Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:54, 12 June 2007

Hyphens and dashes in the MoS

The current entry is pitifully inadequate, IMO:

________

Dashes

The hyphen (-) is used to form compound words. The en dash (–) is used to specify numeric ranges, such as “open 9–5”. The em dash (—) can be used to link clauses of a sentence—like this one—as can the spaced en dash ( – ). Other dashes, notably the double-hyphen (--), should be avoided.

________

Apart from the problem that, strictly speaking, hyphens aren't dashes, the use of these three significant puncuation marks is a major source of confusion among WPians—this much is clear to reviewers at FAC. It's very difficult to write good English without knowing about hyphens and dashes. For this reason, I suggest that they be given much more weight in the MoS (as much, for example, as capital letters).

The main article on "Dashes" appears to be much concerned with the computer-code aspects, and is poorly written.

Thus, I'd appreciate feedback on this draft for inclusion in the MoS. Tony 06:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Noetica for valuable assistance. Tony 11:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Where hyphens are not used, values and units are always separated by a space. (they should be separated by a non-breaking hard space nbsp, see WP:UNITS)

Great idea.

• En dashes (please mention sports scores, as they are often not used in sports articles that discuss scores)

One of the examples is a sports score (3–2 win), but perhaps something more explicit is required?

Court decisions? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC) I think they're more likely to have "versus" or "v". Tony 22:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually meant, say, majorities in Supreme Court decisions, in analogy to sports scores :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• On en dashes, To convey and, or a relationship in certain compound expressions ... can you give the classic exmaple of date ranges, e.g.; 1978–1982, and why do some have spaces before and after the dash, others not?

You're asking why some date ranges are spaced and some unspaced? The latter have internal spaces, since they're full dates, so it looks odd to squeeze the en dash in the middle.

Have you covered this in the new version? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• The main article shows common keystrokes for en dashes on Macintosh and Windows (Wikilink?) I've never been able to make those keystrokes work; in fact, they send me into something weird. Also, mention they are available below the edit window?

Done. Sandy, can you have a look at the top of the Main article, where I've put the keystrokes; others have added riders for Windows.

You've got it; this is what happens to me. On the Windows platform, some web browsers, these key sequences will reduce/enlarge the font size, and will not output a dash. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, have you tried the Alt–number sequence (0–1–5–0?) that is explained further down in the main article? And should we add (in the main article at the top) that failing all else, key in the html sequences &mdash, etc. or cut and paste from elsewhere in an article? Tony 22:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

ah, ha. The alt-number sequence works on my regular computer, but of course, not on my laptop which has no numeric keypad. Glad that info is included. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Mention what to do in section headings and article titles, where endashes are often left off of date ranges.

Is this worth pointing out separately? Tony 14:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC) I presume that you can have dashes in titles. Tony 22:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The main dash article currently says to use hyphens only in article titles; is that correct? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that has to change, IMO. There's absolutely no reason an en dash should be used in a title (I've done so a few times). I find it disturbing to see the number of hyphens wrongly used for en dashes in titles. Tony 13:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Much improved ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm hoping that it'll be uncontroversial to add clarity to what's currently there (until it's replaced) by adding "unspaced" before the em-dash; thus:

The unspaced em dash (—) can be used to link clauses of a sentence—like this one—as can the spaced en dash ( – ).

Would it be? ;) – Kieran T 13:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Sure, but it will soon be superseded. Tony 22:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony et al, I think this is a needed improvement, and it is clearly written. I am unsure if there should also be a mention of the en dash as "a dividing horizontal punctuation mark" (what a phrase!) in track listings in articles about albums; see WP:ALBUM#Track listing. Thoughts? --Paul Erik 22:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember that exactly what dash and spacing should be used was the subject of vigorous debate only a week ago. What was decided? Is practice clear on WP? Tony 22:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it wasn't decided, IMO. I think the final conclusion was that a spaced endash could be used for punctuation as long as the article was consistent. But, albums are using emdashes for some punctuation and endashes for others, so their use of endashes for album track listings is inconsistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Albums use spaced en dashes for both the track listing and credits sections, per WP:ALBUM#Track listing, a part of that guideline which is adhered to quite well. What would be the alternative? Unspaced em dashes seems like the only other option, since spaced em dashes are no longer acceptable in this draft. Unspaced em dashes doesn't seem like an improvement. If this really is a separate use case ("a dividing horizontal punctuation mark") why can't that use case use spaced en dashes, since it so consistently does so now? --PEJL 21:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

So, is consistency required? Already, as interrupters, WP seems to allow spaced en dashes in place of em dashes (seems reasonable). What do you think? I suppose I prefer space en dashes, but I'm open. Tony 13:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Very nice (comment was removed?) — Deckiller 05:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I saw your comment before; not sure why it's gone. (Is there a Wiki glitch again? I've seen this twice in two days.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Are we sold on those symbols in the draft and in the MoS? Seems kind of gimmicky and distracting to me. Quadzilla99 05:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm talking of these incidentally: Quadzilla99 12:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, someone added them a while back. I don't care if they go. What do other people think? Tony 13:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• En dashes in titles: I've proposed at the main article on dashes that this sentence be deleted:

"Please do not use an en dash, em dash, or any type of dash other than a standard hyphen in a content page name because such symbols prevent some software (including Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP) from saving the page as a file on a computer. The non-hyphen dashes can be used in redirect pages if an enhanced precision for the page name is desired for use in wikilinks elsewhere."

Is this still the case? Just how much software still suffers from this problem? Why would someone want to save a page as a file? Who cares? En dashes are important enough to drop this rule, IMV. " Tony 13:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Matters still to be decided

1. Whether we can explicitly say to use en dashes in article titles (main article currently says no).
2. Whether spaced em dashes are a no-no (I inserted this new rule).
3. Whether to force the issue on separating album titles from those of tracks (presumably with spaced en dashes).
4. Whether the red and blue ticks and crosses should be replaced with "Correct" and "Incorrect" for the examples, as suggested above by Quadzilla.
5. Whether the true "minus sign" (−) should be allowed for minus signs and operators. Crissov says: "Actually the true minus sign, −, is used often on Misplaced Pages. It probably should be preferred ."

Any other issues—please add. Opinions welcome below. Tony 05:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• My comments: (1) Windows users, IMV, should just use another browser than IE 6.0 if they want to create files out of articles with en dashes in their titles; I say use them. (2) I think to space em dashes is too space hungry in the run of text and is stretching it WRT line overhang. (3) Don't care, as long as it's consistent within an article. (4) Don't care. Tony 05:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Noetica's comments:

1. We're never going to achieve anything by suggesting that people shift from the most-used browser, Tony. To be realistic, I think we should call for no en dashes (and of course no em dashes) in titles just for now, but then lobby hard for a fix to be implemented, so that a search for a string with one style of dash or hyphen included would find equivalent strings with any style of dash (or hyphen). Not hard to code, and there are virtually no drawbacks.
2. I support making spaced em dashes a no-no. I'm for en dashes only, myself: but that one is unwinnable, as is em dashes only. Therefore, at least reduce the chaos brought about by so many alternatives.
3. I'm indifferent, so long as a uniform style of dash is called for (preferably en dash).
4. I will happily acquiesce in any consensus on the ticks and crosses. Have we considered some Unicode entity, as a middle position that may find wide support – and compliance? (✔ and ✖ ?)

Noetica's other issues:

• I have done quite a bit myself on the refinement of the section on dashes and hyphens (at Tony's dash-and-hyphen sandpit). There are still a couple of simple things to resolve there, including whether compounds like Sino–Soviet, where the first element cannot exist on its own, need a hyphen or an en dash. The majority of style manuals seem to endorse a hyphen, explicitly or implicitly. (Chicago makes no specific ruling, but happens to include the example Sino-Soviet with a hyphen – twice.) Myself, I don't care; there are good reasons on both sides. But let's have discussion of this point towards a robust conclusion that people will comply with.
• WP:MOSDASH is a train-wreck, and not worth struggling to fix. I don't think we need it, anyway. There is not much that will need to be added to the elegant new section on dashes and hyphens here at WP:MOS. Keep it simple! We could merge Hyphen and Dash (punctuation) to make Dash and hyphen, and load that article with well-marshalled detail to which WP:MOS can refer. It is irrelevant that hyphens and dashes are distinct entities. So are en dashes and hyphens, and en dashes and em dashes; but for good practical reasons we should consider them all together. At the moment we have four locations to edit and coordinate for dashes and hyphens. We would be far better off with just two locations: a section at WP:MOS, and Dash and hyphen.

– Noetica Talk 06:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everything you wrote, except that my solution for the dash-in-title issue is not to mention it (as is the case now in the sandbox); and, likewise, I'd rather remove the Sino–Soviet example than deal with the mixed perspectives on it. Tony 07:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

O, don't have mixed perspectives in the final product! Let's just have some discussion here, to settle on a ruling that people will respect. Then have that ruling quite definitively in WP:MOS.

– Noetica Talk 07:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

PS I note that the previous and existing versions of Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style#Article_titles are absolutely silent WRT to proscribing the use of dashes. You'd think that any serious policy would have been expressed there before anywhere else. The statement on the main page for dashes is buried down at the bottom, recently cooked up (Jan 07, I think), and gained highly questionable consensus. I've placed an inline comment disputing it. Given the chaotic nature of that page (frankly, it's an embarrassment), I really wonder whether I'm prepared to bring it all to a head and do battle with the IE Version 6.0 people who can't find another browser with which to make files out of articles. Who does that, anyway? So I'm all for doing nothing, in which case I'll be informally advising people to use dashes in article titles, as I've been doing for some time. It's so odd to see a hyphen in the title and the proper en dash everywhere else in the article. Tony 01:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

PPS On the basis of this recent advice at the main page talk, I'm adding a "use dashes in titles" point to the draft, worded, I hope, to make a mass conversion of existing titles unnecessary (i.e., newly created titles only). Tony 02:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• SG Comments (1) Explicitly say to use en dashes in titles; the developers will follow (but don't force change to all old articles). (2) No spaced emdashes. (3) The inconsistency in the album articles bugs me every time; whatever they do, it needs to be consistent. Why they alone should use endashes—when most of Wiki uses emdashes—makes no sense to me, but as long as they're consistent throughout their articles, I guess I can't object. Now, they mix en and emdashes in ways that doesn't make sense to me. (4) Hate the ticks. (5) Don't know; uninformed on this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• May I? (1) Per Sandy. (2) Ditto. Please. (3) Spaced en dashes have been the WP:ALBUM standard for quite a while. Has this been brought up there? (4) Don't really care. (5) Minus signs are indeed quite frequently used, at least on chemistry articles; don't know elsewhere. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've been bold and implemented 1, 2, 4 and 5 in the draft. Tony 15:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This draft? Are we keeping the tick marks? (I like Noetica's tick suggestions better than what's there.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm a bit confused on en dashes being used "To separate the titles of albums from those of tracks, where they are always spaced (see WP:ALBUM)." AFAIK they are used to separate tracks from track lengths, aren't they? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, and also to separate a musician from his or her instruments in a Credits list. It seems that the endash has been the preferred punctuation for a long time in album articles. Was this up for debate recently? I have searched but have not found those discussions; I'd be grateful if someone would provide a link. This use of an endash appears to be unique to album articles; other guidelines (e.g. WP:LIST#Definition lists) recommend emdashes. I have no strong opinion, other than a concern about the work involved in changing all the endashes to emdashes if that becomes the consensus. --Paul Erik 16:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Sorry, Paul, it took me a while to find the old discussion (I couldn't remember where we had it), and it turned out to be right under my nose, on my own talk page. My concern then and now is that the Albums Project seems to be the only Project using this unique convention. Not sure we've ever resolved this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've implemented all of these suggestions, and done more housecleaning; Noetica has now clarified the subtlest distinction between hyphens and en dashes (I understand it at last). Specifically, I've:
  • reworded the album bit, although I guess I'm not entirely comfortable in singling out such a specific genre of article—but it's been a sore point, so maybe that's reason to include it;
  • changed the coloured ticks and crosses to Noetica's suggestion above—see if you prefer them;
  • added "now" to "When creating an article, a hyphen is now not used as a substitute for an en dash in the title.", to clarify that existing titles where this was done do not have to be recast. Tony 00:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Important: I've brought four three matters to a head at the talk page of the MOS (Dashes) page. These matters concern contradictions between information on that (rather chaotic) page, and both the current and drafted new MOS guidelines on en and em dashes. Your input there would be appreciated. Tony 02:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Consistency

Ok, say you have an article, in this case called yoghurt. If you mention soyog(h)urt - how should you spell it? Does the guideline that consistency should prevail succumb to what is more popular? --danielfolsom 22:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not a MoS question. It's a Verifiability and No Original Research question. Daniel wants us to make up new words that are unused in the real world because an archaic spelling of yoghurt is used in our article on yogurt. Misplaced Pages describes, not prescribes. We don't prescribe by making up new word spellings. SchmuckyTheCat

I had already explained this to shmucky on the talk page - and for the record I wasn't even the one who added the word - but just theoretically for now, I can check accuracy later.--danielfolsom 23:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, but SchmuckyTheCat is exactly right in this case. The forms "soyghurt" and "soyoghurt" are for all practical purposes nonexistent variants. Why should they be used in wikipedia in preference to a form that at least has some appreciable level of usage? That is not what the MOS is about. The MOS does not mandate a slavish application of mechanical principles in complete disregard of real-world usage. Google results on English language sites: soyghurt (18) or soyoghurt (21) is vanishingly small compared to soygurt (279). soyogurt comes in second at 130. I'll grant that all of them are niche variants, but there is no clear indication that any of these spellings are British/American -- until there is, I don't see much point to using a form that is virtually unused by anyone. older ≠ wiser 00:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok now I'm kinda hoping for a response from someone that wasn't involved - I can look for more info on soyoghurt later - but, my point was theoreticaly (assuming soyoghurt checked out - which it may or may not) - which one. --danielfolsom 00:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh holy crap - I just realized that you were trying to put in soygurt and not soyogurt - fair enough I'm fine with soygurt going in, I just don't think we should put soyogurt. --danielfolsom 00:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, most (if not all) of these soy yogurt products are referred to as soyogurt, while all instances of soyoghurt are just from individuals referencing those products. Strad 00:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

National varieties of English: draft copy-edit for feedback

The only slight change of meaning might concern the status of the "original contributor", but I'm unsure that it has actually changed anything (the variety chosen by the original contributor is favoured in the early stages of an article; more generally, the variety that an article has predominantly evolved with is favoured—probably the same).

I've removed the sermon-giving tone, the opening negativity, and the fluff.

The new is at the top; the existing version is below it.

Draft

Tony 04:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It’s missing the problem of identifying the variant used in the first place. That task is often plain impossible, even more so for the majority of people who don’t have a profound theoretical knowledge of the English language. (Consider the number of transclusions of Template:User Mixed English for instance.) Thus it’ll basically remain a rough guess between ou/re/ise and o/er/ize, if the article in question isn’t from an identifiable contemporary geopolitical domain, which has special orthographic, syntactic and lexical rules assigned to it, anyway. Christoph Päper 12:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't see the problem, then. As soon as the first identifiable variable spelling is edited in, it's established and is subject to the guidelines just as if started from scratch with identifiable variety. Does this need to be explicated? (I'd have thought not—it's not there at the moment.) Tony 12:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is sufficiently clear; explicating would needlessly lengthen the guideline, IMO.--Paul Erik 17:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Great improvement, Tony—I do like how you have removed the negativity and the preachy tone. I am wondering whether the European Union institutions example is necessary, or even if it introduces some confusion: Is it "appropriate" to use Maltese English in the early stages of an article about a general European topic? I know that may not be the intended meaning of the instruction, but I wonder if some readers might take it that way.--Paul Erik 17:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Paul, thanks for raising an issue that was bobbing about in my mind. I think it should be removed. Tony 00:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

An excellent rendition, Tony! I think I would switch the order of the “Retaining the existing variety” and “Strong ties to a region” subsections, though. The priority of rationale and the natural logical flow run better that way. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Askari. Done. Tony 02:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Exact addresses?

Are exact addresses unencyclopedic, that strike me as a bit Yellow Pagey/Travel Guidey. Seems coordinates would have the most meaning for a reader, only someone in the location would find the address (and probably the street name for that matter) useful. Is there a general consensus about this? Is there a guideline you can point me to? I don't usually include exact addresses myself. IvoShandor 15:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There's probably something in here--WP:NOT--I'm kind of new so I couldn't tell you for certain. Marcus Taylor 20:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There is but it says that you should mention the Eiffel Tower in an article about Paris but not the address and phone of your favorite coffee shop in Paris, too vague. IvoShandor 20:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm? Maybe in the infobox? I don't know how to approach this. Any thoughts? IvoShandor 18:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Overlinking

What constitutes overlinking? It's a little annoying to read an article with tons of blue links, also should common cities like New York City and London even be linked? I doubt there's anyone out there who speaks English and has never heard of New York City, particularly if they're using a computer. Marcus Taylor 20:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a delicate balance. My personal rule of thumb goes something like this: WP articles are more or less a tree or directed acyclic graph, with the most general articles at the top (my trees grow upside down, with the root at the top and the leaves at the bottom). Links that jump down the tree many levels, from very general to very specific, are fine. Links that jump up many levels are usually excessive.

So, for example, the article on Denton, Texas should probably not link to United States of America, even if that term appears in the article. If you're looking up Denton you probably know where the USA is, and there's no strong reason to presume you're trying to find out how many states there are or the structure of the American constitutional republic. But smaller steps up the tree are good: Denton, Texas should link to Texas, and Texas should link to United States of America. --Trovatore 20:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Marcus's point was that it's not just someone who's reading the Denton article who knows what the US is; it's every English speaker; I'd go further, and contend that just about every human being knows what the US is. If they don't, let them key it in and search for it. Otherwise, our articles are spattered with useless blue that (i) make it slightly harder to read, (ii) dilute high-value links, and (iii) look pretty untidy.

I frankly wonder whether large, prominent countries should ever linked linked, unless interrupting your reading of the text to travel to that country article will yield useful, focused information on the topic.

On the other side are the allwiki-ists, who would have every single word linked to satisfy their urge to create a complete, all-encompassing tree (of what use I'm not exactly sure, but it's a lovely structure, OK). Misplaced Pages, IMV, should strive for a highly selective system of links that are aimed at improving the reading experience. Tony 00:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what I think also Tony. I'm guessing it's a subjective standard determined by editors then? Linking places like Chicago, Moscow, and Tokyo seems unnecessary to me, as well as terms like psychology, commercial, and air conditioning--which I've all seen. Marcus Taylor 19:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization of Common Names of birds

I hope I've tidied the wording up enough for the MoS on the capitalization of Common Names of animal/plant species. The discussions as to why bird species names in particular should be capitalized in Misplaced Pages is exhaustingly long, and can be found repeatedly on the Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Birds, and is very briefly summarized on the Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (fauna) page. The issue gets brought up periodically, always by people with virtually no knowledge of bird classification, and who haven't put any thought into how otherwise to solve confusing and conflicting common names. For example, "robins" in the Americas and Europe are not even remotely related to the ones on the other side, and the same goes for "vultures". As such, English names of groups of bird species are not capitalized, whether they match a specific taxa (e.g. toucans, woodpeckers), or not (e.g. robins, vultures, or seabirds). But all people who engage in any discourse about a specific species of bird, from pet owners to recreational bird-watchers to pop-culture authors to ivory-tower academics, all use the same set of English species names, set by regional academic ornithological associations, just to keep straight what bird we're talking about. Following that standardized list of names (including its well-established and broadly accepted and used capitalization convention) is not only appropriate here, but necessary to avoid creating an encyclopedia that establishes a unique convention that goes against everything else out there. Just try googling the common name of any bird species and see how it's capitalized everywhere. If anyone still has problems with this, please read the many arguments that have already been made on , and if you still have a question, post it there. If anyone still has a problem with the wording of this section of the MoS, go to town on it. Fredwerner 09:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I hate Misplaced Pages's capitalization of common animal names. This isn't a bird encyclopedia, it's a general-use encyclopedia that happens to have lots of articles about birds because it's not paper. Presumably the common species names that have been established to differentiate similar birds would be just as effective in capitals or lowercase? But oh well; I see the folks with my viewpoint have been out-voted by the enthusiasts. — Brian (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with Brian. Tony 13:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you guys have such visceral feelings about this. I don't see how it interferes with your, or anyone else's usage of Misplaced Pages. If you obliterate the accepted science norms to impose your own standard, you might satisfy English language purists, but you will alienate people who know something about the subject, including many who contribute to and use your science-related articles. You will also mislead students who use wikipedia as a source. Jettisoning science standards and norm would only make closing the credibility gap that wikipedia still has in the sciences that much harder.

I imaagine a constant push-pull-compromise on many different levels between conforming to the quirky norms of the vast number of far-flung disciplines covered in wikiepedia, versus maintaining a cohesive and unified set of norms. A sophisticated flexibility rather than a rigid one-size fits all must work better in many instances to cover the entire universe of knowledge. General-interest publications such as newspapers, news magazines, non science-websites, etc. typically follow the official naming conventions as soon as they start discussing individual bird species, and if they get letters to the editor complaining about it, I haven't seen one printed. This may just be one of those times when you cannot satisfy everyone. Fredwerner 14:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Does the convention of capitalising genera irk too? Or putting them in italics? Or capitalising family names? It isn't like the convention is forced on other articles, (like Ode to a Nightingale). Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No, of course Latinate species names and genera should be italicized. Those are scientific names. However, it turly irks to see "Cougar" all over the main page today, for example. It's common name is "cougar", please. Blech. I understand that birdwatching guidebooks and even scientific literature may capitalize common names, leading bird editors on Misplaced Pages to follow suit, but again, Misplaced Pages is not a birdwatching guidebook or a scientific encyclopedia of birds. But it irks that a WikiProject has set the standard for the rest of us. What if I decide to work on a bird article? Why must I follow capitalization guidelines that violate most manuals of style out there? Wouldn't it be better to allow a page's main author to choose the capitalization or non-capitalization to use for the common name of an animal (as seems to be the case for any animal but birds)? — Brian (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to mammals I don't actually have an opinion, I certainly don't see mammals capitalised very often. Allowing people to do what they want is laudable and usually best to strive for but sacrifices consistency, this revision of Tieke for example was a mishmash of the two styles. Allowing the various projects to make the choices is basically a compromise between allowing individuals to do so it how they please and enforcing some kind of standard. It would look faintly ridiculous if you went from Common Blackbird, all capitalised, to song thrush, not, and then to Mistle Thrush capitilised again, when researching garden birds of England. Misplaced Pages is not a birdwatching guidebook or a scientific encyclopedia of birds it certainly reads like a mathematical encyclopedia for the maths articles and a religious encyclopedia for theological articles and a astronomic encyclopedia for the planets. It's more than a general encyclopedia, its the ultimate encyclopedia, which means its the ultimate bird encylopedia (or will be). Abnd even if it isn't a scientific encylopedia (something I'd contest) the articles are on scientific subjects. But, you know, we're both just rehashing arguments that have been made multiple times before. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we're inconsistent in our use of American and Commonwealth English, I don't see a problem in our inconsistency of common-name capitalization. I agree that re-arguing this is not the best idea, but I still oppose the idea of a WikiProject deciding the rules for the rest of us. How widely publicized was the project's discussion of the matter? Was it announced at the Village Pump? Was broader, pan-project consensus sought? (I honestly have no idea!) — Brian (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Before my time. I guess the places to look would be the tree of life's archive pages. And like I said earlier, it isn't like we impose this on the variety of articles beyond the scope of the project. And if new people are contributing bird articles themselves and had a strong opinion it probably would provoke a discussion and might even be left alone; the fact is that everyone that has written new decent sized bird articles (more than stubs) generally ends up joining the project and either already followed the convention or are happy to once informed of it (I certainly had no opinion when I joined but like the preciceness of the convention and have adopted it elsewhere.) Oh, and I don't consider the American and Commonwealth English example the greatest example of things working okay, it's something of a trainwreck really, but not one that anything that can honestly have anything done about anymore. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization of "concerning"?

Should this be capitalized in book/essay titles? Which one is right, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding or An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding? shoeofdeath 18:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(I will take a stab at this one and I will welcome others to jump in and correct me as needed.)

I believe that either way is acceptable. Since the word concerning is a preposition, it ought not to be capitalized. But there is also a tradition that if any word in the title is more than five letters—even if it is an article, a conjunction, or a preposition—then it may be capitalized. --Paul Erik 04:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)