![]() | 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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
The name "Davíð Oddsson" I assume his name is "David Oddsson" using the 26 letters of the English alphabet. But the proposed new text says: "and Icelandic/Old English " þ" and " ð" to "th"; " implies that this name is "Davíth Oddsson" is that correct? Philip Baird Shearer 11:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Is there an appropriate place to recommend a policy on graphics and colorblindness? The map I've copied here from British Columbia general election, 2005 is completely unintelligible to me. It appears to have red for one party and green for another. That would be hard enough for a colorblind person, but the artist elected to use four different shades of each color. That makes it impossible for me to figure out. It's a shame, because the artist obviously worked very hard on the map.
The map at Canadian federal election, 2004 is much easier to read, as there is no green, and bar graphs supplement the coloring.
People who make graphics like this should keep in mind:
Mwalcoff 01:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Should this topic be part of the MOS? -- Philip Baird Shearer 16:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Could someone point me to the policy (if any) on the capitalization of "internet" and "web?" I'm told it's proper to capitalize them both, since they are proper nouns, but many publications have them lowercase now. -- Foofy 21:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I am confused! Is the name "Davíð" then name used in the Icelandic bible for King David?. If so then "Davíð" using the 26 letter of the English alphabet is "David". It is not "Davith". If it is David, are there well known examples (say from the bible or an Icelandic translation of an Engish work like Shakespeare) where an Icelandic name which maps the "ð" to "th". Philip Baird Shearer 17:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with ascii it has to do with the Engish alphabet, (don't go there! -- in all native English speaking schools the alphabet consistes of 26 letters with a dot above the ij and nothing below the line. Just listen to Barny (shudder) if you do not beleave me). Is David in Icelantic almost always written as "Davíð"? How do Icelantic people pronounce "th" is it like the Germans as "t" and an "h"? If so does that mean that any English name like "Thelma and Louise" get changed? Philip Baird Shearer 07:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I have been following the debate about spelling variants for some time. Independently of how this thorny question (pun intended) is resolved, if ever, let me toss out the following idea:
Currently, many of the articles that allow variant spellings, transliterations, or names, include these variants early, typically in brackets right after the definition:
In some cases, this breaks up the flow of the first sentence quite a bit. In many other articles, the variant names are given haphazardly or not at all; sometimes the native spelling is omitted, sometimes a widely-used English form is omitted. Odin has a very extensive list of names in the second paragraph. Gerhard Schröder tells you that, yes, this is indeed the Schroeder you have been reading about in your newspaper, in very small type at the end of the introduction.
Could we lift this information out of the first sentence (or wherever it appears), and have it appear on its own? I don't care where it's displayed, but right after otheruses would be fine with me. To make this painfully concrete:
Beijing
- Peking is also the name of an asteroid, see 2045 Peking.
- Chinese: 北京; pinyin: Běijīng; Wade–Giles: Pei-ching; Postal System Pinyin: Peking
is also known as English: Peking;Peking is the…
(I don't have any opinion about what the template text should read. I used "XYZ is also know as FOO, BAR, ETC" in this example for concreteness. I also have no opinion on the visual layout of the paragraph. Make it a pastel-coloured side-bar, or a pop-up over the title. I care not.)
The motivation for this is two-fold: (1) to improve reading flow of the first sentence, which is often overloaded with other information already, like date of birth and death, etc. (2) to add semantic mark-up to what ought to also be a navigational aid. Ideally, the variant names are given in the form of a template that might automatically be used for redirection.
Note that this idea is orthogonal to whether or not the variant name is an alternative romanization, a native form, an English form, and accepted English transliteration, a widely-used misspelling or whatever. We all seem to have opinions about which of these forms "is correct" and should consequently form the article title and why. But for the purpose of this suggestion, I merely want to collect these variant names/spellings/transliterations/common misspellings at a well-defined place, and possibly even make it semantically useful. Arbor 12:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree, there should be a paragraph designated to the various names given, as exemplified by Odin. glocks out 23:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
The most common English language versions of the name ought to appear on the first line sentence of the article. Using the example above Beijing and Peking should appear in the first paragraph. -- Philip Baird Shearer 08:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I object to the following which someone is tring to insert into the MOS
Is the person who using an IP address really saying that if some foreign language uses a diacritic, all articles in English "should" use them? For example do we have to spell Zurich as Zürich in all articles? Philip Baird Shearer 10:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Then I object strongly. Perhapse you have not read the talk pages at talk:Zürich Perhaps you are not aware that there is a different interpretation of the word Should on the two sides of the pond?. I suggest that the word "Should" is replaced with "may". But in preference delete the whole sentence as it is far too contriversial for the MOS to dictate this.
BTW Mark are you aware of the WP:3RR? Philip Baird Shearer 11:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Spelling mistakes and typos happen. This is a talk page so no harm done and on an article page you can always fix others spelling mistakes. So "should" I assume that you are you are aware of the difference on either side of the pond or not? Philip Baird Shearer 16:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
There is a Disputed tag after the last bullet point (Indian English) under National varieties of English. I can't see from this Talk page (or the archives) what factual information in that section is disputed.
From the history it seems that User:Maurreen first placed the Disputed tag in Revision as of 2005-09-27 10:48:53, on the following first-level bullet, "When abbreviating 'United States'". The tag remained, though the change to the text of that bullet point petered out in a couple of days.
Then user 63.215.248.3, in Revision as of 2005-09-30 12:56:45, inserted a line break at the start of that bullet point, which had the effect of isolating the Disputed tag and making it appear to apply to the preceding "Indian English" sub-bullet.
User 203.164.184.23 removed the Disputed tag with the Revision as of 2005-10-09 03:30:17, but that change got reverted as a side effect of removing a separate tag about the ever-popular usage of eth and thorn. It looks like the Disputed tag ought to be a separate issue.
I propose removing the Disputed tag. If someone can clarify what the dispute is about, please make a note of it in this section. Thanks!
JDLH | Talk 05:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
The following is an attempt at humour - please don't read it as anything else.
We shall go on to the end, we shall fight on the French pages, we shall fight on the talk pages and the policy pages, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength on Wikipedia:Requested moves, we shall defend our Wikipedia, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the naming conventions pages, we shall fight on the manual of style pages, we shall fight on Talk:Zürich and Talk:Gdańsk, we shall fight on the mailing lists; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Wikipedia or a large part of it were subjugated and starving of diacritics, then other Wikimedia projects across the Internet, armed and guarded by the Unicode standard, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New Projects, with all their power and might, step forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
What do you think of adding such a subsection:
When two or more words modify the same noun, they should be connected with hyphens. For example:
In the first sentence, "Canadian" and "football" are separate modifiers. In the second sentence, "Canadian-football" is a compound adjective.
Exceptions:
Mwalcoff 03:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Using them to help the reader follow what written word is really the adjective is okay. But hyphens aren't panaceas, and where the phrase would be ambiguous if spoken, we shouldn't rely on the hyphen to do the job when writing, so write the "man who plays Canadian football" rather than the "Canadian-football player" and the "Canadian who plays football" rather than the "Canadian football player", jguk 08:42, 16 October 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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
The name "Davíð Oddsson" I assume his name is "David Oddsson" using the 26 letters of the English alphabet. But the proposed new text says: "and Icelandic/Old English " þ" and " ð" to "th"; " implies that this name is "Davíth Oddsson" is that correct? Philip Baird Shearer 11:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Is there an appropriate place to recommend a policy on graphics and colorblindness? The map I've copied here from British Columbia general election, 2005 is completely unintelligible to me. It appears to have red for one party and green for another. That would be hard enough for a colorblind person, but the artist elected to use four different shades of each color. That makes it impossible for me to figure out. It's a shame, because the artist obviously worked very hard on the map.
The map at Canadian federal election, 2004 is much easier to read, as there is no green, and bar graphs supplement the coloring.
People who make graphics like this should keep in mind:
Mwalcoff 01:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Should this topic be part of the MOS? -- Philip Baird Shearer 16:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Could someone point me to the policy (if any) on the capitalization of "internet" and "web?" I'm told it's proper to capitalize them both, since they are proper nouns, but many publications have them lowercase now. -- Foofy 21:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I am confused! Is the name "Davíð" then name used in the Icelandic bible for King David?. If so then "Davíð" using the 26 letter of the English alphabet is "David". It is not "Davith". If it is David, are there well known examples (say from the bible or an Icelandic translation of an Engish work like Shakespeare) where an Icelandic name which maps the "ð" to "th". Philip Baird Shearer 17:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with ascii it has to do with the Engish alphabet, (don't go there! -- in all native English speaking schools the alphabet consistes of 26 letters with a dot above the ij and nothing below the line. Just listen to Barny (shudder) if you do not beleave me). Is David in Icelantic almost always written as "Davíð"? How do Icelantic people pronounce "th" is it like the Germans as "t" and an "h"? If so does that mean that any English name like "Thelma and Louise" get changed? Philip Baird Shearer 07:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I have been following the debate about spelling variants for some time. Independently of how this thorny question (pun intended) is resolved, if ever, let me toss out the following idea:
Currently, many of the articles that allow variant spellings, transliterations, or names, include these variants early, typically in brackets right after the definition:
In some cases, this breaks up the flow of the first sentence quite a bit. In many other articles, the variant names are given haphazardly or not at all; sometimes the native spelling is omitted, sometimes a widely-used English form is omitted. Odin has a very extensive list of names in the second paragraph. Gerhard Schröder tells you that, yes, this is indeed the Schroeder you have been reading about in your newspaper, in very small type at the end of the introduction.
Could we lift this information out of the first sentence (or wherever it appears), and have it appear on its own? I don't care where it's displayed, but right after otheruses would be fine with me. To make this painfully concrete:
Beijing
- Peking is also the name of an asteroid, see 2045 Peking.
- Chinese: 北京; pinyin: Běijīng; Wade–Giles: Pei-ching; Postal System Pinyin: Peking
is also known as English: Peking;Peking is the…
(I don't have any opinion about what the template text should read. I used "XYZ is also know as FOO, BAR, ETC" in this example for concreteness. I also have no opinion on the visual layout of the paragraph. Make it a pastel-coloured side-bar, or a pop-up over the title. I care not.)
The motivation for this is two-fold: (1) to improve reading flow of the first sentence, which is often overloaded with other information already, like date of birth and death, etc. (2) to add semantic mark-up to what ought to also be a navigational aid. Ideally, the variant names are given in the form of a template that might automatically be used for redirection.
Note that this idea is orthogonal to whether or not the variant name is an alternative romanization, a native form, an English form, and accepted English transliteration, a widely-used misspelling or whatever. We all seem to have opinions about which of these forms "is correct" and should consequently form the article title and why. But for the purpose of this suggestion, I merely want to collect these variant names/spellings/transliterations/common misspellings at a well-defined place, and possibly even make it semantically useful. Arbor 12:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree, there should be a paragraph designated to the various names given, as exemplified by Odin. glocks out 23:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
The most common English language versions of the name ought to appear on the first line sentence of the article. Using the example above Beijing and Peking should appear in the first paragraph. -- Philip Baird Shearer 08:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I object to the following which someone is tring to insert into the MOS
Is the person who using an IP address really saying that if some foreign language uses a diacritic, all articles in English "should" use them? For example do we have to spell Zurich as Zürich in all articles? Philip Baird Shearer 10:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Then I object strongly. Perhapse you have not read the talk pages at talk:Zürich Perhaps you are not aware that there is a different interpretation of the word Should on the two sides of the pond?. I suggest that the word "Should" is replaced with "may". But in preference delete the whole sentence as it is far too contriversial for the MOS to dictate this.
BTW Mark are you aware of the WP:3RR? Philip Baird Shearer 11:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Spelling mistakes and typos happen. This is a talk page so no harm done and on an article page you can always fix others spelling mistakes. So "should" I assume that you are you are aware of the difference on either side of the pond or not? Philip Baird Shearer 16:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
There is a Disputed tag after the last bullet point (Indian English) under National varieties of English. I can't see from this Talk page (or the archives) what factual information in that section is disputed.
From the history it seems that User:Maurreen first placed the Disputed tag in Revision as of 2005-09-27 10:48:53, on the following first-level bullet, "When abbreviating 'United States'". The tag remained, though the change to the text of that bullet point petered out in a couple of days.
Then user 63.215.248.3, in Revision as of 2005-09-30 12:56:45, inserted a line break at the start of that bullet point, which had the effect of isolating the Disputed tag and making it appear to apply to the preceding "Indian English" sub-bullet.
User 203.164.184.23 removed the Disputed tag with the Revision as of 2005-10-09 03:30:17, but that change got reverted as a side effect of removing a separate tag about the ever-popular usage of eth and thorn. It looks like the Disputed tag ought to be a separate issue.
I propose removing the Disputed tag. If someone can clarify what the dispute is about, please make a note of it in this section. Thanks!
JDLH | Talk 05:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
The following is an attempt at humour - please don't read it as anything else.
We shall go on to the end, we shall fight on the French pages, we shall fight on the talk pages and the policy pages, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength on Wikipedia:Requested moves, we shall defend our Wikipedia, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the naming conventions pages, we shall fight on the manual of style pages, we shall fight on Talk:Zürich and Talk:Gdańsk, we shall fight on the mailing lists; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Wikipedia or a large part of it were subjugated and starving of diacritics, then other Wikimedia projects across the Internet, armed and guarded by the Unicode standard, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New Projects, with all their power and might, step forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
What do you think of adding such a subsection:
When two or more words modify the same noun, they should be connected with hyphens. For example:
In the first sentence, "Canadian" and "football" are separate modifiers. In the second sentence, "Canadian-football" is a compound adjective.
Exceptions:
Mwalcoff 03:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Using them to help the reader follow what written word is really the adjective is okay. But hyphens aren't panaceas, and where the phrase would be ambiguous if spoken, we shouldn't rely on the hyphen to do the job when writing, so write the "man who plays Canadian football" rather than the "Canadian-football player" and the "Canadian who plays football" rather than the "Canadian football player", jguk 08:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)