![]() | 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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Throughout my time on Wikipedia, I've edited pages about games (video games, board games, sports, etc.) when they reffer to the player (sometimes observer) as "you." Essentailly reffering to the reader as if (s)he is in that situation directly. Then one day, I check the Manual of Style, and find that it doesn't list this guideline. I have inquired this in the help desk (now archived here). Essays, research reports, and paper encyclopedias discourage addressing the reader by using "you" or "your." I would like to see this added into the Manual of Style. I would add it myself, but I don't know where to put it, or if I am allowed to do so.
Alredy some users (including me) make these edits dispite the lack of an explicit policy. In most cases we changed the word "you" into either the word "player" or the player's position title (i.e. short stop, goalkeeper, quarterback), if aplicable. Or in videogames, the player character's name (if named). However, if the 2nd person reference was used in quotation, then it is left alone.
A few examples:
So, should this guideline (albeit a more revised and elaborate virsion) be added into the manual? --
—
Kjammer
⌂
08:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I am happy to see that someone else has brought up this subject. I agree with Kjammer that too many articles use the words "you" or "your" inappropriately; when I read them I am always left with a feeling that they are somehow unprofessional. But I agree that banning these words based on the fact that they give us a bad feeling is a weak argument. I also agree with jguk that making a rule to quash this kind of writing is difficult. So with further thinking I've come up with what I believe is ultimately a strong argument as to why this topic should make it into the manual:
Examine Kjammer's examples. In every case the corrected version fixes the problem by reintroducing the missing subject.
It is this factual omission that needs to be corrected, and because this topic is an easy way to alert authors about the problem, I think it should be included. -- Ke6jjj 23:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that everyone supports the general gist of this guideline, for whatever reason, except jguk who wishes to avoid instruction creep and Chuck who sees it as being part of good English anyway. (Correct me if I'm wrong. Five other contributors have signalled a support.
For I carry on with the whole consensus and proposal thing, I want to point out first that this would not be a complete ban and that in instances where it needs to be used, it can be used — but in most (in fact, almost all) cases, it will probably apply. It is, after all, just a guideline; editors will never be reprimanded for not adhering to it and if an article is out of line, someone will come and patch it up.
Also, I want to note that the rules of good English are debatable — just look at this page and its archives — so I'm a bit sceptical about most users taking it for granted.
But anyway, that aside, it would be worth deciding on a good wording for the addition. Do we point out that it is a factual omission, or just that it is considered poor encyclopedic style? Or should we say both? Is it necessary to include a word like "generally" to avoid misinterpretations of it being an outright ban? What section does it get added to?
Here's something to get started with:
Use of the second person ("you") is generally discouraged. Instead, refer to the subject of the sentence, for example:
This does not apply to quoted text, which should be quoted exactly. |
If we want to say why, "to specify who the sentence refers to" could be added before "for example" (its being bad style is kind of given, I think, that's why it's here in the first place!). Any suggested changes? Neonumbers 23:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
How about keeping this topic a little more general? A short note about encyclopedic tone and register may be useful, with a few points including don't refer to the reader in the second person "you". Also, I'd prefer to use an example that is more academic; I think gaming and popular culture articles should be about the subject, and we shouldn't encourage editors too far into the subject, if you know what I mean. — Michael Z. 2005-11-18 16:02 Z
Use of the second person ("you") is generally discouraged. This is to keep an encyclopedic tone, and also to help clarify the sentence. Instead, refer to the subject of the sentence, for example:
This does not apply to quoted text, which should be quoted exactly. |
I've just added that sentence. I haven't replaced the example because I've nothing to replace it with. Looking over this thread, it seems to me as if there is general support (i.e. consensus) for the addition; hence if there are no objections before 30 November 2005 I will add this to the manual. Neonumbers 06:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Section has been added to the "Usage and spelling" section. The "self-referential pronouns" section has been moved there too (this was not a guideline change and I felt it belonged there). Neonumbers 09:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I have recently noticed a British contributor going on a punctuation crusade through articles, including some I have edited and researched, to change all commas or periods placed inside quotation marks to be outside the quotation marks. He cites "logical quotation" and points to our Manual of Style: Quotation as though that is an authority on the subject of punctuating a sentence listing several song titles, as in the sentence he changed. (I wish he had been as interested in content research, but some people mostly care about going in to articles just to change the locations of commas. At least his fixation on this topic has brought it to my attention so I can ask here about it.)
Please explain how "logical quoting" relates to a list of song titles that are punctuated with quotation marks. I understand a quotation to be something different from a list of song titles that use quotation marks for punctuation. Listing four song titles in a sentence and placing the commas outside the quotation marks punctuating the song titles makes the resulting changed text appear to my eyes like some sort of programming language, rather than English. My reaction may be caused by my eyes becoming used to American editing style manuals from my work outside Wikipedia for the past 20 years. Trying to edit differently here than I do elsewhere, as though Wikipedia began as a British publication (which it did not), is going to become confusing for me.
I'm also trying to understand if Wikipedia style has settled without dispute on using British logical quoting for quotations, when that happened, and why British style should dominate Wikipedia. (I had visited the style manual many times before and did not notice this before.) No American style guide that I know of used by professional editors adopts the placing of commas and periods outside quotation marks. Here is the only archive I've found so far of Wikipedia discussions on the subject, merely noting a small handful of contributor attitudes on the subject: Quotes talk archive. I didn't find that discussion to have clearly come to a conclusion.
I want to get everything straight about what's correct form so that I can be consistent, correct any errors I have made myself, and so that I won't, worse yet, accidentally mis-edit someone else's work in the future. Until now, I had been adhering to styles I thought Wikipedia's style guide was based on (particularly for References citation style), such as Chicago Manual of Style, APA, and AP. I had thought at one point in the past some part of the Wikipedia style guide had said to use American style on American topics and British style on British topics, but I now doubt that memory was true (or it might have been in a citation style discussion, but I don't remember). Once I'm clear on how to handle this in the future, I will consistently apply whatever is the approved style to use, assuming it doesn't keep changing. -- Emerman 18:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that the problem on quote marks is that the technicalities are not understood, and not appreciated as important by the average person (indeed, the fact that there are two systems which can be interpreted as ok by readers suggests that there is not a big issue here). I think that in the history of this, there are two different systems being considered, reported speech and quotations and historically they have different rules, but (like the quotation mark article itself, this subtlety is lost- its just stuff in quotes for the average reader. In my more pedantic moments I'd like to see an authoritative statement on the acedemic view of correct usage, in all dialects, I think there is too much personal experience being thrown into the pot. Anyway, trying to fix a style based on correct usage when that usage is not understood seems a lost cause. Perhaps the pragmatic approach is to state that it is a Wiki style and not based on correct usage due to the differences in usage. -- Spenny 11:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Let me see if I have got this straight. Some people are suggesting that instead of writing
Some of Burt Bacharach's most famous songs are "The Look Of Love", "(They Long To Be) Close To You", "Raindrops Keep Fallin' On My Head", and "I Say A Little Prayer".
we should write
Some of Burt Bacharach's most famous songs are "The Look Of Love," "(They Long To Be) Close To You," "Raindrops Keep Fallin' On My Head," and "I Say A Little Prayer."
Is this really what is being said? The second formulation is absurd. Not only is it logically wrong (because the commas are not part of the song title), it looks completely wrong too, with the quotes separated only by spaces. Possibly I have got confused about what is being said. Matt 11:54, 6 November 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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Throughout my time on Wikipedia, I've edited pages about games (video games, board games, sports, etc.) when they reffer to the player (sometimes observer) as "you." Essentailly reffering to the reader as if (s)he is in that situation directly. Then one day, I check the Manual of Style, and find that it doesn't list this guideline. I have inquired this in the help desk (now archived here). Essays, research reports, and paper encyclopedias discourage addressing the reader by using "you" or "your." I would like to see this added into the Manual of Style. I would add it myself, but I don't know where to put it, or if I am allowed to do so.
Alredy some users (including me) make these edits dispite the lack of an explicit policy. In most cases we changed the word "you" into either the word "player" or the player's position title (i.e. short stop, goalkeeper, quarterback), if aplicable. Or in videogames, the player character's name (if named). However, if the 2nd person reference was used in quotation, then it is left alone.
A few examples:
So, should this guideline (albeit a more revised and elaborate virsion) be added into the manual? --
—
Kjammer
⌂
08:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I am happy to see that someone else has brought up this subject. I agree with Kjammer that too many articles use the words "you" or "your" inappropriately; when I read them I am always left with a feeling that they are somehow unprofessional. But I agree that banning these words based on the fact that they give us a bad feeling is a weak argument. I also agree with jguk that making a rule to quash this kind of writing is difficult. So with further thinking I've come up with what I believe is ultimately a strong argument as to why this topic should make it into the manual:
Examine Kjammer's examples. In every case the corrected version fixes the problem by reintroducing the missing subject.
It is this factual omission that needs to be corrected, and because this topic is an easy way to alert authors about the problem, I think it should be included. -- Ke6jjj 23:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that everyone supports the general gist of this guideline, for whatever reason, except jguk who wishes to avoid instruction creep and Chuck who sees it as being part of good English anyway. (Correct me if I'm wrong. Five other contributors have signalled a support.
For I carry on with the whole consensus and proposal thing, I want to point out first that this would not be a complete ban and that in instances where it needs to be used, it can be used — but in most (in fact, almost all) cases, it will probably apply. It is, after all, just a guideline; editors will never be reprimanded for not adhering to it and if an article is out of line, someone will come and patch it up.
Also, I want to note that the rules of good English are debatable — just look at this page and its archives — so I'm a bit sceptical about most users taking it for granted.
But anyway, that aside, it would be worth deciding on a good wording for the addition. Do we point out that it is a factual omission, or just that it is considered poor encyclopedic style? Or should we say both? Is it necessary to include a word like "generally" to avoid misinterpretations of it being an outright ban? What section does it get added to?
Here's something to get started with:
Use of the second person ("you") is generally discouraged. Instead, refer to the subject of the sentence, for example:
This does not apply to quoted text, which should be quoted exactly. |
If we want to say why, "to specify who the sentence refers to" could be added before "for example" (its being bad style is kind of given, I think, that's why it's here in the first place!). Any suggested changes? Neonumbers 23:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
How about keeping this topic a little more general? A short note about encyclopedic tone and register may be useful, with a few points including don't refer to the reader in the second person "you". Also, I'd prefer to use an example that is more academic; I think gaming and popular culture articles should be about the subject, and we shouldn't encourage editors too far into the subject, if you know what I mean. — Michael Z. 2005-11-18 16:02 Z
Use of the second person ("you") is generally discouraged. This is to keep an encyclopedic tone, and also to help clarify the sentence. Instead, refer to the subject of the sentence, for example:
This does not apply to quoted text, which should be quoted exactly. |
I've just added that sentence. I haven't replaced the example because I've nothing to replace it with. Looking over this thread, it seems to me as if there is general support (i.e. consensus) for the addition; hence if there are no objections before 30 November 2005 I will add this to the manual. Neonumbers 06:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Section has been added to the "Usage and spelling" section. The "self-referential pronouns" section has been moved there too (this was not a guideline change and I felt it belonged there). Neonumbers 09:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I have recently noticed a British contributor going on a punctuation crusade through articles, including some I have edited and researched, to change all commas or periods placed inside quotation marks to be outside the quotation marks. He cites "logical quotation" and points to our Manual of Style: Quotation as though that is an authority on the subject of punctuating a sentence listing several song titles, as in the sentence he changed. (I wish he had been as interested in content research, but some people mostly care about going in to articles just to change the locations of commas. At least his fixation on this topic has brought it to my attention so I can ask here about it.)
Please explain how "logical quoting" relates to a list of song titles that are punctuated with quotation marks. I understand a quotation to be something different from a list of song titles that use quotation marks for punctuation. Listing four song titles in a sentence and placing the commas outside the quotation marks punctuating the song titles makes the resulting changed text appear to my eyes like some sort of programming language, rather than English. My reaction may be caused by my eyes becoming used to American editing style manuals from my work outside Wikipedia for the past 20 years. Trying to edit differently here than I do elsewhere, as though Wikipedia began as a British publication (which it did not), is going to become confusing for me.
I'm also trying to understand if Wikipedia style has settled without dispute on using British logical quoting for quotations, when that happened, and why British style should dominate Wikipedia. (I had visited the style manual many times before and did not notice this before.) No American style guide that I know of used by professional editors adopts the placing of commas and periods outside quotation marks. Here is the only archive I've found so far of Wikipedia discussions on the subject, merely noting a small handful of contributor attitudes on the subject: Quotes talk archive. I didn't find that discussion to have clearly come to a conclusion.
I want to get everything straight about what's correct form so that I can be consistent, correct any errors I have made myself, and so that I won't, worse yet, accidentally mis-edit someone else's work in the future. Until now, I had been adhering to styles I thought Wikipedia's style guide was based on (particularly for References citation style), such as Chicago Manual of Style, APA, and AP. I had thought at one point in the past some part of the Wikipedia style guide had said to use American style on American topics and British style on British topics, but I now doubt that memory was true (or it might have been in a citation style discussion, but I don't remember). Once I'm clear on how to handle this in the future, I will consistently apply whatever is the approved style to use, assuming it doesn't keep changing. -- Emerman 18:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that the problem on quote marks is that the technicalities are not understood, and not appreciated as important by the average person (indeed, the fact that there are two systems which can be interpreted as ok by readers suggests that there is not a big issue here). I think that in the history of this, there are two different systems being considered, reported speech and quotations and historically they have different rules, but (like the quotation mark article itself, this subtlety is lost- its just stuff in quotes for the average reader. In my more pedantic moments I'd like to see an authoritative statement on the acedemic view of correct usage, in all dialects, I think there is too much personal experience being thrown into the pot. Anyway, trying to fix a style based on correct usage when that usage is not understood seems a lost cause. Perhaps the pragmatic approach is to state that it is a Wiki style and not based on correct usage due to the differences in usage. -- Spenny 11:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Let me see if I have got this straight. Some people are suggesting that instead of writing
Some of Burt Bacharach's most famous songs are "The Look Of Love", "(They Long To Be) Close To You", "Raindrops Keep Fallin' On My Head", and "I Say A Little Prayer".
we should write
Some of Burt Bacharach's most famous songs are "The Look Of Love," "(They Long To Be) Close To You," "Raindrops Keep Fallin' On My Head," and "I Say A Little Prayer."
Is this really what is being said? The second formulation is absurd. Not only is it logically wrong (because the commas are not part of the song title), it looks completely wrong too, with the quotes separated only by spaces. Possibly I have got confused about what is being said. Matt 11:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)