![]() | 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 180 | ← | Archive 184 | Archive 185 | Archive 186 | Archive 187 | Archive 188 | → | Archive 190 |
I write most articles in Oxford spelling, which means I write "colour" with a u but "optimize" with a z. I also write "colorize" with no u because it looks right to me and the OED calls "colourize" a British variant spelling. For most common words where there is a difference between British and American spelling, my writing looks like British English (I actually learned to write English in public school in Ireland, but that's neither here nor there). I have seen users try to determine which ENGVAR a particular article was originally written in by going back through the page history and trying to locate the first instance where the article used a word or spelling specific to one dialect of English, but a lot of these users seem to be pretty careless in their approach, as they assume a bipolar "British English vs. American English" division, or some more nuanced division that still misses some subtle differences. Two of these users I have a great respect for, and one of them is an admin -- they are just careless about these things.
(Oxford spelling is apparently not taught in public schools in the UK either; I told an English ALT I knew in Japan some time back about how I spell words, and she called it "inconsistent" to mix-and-match like that. I explained to her that this is how the OED does it, and she just said "Oh.")
This means that if I wrote an article used the word "colour" in an earlier draft, they would then take this as meaning that the article is written in "British English" and go about removing the "-ize"s that were inserted into the article later, even if I was the one who added them because that is the (perfectly acceptable, OED-sanctioned) format I use. Even if two different editors were writing in two different ENGVARs, we don't necessarily have unambiguous proof that either was writing in ENGVAR X or ENGVAR Y specifically.
Should we clarify this in some way? Maybe say that RETAIN does not sanction enforcing one artificially assumed "original" ENGVAR on an article that currently contains inconsistencies or apparent inconsistencies.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
The policy on names of organization (such as expanding abbreviations and omitting the "Ltd") found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Cue sports § Respect for official organization names should be introduced into the main style manual and not remain ghettoed in the cue sports policy section. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Names which suggests that the cue sports recommendations should be taken as general. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison ( talk) 09:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Not sure I want to start a huge thread on this minor point, but I'm not sure of the value of recent edits re and/or (whole spread here). For example, the current formulation is misleading: "and/or" does not always mean the same thing grammatically as simply "or". Personally, I'd happily allow it, as the less bulky and proscriptive the MOS is when it comes to perfectly good and useful phrases, the better. But if the bar is going to be maintained, surely the first para of the old wording on its own is clear and succinct enough. The second para there, and the latest version as a whole, both seem a little excessive in terms of detail and justification. N-HH talk/ edits 18:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I said I'm not going to discuss the minutiae of examples, nor is there any point for this purpose, although I would say that the example in question is also problematic because it has multiple subjects, so there is the added confusion between the collective and the individual experience. Examples can help clarify but they can sometimes just muddy the waters and create more tangential debate. The basic point here, which is widely acknowledged in grammar writing, is that "or" can be inclusive, exclusive or ambiguous as to which. If the MOS is going to ban "and/or" as a means of clarifying ambiguity, it needs to simply state the existence of the ambiguity in some contexts (rather than give an example which is, purportedly, not ambiguous and thereby imply the ambiguity cannot exist) and suggest that: to be clear about exclusiveness, "either X or Y" should be used; and to be clear about inclusiveness, instead of "X and/or Y", "X or Y or both" should be used. It kind of does half of that now, so the problem I identifed above has been ameliorated, but as we have discovered, the example currently cited is making this all more complicated than it needs to be. As I also stated initially, I think this is all proscription/prescription overkill, but that's another debate, and this one has taken long enough. N-HH talk/ edits 09:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Generally agreed with where Trovatore and Tony1 are coalescing on this. While most uses of and/or are just sloppy writing, there is a marked usage, which most often comes up in formal logic, mathematics, computer science, law and policy, standards documents, and other formal writing, where the expression precisely and concisely conveys "this, that, or both, but not neither", and this is sometimes necessary in encyclopedic writing. It doesn't do readers or editors any service to force them to use a long-winded alternative to and/or. MoS has plenty of "usually don't do x", or "almost always prefer y", or "generally avoid z" instructions, and one more won't cost us anything, while it would reintroduce a small bit of flexibility. I have to note that much of MoS's current emphatic never/always phrasing was engineered by a single editor, who as indeffed back in Feb. It would not hurt at all for us to undo some of these almost entirely undiscussed changes, especially given that the number one complaint about MoS has been alleged rigidity both of MoS's wording in places and of its application. While there are some things we do want consistency on (like most punctuation matters other than optional commas, avoiding loaded terminology, avoiding informal slang, etc.), when it comes to everyday writing choices that reflect a wide range of styles that are still within the encyclopedic register, don't confuse anyone, and don't lead to editorial conflict, then elimination of instruction creep is probably a good idea. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
46.130.34.150 ( talk) 19:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
There is a keyboard layout called “English (International)”, a enhanced version of US Layout. It can type most languages in Latin script including Vietnamese and Chinese, a limited set for IPA letters (enough for English IPA), lots of dead keys, smart quotes, various (mostly African and IPA) phonetic letters, dashes, Greek letters (no diacritics) and other symbols. There also superscript/subscript numeral characters too, but unlike plain US-International, there is no pre-composed fractions. English (International) requires fractions to use used by slash and super/sub-scripted numbers.
The English (International) layout can be used in a US-Keyboard. English (International) characters are not labeled. The AltGr can be on right alt key, but some US keyboards label “AltGr” without the “Gr”.
I think Wikipedians should use this layout, since it has useful Unicode characters. It should be downloaded and installed. This would allow to type smart quotes and dashes easily in Wikipedia. Instead of "a text", we would use “a text” instead.
http://kbd-intl.narod.ru/english/en — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.130.34.150 ( talk) 19:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
This is why MOS:BLOCKQUOTE is not working for us. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 01:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader.
Despite being called into question time and again, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] the above rule remains essentially the same as when it was added in Oct 2006 following a discussion. When I look at these conversations, it doesn't even look like the rule was ever built upon a clear, unanimous consensus in the first place, or has ever since been firmly supported, established or enforced. [8] I think this obscures its overall validity as a WP:POLICY as well, as expressed in the last comment at this discussion by Pmanderson.
I also couldn't agree more with the last comment about this issue on this talk, by SMcCandlish: "it's more helpful to say 'do this' than just 'don't do that'." So here's my proposed revision, in which I attempt to elaborate on the current rule rather than to alter it:
Version 1
| ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Clunky (?) examples aside, I think this generally sums up the points discussed in this talk before (as cited). What I would love to find out is if people think this is overall in the right direction or not, whether they might agree or disagree about some minutiae. Nardog ( talk) 08:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Notes
Copyedits: Do not use <tt>...</tt>
. This element has not even existed in HTML for years (and if you're habitually using it, please stop - cleaning up after it is a maintenance headache). The correct element in this context is <code>...</code>
, and it should wrap the entire example that represents wikicode, not just the part with linking brackets. "Only link a word or phrase that is unequivocally referring to a unique and specific entity or notion—that is, usually a proper name or
technical jargon—except when it is universally recognized and therefore easily understood by most readers" doesn't flow right. Try "... or
technical jargon. Do not link something that is universally recognized ...". Use {{
Crossref}} around crossreferences. "If such a subject is mentioned somewhere else in the article, however, then link those instead of the one inside the quote" doesn't have plurality agreement, and we generally do not want people to link multiple instances, remember. Compress the verbiage; e.g., that entire string can be replaced with "If the term is used outside the quote in the article, link it there instead". Other parts of it can similarly be compressed. The whole segment that starts with "Most importantly, never give links to words that are remotely semantically ambiguous" suffers from this problem. We should also not introduce anything like "never" and "remotely", per
WP:BEANS; they're just
drama-generation tools (see other thread on this talk page about terrible idea for a rule against "inconsequential" changes). Guidelines do best with "do" and "do not" wording versus "always" and "never" (which seems to deny that
WP:IAR exists), and subjective pronouncements like "remotely" and "inconsequential" and "most importantly" incite interpretational disputes. "This is to ..." wording is awkward; it's better to integrate policy rationales directly into the rule's sentence. That whole bit should probably be rewritten. We also don't need to provide the "OK" example that just shows no linking. I think part of our point here would be that well-known quotations are often best left without linking inserted into them. It makes more sense to just say so that to provide an "un-example" with no links in it, for no clear reason. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
13:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
<code>...</code>
is that it totally butchers the {{
xt}}/{{
!xt}} styling (at least with the default CSS). I found this template {{
Plaincode}}, can we use this within {{
xt}}/{{
!xt}}'s?
Nardog (
talk)
02:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
{{
mxt}}
(green) and {{
!mxt}}
(red) for this. The main problem is mix-and-matching styles on the same line; just use one:
{{em|Excessive}}: <code>{{!mxt|Smith wrote, "The <nowiki>[[1990s]] [[German]]</nowiki> ...}}</code>
Smith wrote, "The [[1990s]] [[German]] ...
SMcCandlish, instead of everyone else wading through all your suggestions, why don't you just edit them into the version I've helpfully pasted in below, in a series of self-contained quanta? Start with the most obvious, unobjectionable ones, leaving the ones people may want to discuss or modify for the last. Then people can step through your edits, follow your reasoning in your edit summaries, and revert or modify for further discussion here. ( Nardog, I hope you won't object to this approach.) I've already added the "Alabama marble" example, just so it doesn't get lost. E Eng 18:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
V2
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
@ Jayaguru-Shishya: notified me and others of this discussion and thinks it should be at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. I don't agree, since the impugned statement is on Wikipedia:Manual of Style whereas Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking has nothing about quotes. As regards the substantive issue; I am in favour of not having any "rule" on this and letting editors use their discretion. I am sure some readers find links within quotes to be ugly, but they are a minority who need not be accommodated. Sometimes wikilinking in a quote is convenient and transparent. It shouldn't violate WP:EASTEREGG, but that's not specific to quotes. jnestorius( talk) 16:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikilinks within quotations must be kept to a bare minimumwith the vertical bar at the left (I ask because to me it looks more bluish than green), it's all new; the current guideline says simply
As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader.I'm editing your suggestions into Version 2, subject of course to others' approval
Where possible, use linking elsewhere in the article to make linking inside the quotation unnecessary.
{{bracket}}
; I use [[[Link here]]]
because I memorized those HTML character entity codes years ago. You can also do [<nowiki />[[Link here]]]
. In all cases, it's fiddly, so we don't want to advise it (no one will comply, and it will be easily broken). —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
20:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
bare minimumshould be
minimum. The word "bare" adds no semantic value.
Where possible, use linking elsewhere in the article to make linking inside the quotation unnecessary.
Where possible, link a word or phrase elsewhere in the article instead of in the quotation.
that is, usually a proper name or technical jargon
... entity or notion—usually a proper name or technical jargon—except ...
Only link a word or phrase that is unequivocally referring to a unique and specific entity or notion ... except when it is universally recognized and therefore easily understood by most readers
Only link a word or phrase that is unequivocally referring to a unique and specific entity or notion—usually a proper name or technical jargon—and not a common term easily understood by most readers (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking § Overlinking)
Version 2: comments
What is "such a subject"? What does "those" refer back to? And even if not what? Even without addressing those points, a better opening might be: "However, if such a subject is mentioned elsewhere in the article, link those ..."
please just edit your ideas directly into V2- Done. Mitch Ames ( talk) 08:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Version 2 now has changes made by Mitch Ames, which look good to me. Others should feel free to continue modifying it, or if there are concerns that can't be addressed by simple editing, comments can be added here. SMcCandlish, I'm sure we'd all like for you to edit in anything you still want to see changed. (If such edits are extensive, you might want to start a V3.) E Eng 21:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Briefly, on linking from quotes. This should still be minimised as much as possible. The point of a quote is usually to transmit something in the voice of the person giving the quote (i.e. not in Wikipedia's voice). Linking distracts from this. If something is important enough to link from within a quote, then 99% of the time it will be mentioned elsewhere in the article, or should be mentioned elsewhere, and can be linked from there. In many cases, an explanatory footnote, with links, is better than linking from the quote itself. The reason this is rarely done appears to be because many editors are not familiar with how to generate actual footnotes containing text (as opposed to citations and references). Linking from within a quote is, IMO, a lazy way of explaining things to the reader. Taking the time to write the surrounding text so that things are explained without the need to link, is usually better. This is difficult to express in a guideline, though. Wikipedia:Nesting footnotes is useful to explain the 'reference within note' and similar approaches (hands up who uses the obscure methods 'Subnote within note' and 'Subnote within reference'?). Carcharoth ( talk) 13:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I would prefer simple text: "Be especially careful with wikilinks in quotations, ensuring that they are unambiguously appropriate to the text. As editors we do not impose additional meaning upon the words of others, except through the editorial voice, and only then when supported by reliable sources."
Why? Because these same problems can arise with wikilinks in article text. An incorrect or biased link from a quote is hardly more damaging than misleading contextual links. ...is widely considered [[Nazi|right wing]].... We can put words in someone's mouth but we can't put a link in their mouth.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
21:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC).
This integrates Tony1's comments (I hope). Rich Farmbrough, I'm uncertain how to integrate the changes you're talking about above. Can you edit that into V3 for us? E Eng 04:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikilinks within quotations need special care, and for this reason are often worth avoiding altogether. Only link a word or phrase that is unequivocally referring to a unique and specific entity or notion—usually a proper name or technical jargon—and not a common term easily understood by most readers.
Example: Opulent Architecture said, "The outer of the two rooms is of Alabama marble, with fluted columns and Ionic capitals."
Excessive: Smith wrote, "The [[1990s]]
[[German]]
[[film]]
,[[Cinematography|shot]]
on[[70 mm film|70 mm]]
, is[[Epic film|bigger]]
and more[[Film budgeting|expensive]]
than ''[[Ben-Hur (1959 film)|Ben-Hur]]
''."Appropriate: Smith wrote, "The 1990s German film, shot on [[70 mm film|70 mm]]
, is bigger and more expensive than ''[[Ben-Hur (1959 film)|Ben-Hur]]
''."Where appropriate, put a link in nearby text instead of in the quotation; consider adding suitable text where none exists.
Confusing: " [[Paris, Texas|Paris]]
still has the best", food critic John Smith said in 2007. (Reader must click on link to discover that the obvious interpretation of "Paris" is incorrect.)Acceptable: " {{ bracket|[[Paris, Texas]]}}
still has the best", food critic John Smith said in 2007.Better: "Paris still has the best", food critic John Smith said in 2007, referring to [[Paris, Texas]]
.Don't link to words that are ambiguous or use piped links to direct to articles whose subject is significantly broader or narrower than the displayed text ( Easter egg links). This is to avoid original research or violation of text–source integrity.
Bad: [[United States Declaration of Independence|Four score and seven years ago]]
our[[Founding Fathers of the United States|fathers]]
brought forth on[[North America|this continent]]
a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that[[all men are created equal]]
.OK: Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
I have made some revisions to the above. I am inclined to remove the advice that applies to all links in running text, such as overlinking. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
12:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC).
This link [2] shows the changes from V2 to V3. I'm fine with them. Comments? E Eng 06:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Onlylink a word or phrase that iscreate links that are unequivocally referring to a unique and specific entity or notion...
Wikilinks within quotations need special care, and for this reason are often worth avoiding altogether. Only link a word or phrase that is unequivocally referring to a unique and specific entity or notion—usually a proper name or technical jargon—and not a common term easily understood by most readers.
Wikilinks within quotations need special care. Only link a word or phrase that unequivocally refers to a unique and specific entity or notion—usually a proper name or technical jargon.
I'm losing hope that we'll be able to agree on particular examples, at least for now. How about if we start by simply replacing the current
As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader.
to
Wikilinks within quotations need special care. Only link a word or phrase that unequivocally refers to a unique and specific entity or notion—usually a proper name or technical jargon.
Can we agree to just do that for now, and then someday, if it seems needed, reopen a discussion about adding some examples? (We can tinker with the exact text, of course, but what I'm looking for here is agreement on the basic idea that for now we're just going to do something simple similar to what I just gave, not all the examples and stuff.) E Eng 05:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, per Sandy McCandlish, can we all get behind
Wikilinks within quotations need special care. Avoid linking from within quotations in a way that may mislead or confuse the reader, or when the same link can be provided earlier in the article or immediately after the quotation.
--as a first step? E Eng 08:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Best practice is to avoid Wikilinks within quotations. See if the desired link can be placed in the main text of the article (either earlier in the article text, or soon after the quotation). If this is not possible, use care to avoid linking to targets that may mislead or confuse the reader.Blueboar ( talk) 11:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Take special care with Wikilinks within quotations, to avoid linking to targets that may mislead or confuse the reader. See if the desired link can instead be placed in the main text of the article, either before or soon after the quotation.? jnestorius( talk) 13:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
In cases where the quotation is taken from an online source, there could be a perception that a link was present in the original cited text. Is there a way to distinguish between links added by Wikipedia editors and links from the original source? isaacl ( talk) 16:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Take special care with Wikilinks in quotations: avoid linking to targets that may not represent the meaning within the quote. See if the desired link can instead be placed in the main text of the article, either before or soon after the quotation.
Avoid linking ... that may mislead or confuse the reader...is a bit vague as to why it may mislead/confuse. RF's
avoid linking to targets that may not represent the meaning within the quoteis more specific to what (I think) we intend. However I'd go a bit further in that respect and propose:
Take special care with Wikilinks in quotations: link only to targets that correspond to the meaning intended by the quote's author, and only when the author's meaning is explicitly known (rather than assumed). Ideally, link from text outside of the quote instead.
With your permission I'm striking your now-withdrawn text to focus attention on the prior text on the table, Version JN, with an eye toward seeing if there's any serious objection to it. Again, I'm hoping we can focus on the acceptability of what's there, and not worry for now about what might be nice to add.
E
Eng 18:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC) Later: Ooops, undoing my strikeout, because somehow I thought Blueboar's comment was from Mitch Ames. This discussion is getting too confusing, and my clumsiness didn't help.
Blueboar, at this point I can't tell what suggestion you were withdrawing (energy... fading... can't.... focus........).
E
Eng
03:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Repeated in next subthread, below
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Take special care when adding links to quotations: link only to targets that correspond to the meaning intended by the quote's author, and only when the author's meaning is verifiable. Ideally, link from text outside of the quote instead.Mitch Ames ( talk) 08:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
If a quote includes any link, add an editorial note, [link in original] or [link added], as appropriate.
But I think "verifiable" is too strong.
Think of "Opulent Architecture .." -- how would these links be verified? Aren't we justified in adding the obvious links?
So would you accept dropping and only when the author's meaning is explicitly known (rather than assumed) and add clearly, so that we have, "link only to targets that clearly correspond to the meaning intended by the quotation's author"?
Also, would you accept If possible link the same term from the main text of the article, either before the quotation or soon after?
If so, can I strike MA and MA2, and add this to the table as MA3?
Mitch Ames, I think you're reading too much into the verifiability requirement. If, instead of a direct quote, an article said, According to Opulent Architecture, the room was of Alabama marble, the columns being fluted with Ionic capitals, no one would give a second thought to those links. And this would be even more true if, as is quite likely, the attribution was omitted entirely i.e. simply The room was of Alabama marble, the columns being fluted with Ionic capitals. I just don't see how the selection of links is any more fraught inside a quotation than it is in a paraphrase, or in an unattributed assertion of fact.
I went looking for something about the question of link "fidelity" (for lack of a better term), and to my surprise I can find nothing on point in either WP:V or MOS:LINK. And I have to say that in eight years of editing, although I can recall the occasional disagreement about over- or under-linking, I honestly can't remember a single time there was dispute over what would be the right link. Has your experience been different? If not, are we possibly worrying about a potential problem which isn't an actual problem? E Eng 17:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
... If, instead of a direct quote, an article said, ... ... I just don't see how the selection of links is any more fraught inside a quotation than it is in a paraphrase, or in an unattributed assertion of fact."
Wikipedia says X, and Wikipedia saying that
Joe said "X". As has been pointed out already, unless we state otherwise, including a link inside a quote implies that the quote's author made that link and/or intended that particular meaning (the target of the link). Mitch Ames ( talk) 13:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I honestly can't remember a single time there was dispute over what would be the right link. Has your experience been different?"
Well, here I am again pleading that we not let this discussion peter out with no result. And my resolve is redoubled by this edit [3] I encountered recently, in which someone objected to linking Tic Tacs in Donald Trump's cringeworthy teenage-boy-talk, "I've got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her." So please, can we keep this alive?
I've reproduced all the live proposals below, and am meekly asking whether people can get behind EE2, which is about as simple as I think it can get. Please??? If problems come up we can always add more guidance. E Eng 00:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Caution | Fidelity | Minimality | Attribution | |
---|---|---|---|---|
SM | Wikilinks within quotations need special care. | Avoid linking from within quotations in a way that may mislead or confuse the reader, | or when the same link can be provided earlier in the article or immediately after the quotation. | |
JN | Take special care with Wikilinks within quotations, | to avoid linking to targets that may mislead or confuse the reader. | See if the desired link can instead be placed in the main text of the article, either before or soon after the quotation. | |
RF | Take special care with Wikilinks in quotations: | avoid linking to targets that may not represent the meaning within the quote. | ||
MA2 | Take special care when adding links to quotations: | link only to targets that correspond to the meaning intended by the quote's author, and only when the author's meaning is verifiable. | Ideally, link from text outside of the quote instead. |
If a quote includes any link, add an editorial note, [link in original] or [link added], as appropriate. |
EE2 | Add links to quotations only where the targets clearly correspond to the quotation's meaning. | Where possible, link from text outside of the quotation instead – either before it or soon after. |
I suggest that if we want to change the policy, which pick the "safest" one, ie the one closest to the spirit of the existing policy and the spirit of WP:OR and WP:V and see if we can get support for that. Presumably the "safest" one ought to be the easiest to pass, being closest to the spirit of what we currently have. Of course, I believe that my version MA2 is the best for this. Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
we have to awkwardly add a note telling the reader that the link is ours– Yes, just as we would for italics/emphasis, per MOS:NOITALQUOTE. While Trump probably can't include a link in his speech, the web page that is our reference could have included a link, hence we need to say whether the link was added by Wikipedia or Wikipedia's source. Mitch Ames ( talk) 03:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Insert a wikilink within a quotation only when it would be awkward to provide the same link earlier in the article or soon after the quotation– I think that's excessive, but would support it as a second choice to my own version. However I still think that
misleading or confusing readersis simply too vague;
link only to targets that correspond to the meaning intended by the quote's authoris quite specific (and deliberately does not require us to make judgements about whether our readers will be confused or misled). Mitch Ames ( talk) 03:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment: I'm here explicitly intending to avoid !voting either support or oppose, but… Just as a data point, I am inclined to be opposed to links inside quotations because they cause too high a risk of problems related to neutrality, original research, and the case (mentioned above) regarding extant links in the quoted material. Especially as regards the latter issue, the idea that these can be disregarded because such sources are unlikely to be reliable sources is already incorrect and will only get more so over time.
All the most prestigious university presses now have substantial digital services for their output (that would traditionally have been in paper form, in a printed book or journal, and static). A prime (counter)example here would be Oxford Scholarly Editions Online which contains digital-first (i.e. authored for the medium) "books", including links. OUP has a ton of related online services and a growing number of them are "digital-first"-type services that will take advantage of the ability to hyperlink. Similarly, a lot of prominent scientists in many fields are now blogging, both on personal blogs and on blogs affiliated with a relevant institution; both of which are reliable sources.
One prime example of each, from my field, would be Stanley Wells, perhaps the most prominent Shakespearean scholar of our time, who posts articles like Digging up Shakespeare by Stanley Wells; and the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, that maintains the blog Blogging Shakespeare with contributions by both the curators at the Trust and from affiliated or visiting scholars.
I don't think allowing links inside quotes, except in exceptional circumstances, can be done safely and should be discouraged. Guidance in the MoS for the need to explain parts of quotes should point at ways to do it without altering the quote (e.g. link outside the quote; in a footnote attached to the quote; inside editorial insertion marked by square brackets; etc.), much like the guidance for elisions and similar aim to make any modification by Wikipedia clear and unambiguous.
As an example, while digging up the links for this comment, I ran across this article by Colin Burrow (a well known author in Shakespeare studies) on the OUP literature blog. In it he links the text "John Florio’s translation of Montaigne’s Essays,"—which we are now proposing it would be ok to decorate with inline, in-quote, wikilinks to John Florio, Michel de Montaigne, and Essays (Montaigne)—while Burrow actually linked it to another article, by William M. Hamlin, at the same blog. Did we mean to imply that Burrow and OUP linked to those articles on Wikipedia (quite an endorsement!)? What if the article Burrow had linked to was one that argued that Montaigne had a ghostwriter for his essays, that is, one that in some substantial way actually disagrees with Wikipedia's article on Montaigne? There are a nearly endless variety of such issues, most of which will amount to nothing worse than slight confusion for some readers, but where some few cases will be flat out disastrously misleading.
Anyways, I don't have the spare cycles to participate in the actual discussion here, so I'm instead leaving this comment here so that those who do may opt to take it into account (or ignore it, obviously, as the case may be). Apologies for the interruption. -- Xover ( talk) 19:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
For several years, I have been removing wikilinks in quotes because of this MOS provision, and sometimes, I am regretful. In This edit of McCulloch v. Maryland, I regretted that, without the link, readers would not guess that Western Shore is an article, and many readers probably do not know that the term refers to an area of Maryland west of the Chesapeake Bay. I don't think any reader would have thought that the link was in any way original to the 1818 legislation. Unfortunately, the article did not have any place outside of quotes to link to Western Shore, so I followed the rules and removed what was probably a benign and helpful link. If we are going to change the rules, this is an example of a link that I would favor being allowed.
In this edit of Walther Hewel, I regretted losing the links to Wilhelm Canaris and Abwehr. I did not regret losing the links to artichoke, venison, or Gemütlichkeit. The last of the three, while a foreign word in English, is one that I think curious readers would search on their own, so I had no regret there. I would disfavor any changes to the MOS that encourage or allow links to artichoke and venison. I wouldn't mind changes to the MOS that allowed for links to Wilhelm Canaris, Abwehr, and Gemütlichkeit.
The rules should mandate not linking within quotes if the link can be anywhere else in the article, not just within a short distance. After all, per MOS:DUPLINK, "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." At minimum, wikilinks within quotes should be used only (1) in compliance with a conservative reading of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking and (2) where there is no place else in the article to place the link. Further limitations may be warranted. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 00:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Please take part in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#RfC: Shall we ban macrons in titles? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Our article A Midsummer Night's Dream (1909 film) currently reads It is the first film adaptation of the eponymous play. This to me reads like a contemporary statement that implies there were no subsequent film versions. Would It was the first film adaptation of the eponymous play not read better? Is this an IAR scenario, or would formatting the R to cover cases like this be better? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I have made/ am making a list of all english loanwords at WP:LWN, should I file it under proposed guidelines and make an RFC for it, even if it just a list? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
If you don't see how it can lead to arguments then you haven't been hanging around MOS very long. I'm sorry, but based on what you're saying there definitely should not be such a list appended to MOS. (And that's what you're doing when you create Wikipedia:Manual of Style/List of Loanwords.) According to the page itself you're planning to include words like chemistry, and that's ridiculous. English has, I would guess, anywhere from 40,000 to 400,000 words that might qualify as loanwords, making the whole project infeasible anyway. Please rethink this. E Eng 01:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
To expand on EEng's point; whether a word is a loanword or not is not a matter of style. Whether loanwords should be italicized or not is. I appreciate that the OP wants to inform more editors of our style of not italicizing loanwords, but a style guide is not the place to define what a loanword is. Primergrey ( talk) 04:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
As most biologists will tell you, there is no "correct" pronunciation for Latin taxon names since there is no standardized pronunciation for New Latin. As our article on New Latin states: "New Latin had no single pronunciation, but a host of local variants or dialects, all distinct both from each other and from the historical pronunciation of Latin at the time of the Roman Republic and Roman Empire." Nevertheless, some people still add IPA pronunciations for taxons or {{ pronunciation needed}} tags. [4] This is misleading, however, as it implies that there is a "correct" pronunciation. To quote a couple sources:
With this in mind, I would like to propose adding the following sentence to the Animals, plants, and other organisms section:
Do not include pronunciations for Latin names, as there is no standardized pronunciation for New Latin.
Any thoughts on this? Kaldari ( talk) 05:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
If editors of a given article can figure out a way of doing that, let them– no, there needs to be a source for each and every pronunciation; it's not for editors to generate pronunciations. Peter coxhead ( talk) 07:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Short version: If modern dictionaries (including dictionaries of science, etc.) provide one or more pronunciations we could offer it/them as a/some pronunciations, and should note their distribution if possible. Century-old books are not reliable for this, since they'll be giving "do it this way because ancient Romans [or mediaeval priests] would" Victorian prescriptivist dogma, not linguistic description.
Alernative approach: Create an article along the lines Pronunciation of New Latin in English (or perhaps a Help:-namespace page) that explains the various quasi-systemic approaches to this, and their irregularities. Then just always link to that article for pronunciation. We have Help:IPA for English and Help:IPA as used by IPA templates; kind of similar in concept. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
When one of the elements in a construction divided by an en dash contains a space, the en dash is spaced: Christmas Day – New Year's Eve. We borrowed this rule directly from Chicago Manual of Style and other academic style guides, and CMoS says this explicitly. We didn't quite integrate it clearly, since we're not consistently applying this throughout, and later provide incorrect examples: New York–Los Angeles and Seifert–van Kampen. These should be corrected to New York – Los Angeles and Seifert – van Kampen, and the note about spacing made more general. It's presently worded as if it only pertains to temporal ranges, but that cannot have really been the intent, since it's confusing in both being inconsistent and in being hard to parse. I don't know anyone who actually treats it the New York–Los Angeles way, and it becomes clear why when you see a complex example with less universally recognizable parts as major cities, e.g. a melodic punk – progressive rock fusion band, which would be hard to parse as a melodic punk–progressive rock fusion band, which implies a direct relationship between just the "punk" and "progressive" elements, and suggests an incorrect meaning of "a melodic, rock fusion band with a punk–progressive sound" (it's wrong twice over because a) punk and melodic punk are not the same thing, b) progressive applies to multiple genres, e.g. progressive metal, and c) it's not WP's place to declare a band to be melodic). The relationship is actually between "melodic punk" and "progressive rock", which are discrete entities (well-defined genres) with compound but non-hyphenated names, a fact not apparent to those who are not popular music experts. The point becomes even clearer with a more complex example: a futurepop – techno-industrial – goa trance album which is rendered into confusing gibberish as a futurepop–techno-industrial–goa trance album. PS: I think this incomplete integration of the rule happened because it was first introduced into MOS:NUM, where only numeric uses were under consideration, and then back-ported to MoS-main without sufficient integration work. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Whether you prefer and "live in the world of" CMoS and other academic style guides is of no concern here; you can write any way you want on your own blog. WP has its own style manual, based almost entirely on academic and book-publishing style guides (because an encyclopedic is an educational mega-book). It is a guideline with which you're expected to comply [or at least not monkey-wrench its application by others *], just as you would comply with that of the New York Times if you wrote an article for them. [* Actually, no one cares if anyone complies with MoS when they add content, since we want content more than we want consistency, and consistency can be worked in later by editors who care about that aspect of WP's quality. MoS is principally for cleanup editing, and new editors generally do not, and are not expected to, read all of it. It's a reference work, primarily for avoidance and resolution of style disputes, not a law book.] — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Review the 2011 discussion starting here. You might need to do more searching to find exactly how this was resolved, but it certainly did get discussed in depth. I don't see SMcCandlish there, so it's not surprising that he was unaware of it, or that there would be a strong other side to his point. And I have no particular objection if people want to re-open this question and maybe decide differently. I just don't want it to be seen as an oversight; it was deliberate. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC) And reviewing that, I must say that I really do miss Noetica, Kwami, and JeffConrad. Great editors. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:21, 4 November 2016 (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 180 | ← | Archive 184 | Archive 185 | Archive 186 | Archive 187 | Archive 188 | → | Archive 190 |
I write most articles in Oxford spelling, which means I write "colour" with a u but "optimize" with a z. I also write "colorize" with no u because it looks right to me and the OED calls "colourize" a British variant spelling. For most common words where there is a difference between British and American spelling, my writing looks like British English (I actually learned to write English in public school in Ireland, but that's neither here nor there). I have seen users try to determine which ENGVAR a particular article was originally written in by going back through the page history and trying to locate the first instance where the article used a word or spelling specific to one dialect of English, but a lot of these users seem to be pretty careless in their approach, as they assume a bipolar "British English vs. American English" division, or some more nuanced division that still misses some subtle differences. Two of these users I have a great respect for, and one of them is an admin -- they are just careless about these things.
(Oxford spelling is apparently not taught in public schools in the UK either; I told an English ALT I knew in Japan some time back about how I spell words, and she called it "inconsistent" to mix-and-match like that. I explained to her that this is how the OED does it, and she just said "Oh.")
This means that if I wrote an article used the word "colour" in an earlier draft, they would then take this as meaning that the article is written in "British English" and go about removing the "-ize"s that were inserted into the article later, even if I was the one who added them because that is the (perfectly acceptable, OED-sanctioned) format I use. Even if two different editors were writing in two different ENGVARs, we don't necessarily have unambiguous proof that either was writing in ENGVAR X or ENGVAR Y specifically.
Should we clarify this in some way? Maybe say that RETAIN does not sanction enforcing one artificially assumed "original" ENGVAR on an article that currently contains inconsistencies or apparent inconsistencies.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
The policy on names of organization (such as expanding abbreviations and omitting the "Ltd") found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Cue sports § Respect for official organization names should be introduced into the main style manual and not remain ghettoed in the cue sports policy section. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Names which suggests that the cue sports recommendations should be taken as general. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison ( talk) 09:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Not sure I want to start a huge thread on this minor point, but I'm not sure of the value of recent edits re and/or (whole spread here). For example, the current formulation is misleading: "and/or" does not always mean the same thing grammatically as simply "or". Personally, I'd happily allow it, as the less bulky and proscriptive the MOS is when it comes to perfectly good and useful phrases, the better. But if the bar is going to be maintained, surely the first para of the old wording on its own is clear and succinct enough. The second para there, and the latest version as a whole, both seem a little excessive in terms of detail and justification. N-HH talk/ edits 18:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I said I'm not going to discuss the minutiae of examples, nor is there any point for this purpose, although I would say that the example in question is also problematic because it has multiple subjects, so there is the added confusion between the collective and the individual experience. Examples can help clarify but they can sometimes just muddy the waters and create more tangential debate. The basic point here, which is widely acknowledged in grammar writing, is that "or" can be inclusive, exclusive or ambiguous as to which. If the MOS is going to ban "and/or" as a means of clarifying ambiguity, it needs to simply state the existence of the ambiguity in some contexts (rather than give an example which is, purportedly, not ambiguous and thereby imply the ambiguity cannot exist) and suggest that: to be clear about exclusiveness, "either X or Y" should be used; and to be clear about inclusiveness, instead of "X and/or Y", "X or Y or both" should be used. It kind of does half of that now, so the problem I identifed above has been ameliorated, but as we have discovered, the example currently cited is making this all more complicated than it needs to be. As I also stated initially, I think this is all proscription/prescription overkill, but that's another debate, and this one has taken long enough. N-HH talk/ edits 09:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Generally agreed with where Trovatore and Tony1 are coalescing on this. While most uses of and/or are just sloppy writing, there is a marked usage, which most often comes up in formal logic, mathematics, computer science, law and policy, standards documents, and other formal writing, where the expression precisely and concisely conveys "this, that, or both, but not neither", and this is sometimes necessary in encyclopedic writing. It doesn't do readers or editors any service to force them to use a long-winded alternative to and/or. MoS has plenty of "usually don't do x", or "almost always prefer y", or "generally avoid z" instructions, and one more won't cost us anything, while it would reintroduce a small bit of flexibility. I have to note that much of MoS's current emphatic never/always phrasing was engineered by a single editor, who as indeffed back in Feb. It would not hurt at all for us to undo some of these almost entirely undiscussed changes, especially given that the number one complaint about MoS has been alleged rigidity both of MoS's wording in places and of its application. While there are some things we do want consistency on (like most punctuation matters other than optional commas, avoiding loaded terminology, avoiding informal slang, etc.), when it comes to everyday writing choices that reflect a wide range of styles that are still within the encyclopedic register, don't confuse anyone, and don't lead to editorial conflict, then elimination of instruction creep is probably a good idea. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
46.130.34.150 ( talk) 19:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
There is a keyboard layout called “English (International)”, a enhanced version of US Layout. It can type most languages in Latin script including Vietnamese and Chinese, a limited set for IPA letters (enough for English IPA), lots of dead keys, smart quotes, various (mostly African and IPA) phonetic letters, dashes, Greek letters (no diacritics) and other symbols. There also superscript/subscript numeral characters too, but unlike plain US-International, there is no pre-composed fractions. English (International) requires fractions to use used by slash and super/sub-scripted numbers.
The English (International) layout can be used in a US-Keyboard. English (International) characters are not labeled. The AltGr can be on right alt key, but some US keyboards label “AltGr” without the “Gr”.
I think Wikipedians should use this layout, since it has useful Unicode characters. It should be downloaded and installed. This would allow to type smart quotes and dashes easily in Wikipedia. Instead of "a text", we would use “a text” instead.
http://kbd-intl.narod.ru/english/en — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.130.34.150 ( talk) 19:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
This is why MOS:BLOCKQUOTE is not working for us. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 01:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader.
Despite being called into question time and again, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] the above rule remains essentially the same as when it was added in Oct 2006 following a discussion. When I look at these conversations, it doesn't even look like the rule was ever built upon a clear, unanimous consensus in the first place, or has ever since been firmly supported, established or enforced. [8] I think this obscures its overall validity as a WP:POLICY as well, as expressed in the last comment at this discussion by Pmanderson.
I also couldn't agree more with the last comment about this issue on this talk, by SMcCandlish: "it's more helpful to say 'do this' than just 'don't do that'." So here's my proposed revision, in which I attempt to elaborate on the current rule rather than to alter it:
Version 1
| ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Clunky (?) examples aside, I think this generally sums up the points discussed in this talk before (as cited). What I would love to find out is if people think this is overall in the right direction or not, whether they might agree or disagree about some minutiae. Nardog ( talk) 08:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Notes
Copyedits: Do not use <tt>...</tt>
. This element has not even existed in HTML for years (and if you're habitually using it, please stop - cleaning up after it is a maintenance headache). The correct element in this context is <code>...</code>
, and it should wrap the entire example that represents wikicode, not just the part with linking brackets. "Only link a word or phrase that is unequivocally referring to a unique and specific entity or notion—that is, usually a proper name or
technical jargon—except when it is universally recognized and therefore easily understood by most readers" doesn't flow right. Try "... or
technical jargon. Do not link something that is universally recognized ...". Use {{
Crossref}} around crossreferences. "If such a subject is mentioned somewhere else in the article, however, then link those instead of the one inside the quote" doesn't have plurality agreement, and we generally do not want people to link multiple instances, remember. Compress the verbiage; e.g., that entire string can be replaced with "If the term is used outside the quote in the article, link it there instead". Other parts of it can similarly be compressed. The whole segment that starts with "Most importantly, never give links to words that are remotely semantically ambiguous" suffers from this problem. We should also not introduce anything like "never" and "remotely", per
WP:BEANS; they're just
drama-generation tools (see other thread on this talk page about terrible idea for a rule against "inconsequential" changes). Guidelines do best with "do" and "do not" wording versus "always" and "never" (which seems to deny that
WP:IAR exists), and subjective pronouncements like "remotely" and "inconsequential" and "most importantly" incite interpretational disputes. "This is to ..." wording is awkward; it's better to integrate policy rationales directly into the rule's sentence. That whole bit should probably be rewritten. We also don't need to provide the "OK" example that just shows no linking. I think part of our point here would be that well-known quotations are often best left without linking inserted into them. It makes more sense to just say so that to provide an "un-example" with no links in it, for no clear reason. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
13:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
<code>...</code>
is that it totally butchers the {{
xt}}/{{
!xt}} styling (at least with the default CSS). I found this template {{
Plaincode}}, can we use this within {{
xt}}/{{
!xt}}'s?
Nardog (
talk)
02:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
{{
mxt}}
(green) and {{
!mxt}}
(red) for this. The main problem is mix-and-matching styles on the same line; just use one:
{{em|Excessive}}: <code>{{!mxt|Smith wrote, "The <nowiki>[[1990s]] [[German]]</nowiki> ...}}</code>
Smith wrote, "The [[1990s]] [[German]] ...
SMcCandlish, instead of everyone else wading through all your suggestions, why don't you just edit them into the version I've helpfully pasted in below, in a series of self-contained quanta? Start with the most obvious, unobjectionable ones, leaving the ones people may want to discuss or modify for the last. Then people can step through your edits, follow your reasoning in your edit summaries, and revert or modify for further discussion here. ( Nardog, I hope you won't object to this approach.) I've already added the "Alabama marble" example, just so it doesn't get lost. E Eng 18:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
V2
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
@ Jayaguru-Shishya: notified me and others of this discussion and thinks it should be at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. I don't agree, since the impugned statement is on Wikipedia:Manual of Style whereas Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking has nothing about quotes. As regards the substantive issue; I am in favour of not having any "rule" on this and letting editors use their discretion. I am sure some readers find links within quotes to be ugly, but they are a minority who need not be accommodated. Sometimes wikilinking in a quote is convenient and transparent. It shouldn't violate WP:EASTEREGG, but that's not specific to quotes. jnestorius( talk) 16:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikilinks within quotations must be kept to a bare minimumwith the vertical bar at the left (I ask because to me it looks more bluish than green), it's all new; the current guideline says simply
As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader.I'm editing your suggestions into Version 2, subject of course to others' approval
Where possible, use linking elsewhere in the article to make linking inside the quotation unnecessary.
{{bracket}}
; I use [[[Link here]]]
because I memorized those HTML character entity codes years ago. You can also do [<nowiki />[[Link here]]]
. In all cases, it's fiddly, so we don't want to advise it (no one will comply, and it will be easily broken). —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
20:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
bare minimumshould be
minimum. The word "bare" adds no semantic value.
Where possible, use linking elsewhere in the article to make linking inside the quotation unnecessary.
Where possible, link a word or phrase elsewhere in the article instead of in the quotation.
that is, usually a proper name or technical jargon
... entity or notion—usually a proper name or technical jargon—except ...
Only link a word or phrase that is unequivocally referring to a unique and specific entity or notion ... except when it is universally recognized and therefore easily understood by most readers
Only link a word or phrase that is unequivocally referring to a unique and specific entity or notion—usually a proper name or technical jargon—and not a common term easily understood by most readers (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking § Overlinking)
Version 2: comments
What is "such a subject"? What does "those" refer back to? And even if not what? Even without addressing those points, a better opening might be: "However, if such a subject is mentioned elsewhere in the article, link those ..."
please just edit your ideas directly into V2- Done. Mitch Ames ( talk) 08:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Version 2 now has changes made by Mitch Ames, which look good to me. Others should feel free to continue modifying it, or if there are concerns that can't be addressed by simple editing, comments can be added here. SMcCandlish, I'm sure we'd all like for you to edit in anything you still want to see changed. (If such edits are extensive, you might want to start a V3.) E Eng 21:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Briefly, on linking from quotes. This should still be minimised as much as possible. The point of a quote is usually to transmit something in the voice of the person giving the quote (i.e. not in Wikipedia's voice). Linking distracts from this. If something is important enough to link from within a quote, then 99% of the time it will be mentioned elsewhere in the article, or should be mentioned elsewhere, and can be linked from there. In many cases, an explanatory footnote, with links, is better than linking from the quote itself. The reason this is rarely done appears to be because many editors are not familiar with how to generate actual footnotes containing text (as opposed to citations and references). Linking from within a quote is, IMO, a lazy way of explaining things to the reader. Taking the time to write the surrounding text so that things are explained without the need to link, is usually better. This is difficult to express in a guideline, though. Wikipedia:Nesting footnotes is useful to explain the 'reference within note' and similar approaches (hands up who uses the obscure methods 'Subnote within note' and 'Subnote within reference'?). Carcharoth ( talk) 13:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I would prefer simple text: "Be especially careful with wikilinks in quotations, ensuring that they are unambiguously appropriate to the text. As editors we do not impose additional meaning upon the words of others, except through the editorial voice, and only then when supported by reliable sources."
Why? Because these same problems can arise with wikilinks in article text. An incorrect or biased link from a quote is hardly more damaging than misleading contextual links. ...is widely considered [[Nazi|right wing]].... We can put words in someone's mouth but we can't put a link in their mouth.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
21:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC).
This integrates Tony1's comments (I hope). Rich Farmbrough, I'm uncertain how to integrate the changes you're talking about above. Can you edit that into V3 for us? E Eng 04:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikilinks within quotations need special care, and for this reason are often worth avoiding altogether. Only link a word or phrase that is unequivocally referring to a unique and specific entity or notion—usually a proper name or technical jargon—and not a common term easily understood by most readers.
Example: Opulent Architecture said, "The outer of the two rooms is of Alabama marble, with fluted columns and Ionic capitals."
Excessive: Smith wrote, "The [[1990s]]
[[German]]
[[film]]
,[[Cinematography|shot]]
on[[70 mm film|70 mm]]
, is[[Epic film|bigger]]
and more[[Film budgeting|expensive]]
than ''[[Ben-Hur (1959 film)|Ben-Hur]]
''."Appropriate: Smith wrote, "The 1990s German film, shot on [[70 mm film|70 mm]]
, is bigger and more expensive than ''[[Ben-Hur (1959 film)|Ben-Hur]]
''."Where appropriate, put a link in nearby text instead of in the quotation; consider adding suitable text where none exists.
Confusing: " [[Paris, Texas|Paris]]
still has the best", food critic John Smith said in 2007. (Reader must click on link to discover that the obvious interpretation of "Paris" is incorrect.)Acceptable: " {{ bracket|[[Paris, Texas]]}}
still has the best", food critic John Smith said in 2007.Better: "Paris still has the best", food critic John Smith said in 2007, referring to [[Paris, Texas]]
.Don't link to words that are ambiguous or use piped links to direct to articles whose subject is significantly broader or narrower than the displayed text ( Easter egg links). This is to avoid original research or violation of text–source integrity.
Bad: [[United States Declaration of Independence|Four score and seven years ago]]
our[[Founding Fathers of the United States|fathers]]
brought forth on[[North America|this continent]]
a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that[[all men are created equal]]
.OK: Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
I have made some revisions to the above. I am inclined to remove the advice that applies to all links in running text, such as overlinking. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
12:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC).
This link [2] shows the changes from V2 to V3. I'm fine with them. Comments? E Eng 06:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Onlylink a word or phrase that iscreate links that are unequivocally referring to a unique and specific entity or notion...
Wikilinks within quotations need special care, and for this reason are often worth avoiding altogether. Only link a word or phrase that is unequivocally referring to a unique and specific entity or notion—usually a proper name or technical jargon—and not a common term easily understood by most readers.
Wikilinks within quotations need special care. Only link a word or phrase that unequivocally refers to a unique and specific entity or notion—usually a proper name or technical jargon.
I'm losing hope that we'll be able to agree on particular examples, at least for now. How about if we start by simply replacing the current
As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader.
to
Wikilinks within quotations need special care. Only link a word or phrase that unequivocally refers to a unique and specific entity or notion—usually a proper name or technical jargon.
Can we agree to just do that for now, and then someday, if it seems needed, reopen a discussion about adding some examples? (We can tinker with the exact text, of course, but what I'm looking for here is agreement on the basic idea that for now we're just going to do something simple similar to what I just gave, not all the examples and stuff.) E Eng 05:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, per Sandy McCandlish, can we all get behind
Wikilinks within quotations need special care. Avoid linking from within quotations in a way that may mislead or confuse the reader, or when the same link can be provided earlier in the article or immediately after the quotation.
--as a first step? E Eng 08:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Best practice is to avoid Wikilinks within quotations. See if the desired link can be placed in the main text of the article (either earlier in the article text, or soon after the quotation). If this is not possible, use care to avoid linking to targets that may mislead or confuse the reader.Blueboar ( talk) 11:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Take special care with Wikilinks within quotations, to avoid linking to targets that may mislead or confuse the reader. See if the desired link can instead be placed in the main text of the article, either before or soon after the quotation.? jnestorius( talk) 13:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
In cases where the quotation is taken from an online source, there could be a perception that a link was present in the original cited text. Is there a way to distinguish between links added by Wikipedia editors and links from the original source? isaacl ( talk) 16:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Take special care with Wikilinks in quotations: avoid linking to targets that may not represent the meaning within the quote. See if the desired link can instead be placed in the main text of the article, either before or soon after the quotation.
Avoid linking ... that may mislead or confuse the reader...is a bit vague as to why it may mislead/confuse. RF's
avoid linking to targets that may not represent the meaning within the quoteis more specific to what (I think) we intend. However I'd go a bit further in that respect and propose:
Take special care with Wikilinks in quotations: link only to targets that correspond to the meaning intended by the quote's author, and only when the author's meaning is explicitly known (rather than assumed). Ideally, link from text outside of the quote instead.
With your permission I'm striking your now-withdrawn text to focus attention on the prior text on the table, Version JN, with an eye toward seeing if there's any serious objection to it. Again, I'm hoping we can focus on the acceptability of what's there, and not worry for now about what might be nice to add.
E
Eng 18:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC) Later: Ooops, undoing my strikeout, because somehow I thought Blueboar's comment was from Mitch Ames. This discussion is getting too confusing, and my clumsiness didn't help.
Blueboar, at this point I can't tell what suggestion you were withdrawing (energy... fading... can't.... focus........).
E
Eng
03:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Repeated in next subthread, below
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Take special care when adding links to quotations: link only to targets that correspond to the meaning intended by the quote's author, and only when the author's meaning is verifiable. Ideally, link from text outside of the quote instead.Mitch Ames ( talk) 08:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
If a quote includes any link, add an editorial note, [link in original] or [link added], as appropriate.
But I think "verifiable" is too strong.
Think of "Opulent Architecture .." -- how would these links be verified? Aren't we justified in adding the obvious links?
So would you accept dropping and only when the author's meaning is explicitly known (rather than assumed) and add clearly, so that we have, "link only to targets that clearly correspond to the meaning intended by the quotation's author"?
Also, would you accept If possible link the same term from the main text of the article, either before the quotation or soon after?
If so, can I strike MA and MA2, and add this to the table as MA3?
Mitch Ames, I think you're reading too much into the verifiability requirement. If, instead of a direct quote, an article said, According to Opulent Architecture, the room was of Alabama marble, the columns being fluted with Ionic capitals, no one would give a second thought to those links. And this would be even more true if, as is quite likely, the attribution was omitted entirely i.e. simply The room was of Alabama marble, the columns being fluted with Ionic capitals. I just don't see how the selection of links is any more fraught inside a quotation than it is in a paraphrase, or in an unattributed assertion of fact.
I went looking for something about the question of link "fidelity" (for lack of a better term), and to my surprise I can find nothing on point in either WP:V or MOS:LINK. And I have to say that in eight years of editing, although I can recall the occasional disagreement about over- or under-linking, I honestly can't remember a single time there was dispute over what would be the right link. Has your experience been different? If not, are we possibly worrying about a potential problem which isn't an actual problem? E Eng 17:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
... If, instead of a direct quote, an article said, ... ... I just don't see how the selection of links is any more fraught inside a quotation than it is in a paraphrase, or in an unattributed assertion of fact."
Wikipedia says X, and Wikipedia saying that
Joe said "X". As has been pointed out already, unless we state otherwise, including a link inside a quote implies that the quote's author made that link and/or intended that particular meaning (the target of the link). Mitch Ames ( talk) 13:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I honestly can't remember a single time there was dispute over what would be the right link. Has your experience been different?"
Well, here I am again pleading that we not let this discussion peter out with no result. And my resolve is redoubled by this edit [3] I encountered recently, in which someone objected to linking Tic Tacs in Donald Trump's cringeworthy teenage-boy-talk, "I've got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her." So please, can we keep this alive?
I've reproduced all the live proposals below, and am meekly asking whether people can get behind EE2, which is about as simple as I think it can get. Please??? If problems come up we can always add more guidance. E Eng 00:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Caution | Fidelity | Minimality | Attribution | |
---|---|---|---|---|
SM | Wikilinks within quotations need special care. | Avoid linking from within quotations in a way that may mislead or confuse the reader, | or when the same link can be provided earlier in the article or immediately after the quotation. | |
JN | Take special care with Wikilinks within quotations, | to avoid linking to targets that may mislead or confuse the reader. | See if the desired link can instead be placed in the main text of the article, either before or soon after the quotation. | |
RF | Take special care with Wikilinks in quotations: | avoid linking to targets that may not represent the meaning within the quote. | ||
MA2 | Take special care when adding links to quotations: | link only to targets that correspond to the meaning intended by the quote's author, and only when the author's meaning is verifiable. | Ideally, link from text outside of the quote instead. |
If a quote includes any link, add an editorial note, [link in original] or [link added], as appropriate. |
EE2 | Add links to quotations only where the targets clearly correspond to the quotation's meaning. | Where possible, link from text outside of the quotation instead – either before it or soon after. |
I suggest that if we want to change the policy, which pick the "safest" one, ie the one closest to the spirit of the existing policy and the spirit of WP:OR and WP:V and see if we can get support for that. Presumably the "safest" one ought to be the easiest to pass, being closest to the spirit of what we currently have. Of course, I believe that my version MA2 is the best for this. Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
we have to awkwardly add a note telling the reader that the link is ours– Yes, just as we would for italics/emphasis, per MOS:NOITALQUOTE. While Trump probably can't include a link in his speech, the web page that is our reference could have included a link, hence we need to say whether the link was added by Wikipedia or Wikipedia's source. Mitch Ames ( talk) 03:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Insert a wikilink within a quotation only when it would be awkward to provide the same link earlier in the article or soon after the quotation– I think that's excessive, but would support it as a second choice to my own version. However I still think that
misleading or confusing readersis simply too vague;
link only to targets that correspond to the meaning intended by the quote's authoris quite specific (and deliberately does not require us to make judgements about whether our readers will be confused or misled). Mitch Ames ( talk) 03:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment: I'm here explicitly intending to avoid !voting either support or oppose, but… Just as a data point, I am inclined to be opposed to links inside quotations because they cause too high a risk of problems related to neutrality, original research, and the case (mentioned above) regarding extant links in the quoted material. Especially as regards the latter issue, the idea that these can be disregarded because such sources are unlikely to be reliable sources is already incorrect and will only get more so over time.
All the most prestigious university presses now have substantial digital services for their output (that would traditionally have been in paper form, in a printed book or journal, and static). A prime (counter)example here would be Oxford Scholarly Editions Online which contains digital-first (i.e. authored for the medium) "books", including links. OUP has a ton of related online services and a growing number of them are "digital-first"-type services that will take advantage of the ability to hyperlink. Similarly, a lot of prominent scientists in many fields are now blogging, both on personal blogs and on blogs affiliated with a relevant institution; both of which are reliable sources.
One prime example of each, from my field, would be Stanley Wells, perhaps the most prominent Shakespearean scholar of our time, who posts articles like Digging up Shakespeare by Stanley Wells; and the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, that maintains the blog Blogging Shakespeare with contributions by both the curators at the Trust and from affiliated or visiting scholars.
I don't think allowing links inside quotes, except in exceptional circumstances, can be done safely and should be discouraged. Guidance in the MoS for the need to explain parts of quotes should point at ways to do it without altering the quote (e.g. link outside the quote; in a footnote attached to the quote; inside editorial insertion marked by square brackets; etc.), much like the guidance for elisions and similar aim to make any modification by Wikipedia clear and unambiguous.
As an example, while digging up the links for this comment, I ran across this article by Colin Burrow (a well known author in Shakespeare studies) on the OUP literature blog. In it he links the text "John Florio’s translation of Montaigne’s Essays,"—which we are now proposing it would be ok to decorate with inline, in-quote, wikilinks to John Florio, Michel de Montaigne, and Essays (Montaigne)—while Burrow actually linked it to another article, by William M. Hamlin, at the same blog. Did we mean to imply that Burrow and OUP linked to those articles on Wikipedia (quite an endorsement!)? What if the article Burrow had linked to was one that argued that Montaigne had a ghostwriter for his essays, that is, one that in some substantial way actually disagrees with Wikipedia's article on Montaigne? There are a nearly endless variety of such issues, most of which will amount to nothing worse than slight confusion for some readers, but where some few cases will be flat out disastrously misleading.
Anyways, I don't have the spare cycles to participate in the actual discussion here, so I'm instead leaving this comment here so that those who do may opt to take it into account (or ignore it, obviously, as the case may be). Apologies for the interruption. -- Xover ( talk) 19:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
For several years, I have been removing wikilinks in quotes because of this MOS provision, and sometimes, I am regretful. In This edit of McCulloch v. Maryland, I regretted that, without the link, readers would not guess that Western Shore is an article, and many readers probably do not know that the term refers to an area of Maryland west of the Chesapeake Bay. I don't think any reader would have thought that the link was in any way original to the 1818 legislation. Unfortunately, the article did not have any place outside of quotes to link to Western Shore, so I followed the rules and removed what was probably a benign and helpful link. If we are going to change the rules, this is an example of a link that I would favor being allowed.
In this edit of Walther Hewel, I regretted losing the links to Wilhelm Canaris and Abwehr. I did not regret losing the links to artichoke, venison, or Gemütlichkeit. The last of the three, while a foreign word in English, is one that I think curious readers would search on their own, so I had no regret there. I would disfavor any changes to the MOS that encourage or allow links to artichoke and venison. I wouldn't mind changes to the MOS that allowed for links to Wilhelm Canaris, Abwehr, and Gemütlichkeit.
The rules should mandate not linking within quotes if the link can be anywhere else in the article, not just within a short distance. After all, per MOS:DUPLINK, "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." At minimum, wikilinks within quotes should be used only (1) in compliance with a conservative reading of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking and (2) where there is no place else in the article to place the link. Further limitations may be warranted. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 00:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Please take part in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#RfC: Shall we ban macrons in titles? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Our article A Midsummer Night's Dream (1909 film) currently reads It is the first film adaptation of the eponymous play. This to me reads like a contemporary statement that implies there were no subsequent film versions. Would It was the first film adaptation of the eponymous play not read better? Is this an IAR scenario, or would formatting the R to cover cases like this be better? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I have made/ am making a list of all english loanwords at WP:LWN, should I file it under proposed guidelines and make an RFC for it, even if it just a list? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
If you don't see how it can lead to arguments then you haven't been hanging around MOS very long. I'm sorry, but based on what you're saying there definitely should not be such a list appended to MOS. (And that's what you're doing when you create Wikipedia:Manual of Style/List of Loanwords.) According to the page itself you're planning to include words like chemistry, and that's ridiculous. English has, I would guess, anywhere from 40,000 to 400,000 words that might qualify as loanwords, making the whole project infeasible anyway. Please rethink this. E Eng 01:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
To expand on EEng's point; whether a word is a loanword or not is not a matter of style. Whether loanwords should be italicized or not is. I appreciate that the OP wants to inform more editors of our style of not italicizing loanwords, but a style guide is not the place to define what a loanword is. Primergrey ( talk) 04:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
As most biologists will tell you, there is no "correct" pronunciation for Latin taxon names since there is no standardized pronunciation for New Latin. As our article on New Latin states: "New Latin had no single pronunciation, but a host of local variants or dialects, all distinct both from each other and from the historical pronunciation of Latin at the time of the Roman Republic and Roman Empire." Nevertheless, some people still add IPA pronunciations for taxons or {{ pronunciation needed}} tags. [4] This is misleading, however, as it implies that there is a "correct" pronunciation. To quote a couple sources:
With this in mind, I would like to propose adding the following sentence to the Animals, plants, and other organisms section:
Do not include pronunciations for Latin names, as there is no standardized pronunciation for New Latin.
Any thoughts on this? Kaldari ( talk) 05:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
If editors of a given article can figure out a way of doing that, let them– no, there needs to be a source for each and every pronunciation; it's not for editors to generate pronunciations. Peter coxhead ( talk) 07:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Short version: If modern dictionaries (including dictionaries of science, etc.) provide one or more pronunciations we could offer it/them as a/some pronunciations, and should note their distribution if possible. Century-old books are not reliable for this, since they'll be giving "do it this way because ancient Romans [or mediaeval priests] would" Victorian prescriptivist dogma, not linguistic description.
Alernative approach: Create an article along the lines Pronunciation of New Latin in English (or perhaps a Help:-namespace page) that explains the various quasi-systemic approaches to this, and their irregularities. Then just always link to that article for pronunciation. We have Help:IPA for English and Help:IPA as used by IPA templates; kind of similar in concept. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
When one of the elements in a construction divided by an en dash contains a space, the en dash is spaced: Christmas Day – New Year's Eve. We borrowed this rule directly from Chicago Manual of Style and other academic style guides, and CMoS says this explicitly. We didn't quite integrate it clearly, since we're not consistently applying this throughout, and later provide incorrect examples: New York–Los Angeles and Seifert–van Kampen. These should be corrected to New York – Los Angeles and Seifert – van Kampen, and the note about spacing made more general. It's presently worded as if it only pertains to temporal ranges, but that cannot have really been the intent, since it's confusing in both being inconsistent and in being hard to parse. I don't know anyone who actually treats it the New York–Los Angeles way, and it becomes clear why when you see a complex example with less universally recognizable parts as major cities, e.g. a melodic punk – progressive rock fusion band, which would be hard to parse as a melodic punk–progressive rock fusion band, which implies a direct relationship between just the "punk" and "progressive" elements, and suggests an incorrect meaning of "a melodic, rock fusion band with a punk–progressive sound" (it's wrong twice over because a) punk and melodic punk are not the same thing, b) progressive applies to multiple genres, e.g. progressive metal, and c) it's not WP's place to declare a band to be melodic). The relationship is actually between "melodic punk" and "progressive rock", which are discrete entities (well-defined genres) with compound but non-hyphenated names, a fact not apparent to those who are not popular music experts. The point becomes even clearer with a more complex example: a futurepop – techno-industrial – goa trance album which is rendered into confusing gibberish as a futurepop–techno-industrial–goa trance album. PS: I think this incomplete integration of the rule happened because it was first introduced into MOS:NUM, where only numeric uses were under consideration, and then back-ported to MoS-main without sufficient integration work. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Whether you prefer and "live in the world of" CMoS and other academic style guides is of no concern here; you can write any way you want on your own blog. WP has its own style manual, based almost entirely on academic and book-publishing style guides (because an encyclopedic is an educational mega-book). It is a guideline with which you're expected to comply [or at least not monkey-wrench its application by others *], just as you would comply with that of the New York Times if you wrote an article for them. [* Actually, no one cares if anyone complies with MoS when they add content, since we want content more than we want consistency, and consistency can be worked in later by editors who care about that aspect of WP's quality. MoS is principally for cleanup editing, and new editors generally do not, and are not expected to, read all of it. It's a reference work, primarily for avoidance and resolution of style disputes, not a law book.] — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Review the 2011 discussion starting here. You might need to do more searching to find exactly how this was resolved, but it certainly did get discussed in depth. I don't see SMcCandlish there, so it's not surprising that he was unaware of it, or that there would be a strong other side to his point. And I have no particular objection if people want to re-open this question and maybe decide differently. I just don't want it to be seen as an oversight; it was deliberate. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC) And reviewing that, I must say that I really do miss Noetica, Kwami, and JeffConrad. Great editors. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)