the footnote is a crime against literacy. This is covered at Misplaced Pages:Footnotes. Perhaps it should be mentioned under "Punctuation" on this page as well. --Kevin (complaints?) 16:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Misplaced Pages:Footnotes#Place_ref_tag_after_punctuation is the guideline we have. It's not universally beloved. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: WP:Footnotes are a crime against literacy. Use parenthetical citations. Then you have the choice of (1) placing the citation inside the sentence to source the sentence, or (2) placing the citation outside the last sentence of a blockquote paragraph to source the entire paragraph. Jon Awbrey 16:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I had a difficult time finding it here. Maybe it should be mentioned as Kevin suggests. --Roxi2 20:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I had fixed all the refs to be after punctuation a couple weeks ago. I guess this is an indication of the quantity of mutation in the information here. Gimmetrow 16:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

See below

I've seen a couple articles that use "see below" links in the lead. Since the TOC is nearby I find this rather odd. I don't think it looks good either in the lead, or elsewhere in the text. Do any of the numerous MOS pages have a statement about this? Gimmetrow 15:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Old Style and New Style dates

When the full date, including month and day, is given, for an event that occurred under the Julian calendar, shouldn't that be indicated clearly? For example, our article on George Washington says

George Washington (February 22, 1732 – December 14, 1799)

However, on the day George Washington was born, the date was February 11th, not February 22nd. Shouldn't the article say something like

George Washington (February 22, 1732 (Feb. 11 O.S.) – December 14, 1799)

P. S. Am I crazy, or is the article on Mixed-style date, which contains no references, out to lunch? Surely there is no ambiguity about the year of Washington's birth. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess the answer is "you are crazy". ;-) The article on George Washington quite clearly states:

According to the Julian calendar, Washington was born on February 11, 1731; according to the Gregorian calendar, which was adopted in Britain and its colonies during Washington's lifetime, he was born on February 22, 1732.

This issue is addressed in the article Old Style and New Style dates. Personally I think using both Old Style and New Style dates in the lead section of an article is more information than is needed for the lead. When there's ambiguity, the issue should be addressed in the body of the article, as it is with George Washington. --Kevin (complaints?) 14:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

British punctuation in articles written in American English

I'm dismayed that WP policy is to use British-style punctuation (punctuation outside quotation marks) in articles that are written in American English. Sorry, but it's just wrong. WP might as well set a policy that "through" is to be spelled "thru." It doesn't make sense for WP to make up new rules of punctuation that are not used anywhere else, in any publication, anywhere in the English-speaking world. It also doesn't make sense to set a rule that will be violated by any literate person who hasn't read WP's Manual of Style. Anyone who understands the mechanics of punctuation in American English will naturally correct these mistakes --- and they are mistakes, regardless of whether the MoS tries to decree that they're not.--24.52.254.62 20:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say that? — Omegatron 21:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a house style, not a mistake. Nothing to get tied up in knots about. —Michael Z. 2006-08-11 23:04 Z

It's correct that, according to the MoS, Hart's Rules should be used. But that doesn't apply to US-specific articles, I think. Since US-specific articles should use US spelling "and style," it is acceptable to use punctuation like "this." SpNeo 11:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No, this is an exception to the convention. Likewise, British articles don't use quote marks 'like "this"'. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand, house styles can indeed be as arbitrary as the proprietors can get away with. And on the other, readers familiar with established conventions are free to find oddities of usage odd (or even semi-literate). I understand that in matters such as the serial comma, different organizations favor different practices, but in the matter of punctuating quotation marks, it makes sense to follow the flag rather than "splitting the difference." Is WP a US or UK enterprise? RLetson 05:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's an international enterprise, operated by an organization whose official place of registration happens to be in the United States. The problem with "following the flag" is that it results in inconsistent treatment, and it's fortunate that a compromise could be arrived upon in this matter at least. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the standard on WP has always been to use British spelling, punctuation, and vocabulary consistently in articles on specifically British subjects, and similarly for American style on American subjects. I don't see how it could reasonably be done any other way, since Americans don't know British spelling, vocabulary, and punctuation and vice versa -- and it looks ridiculous to mix them. If I'm understanding SpNeo's comment correctly, it seems to match what people actually do on WP. The only reason I was motivated to post here was that someone came along and officiously changed all the punctuation in Robert A. Heinlein to British style, refusing to take no for an answer from the Americans who had been working on this article about an American. It would be nice if the manual of style would just say a little more explicitly that there's nothing wrong with using consistently American style on a specifically American subject.--24.52.254.62 01:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur with you on this issue. For American topics, I see no reason why Misplaced Pages should adhere to an unsightly punctuation style for which many English teachers in the United States would give a student only half credit (a C grade) or worse. --Coolcaesar 02:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what happens if they misspell "its" as "it's" then? Do they amputate their right hand? Anyway, as was said in the archives, unsightliness is in the eye of the beholder... PizzaMargherita 10:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, but there are a lot of beholders in the U.S. We have a huge publishing industry unequalled anywhere else which overwhelmingly prefers the practice of consistently placing commas and periods inside quotation marks because it is more aesthetically pleasing. Also, we don't amputate, we simply flunk people out of school. Eventually they end up in prison. See three-strikes laws for information on what happens then. --Coolcaesar 22:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite a few of them, however, seem to slip through the net and end up in reputable jobs.

I bow to the magnitude of "your" publishing industry, but don't forget about the scores of beholders and publishers everywhere else in the world (including America) that adopt the other convention. PizzaMargherita 05:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

At present, the convention is to put punctuation marks outside of quotes if they aren't part of the quote, whatever the topic of the article. If you would like to change it, discuss it here, do not revert someone who tries to edit an article to conform to our style guidelines. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You might want to try avoiding imperatives like "do not." It comes off as rude and pushy. There are other ways to phrase a suggestion than by giving an order. You might also want to try other techniques rather than charging into an article and making a change against the consensus of editors who actually have a history of substantial contributions to the article.--24.52.254.62 03:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The principle that Misplaced Pages guidelines should generally be followed deserves imperatives, and general consensus trumps local consensus. Whether we have general consensus is up for debate, but something that's been on one of our biggest guideline pages for a couple of years needs to be considered prima facie to have consensus. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Are we discussing quotation style? Again? It's not the "British" way, nor the "American" way. It's called logical quotation style. Misplaced Pages adopts it. End of story. Shall we put a comment in the MoS with a reference to the archives? PizzaMargherita 07:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is the British way and the American way, and those who call one of these the "logical" style confuse their own familiarity with "logicality". Redefining the language may fool some people, but it doesn't constitute an argument. If Misplaced Pages wants to adopt British style, that's fine, but it shouldn't misrepresent facts as it does so. - Nunh-huh 08:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please check the archives. PizzaMargherita 08:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but one would be stupid to believe that adopting the name "logical" for a style of punctuation actually makes it logical, no matter what people have said to the contrary in the archives. - Nunh-huh 08:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What's illogical about it? Only the punctuation that is part of the actual quotation goes inside the quotation marks. This makes it logical. Conversely, how is the other convention logical?

Being not logical, it is ambiguous. Consider this.

Did Jane say "really?"

What am I asking, if she said "really?" or "really"? Or, using the confusing convention, what am I asking, if she said "really?" or "really?"

Finally, it's inconsistent, or anyway the rules are more complicated. Consider this.

Did Jane say "Shut up!"?

Why does the question mark stay outside in this case? PizzaMargherita 09:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Positioning of punctuation is a matter of convention, not logic. This should surprise no one: it is so with most matters of style. - Nunh-huh 10:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Very good then, Misplaced Pages adopts the logical convention. Which incidentally, as discussed in the archives, it's not correct to call "British", nor it's entirely correct to call the other one "American". PizzaMargherita 10:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Conventions are conventions. They are not intrisically logical or illogical; they are conventional, and one is not better than another because you call it "the logical convention", just as you can't make someone "pro-death" by calling their opponents "pro-life". And we call things by the names by which they are known, whether or not you think they are entirely correctly so called or not. - Nunh-huh 11:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Conventions may not be "intrinsically" logical or illogical, but they can be demonstrated to be so. Your argument has failed to convince me that the convention adopted by Misplaced Pages after a long debate (and I can't see any new elements being brought forward here) is not logical and that the other one is not illogical, inconsistent (or more complicated) and ambiguous. Feel free to propose a better name for the logical convention. PizzaMargherita 12:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that were you to become arbiter of what things are called, it would be important to convince you. In the meantime, I suggest you call it "the current Misplaced Pages style suggestion" rather than trying to enforce your perceptions of what is logical by a feat of naming. - Nunh-huh 12:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It is very important to convince me as well as everybody else who agreed to adopt this convention. That of being logical is an objective property and has nothing to do with my perception, or anybody else's. Do you agree or do you not agree that one convention is logical and the other one is not? If you don't, are you able to explain why? Also calling it a suggestion when in fact it is an adopted convention would be negating the discussions that led to its adoption. PizzaMargherita 13:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be you, rather than "everybody else who agreed to adopt this convention", who is campaigning to call it the "logical" one. Placement of punctuation is not a matter of logic, but a matter of convention. If logic were involved, and one convention were clearly more logical than all others, there wouldn't be different conventions, would there? Therefore trying to "convince" you that one convention is more logical or less logical would be a silly task, because "logic" simply isn't involved. - Nunh-huh 13:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If logic were involved, and one convention were clearly more logical than all others, there wouldn't be different conventions, would there?—Yes there would. They would be illogical and ambiguous, and demonstrably so. PizzaMargherita 14:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for proving that opinion rather than logic is your strong point. - Nunh-huh 21:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"Demonstrably so"? Then go ahead and demonstrate. Please note that you can't postulate anything that we don't all agree to fully; that's begging the question. I expect a proof in formal logical notation, please, if the convention is in fact more logical.

The truth of the matter is, it's not more logical. It's occasionally less ambiguous than the American style, but only by a small degree, and that still only makes it more logical if you accept the axiom that style rules should be geared to minimize ambiguity, which clearly not everyone here does (I largely do). It's certainly not any more logical than the British style. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I have provided at least one instance that shows that the convention that you call "American" is ambiguous, and one instance that shows that it's inconsistent. Can you provide one counterexample? The current rule is more logical at least in the loose sense of the word, in that it's rational. You put in the quotes what is part of the quotes. I strongly believe that this is less logical than a rule that says "you put in the quotes the quotation itself, and other random stuff that has nothing to do with the quotation".

Anyway, if you are suggesting that the style should not be called "logical" but "unambiguous", or "consistent", or "clear", or "simple", or "rational" I have no problems with that, although I would still prefer "logical". Other suggestions are welcome. PizzaMargherita 21:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The style is less ambiguous. I wouldn't object to calling them "unambiguous quotations", although obviously that sacrifices precision for concision. The point is that preferring less ambiguous constructions to more traditional ones is not inherently "logical". —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If that were true you would be able to disprove that the one convevtion is logical and the other one is not. Sadly, you are trying to use irrational denial to do that. PizzaMargherita 05:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

PizzaMargherita, thanks for the pointer to the numerous past discussions on this issue. The fact that this gets brought up over and over again indicates several things: (1) Lots of people think the MoS is wrong as written. (2) Lots of people think it's ambiguous as written. (3) It's completely out of step with the way WP actually works. (4) It's causing lots of problems and conflicts between editors. Since the discussion indicates that there's a massive problem with the current policy (interpreted literally and without allowing for exceptions), the logical thing to do would be to change the broken part of the policy so that it works the same as the other policies, which aren't broken: articles should use US style or British style consistently, and the choice should be based on the topic, or on the style in which the article was originally written.--24.52.254.62 20:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

All of those points are a matter of opinion. My opinion is that the current system is better than one page uses one style, another uses another. This is how things work on Misplaced Pages, it's a widely-accepted convention even if some people disagree with it. I don't think it should be changed. If you would like to propose it be changed, by all means you can try, but don't unilaterally pretend it doesn't exist. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You might want to try avoiding imperatives like "...don't unilaterally pretend..." It comes off as rude and pushy. There are other ways to phrase a suggestion than by giving an order.--24.52.254.62 03:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If you think that the current policy on national spellings is working, you are mistaken. The policy on punctuation and quotes was changed to put an end to edit wars. Note that the same cannot be done with spelling because in that case it's not true that one variety is clearly superior to others, and the different styles do reflect geography. PizzaMargherita 05:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

But even there, it's important to note that in many cases one spelling is preferred. Aluminium uses the British name, and sulfur the American, because that's the IUPAC standard (I don't know if changing all instances of one to the other is a good idea, though, outside of chemistry articles). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The quotation style has been in place for I think at least couple of years, probably longer. I expect that it is a compromise. I see no need to change it. Maurreen 06:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Foreign language links: order

I'm trying to find a reference to a style policy on the language-links list, but I can't find the right place. It should be here on the MOS page, but there is no mention of it.

I want to know in what order the list of links to an article in other languages should be kept. Should it be in alphabetical order according to the two-letter ISO code (for example, DE (German) would come before HR (Croatian)), or should it be alphabetical according to the English name of the other languages (Croatian would come before German). Does anyone know what the guideline is? Thanks. EuroSong 23:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Putting them in alphabetical order according to their English names doesn’t make much sense since they are presented at the side of the page in their own languages. For example, de yields Deutsch (not German) and hr yields Hrvatski (not Croatian). Sorting by ISO code gets you pretty close to being sorted by native term. For example, if you have articles in Spanish, Esperanto, and Estonian, you might order them as eo, es, et. That would give you Esperanto, Español, Eesti, which is actually backward from the desired order. I don’t see that as a big problem, though. They at least all start with E, so anyone seeking a particular language wouldn’t have to work very hard to find it. Perhaps it would be best if the software would sort the list when it generates the page. --Rob Kennedy 20:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

British Muslim

I saw an interesting commentary in the Independent (which they do not seem to have included in the online version - but I will try and pick up a copy of the paper later and transcript the relevent section) this morning which discussed the recent "terrorist" plot in the UK. One of the points that was dicussed was the use of "British-born Muslim" as a form of soft racism rather than "British Muslim" or "Muslim Briton" (the author contented it was soft racism because the papers do not use that form of address about any other ethnic or religious group).

What would be considered the correct syle in a wikipedia article? --Charlesknight 13:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"British Muslim" and "Muslim Briton" are not actually equivalent to "British-born Muslim", since I suspect that not all British Muslims were born in Britain. I see nothing wrong with "British-born Muslim" as a concise way to say "a Muslim who was born in Britain", although the longer form is fine as well.

And it's not true that this form of address is not used to describe other ethnic or religious minorities: here's an old BBC story which uses the phrase "British born Hindu". The phrase is much more commonly used in the press these days in reference to certain Muslims, for the simple reason that certain British-born Muslims have made the news. In my opinion, ascribing this usage to "soft racism" rather than to a need to describe the background of a few suspected criminals is specious and should not deter us from using accurate language. --Kevin (complaints?) 21:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Almost always use 's even if the noun ends with s

I have corrected the grossly incorrect statement about possessives. You almost always add an apostrophe and an s to all nouns, even if they end with an s, unless it is a plural noun that ends with s. Here is backup for this correction:

• archive 44 of this talk page
• Apostrophe#Possessive_forms_of_nouns_ending_in_s

In practice, regularly leaving off the s after the apostrophe is as nonstandard and weird as not pronouncing the h in human or humble. In striving to be a publication with mainstream appeal and understandability, Misplaced Pages must use standard forms.

Nova SS 19:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Time for a split?

About half the recommendations seem to concern "style" (grammar, expression, naming, etc), and half concern "layout" or "format" (when to link, headings, how to use images, captions etc). Could we consider splitting this into a genuine "Manual of Style" (nothing but questions of "how to say it"), and a "Manual of Layout" or "Manual of Formatting", which concerns presentation? My concern is primarily that there is very little guidance on layout, and the size of this beast is a discouragement against adding any. Stevage 16:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, layout and formatting should be elsewhere. Maurreen 06:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Overriding standard styles generally

The Paris article formerly had a custom TOC. I replaced it with the usual TOC, on the grounds of consistency, but someone else asked me about whether there was a guideline on the issue, and I couldn't find anything that clearly includes this. The closest is Formatting issues, which states:

Formatting issues such as font size, blank space and color are issues for the Misplaced Pages site-wide style sheet and should not be dealt with in articles except in special cases.

Should this be expanded to something like:

In general, features of pages that are specified by the software or style sheets, or for which there are standard HTML tags, should not be overridden on a case-by-case basis except where there's special reason. Likewise, if a template is available, use that if possible rather than writing your own formatting. If you think the default style looks ugly, you can feel free to propose site-wide changes, or (in many cases) edit your style sheets to automatically make the style appear as you prefer, but don't manually override any specific instance of a standard site style: it makes Misplaced Pages look inconsistent and unprofessional.

? That's kind of the point of a manual of style, after all . . . —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 17:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Kind of what I'm getting at above. We really need to have some serious discussions about formatting and layout on a site-wide level. We have 1.3 million articles after all ;) I would rather have much stronger language: individual articles should *never* directly modify text styles. However, there is a middle ground: individual WikiProjects may wish to use certain formatting on all their pages. We're nowhere near the level of setting a standard look and feel for the whole Misplaced Pages, whatever illusion this manual of style presents. Stevage 21:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree that modifying text styles should be strictly verboten - there's also Wiki's many available skins to consider, and manually-added styles would override these. The only exception I could see would be for templates used in specific pages.

For layout elements that become a real hindrance, such as that TOC, I do agree that it is pushing 'it' (though we're still not sure exactly what "it" is) a bit to make changes, but I don't see a real 'problem' if this a) does not break with 'Wiki style' in any way and b) is not a hindrance to navigation from other pages. I don't think the TOC in question was either of these. Unless I've missed something, there doesn't seem to be any real discussion going on about possible changes. Also, as I've already said to Simetrical before, I think it would be the very modifications that Wikipedians try to make that would be the best indicator of improvements that could be made.

Anyhow, it would be in everyone's interest to create both a clear-cut 'graphic style guide' and a place to talk about it, and place a link to it under every editing window, in much the same way as the Help:Editing already there. This would both be helpful to a Wikipedian having problems with layout, and dissuade the same (by providing another option) from actually making layout changes without exposing their problem/suggestion first. thepromenader 08:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The idea of a MoS to begin with is in large part to give the site a consistent look and feel. Again, that makes us look more professional. Having different TOC styles on different pages is slightly disorienting, and just looks sloppy.

The place to propose a change to the TOC style is, well, here. You should drop a note to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals) too. But the idea is, it should remain consistent across the site. (Note that making the TOC smaller or dropping subsections for long pages only is still consistent, in that it treats different cases differently only insofar as they differ: it doesn't have one page look one way, and an analogous page look different.)

As for adding a link to the MoS, we need to be wary of overcrowding. The MoS isn't nearly as important as the rest of the links we have there; most editors won't need to know anything about it. They just shouldn't object to people cleaning up their edits after the fact. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Mind you I'm not objecting to your reinstating the standard TOC - some of my comments were outlining my motivation for changing it in the first place. Since this falls in to sort of 'grey zone' I can neither defend my actions nor condemn yours - but I will say that this grey area must be accounted for.

Any wikipedian finding a layout shortcoming - ugliness, floats, overlapping, etc - should have a clear idea of where he can see that it gets the attention it deserves - would that be here in this page filled with talks about accents and interlineage? It wouldn't seem so at first glance - and the 'guide to layout seems more of the same - but if it is, it took my custom TOC to learn this. I'm sure you see what I mean. thepromenader 22:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Italicized quotations, and quotes in blockquotes

There is normally no need to put quotations in italics unless the material would otherwise call for italics (emphasis, use of non-English words, etc.).

Should this be strengthened to

Quotations should not be put in italics unless the material would otherwise call for italics (emphasis, use of non-English words, etc.).

? Or perhaps be weakened or otherwise be made more explicit? I've always disliked italicized quotations, but never changed them because I got the impression they were viewed as acceptable (certainly some reputable publications do italicize them). At the very least, there should be no need to manually italicize <blockquote>s, because it would be easy for anyone to change that in their stylesheet; inline quotes that's not an option for. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It'd be great if we could just say, "Block quotations should be done using the Template:... template." I'm heartily sick of not knowing the correct way of doing quotations. Sometimes I use >blockquote<, sometimes I use {quotation}, sometimes I roll my own with indenting and italics. Some guidance would be great! Stevage 23:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Short answer: there is no correct way. Colon-indenting looks right in visual browsers, but it actually makes the text a definition definition <dd>, part of a definition list <dl>, which would normally follow a definition term <dt>. This makes no semantic sense.

An html <blockquote> element would be the right way, but until Bug 6200: Linebreaks are ignored in <blockquote> gets fixed, paragraphs and other block elements don't work right inside a blockquote, so unless it's just a single paragraph, you have to type something like this:

 <blockquote>
 The first paragraph.
 <p>
 The second paragraph.
 </blockquote>

It would also be nice if there were a standard wikitext way to enter blockquotes: Bug 4827: blockquote support in wikitext. —Michael Z. 2006-08-15 00:06 Z

Ugh, I forgot about bug 6200. Paragraphs work fine, they just have to all be prefixed with <p>. I'll put figuring out 6200 on my to-do list. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the two methods ought to be labelled "Bad" and "Worse". Cheers. —Michael Z. 2006-08-15 00:48 Z

Quotations should never be in italics, even if the original material is italicized. Editors on Misplaced Pages have a bad habit of italicizing all quotations as a matter of course, and it's irritating to the eye, makes articles harder to read, and is distracting. Quoted material that is rendered in italics is normally underlined. Exploding Boy 04:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen that. What style guides recommend it? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

float and line-height

I removed the text

In particular, do not use the CSS float or line-height properties because they break rendering on some browsers when large fonts are used.

with the summary "This page's HTML source contains 61 floats inline alone, and main.css alone has 17 line-height declarations. I mean, huh?" User:Mzajac restored it with summary "restore advice against complex markup *in article body*".

If the reason for not using those properties is "they break rendering on some browsers when large fonts are used", why does it matter whether they're in the article body or in the stylesheet? If the reason is because they're complex (as the positioning would seem to suggest), why single out those two? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that the Manual of Style is intended to provide guidance for editors editing articles in the English Misplaced Pages, not to delineate what the MediaWiki software developers and designers are allowed to do.

Line-height is extremely buggy in some rather old browsers. There isn't much reason for an editor to use it in an article, and inconsistent line-height in an article is bad from a visual design point of view.

Float, and other positioning declarations can totally break the display in certain buggy web browsers, especially when they interact with other positioned elements. The skin style sheets are stable and have been well tested and debugged by designers who are CSS experts. New additions to the project style sheets are at least vetted by a community of editors experienced with CSS. But if editors start dropping new inline floats and other layout code into individual articles, then they may destroy the display of an article. This might effect only some obscure web browsers, possibly making an article completely unreadable for a small number of readers, with little or no opportunity for debugging and fixing, or requiring a large amount of layout work in an article's text field which which is unsuited for debugging CSS.

Other CSS can be problematic too, but these are two good examples which may be tempting to use.

Individual articles don't need special layout anyway, beyond what is achievable with the use of existing functions such as aligned images and templates. The edit field is for editing article content, not experimenting with new layout techniques. Complex layout in wikitext is to be avoided. —Michael Z. 2006-08-14 19:18 Z

Which browsers are we talking about here, may I ask? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

From memory, an old version of MSIE/Mac would interpret integer line-heights as pixels, instead of relative size, so "line-height:2" would make lines of text overlap at 2-px intervals instead of being double-spaced.

MSIE/Windows 5 and 6 have various quirks with floats and other positioning that drive me mental when debugging web site designs.

Various versions of different browsers have their own quirks, every single one, and complex layout has to be widely tested and properly debugged, not just created ad hoc. For a hint of the problem, see Comparison of layout engines (CSS), or Google "browser CSS bugs". —Michael Z. 2006-08-15 00:46 Z

"Principles" addition

This is a substantial, contested addition to a guideline. Insofar as its substance is uncontroversial, it is long-winded and repetitive; please explain why it is necessary. Beyond that, it is in some parts a large alteration in the current standard, and should not be added without further discussion. If you could explain here the purpose of why you think this should be added, the proposal can be improved, rather than just adding it and reverting without discussion. —Centrx→talk • 21:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. By the way, I considered making an RFC, but the process and the page have become too complicated for my taste. Maurreen 07:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetical Order (part II)

It seems to me that we ought to have specific guidelines on alphabetizing for lists. There's a lot of complicated stuff, for instance:

1. How to deal with "Mc" and "St" at the beginning. Traditionally, "Mc" is alphabetized as though it is "Mac," and "St" as though it is "Saint," but not always. I'd prefer to do it this way, even if it's a bit counter-intuitive, but at any rate we should have a specific policy.
2. Separate Words vs. continuing words. Which comes first "Fun rat" or "Fungus"? Under some criteria, one would alphabetize "Fun rat" as though it is simply "Fun" when comparing it to "Fungus" (and thus have it come first), while in others you ignore the space (in which case Fungus comes first).
3. Last name/first name issues. We ought to be clear that individuals like Marie de France or Wolfram von Eschenbach should be alphabetized by first name.
4. "De" - I think the French language has specific rules about when "De" is to be considered the beginning of the name, and when it is not. In English, I believe it always is. The "De" issue will also relate to point 2 - what comes first, Henry Dearborn or Thomas De Quincey?

This would apply not only to list articles, but also, I think, to categories, in instances where the automatic alphabetization doesn't follow whatever we choose to prefer). john k 14:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what rules are used for automatic alphabetization. But if anyone does, maybe it would be good to make that the default, for the sake of simplicity. Maurreen 15:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, "Mc" doesn't count as "Mac," obviously, nor "St" as "Saint." I'm not sure how it works for issue 2. john k 16:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of alphabetization guidelines. I'm ambivalent about the specifics.

1. Are we able to override automatic alphabetization in categories?

   Through piping, of course we are. john k 18:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

2. I lean toward putting "Fungus" before "Fun rat."
3. I don't get your point about Marie de France or Wolfram von Eschenbach.

   I mean, we should make clear what names are to be alphabetized by the first name. Marie de France should be under "M", not "F", and same deal with Wolfram. john k 18:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

4. I would lean toward consistent treatment for "Da", "De", "ibn, "Van, "Von", and so forth. Maybe that was what you meant, but I figured it'd be good to make it explicit. Maurreen 16:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

   Not necessarily. Anglophones with such names are often treated differently from natives, and should be. We should follow local custom of wherever the person is from. john k 18:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The rule used for automatic alphabetization is unworkable and will be changed sooner or later so that it isn't insane. Basically, article names are sorted by Unicode code point. This means that in the English projects, the order is slightly illogical: they're sorted character-by-character, with ' !"#$%&'()*+,-./' coming before digits 0-9 in that order, which come before ':;<=>?@' in that order, which come before uppercase letters A-Z, which come before '^_`' in that order, which come before lowercase letters a-z, and then there are some miscellaneous punctuation marks, then come non-ASCII letters (stuff you can't easily get on an English keyboard). This is weird for us, and of course it's hell for the Latin-based projects, which sort in all sorts of insane orders (accented chars always come after unaccented), as well as for Wiktionary (many of whose articles start with lowercase letters). See Mediazilla:164. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that specified rules for alphabetization would be useful. I would aim for a simple approach that does not need knowledge of any 'hidden' rules, such as the handling of Mc, but simply take each character position in order from the beginning:

1. Capital letters precede lower-case (so Zebra precedes aardvark)
2. Space precedes any other letter (so 'Fun rat' precedes 'Fungus')
3. Mac precedes Mc, and Saint precedes St.
4. 'Henry Dearborn' precedes 'Thomas De Quincey', but 'De Quincey, Thomas' precedes 'Dearborn, Henry'
5. We would have to agree where numbers, punctuation marks, and other symbols would fit in, as well as lesser used characters such as æ, å, and ß. Agreement on whether accents, diaresis marks, cedillas and so on are taken into account would also be needed. WLD 18:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Capital letters precede lower-case? Why? Are you also suggesting alphabetization by first name? Again, why? Also "Saint" and "St." is hard to justify - The same place, for instance, could be called "Saint John" or "St. John". Why should they be alphabetized differently? In terms of accents, they should be received as "ae," "a", and "ss," I think. Numbers generally come first. Personally, I tend to prefer the so-called "hidden rules" which are usually rules for good reasons. We expect people to know other "hidden rules" of English grammar and usage, why shouldn't we use normal capitalization rules? Obviously, such rules shouldn't be used to beat newbies over the head with, but why not stick to the standard ways of doing things in English? john k 18:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I would sort however seems the most natural to a typical English speaker. I agree that things like Mc = Mac can be confusing and unintuitive, but John Kenney makes a good point about alternate spellings. Capital and lowercase should always be considered equivalent, since that's how people think of them (but in otherwise identical words, the capital can go first) I would sort in the order

1. Punctuation marks and dingbats ☺✡♘♋ of all kinds. (These can be sorted in Unicode code point order if there's a conflict, and if anyone cares.)
2. Numbers, sorted in value order. 100 goes after 5, and 2.0 is sorted the same as 2 (reverting to per-character sorting in case of a collision).
3. Latin letters, with capital, lowercase, accented, and unaccented being considered equivalent.
   • In the case of a collision, accented goes after unaccented; if there's still a collision, lowercase goes after capital.
   • Ligatures should be sorted as their constituent letters, since that's how English speakers perceive them. Speakers of languages that use æ would probably expect it to be sorted some particular way, but when I (along with any other monolingual Anglophone) look at it I see "ae" squished together.
   • Exceptions could be made for äöü sorting as ae, oe, ue if it's judged that enough people are familiar with the rule.
   • Letters that are neither simple ligatures nor simply accented would be sorted on a case-by-case basis, primarily on the basis of how native speakers sort them (if applicable).
4. Non-Latin alphabetic, syllabic, or logographic symbols. They should be internally sorted based on how natives most commonly sort them; their relative order should probably follow Unicode order if it matters (Greek then Cyrillic then Armenian then Hebrew, etc.).

It's slightly complicated for the weird cases, which arguably it's not necessary to legislate in the first place, but the important points are easy to remember. Usually sorting only has to account for letters, numbers, and spaces (occasionally hyphens). Spaces would count as punctuation and so go before letters in this scheme. (And no, I haven't addressed names; those are tricky.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This sounds mostly good. It leaves the "Mc/Mac" and "St/Saint" issues. I think that St/Saint pretty much has to be viewed as equivalent. Alphabetizing "St" as "St" creates tons of problems, since it's totally arbitrary whether a place uses "St" or "Saint" in its name (and the same thing in people's names, I think, as well). I'm less sure of "Mc". I have something of a preference for alphabetizing as "Mac." But I could be persuaded otherwise. john k 00:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Tag Essay-entry

I am looking in vain for an explanation on how to improve an article that has the following tag:

This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Misplaced Pages editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Any help? Thanks CuriousOliver 18:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you link to the article? It probably needs to put in "encyclopedic tone", and to be organized as in Misplaced Pages:Guide to layout. —Centrx→talk • 15:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

New Section On Article Content Policy

I propose a new section, maybe on Village Pump, somthing like the Signpost, but wherever it's relevent, where this section lists word choice for article content. This section, would list, for example: 'Instead of using 'craftsman' or 'craftsmen' in articles, use 'craft worker' or 'craftsperson.'. Another example: 'Do not use the word: 'Indian' to refer to indigenious peoples of the Americas, because 'Indian' most appropriatly refers to a person from or of India.'. This new section would also say help and say that people who come across this section, & people who find errors like listed in said section would correct them. It also has the power to be cited, in discussions, for example: in talk pages, where people blue link, for example 'WP:NPOV' or 'WP:MOS'.100110100 11:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with using "craftsman" or "American Indian"? Is there a styleguide that discourages this somewhere? —Centrx→talk • 15:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue of gender-neutral language is a minefield not currently covered by our style guidelines. Referring to indigenous Americans as American Indians should be okay. But I think what you're looking for is Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's job is to reflect actual usage, not to discourage the use of the most common terms nor to invent or promote other terms for the purpose of pushing an agenda. If "craftsman" and "American Indian" are the most commonly used and understood terms, those should be the preferred terms in Misplaced Pages. Puppy Mill 01:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Heads Up

I've read articles, but I don't remeber which ones, which refered to Galicia, but didn't state Iberian Galicia or East European Galicia. Just to let you guys know. Hhhmmmm, maybe it would have been more appropriate to list this in a section, like which that I proposed...............................100110100 11:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If there is not already a sentence, paragraph or section about it, I think it would be better to have something simple saying "Use clear non-ambiguous terms that will not be confused", rather than having a never-ending list. When someone uses an ambiguous term, they likely don't know they are using it, and aren't going to check every word they use with the list. If you encounter this problem in articles, just change them, perhaps with a good edit summary pointing to the section, but I don't think a list would work well. —Centrx→talk • 15:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Gauging consensus

Hi folks, other Filipino editors and I are trying to gauge consensus on Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (Philippine-related articles) so that we can make it into an official style guide. Could any of you give it a look-see and leave any constructive comments on the talk pages? We would really appreciate it. This was my first time writing a Manual of Style, so I'm sure it could use some work. Thanks. --Chris S. 04:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Pulling the Plugs

I have been going around wikipedia and I have seen many articles about middle aged weapons, bronze aged buildings and modern systems reference games, saying it is featured in games like Civilization. I think these references is cruft and the game's own article should reference these weapons, buildings and systems instead. I propose we remove game references that are not highly relevant to an article. This will stop game developers plugging games all over wikipedia, which is spam, and help cut down on article size keeping the most notable parts, thus raising the quality of articles. --OrbitOne 15:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The question of whether "X in popular culture" sections should be kept is one of constant debate. There appears to be no consensus on it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that for historical things, most of the modern cultural references are largely irrelevant and should be purged. However, with regard to present concepts, there are some borderline issues like 187 (murder), though. Clearly the 187 meme has become a significant cultural phenomenon in itself, considering its frequent use in rap music, TV, and movies. --Coolcaesar 04:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Some small number of things genuinely feature prominently enough in popular culture to merit mention; and some small number of fictional references (though rarely popular culture references) actually do help illuminate their topic (e.g. I can see mentioning Gore Vidal's novel Burr in at Aaron Burr or Dickens's Tale of Two Cities at Reign of Terror). But mostly? Cruft. I'd be glad to see it gone. - Jmabel | Talk 22:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Formatting of referrals to other articles

"See Article for more information" seems to be the convention at the moment for referring to another article: initial letter of the title capitalized, no other markings except the link. A few points:

1. Should it be in quotation marks? This is the usual convention for referring to articles generally, but most reference works refer to their own articles differently in cross-references, for instance using small caps or full caps.
2. Should the first letter be capitalized, in general? What about for articles like eBay?
3. What about when referring to a section? Article#Section is the techy way to do it, but is confusing to those who don't know what a fragment identifier is; Article (section) is probably not a good idea since many of our actual articles do have parentheses after them; likewise Article section can be confusing. Any other ideas?

—Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Seelye, Kate (2005-04-01). "Lebanon's religious mix". PBS Frontline World. Retrieved 2006-07-28.
2. Asia Times - July 20th, 2006