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 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
Please visit Template talk:Welcome#Comma business (see poll) and weigh in on a comma placement issue on an important template. DES (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Is there a Wikipedia policy regading the format of numbers over 10000? namely, should we write "10,000" (common usage, it seems) or "10 000" (SI standard, I believe)? Thanks, Jorge Stolfi 20:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be widely varied usage for the capitalization of titles written in languages that do not capitalize all words in them. For example, the poem Orlando Furioso is capitalized as it would be in English, whereas the opera Orlando furioso (Vivaldi) is capitalized as it would be in Italian. This has also come up for some organizations and so on. I cannot find an entry in the manual of style that seems relevant. Suggestions? Chick Bowen 00:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
This is the English Wikipedia. In English, all nouns are capitalized in titles. User:Zoe| (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
It occurs to me that "furioso" isn't a noun, though. But the way I was taught is that almost every word in a title is capitalized, except for "the, a, an", "and", of", and certain other words that don't come to me right now. User:Zoe| (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you'll calm down when you realize these are page titles we're talking about here.
Anyway, shouldn't this discussion be in Naming Conventions, not here?
Why are the see alsos supposed to be placed at the top of a section? Almost all featured articles have it after the bottom of a section. Logically it makes sense to have it at the bottom as the word also indicates further reading after a user has digested the section. I seek a change in the existing MoS. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I've found that the text in the m:Help:Section differed slightly from the text in Wikipedia:Section, which then differed more from the text here. The text here clearly stated (since 2005-04-08 17:40:50):
If the article is divided into sections and See also refers to a particular section only, references to related articles that have not been linked from free links in the text may be placed at the top of the section:
At first I tried simply harmonizing the latter two, but then merged it all here instead, using separate subsections. Now we have something concrete to discuss.
However, MoS is getting rather large, and several other topics have been moved to a separate page. Shouldn't all the MoS Sections section be merged to Wikipedia:Section, instead? (That's a bigger merge, thus more controversial, but it should be relatively clean there.)
I also fixed eating our own dog food: there were several hand coded replacements for {{ main}} and {{ see also}} along with the templates. Now they mostly use the templates.
Wow, I really disagree with you there.
=Nichalp «Talk»= 14:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Now that the major issues were resolved, and as proposed earlier, I moved the entire Sections material to Wikipedia:Sections, saving 6K.
There are several simple tricks that make the source texts of articles better readable without changing the appearance of the rendered pages:
Several of these examples have been made possible through software improvements during the last years and many users have quickly adopted this style. However, many examples given on the help pages and in the Manual of Style articles do not reflect this yet. What do you think about adding this or a revised list to a Manual of Style article and to change all code examples at Wikipedia accordingly.
Cacycle 23:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
One more:
Cacycle 09:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I will start to apply the mentioned changes to examples in the Wikipedia namespace during the next few days. Cacycle 22:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
My script is here. It currently:
==Heading==
→ == Heading ==
It's pretty kludgy right now (and I welcome suggestions), but it works, with a few false positives/negatives. I run it on a page I'm editing when the markup is difficult to read. You can even include it directly in your own monobook.js (needs addLink() function) and use it yourself, so it will be updated when I change it, though it will link to my page in your edit summaries.
Heading–image shouldn't have a line space between
Thought folks might want to know that User:Bevo is removing the spaces in headings and after headings, "standard and consistent internal and/or external formatting" edit comment. Especially just now at Wikipedia:Section. That does make it match Help:Section. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) is pretty laid back about the whole thing, merely saying "Some editors find this easier to read in the wikitext source code." Is it worth making a fuss over?
Is this the right place to document the uses of etc? PizzaMargherita 23:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, ok thanks. So what about ? For example, its uses after "e.g.", "i.e.", or "N. Surname" etc... PizzaMargherita 15:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so back to the point... PizzaMargherita 07:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I probably haven't been very explicit in my request :) I give for granted that the use of nbsp, ugly though it is, is the only correct option in some circumstances. Can you please help me cobble a list of such circumstances and suggest where to put it in the MoS? Thanks PizzaMargherita 08:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I hope I'm not the only one who is striving for "proper typography" on WP. I disagree that this goal would make the markup "unreadable again".
There is also an article about dash, but that does link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes). Why shouldn't we have a policy for nbsp as well? PizzaMargherita 15:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that gidence on when this should be used, when it may be used and when it probably should not be used in wikipedia article text would be a good addition to the MOS. Noting the dislike that many have for its apparence would be part of that, IMO. Perhaps Wikipedia:Manual of Style (HTML entities) should be created? DES (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Note that if you are using a Macintosh computer, you can enter a literal Unicode non-breaking space by just typing "option-space". You can probably do this on Windows by typing alt-0160 or something (anyone know?). This leaves the wikitext nice and clean, but has a couple of disadvantages.
— Michael Z. 2006-01-9 17:57 Z
The idea of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (special characters) is interesting, as I myself have always wondered when it is best to use Unicode characters and when it is best to use HTML entities. I've never been consistant about it. If we did create such a page, what would it say? Would there be detailed advice for each character or would it end up just saying "Use Unicode characters instead of HTML entities"? Kaldari 22:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that TeX's use of tilde (~) is pretty readable and a good shorthand for the non-breakable space. IMHO it is much less ugly than the notation, especially when editing a text part that has a lot of them, e.g., a bibliography. The entity vs. Unicode thing for other entities that you're discussing is already addressed by a robot here. -- BACbKA 22:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I am aware that currently the tilde doesn't have any special meaning. I was trying to suggest a markup change here. As for the robots, the one I encountered the most was User:Curpsbot-unicodify. Edit warring by robots can spawn more robots auto-blocking the warring ones ;-) One of those days, the robots will just right the encyclopedia while we all sit back and rest, won't they? -- BACbKA 00:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Here's an interesting note: "The Mediawiki software now has a list of old browsers that cannot handle Unicode correctly, and presents these browsers with a "safe" version of the page to edit." Perhaps Unicode is the way to go then, at least for relatively common Unicode characters (such as dashes, accented vowels, degree symbols, etc.) Kaldari 06:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Note that italicizing text can make it harder for people with visual or cognitive disabilities to read [1]
How does that sounds for an addition? Circeus 15:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
When I type here, a capital "I" (eye) and a lower-case "l" (el) look, appropriately, quite different. But on any Wik page I've ever seen (I've seen Wik on many machines, but not where I have authority to change appearances), they look indistinguishable. At times this is confusing. Can something be done to correct this?
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 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
Please visit Template talk:Welcome#Comma business (see poll) and weigh in on a comma placement issue on an important template. DES (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Is there a Wikipedia policy regading the format of numbers over 10000? namely, should we write "10,000" (common usage, it seems) or "10 000" (SI standard, I believe)? Thanks, Jorge Stolfi 20:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be widely varied usage for the capitalization of titles written in languages that do not capitalize all words in them. For example, the poem Orlando Furioso is capitalized as it would be in English, whereas the opera Orlando furioso (Vivaldi) is capitalized as it would be in Italian. This has also come up for some organizations and so on. I cannot find an entry in the manual of style that seems relevant. Suggestions? Chick Bowen 00:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
This is the English Wikipedia. In English, all nouns are capitalized in titles. User:Zoe| (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
It occurs to me that "furioso" isn't a noun, though. But the way I was taught is that almost every word in a title is capitalized, except for "the, a, an", "and", of", and certain other words that don't come to me right now. User:Zoe| (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you'll calm down when you realize these are page titles we're talking about here.
Anyway, shouldn't this discussion be in Naming Conventions, not here?
Why are the see alsos supposed to be placed at the top of a section? Almost all featured articles have it after the bottom of a section. Logically it makes sense to have it at the bottom as the word also indicates further reading after a user has digested the section. I seek a change in the existing MoS. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I've found that the text in the m:Help:Section differed slightly from the text in Wikipedia:Section, which then differed more from the text here. The text here clearly stated (since 2005-04-08 17:40:50):
If the article is divided into sections and See also refers to a particular section only, references to related articles that have not been linked from free links in the text may be placed at the top of the section:
At first I tried simply harmonizing the latter two, but then merged it all here instead, using separate subsections. Now we have something concrete to discuss.
However, MoS is getting rather large, and several other topics have been moved to a separate page. Shouldn't all the MoS Sections section be merged to Wikipedia:Section, instead? (That's a bigger merge, thus more controversial, but it should be relatively clean there.)
I also fixed eating our own dog food: there were several hand coded replacements for {{ main}} and {{ see also}} along with the templates. Now they mostly use the templates.
Wow, I really disagree with you there.
=Nichalp «Talk»= 14:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Now that the major issues were resolved, and as proposed earlier, I moved the entire Sections material to Wikipedia:Sections, saving 6K.
There are several simple tricks that make the source texts of articles better readable without changing the appearance of the rendered pages:
Several of these examples have been made possible through software improvements during the last years and many users have quickly adopted this style. However, many examples given on the help pages and in the Manual of Style articles do not reflect this yet. What do you think about adding this or a revised list to a Manual of Style article and to change all code examples at Wikipedia accordingly.
Cacycle 23:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
One more:
Cacycle 09:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I will start to apply the mentioned changes to examples in the Wikipedia namespace during the next few days. Cacycle 22:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
My script is here. It currently:
==Heading==
→ == Heading ==
It's pretty kludgy right now (and I welcome suggestions), but it works, with a few false positives/negatives. I run it on a page I'm editing when the markup is difficult to read. You can even include it directly in your own monobook.js (needs addLink() function) and use it yourself, so it will be updated when I change it, though it will link to my page in your edit summaries.
Heading–image shouldn't have a line space between
Thought folks might want to know that User:Bevo is removing the spaces in headings and after headings, "standard and consistent internal and/or external formatting" edit comment. Especially just now at Wikipedia:Section. That does make it match Help:Section. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) is pretty laid back about the whole thing, merely saying "Some editors find this easier to read in the wikitext source code." Is it worth making a fuss over?
Is this the right place to document the uses of etc? PizzaMargherita 23:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, ok thanks. So what about ? For example, its uses after "e.g.", "i.e.", or "N. Surname" etc... PizzaMargherita 15:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so back to the point... PizzaMargherita 07:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I probably haven't been very explicit in my request :) I give for granted that the use of nbsp, ugly though it is, is the only correct option in some circumstances. Can you please help me cobble a list of such circumstances and suggest where to put it in the MoS? Thanks PizzaMargherita 08:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I hope I'm not the only one who is striving for "proper typography" on WP. I disagree that this goal would make the markup "unreadable again".
There is also an article about dash, but that does link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes). Why shouldn't we have a policy for nbsp as well? PizzaMargherita 15:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that gidence on when this should be used, when it may be used and when it probably should not be used in wikipedia article text would be a good addition to the MOS. Noting the dislike that many have for its apparence would be part of that, IMO. Perhaps Wikipedia:Manual of Style (HTML entities) should be created? DES (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Note that if you are using a Macintosh computer, you can enter a literal Unicode non-breaking space by just typing "option-space". You can probably do this on Windows by typing alt-0160 or something (anyone know?). This leaves the wikitext nice and clean, but has a couple of disadvantages.
— Michael Z. 2006-01-9 17:57 Z
The idea of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (special characters) is interesting, as I myself have always wondered when it is best to use Unicode characters and when it is best to use HTML entities. I've never been consistant about it. If we did create such a page, what would it say? Would there be detailed advice for each character or would it end up just saying "Use Unicode characters instead of HTML entities"? Kaldari 22:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that TeX's use of tilde (~) is pretty readable and a good shorthand for the non-breakable space. IMHO it is much less ugly than the notation, especially when editing a text part that has a lot of them, e.g., a bibliography. The entity vs. Unicode thing for other entities that you're discussing is already addressed by a robot here. -- BACbKA 22:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I am aware that currently the tilde doesn't have any special meaning. I was trying to suggest a markup change here. As for the robots, the one I encountered the most was User:Curpsbot-unicodify. Edit warring by robots can spawn more robots auto-blocking the warring ones ;-) One of those days, the robots will just right the encyclopedia while we all sit back and rest, won't they? -- BACbKA 00:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Here's an interesting note: "The Mediawiki software now has a list of old browsers that cannot handle Unicode correctly, and presents these browsers with a "safe" version of the page to edit." Perhaps Unicode is the way to go then, at least for relatively common Unicode characters (such as dashes, accented vowels, degree symbols, etc.) Kaldari 06:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Note that italicizing text can make it harder for people with visual or cognitive disabilities to read [1]
How does that sounds for an addition? Circeus 15:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
When I type here, a capital "I" (eye) and a lower-case "l" (el) look, appropriately, quite different. But on any Wik page I've ever seen (I've seen Wik on many machines, but not where I have authority to change appearances), they look indistinguishable. At times this is confusing. Can something be done to correct this?