This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
One thing that I've noticed in a number of articles is the inconsistent use of terms even when there are no overriding contextual reasons to do so. For example, take the abbreviation for World War II - a number of articles use the abbreviation WWII [1], and others use the abbreviation WW2 [2]. For the Nanking Massacre, some articles use that term [3], and others use " Rape of Nanking" [4]. It seems to me that there should be a MoS policy stating that barring any contextual, technical, or dialect issues, articles should use the same terminology as the primary article article. This has the added benefit of centralizing debates regarding terminology in the relevant articles; people that lose an argument on how to name article XYZ would not be able to fight their fight on the articles that link to XYZ. Comments? -- Bletch 23:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Don't revert my edits, Philip, you don't own this page. Why would I need to seek consensus for adding that the NOR policy, along with NPOV, takes precedence? They both take precedence, because they're policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:04, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
illustrates standards or behaviors which some or many editors agree with in principle. However, it is not policy.
Added Guideline notice to the top of page due to the fact that it could be considered a wikipedia guideline even though it is not an official wikipedia policy. Jtkiefer 06:32, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
Some footnote calls come before the punctuation[1]; others, after.[2] Some even get preceding spaces. [3] What's the rule? Is there one? Personal preference? All depends? (And, on a related note, why do we let the footnote template mess up line spacing to such an extent?) –Hajor 30 June 2005 23:49 (UTC)
I don't use footnotes, but I wonder the same thing about inline links.
Either:
(a) We're discussing how to punctuate. [5]
or
(b) We're discussing how to punctuate [6].
I do the former. If it were a question: "Are we discussing how to punctuate?" we wouldn't write:
(c) Are we discussing how to punctuate [7]? SlimVirgin (talk) July 7, 2005 05:22 (UTC)
I think it's a question of taste. Generally, in my experience as an editor, footnotes follow punctuation without an intervening space. I don't have the energy or inclination to go look it up but I'd say this is general practice and would be surprised if there was much dissent in the style guides. It is definitely so in Hart's Rules and I think so too in CMS. This makes sense particularly with a period because the alternative is rather ugly and the period does "belong" to the sentence that is being footnoted. After a comma is more tricky because the comma can be said to "belong" to both clauses that it separates. If you put it before though, it looks as though the note is only on the word that it follows.
Unless anyone has a source they feel can rival Hart's Rules or CMS, I'd go with them if we must choose. -- Grace Note
Like to discuss this:
Avoiding contractions makes writing formal all right. It also makes it bloated and liturgical. Avoiding contractions makes everything sound like a user manual for a boring appliance. An ancient, boring appliance.
Don't we want Wikipedia articles to read like articles in great newspapers or magazines? Aren't those writers using contractions to impart rhythm to their writing?
I do not advocate slang or dialect, or even Latin abbreviations. (I say, write and so on, not etc. That's a good rule.)
Yes, some contractions are confusing. However, don't and can't and won't are proper English and hardly ambiguous.
I'm sure people disagree on this. But as writer who has (not who's, because it can mean who has or who is) followed many style guides, I object to rules that discourage an everyday, lively tone, even for an encyclopedia. Make that especially for an encyclopedia.
DavidH 1 July 2005 03:16 (UTC)
I think it is better to avoid contractions. I am not sure whether sentences with contractions sound more natural. And I doubt there can be any agreement, since it is rather a personal matter in my opinion. I, however, was taught not use them in "formal writing", and I believe many were as well. I also think this is also in many manual of styles. So I simply prefer to follow the guidline mostly accepted. It's like while English is probably not the best language there is, we are not here to try to improve it. -- Taku July 2, 2005 14:04 (UTC)
And to think that British English speakers are accused of snobbery, despite egalitarian views such as, "In my experience, Commonwealth English has style and structure that are both much more fluid than in American English."
I'm sorry; I couldn't resist. Let's be honest, ladies and gents, whatever you grow up with or hear every day is what sounds "fluid" to you. However, what we're talking about is writing style for an encyclopedia intended, I hope, for a general audience. Do you want it to read like an academic paper or scholarly journal, or do you want it to read like an interesting piece of magazine journalism? I quote from Woe is I, the Grammarphobe's Guide to Better English in Plain English by Patricia C. O'Connor. Who's she? A former editor of the New York Times Book Review who has also written guest columns in the "On Language" section in the New York Times Magazine:
Couldn't have said it better myself. Maybe the distinguishing characteristic of American writers is that we are less concerned with sounding scholarly than we are with our scholarship not putting average readers to sleep. If I blaspheme, I do it with good intention. I am convinced that the writing in Wikipedia will be more lively, and more appealing to the average reader, if contractions are not banned. A lot of people feel exactly the opposite, that Wikipedia should sound scholarly, that we must avoid contractions to maintain a tone of authority, of academia. I s'pose. Anyway, we won't agree, and I don't want any more whacks from "my English teach said so!" rulers. As always, no offense meant to those who disagree, and my appreciation to all who contribute. DavidH 04:33, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
It's been a long time since even academic English (at least in the disciplines with which I'm familiar) refused to use contractions; written English without them doesn't read to me as though it's more credible and authoritative, but as though it's constipated (which doesn't inspire confidence). -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 10:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
It is my understanding that court cases are to be rendered in italics and with versus abbreviated as v., e.g., Roe v. Wade. Assuming I am correct, and assuming that it isn't already buried in this style guide somewhere, perhaps we should this as a rule. (I would do it myself, except that I'm not sure if perhaps there is a more specific legal manual where such an addition would be more appropriate [than in the main style manual])
Italics are the standard style. See Court citation for more details, and Template:Citation HCA and Template:Citation CLR for providing the proper form, and linking to online text, for Austrialian cases. If there aren't similar tempaltes for US cases, there probably should be. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases. DES 5 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
One thing that I've noticed in a number of articles is the inconsistent use of terms even when there are no overriding contextual reasons to do so. For example, take the abbreviation for World War II - a number of articles use the abbreviation WWII [1], and others use the abbreviation WW2 [2]. For the Nanking Massacre, some articles use that term [3], and others use " Rape of Nanking" [4]. It seems to me that there should be a MoS policy stating that barring any contextual, technical, or dialect issues, articles should use the same terminology as the primary article article. This has the added benefit of centralizing debates regarding terminology in the relevant articles; people that lose an argument on how to name article XYZ would not be able to fight their fight on the articles that link to XYZ. Comments? -- Bletch 23:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Don't revert my edits, Philip, you don't own this page. Why would I need to seek consensus for adding that the NOR policy, along with NPOV, takes precedence? They both take precedence, because they're policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:04, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
illustrates standards or behaviors which some or many editors agree with in principle. However, it is not policy.
Added Guideline notice to the top of page due to the fact that it could be considered a wikipedia guideline even though it is not an official wikipedia policy. Jtkiefer 06:32, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
Some footnote calls come before the punctuation[1]; others, after.[2] Some even get preceding spaces. [3] What's the rule? Is there one? Personal preference? All depends? (And, on a related note, why do we let the footnote template mess up line spacing to such an extent?) –Hajor 30 June 2005 23:49 (UTC)
I don't use footnotes, but I wonder the same thing about inline links.
Either:
(a) We're discussing how to punctuate. [5]
or
(b) We're discussing how to punctuate [6].
I do the former. If it were a question: "Are we discussing how to punctuate?" we wouldn't write:
(c) Are we discussing how to punctuate [7]? SlimVirgin (talk) July 7, 2005 05:22 (UTC)
I think it's a question of taste. Generally, in my experience as an editor, footnotes follow punctuation without an intervening space. I don't have the energy or inclination to go look it up but I'd say this is general practice and would be surprised if there was much dissent in the style guides. It is definitely so in Hart's Rules and I think so too in CMS. This makes sense particularly with a period because the alternative is rather ugly and the period does "belong" to the sentence that is being footnoted. After a comma is more tricky because the comma can be said to "belong" to both clauses that it separates. If you put it before though, it looks as though the note is only on the word that it follows.
Unless anyone has a source they feel can rival Hart's Rules or CMS, I'd go with them if we must choose. -- Grace Note
Like to discuss this:
Avoiding contractions makes writing formal all right. It also makes it bloated and liturgical. Avoiding contractions makes everything sound like a user manual for a boring appliance. An ancient, boring appliance.
Don't we want Wikipedia articles to read like articles in great newspapers or magazines? Aren't those writers using contractions to impart rhythm to their writing?
I do not advocate slang or dialect, or even Latin abbreviations. (I say, write and so on, not etc. That's a good rule.)
Yes, some contractions are confusing. However, don't and can't and won't are proper English and hardly ambiguous.
I'm sure people disagree on this. But as writer who has (not who's, because it can mean who has or who is) followed many style guides, I object to rules that discourage an everyday, lively tone, even for an encyclopedia. Make that especially for an encyclopedia.
DavidH 1 July 2005 03:16 (UTC)
I think it is better to avoid contractions. I am not sure whether sentences with contractions sound more natural. And I doubt there can be any agreement, since it is rather a personal matter in my opinion. I, however, was taught not use them in "formal writing", and I believe many were as well. I also think this is also in many manual of styles. So I simply prefer to follow the guidline mostly accepted. It's like while English is probably not the best language there is, we are not here to try to improve it. -- Taku July 2, 2005 14:04 (UTC)
And to think that British English speakers are accused of snobbery, despite egalitarian views such as, "In my experience, Commonwealth English has style and structure that are both much more fluid than in American English."
I'm sorry; I couldn't resist. Let's be honest, ladies and gents, whatever you grow up with or hear every day is what sounds "fluid" to you. However, what we're talking about is writing style for an encyclopedia intended, I hope, for a general audience. Do you want it to read like an academic paper or scholarly journal, or do you want it to read like an interesting piece of magazine journalism? I quote from Woe is I, the Grammarphobe's Guide to Better English in Plain English by Patricia C. O'Connor. Who's she? A former editor of the New York Times Book Review who has also written guest columns in the "On Language" section in the New York Times Magazine:
Couldn't have said it better myself. Maybe the distinguishing characteristic of American writers is that we are less concerned with sounding scholarly than we are with our scholarship not putting average readers to sleep. If I blaspheme, I do it with good intention. I am convinced that the writing in Wikipedia will be more lively, and more appealing to the average reader, if contractions are not banned. A lot of people feel exactly the opposite, that Wikipedia should sound scholarly, that we must avoid contractions to maintain a tone of authority, of academia. I s'pose. Anyway, we won't agree, and I don't want any more whacks from "my English teach said so!" rulers. As always, no offense meant to those who disagree, and my appreciation to all who contribute. DavidH 04:33, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
It's been a long time since even academic English (at least in the disciplines with which I'm familiar) refused to use contractions; written English without them doesn't read to me as though it's more credible and authoritative, but as though it's constipated (which doesn't inspire confidence). -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 10:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
It is my understanding that court cases are to be rendered in italics and with versus abbreviated as v., e.g., Roe v. Wade. Assuming I am correct, and assuming that it isn't already buried in this style guide somewhere, perhaps we should this as a rule. (I would do it myself, except that I'm not sure if perhaps there is a more specific legal manual where such an addition would be more appropriate [than in the main style manual])
Italics are the standard style. See Court citation for more details, and Template:Citation HCA and Template:Citation CLR for providing the proper form, and linking to online text, for Austrialian cases. If there aren't similar tempaltes for US cases, there probably should be. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases. DES 5 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)