Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rationalobserver (talk | contribs) at 19:25, 18 September 2014 (→Contractions: response to Elaqueate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:25, 18 September 2014 by Rationalobserver (talk | contribs) (→Contractions: response to Elaqueate)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

Manual of Style

	This page falls within the scope of the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style
	This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
	For information on Misplaced Pages's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Misplaced Pages policies of Misplaced Pages's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:MOS

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Template:MOS/R

For a list of suggested abbreviations for referring to style guides, see this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Quoting different dialects of English to the one the article is written in

In this case Al Sharpton was being quoted and he was using (as far as I can tell, I'm not a native speaker) perfectly normal AAVE:

Sharpton was quoted as saying to an audience at Kean College in 1994 that, "White folks was in caves while we was building empires ".

I thought seemed incorrect because I couldn't see any mistakes or unusual word choices and so I removed it. User:Knight of Truth disagreed and we had a brief discussion (here, and here).

I couldn't see any official policy on this so I thought I'd ask everybody's opinion. --holizz (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The "sic" should just be removed if the quote is accurate. It's distracting and can come across as calling undue attention for the purposes of editorialising in a bit of a snobbish way. It's not about vernacular, if a direct quote had some UK slang or less formal english, it also shouldn't be shame-tagged with a "sic" unless there was a more honest chance of serious reader confusion.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC),

Is AAVE a formal, official dialect of English (like British English or American English) or just a variation of slang (like rhyming slang)? If it is an official dialect then the sic marks are not neccessary. If it is just slang then sic marks should stay. Stepho talk 05:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Elderly farm workers in Somerset also say "folks wuz slower in the ol' days". Mistakes in grammar made in Somerset are not considered a different language. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If it were in Zomerzet, 'twould be "zlower". --Redrose64 (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

'Tis true :). However I think if were quoting a farm worker saying "folks was" we probably wouldn't include a sic sticker in the quote, sic can be used for grammar and spelling, Dan Quayle's potatoe, and the MOS of some publications - The Spectator magazine's MOS I was told is an example - but (sic) is only important for errors of incidental fact, where someone reports a statement "the company has been serving Malaysia's farmers since Malaysia achieved its independence in 1957 the company was nationalized" for example. The "was" in Sharpton's statement is an error but not one greatly adding to any material error of content, so unless it's applied to every grammatical error in quotes consistently across en.wp can't see the point. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

To me, the basic question is this... is it likely that people reading the quote will think Misplaced Pages made an "error" and try correct it. If so, then the sic is helpful (informing the editor that the "error" is part of the quote, and thus intentional). If not likely, then the sic is not needed. Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It's actually quite likely that someone will mistake that for a typo and "fix" it, but the debate here is presenting a false dichotomy. Use {{sic|was|hide=y}} to wrap the variance from mainstream English in an invisible sic template, without "shaming" it with a visible one. PS: There is no such thing as "official" in English, so "official" vs. "just slang" is another false dichotomy. This same technique can be used for any other variances from mainstream English or from MOS in quoted printed material; e.g. use {{sic|37ft.}} rather than change a quotation to read 37 ft to conform to MOS. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼ 22:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everybody. I took User:SMcCandlish's advice and used the hidden sic as a compromise. --holizz (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

MOS:MED

FYI – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Few MOS regulars watchlist MOS:MED, but more need to do so, perhaps. Without advocating a position pro or con the proposed changes, I have to note that changes are being proposed at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#References in the lead that conflict with the main MOS in multiple ways, yet virtually no one knows the discussion exists but participants in wikiproject WP:MED. If the proposals are seen as having merit, they need to be made outside of that talk page backwater, and in a venue people actually notice, and should probably be advertised via WP:RFC and WP:VPP, especially since they would affect more than the topic areas within WP:MED and MOS:MED's scope. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼ 23:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Your assertion of "yet virtually no one knows the discussion exists" is false. A WP:Med editor clearly brought the WP:Lead discussion to the WP:Lead talk page, a talk page that currently has 360 watchers; I've seen many editors at that talk page, as recently as the big four-paragraphs lead debate; I'm certain that a significant number of editors who took part in that debate still have the WP:Lead page on their WP:Watchlist. It's simply that hardly anyone cares that WP:Med wants to include something in MOS:MED about preferring to include citations in the lead. WP:Med advises on other things when it comes to designing a medical article, and I don't see why the WP:Lead should be an exception. Flyer22 (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

<Rolling eyes> WT:LEAD is almost as unwatched as MOS:MED's talk page. A paltry 360 watchers is practically nothing, especially given that many of them are not even active users any longer, and many who are only watching for changes to the guideline, not to the talk page. You're the one making questionable assumptions, like "hardly anyone cares". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼ 05:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Are all assumptions by default wrong? One would surmise that those who actually do care about MEDMOS are going to watch it. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I care not that you've "rolled your eyes." What I do care about is that your need to seemingly keep WikiProjects, especially WP:Med, in line does not disrupt those WikiProjects. Yes, some WikiProjects have power, regardless of any assertion you might make to the contrary. And WP:Med is one such WikiProject. They have the power to say, "Medical articles are best organized this way," and to enforce that standard; they've done that for years...with the help of editors outside of WP:Med; MOS:MED is not simply a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS matter. I am well aware that, for a Misplaced Pages page with a lot of watchers, a significant number of those watchers are inactive, which is why I emphasized my WP:Lead point by stating, "I've seen many editors at that talk page, as recently as the big four-paragraphs lead debate; I'm certain that a significant number of editors who took part in that debate still have the WP:Lead page on their WP:Watchlist." It's not much of a questionable assumption to state that more editors who watch that page would have weighed in on the MOS:MED matter if they were interested in it. Flyer22 (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like more of us may need to keep an eye on this page here... As this is simply a clarification of what is already implicitly allowed all this extra effort is not really needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Full points and footnotes

Full points end sentences. It looks weird that references would come after them but, at first, this is mere aesthetics.

However, two rationales must be considered:

1/ References are normally attached to the words (notably persons) they qualify and this often happens in the middle of sentences. They should not be discriminated should the word be inside or at the end of the sentence but indeed, this is not yet a universal rule.

Some persons go up to put footnotes after comas.

2/ When a reference comes after the full point or coma, it may be difficult to know whether it qualifies the last word or the whole sentence of part of sentence, and even hasty users may think it qualifies the next sentence.

Examples:

- LOGICAL EXAMPLE

"At the neck of the penis, it is folded upon itself to form the prepuce or foreskin, which covers the glans for a variable distance' . The current tendency to eliminate the prepuce from anatomy textbooks ..." Discussion (first paragraph), in Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ. The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. Br J Urol 1996;77:291-295.

- COMMON EXAMPLE

"Janet75 thought..." Article, first paragraph, in van der Kolk BA. The compulsion to repeat the trauma: re-enactment, revictimization, and masochism. Psychiatr Clin North Am 1989;12(2):389-411.

- ILLOGICAL EXAMPLE

"However, this interpretation of the US constitution is in contradiction to important court rulings to the effect that parents may not martyr their children based on parental beliefs and that children cannot be denied essential health care. " Committee on Bioethics. Religious exemptions from child abuse statutes. chapter "Ethical and Legal Issues", last paragraph, in Pediatrics 1988; 81(1):169-71. Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

See MOS:REFPUNC. -- Gadget850 16:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

As Gadget says, see MOS:REFPUNC, where the reference clarifies a specific point in a sentence then it immediately follows the words or phrase it references. If the reference supports an entire sentence then it goes at the end of the sentence. However in all cases it goes after any punctuation at the point of insertion. Depending on what you are used to the insertion after the punctuation may seem nonsensical but it is the style that has emerged over the years and is unlikely to change now. Nthep (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The rule is the rule and I will respect it but editing rules are not an encyclopaedic matter but an issue of pure form, taste and aesthetics; they do not need to be verified. We are editors and free to chose our own editing rules, as all editors do, each one with its small differences. Consequently, as for editing rules, one source is enough to put down a thousand agreeing ones if that one is simple and regular, and therefore reasonable and elegant, rather than complicated and variable, and therefore overruling and snobish-like. This is the case for a rule that sticks the footnote to one word and puts a coma or full point in between for the next one. All the more since footnotes rarely qualify a whole sentence but far more often a specific word or expression. The BJU International rule is simple, regular and elegant. Considering the immmense population that reads us, it's likely that other editors will imitate us. Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 06:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:Citing_sources#Parenthetical_referencing is closer to what you want ("...parenthetical references are placed before adjacent punctuation such as commas and full stops"). BalCoder (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Footnote list

I do not understand the following:

"When ref tags are used, a footnote list must be added, and is usually placed in the Notes and References section near the end of the article in the standard appendices and footers."

Indeed, when references are used, they automatically come at the end of the article, and therefore, in a list, don't they? Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Only if the {{Reflist}} code is added too. Theroadislong (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

We now have Template:Agrl, but there are issues. -- Gadget850 12:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

What the sentence is saying is this... (until recently?) in order to make the coding format:

"<ref> text of reference </ref>"

work, you also needed to add the coding command:

"{{Reflist}}"

at the location in the article where you wanted the references to actually show up (usually in a section at the end of the article entitled "Notes" or "References"). Blueboar (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, which I'm afraid I do not understand since all I know is that a reference begins with a "ref" sign and ends with another one, so that references automatically appear in a list down at the end of articles, don't they? So that there is no need to add anything, even a mysterious to me "Reflist code". Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

If you edit any article with references, you'll see the "ref list" code near the bottom of the page. The "ref list" code creates the section where the refs are listed. It only has to be added once per article. The only reason it seems "automatic" to you is probably because an earlier editor had already added it to any article you've ever worked on.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, even if you neglect to add ""{{Reflist}}" (or "<references />" which is essentially equivalent although the style is slightly different) the list of footnotes will appear at the bottom of the article. This is a new feature; until a few months ago the list wouldn't appear unless one of these codes was added. However, it is is better to have a heading for the footnote list. Also, we often don't want the footnotes at the very bottom of the article. So adding ""{{Reflist}}" (or "<references />" allows us to put the list exactly where it belongs. This is explained at WP:ORDER. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Mass RM of animal breed articles

FYI – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Teeswater sheep#Requested move 25 August 2014, a mass request of a large number of moves, consisting of the commingling of about 7 different (even contradictory) types of renaming proposal, many of which raise various MOS issues. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼ 16:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Comma splice absence

The Manual of Style was revised at 18:20, 14 September 2014, with the edit summary "fixed comma splice". This is the passage before the revision.

Periods (also called "full stops"), question marks, and exclamation marks are terminal punctuation, the only punctuation marks used to end sentences in English.

This is the passage after the revision.

Periods (also called "full stops"), question marks, and exclamation marks are terminal punctuation. These are the only punctuation marks used to end sentences in English.

Both versions are grammatically correct, and the first version did not have a comma splice. In both versions, the word "used" is a past participial adjective modifying the noun phrase "punctuation marks", which (in the first version) is in apposition to the noun phrase "terminal punctuation".
—Wavelength (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC) and 18:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Both versions are grammatically correct. That means it's all good at the moment, full stop. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:HOWEVER

This used to redirect to Misplaced Pages:Avoid thread mode ("Don't "However" a position in the middle of stating its case."), but User:BarrelProof redirected it to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Semicolon before "however" last year explaining that "this shortcut has been very seldom used for its original intended purpose". I count eleven usages of it, all of them talking about its original thread mode context, and none using it to talk about semicolons in the past year. Is it worth moving this back? I've tripped over it a couple of times recently because I can never remember the WP:ATM acronym for thread mode. --McGeddon (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy of bringing it up rather than just changing it back. (There is also MOS:HOWEVER, created around the same time as that change.) To me it seems a lot less cumbersome to use and to remember WP:HOWEVER than WP:HOWEVERPUNC, and it seems difficult to remember that the two strimgs could lead to different places; however, I guess I have to acknowledge that my modified version of the shortcut hasn't proved so popular thus far. Perhaps that is because the article doesn't mention that it exists, whereas it does mention the WP:HOWEVERPUNC shortcut, although it appears that WP:HOWEVERPUNC / MOS:HOWEVERPUNC is even less popular. The uses basically all seem to be in old archives from before the change of destination. Anyhow, I suppose I won't feel obliged toward seppuku if it gets changed back the way it was. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia product development and en.WP style

Dear friends,

I believe it's proper that you, as developers and maintainers of language style and formatting on this site, be aware that product development is soon going to be an increasing part of our editing landscape. This is intrinsically a good thing: in many respects Wikimedia has been desperately slow to adapt technically to rapid changes in the internet (the extraordinary shift to mobile devices is creating something of an emergency for our platform, right now—if you take a look at the stats).

So, as you might imagine, there's something of a disconnect between tech developers and the stylistic rules and guidance in the MOS (indeed any rules and guidance in the English language). The message is that we need to make sure we keep abreast of the stylistic patterns in WMF products under development; if we don't, we're likely to experience roll-outs that cause massive dissonance—and no one wants that.

An example: my alarm bells started ringing when I viewed the video of the July 31 WMF monthly metrics meeting yesterday. A demonstration of an automated device for creating references for Visual Editor produced this date format for URL access dates:

Thu Jul 31 2014

I've corresponded with Sherry Snyder, Community Liaison (Products) on the matter, so that the WMF is aware of the need for stylistic liaison. She informed me that in any case that glitch has been fixed by changing the output to ISO (which will eventually need our consideration, I guess).

My purpose in writing this thread is to flag that during the next six to 12 months we might need to extend ourselves to a new arm of negotiation—among ourselves, with the en.WP community, and with WMF CL(P), which is the bridge between the communities and engineering. Your opinions and reactions to this general issue would be helpful, even at this early stage.

Thanks

Tony (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the date issue, I've long argued that we should store dates in templates in ISO format, and code the template to display them in house- (or user-preferred-) style. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Andy: interesting. Perhaps we can explore this suggestion more widely when the time comes. Tony (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

No Hyphen required

Greetings, from an active editor attached to WP:WPAA. I would like to bring up something regarding WP:HYPHEN. I have come across a couple instances of hyphenating the word Asian American. May I point towards CMOS answer to this issue:

I don’t see any logic in requiring the hyphenation of compound proper nouns when they are used as adjectives. In fact, because they are capitalized, there is no need for additional bells and whistles to signal that they belong together: Rocky Mountain trails, New Hampshire maple syrup, SpongeBob SquarePants lunchbox.

This is also discussed here, referring to the issue of Hyphenated American, as one reason why it (the hyphen) is dropped. In addition it appears that ASA, as cited by Purdue Univesity, has weighed in on this subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages or Misplaced Pages

I noticed that the guide's first sentence, The Misplaced Pages Manual of Style (often abbreviated within Misplaced Pages as MoS or MOS) is a style manual for all Misplaced Pages articles., has the term Misplaced Pages three times, but only italicized at the first mention. I assume this is intentional, but can anyone explain why it's italicized on the first mention only? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Arguably it should be bold as it's (sort of) part of the page title, but I don't think it should be italic. Bazonka (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Contractions

Rationalobserver, the longstanding sentence is simple: Sometimes rewriting the sentence as a whole is preferable. It is not an improvement to expand it to Alternatively, sometimes it may be preferable to rewrite a sentence so as to avoid the uncontracted form altogether. This is overwriting.

Also, the examples you're trying to include are very weak. The first ones you added didn't contain a single contraction. In your second attempt, there is nothing obviously wrong with the sentence you're telling people to avoid. It doesn't illustrate a problem. There's no stylistic reason to advise people that John was unsupportive is somehow better than John was not supportive based on avoidance of contractions.

And finally, some of your edits are good, but not all of them have been considered helpful. When people disagree, bring it here to the talk page, instead of tying to work it out in guideline-space. Really, at this point, if you're making more than a trivial change, you should bring it here to discuss with your fellow editors. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, but before I attempted to improve the language it read: "But contractions should not be expanded mechanically. Sometimes rewriting the sentence as a whole is preferable", which I think is empty and nebulous without an example of when and why it might be preferable to avoid the uncontracted form. John wasn't supportive of his pupils could be written as, John was not supportive of his pupils, but John was unsupportive of his pupils is arguably even better. I'm not sure why you see this as a bad example in terms of content or syntax. Can you give an example of when it's better to avoid the uncontracted form, because without an example this is hollow and meaningless? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages

talk:Manual of Style - Misplaced Pages