![]() | 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 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
I've noticed a great variance in the style used for the first sentence of articles describing a common noun. (see http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=common%20noun). I think a guideline would be beneficial in this area, and I just wanted to open discussion on the topic (If it has already been discussed, please point me to the discussion.)
Compare anteater, giraffe, and bear. These three articles exemplify the three styles commonly used:
I believe a standard first sentence would be desirable, but I have found no reference to this topic in the MoS or Guide to Better Articles. CaseInPoint July 5, 2005 03:14 (UTC)
I noticed that today's Featured Article, the Island Fox, uses the definite article in its first sentence:
"The Island Fox (Urocyon littoralis) is a small fox..."
However, DavidH mentioned "baseball bat" which sounded inarguably natural with the indefinite article a. I thought I'd do some additional research.
1. I googled the topic.
2. I surveyed all instances of animals and plants in Wikipedia:Featured Articles
3. I thought up a few random species of animals and plants and took a look at their pages.
After surveying the Featured Articles, I believe that you will agree that the definite article "The" is the most appropriate opener for pages about species of animals or plants. On that note, allow me to propose an addition to the Manual of Style, if only to enhance discussion on the topic. I'm not precisely sure where it would be inserted, but here goes.
If the subject of the article is a species of animal or plant, the opening sentence should begin with the definite article "the".
Comments on the proposed addition are sought. CaseInPoint 04:18, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Is the {{ guideline}} template intended only to be on this page, or is it meant to be on every other manual of style that's been around for a decent while (or for every other manual of style)? It's not on many (if any, I haven't checked all) of the other style guideline pages - should it be there? Neonumbers 06:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Please take a look -- MarSch 08:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I've just created Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) for discussion about the layout of discographies, filmographies, bibliographies and the like. It is an attempt to standardise these lists, as their styles currently vary greatly (order, content, layout). violet/riga (t) 16:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I archived this in the same order as they are here at archives 12 through 14 - I haven't separated them into the categories on the archive directory. Nothing was archived whose third-to-last post was less than a month old. The page was getting really really long - hope no-one minds. Neonumbers 13:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
And I found this on the archive directory Neonumbers 13:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Moved from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style--Archive Directory Hi,
I don't understand why this archive of talk pages is itself a talk page. I have some questions about it, and I don't know where to post them. I guess I have to post them here, which seems inelegant.
Anyway, do the topical archives and the miscellaneous archives both contain the same information, or are they separate? That is, if I want to find the entire archive on a topic, do I have to check the relevant Topical Archive *and* the eleven pages below it, or just the topical archive?
Thanks, -- Creidieki 15:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
You could search it using the search on the left hand bar, or you could use Google (probably better). I don't know about the information overlap though. Neonumbers 13:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I found the following in an HTML comment:
Then there was this text:
I think this is similar to the distinction between people-adjectives (like "Chinese") and thing-adjectives (like "Oriental"). Though I think "Arab" can non-offensively refer to both people and things. But yes, Arabic should refer only to the language, not all things or people of Arab origin. -- Please correct me if I am wrong; I am changing the text as noted. Beland 03:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
To clarify for the discussion a little bit:
So many different ways to say the same thing. Isn't English fun? — Mike 03:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
I posted this to the village pump, but only got one response. I hope to get some more discussion. The original post was: I'm having a hard time finding any guidance on extremely lengthy summaries of books and movies. An overblown example is Harry Potter (plot). Obviously this page needs to be split into individual articles for each book, but assuming that is done, would those articles be encyclopedic? In other words, is a summary so large that it cannot be on the book or movie's own page worth having in the encyclopedia? James 22:38, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that the Wikirule on quotation marks is a hopeless muddle. Does anyone else share this opinion? In sum, it starts out by saying "we'll generally follow the American rule, but then we'll really follow something more of the English rule but with some American bits thrown in." So the rule is no rule. I can understand either: 1) entirely following the British rule or 2) entirely following the American rule. But this messy hybrid means it's not right to anyone. I've read quite a few articles here on Wiki that are not following any rule -- Brit, Amer, or Wiki -- and it's just a muddle. Some parts are following one, and then other parts follow the other, while still others follow nothing or are a jumble of everything. What think ye others? David Hoag 03:43, 23 July 2005 (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 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
I've noticed a great variance in the style used for the first sentence of articles describing a common noun. (see http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=common%20noun). I think a guideline would be beneficial in this area, and I just wanted to open discussion on the topic (If it has already been discussed, please point me to the discussion.)
Compare anteater, giraffe, and bear. These three articles exemplify the three styles commonly used:
I believe a standard first sentence would be desirable, but I have found no reference to this topic in the MoS or Guide to Better Articles. CaseInPoint July 5, 2005 03:14 (UTC)
I noticed that today's Featured Article, the Island Fox, uses the definite article in its first sentence:
"The Island Fox (Urocyon littoralis) is a small fox..."
However, DavidH mentioned "baseball bat" which sounded inarguably natural with the indefinite article a. I thought I'd do some additional research.
1. I googled the topic.
2. I surveyed all instances of animals and plants in Wikipedia:Featured Articles
3. I thought up a few random species of animals and plants and took a look at their pages.
After surveying the Featured Articles, I believe that you will agree that the definite article "The" is the most appropriate opener for pages about species of animals or plants. On that note, allow me to propose an addition to the Manual of Style, if only to enhance discussion on the topic. I'm not precisely sure where it would be inserted, but here goes.
If the subject of the article is a species of animal or plant, the opening sentence should begin with the definite article "the".
Comments on the proposed addition are sought. CaseInPoint 04:18, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Is the {{ guideline}} template intended only to be on this page, or is it meant to be on every other manual of style that's been around for a decent while (or for every other manual of style)? It's not on many (if any, I haven't checked all) of the other style guideline pages - should it be there? Neonumbers 06:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Please take a look -- MarSch 08:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I've just created Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) for discussion about the layout of discographies, filmographies, bibliographies and the like. It is an attempt to standardise these lists, as their styles currently vary greatly (order, content, layout). violet/riga (t) 16:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I archived this in the same order as they are here at archives 12 through 14 - I haven't separated them into the categories on the archive directory. Nothing was archived whose third-to-last post was less than a month old. The page was getting really really long - hope no-one minds. Neonumbers 13:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
And I found this on the archive directory Neonumbers 13:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Moved from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style--Archive Directory Hi,
I don't understand why this archive of talk pages is itself a talk page. I have some questions about it, and I don't know where to post them. I guess I have to post them here, which seems inelegant.
Anyway, do the topical archives and the miscellaneous archives both contain the same information, or are they separate? That is, if I want to find the entire archive on a topic, do I have to check the relevant Topical Archive *and* the eleven pages below it, or just the topical archive?
Thanks, -- Creidieki 15:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
You could search it using the search on the left hand bar, or you could use Google (probably better). I don't know about the information overlap though. Neonumbers 13:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I found the following in an HTML comment:
Then there was this text:
I think this is similar to the distinction between people-adjectives (like "Chinese") and thing-adjectives (like "Oriental"). Though I think "Arab" can non-offensively refer to both people and things. But yes, Arabic should refer only to the language, not all things or people of Arab origin. -- Please correct me if I am wrong; I am changing the text as noted. Beland 03:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
To clarify for the discussion a little bit:
So many different ways to say the same thing. Isn't English fun? — Mike 03:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
I posted this to the village pump, but only got one response. I hope to get some more discussion. The original post was: I'm having a hard time finding any guidance on extremely lengthy summaries of books and movies. An overblown example is Harry Potter (plot). Obviously this page needs to be split into individual articles for each book, but assuming that is done, would those articles be encyclopedic? In other words, is a summary so large that it cannot be on the book or movie's own page worth having in the encyclopedia? James 22:38, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that the Wikirule on quotation marks is a hopeless muddle. Does anyone else share this opinion? In sum, it starts out by saying "we'll generally follow the American rule, but then we'll really follow something more of the English rule but with some American bits thrown in." So the rule is no rule. I can understand either: 1) entirely following the British rule or 2) entirely following the American rule. But this messy hybrid means it's not right to anyone. I've read quite a few articles here on Wiki that are not following any rule -- Brit, Amer, or Wiki -- and it's just a muddle. Some parts are following one, and then other parts follow the other, while still others follow nothing or are a jumble of everything. What think ye others? David Hoag 03:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)