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 40 | ← | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | → | Archive 50 |
I have been coming across more external links embedded in the text of articles not as a numbered note, but linking a large swath of text:
It is extremely unlikely that Anne would have been over thirty at the time of her marriage, because such an age was considered unhealthy for a first-time mother. There is, however, a letter from Anne in about 1514 which, some people believe, suggests she was a teenager when she wrote it.
I think its a bad idea. External links should be at the end of articles or as embedded footnotes in parentheses:
It is extremely unlikely that Anne would have been over thirty at the time of her marriage, because such an age was considered unhealthy for a first-time mother. There is, however, a letter from Anne from about 1514 which, some people believe, suggests she was a teenager when she wrote it. [ [1]
What do you think?
-- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, in fact, I'd go a step further and use a footnote for the external link (so that the number goes to the footnote). Big chunks of text as external link = badness. Neonumbers 11:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Improper: There is, however, a letter from Anne in about 1514 which, some people believe, suggests she was a teenager when she wrote it.
Proper: There is, however, a letter from Anne in about 1514 which, some people believe, suggests she was a teenager when she wrote it. [2]
Should there be any rule regarding linking to London, Ontario, Canada versus London, Ontario, Canada? Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Location Format. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-02-09 10:27 Z
Bolding by the writer is reserved for the title of the article when it is repeated in the first sentence of the article. Bolding should not be used for emphasis. Italics should be used for emphasis.
This was added without discussion. It is third person. It is incorrect.
Italics are not used for emphasis, they are used for publication citations, and to indicate words as words, or words in other languages. These uses are already detailed in this MoS.
Bold is frequently used for emphasis — in journalism, legal briefs and opinions, and technical publications.
I don't believe this should be added without a thorough citation from multiple manual of style sources.
So does this mean I am misinterpreting this rule from MoS under italics: "Editors mainly use italics to emphasize certain words. They also use them in these other cases." (emphasis added) Can someone knowledgeable explain? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 11:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Do people think this version of this page Autobiographical comics is abusing bolding?-- Larrybob 21:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
-- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Emboldening words and phrases should be avoided wherever possible, except for the first use of the article title or its synonyms. Emboldening should not be used for emphasis within a sentence; instead italics can be used sparingly.
There are recently many new proper names being introduced into the language that are "officially" spelled with an inital lowercase letter. Of course, Wikipedia does not permit initial capitals in the titles of articles, so the titles of these articles are contrary to the "official" spelling, but anything goes in the body of articles. There is a very old rule of written English that sentences have to being with a capital letter. Many style guides even require that sentence-initial numbers must be written out in words, even if they would elsewhere be written using numerals. The reason for this is clear—finding sentence boundaries is important to scanning, which is an essential part of reading, and if sentences don't begin with capital letters, they are harder to find. I can't seem to find any style guides that rule specifically on this topic—these kinds of names are so new—but I have seen in the Wall Street Journal e.g. sentences begin with "IPod" rather than "iPod". To my mind, we would be best off respecting the norms of written English rather than the trendy typographical whims of the modern marketer. Can anyone cite a style guide that rules on this issue either way? Nohat 09:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Its a tough one. I have been going through conservative business publications to see how they handle odd company names. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Reduce to title case. I think they look best this way, and business publications have a mixed record on which to use.
Keep I don't think they look bad, and most business publications keep them. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Can we remove sections that are listed here when we have come to agreement on a set of rules? That way instead of blanking the page when it fills, only active discussions remain on the active talk page. What do you think? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The italics section has become pretty big. Anyone else think it should become its own topic? It should be Wikipedia:Manual of Style (italics). I am going to move it and leave a summary at main MoS page. It can always be reverted. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Suggested rules:
Should we standardize on bold or italics for emphasis or have a laissez-faire attitude? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Your proposed rules are unnecessary, except perhaps for "use italics, not bold, for emphasis." We have to assume a certain baseline level of common ground here among editors; certainly a working knowledge of the English language is one such assumption—we don't specify the rules of English grammar in the Manual of Style, exhorting editors, for instance, to "make verbs agree with their subjects". A working knowledge of the basic rules of typesetting should also be assumed. Italics are used for emphasis. Boldface is used only for specialized purposes, such as for marking a topic or for providing for an additional binary dimension of data in a table. The only case of boldface ever being used for emphasis is when the writer wants to essentially scream at the reader, laying on an additional layer of emphasis for which italics is insufficient: "I will not be ignored!" In an encyclopedia, we never have a use case for the writer screaming at the reader (since the "writer" should be fading into the background as much as possible), so boldface is never to be used for emphasis.
Your other rules are just exhorting editors to not be ignorant of typesetting rules they are apparently already ignorant of. Edit their errors, and if they persist, leave a note on their talk pages explaining their errors. If they continue, adding a rule to the MoS will be no more helpful than adding a rule on subject-verb agreement will be for editors who don't speak English well. -- TreyHarris 01:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
From recent commentary here and at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), it seems that there may not be consensus on two points which are pretty vital to the purpose and disposition of the Manual of Style (both this page and all the related MoS pages):
Perhaps we should have a straw poll soon about these questions. My take is that the answer to #1, enforceability, should be "yes", but the current state of the MoS, with its contradictions and great differentials in amount of detail and relevance from section to section, makes it the rational course for many editors to ignore the MoS in some cases. I think we should strive to fix these shortcomings, so that the MoS can be enforceable as a guideline. (Remember the difference between guideline and policy: policies are more inviolate than guidelines, but both are actionable.)
I think the answer to #2, completeness, should be "no". Many editors have complained that the sprawl that is already the MoS is impossible to keep tabs on if you want to do anything else in the encyclopedia. I think this is getting to be true, and recent expansions of this page and associated MoS pages have only worsened the problem. I think this MoS should strive for minimalism, taking up matters of actual ongoing dispute and cases where Wikipedia has a need for special-purpose guidelines (for example, naming conventions, linking, formatting, etc.). It should not take up matters where other style guides are in agreement, or where the rules of English grammar and typesetting are undisputed. It should also allow for editor's choice in most matters that are more presentation than content.
I would like to start discussion on these points, perhaps moving to a straw poll in a few days to try to resolve them. I will create two sections below so that the two questions can be dealt with separately. If we can get different viewpoints, that will help to determine if there is already rough consensus, and if not, what the options in the poll should be. -- TreyHarris 02:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
With the database problems of the past few days, I have no idea how some 60 edits were applied to this talk. Generally, I don't bother responding again until folks have had at least a day to think about it. I agree with Trey that we have an over-specification problem here. Especially where the recent proposals for this MoS contradict other pages at Italic type and Bold (currently a redirect to Emphasis (typography), for those of you who think bold is not used for emphasis).
Does the Manual of Style say anything about the use of imperatives in articles? For example, the article earwax states:
All those "Never" statements seem to amount to medical advice and imply that Wikipedia is the authority telling the reader what not to do. I believe they should be restated in a non-imperative form, such as "It is advised never to irrigate the ear if the eardrum is not known to be intact." However it seems it would be difficult to read if all those statements were rephrased in that way.
I would like to hear your suggestions about this. Is it necessary to explicitly proscribe the use of imperatives in articles? In my opinion, they should be avoided in most cases. -- Dforest 16:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I think there should probably be a cleanup template along the lines of "this article contains instructions or advice, and needs to be cleaned up to meet encyclopedia standards" or some such; I've also noticed many articles like this (often on technical subjects where they read like an instruction manual). I don't think the MoS needs to injuct against imperatives; they're a content issue, not a stylistic one. -- TreyHarris 04:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Should there be an s after the apostrophe in possessives ending in s?
Example:
The genome project would not be the same without
Francis Collins' contributions.
or
The genome project would not be the same without
Francis Collins's contributions.
Please drop a note on my talk page if you reply, as I may forget to check back here.
Thanks,
Wulf 20:33, 15 February 2006 (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 40 | ← | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | → | Archive 50 |
I have been coming across more external links embedded in the text of articles not as a numbered note, but linking a large swath of text:
It is extremely unlikely that Anne would have been over thirty at the time of her marriage, because such an age was considered unhealthy for a first-time mother. There is, however, a letter from Anne in about 1514 which, some people believe, suggests she was a teenager when she wrote it.
I think its a bad idea. External links should be at the end of articles or as embedded footnotes in parentheses:
It is extremely unlikely that Anne would have been over thirty at the time of her marriage, because such an age was considered unhealthy for a first-time mother. There is, however, a letter from Anne from about 1514 which, some people believe, suggests she was a teenager when she wrote it. [ [1]
What do you think?
-- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, in fact, I'd go a step further and use a footnote for the external link (so that the number goes to the footnote). Big chunks of text as external link = badness. Neonumbers 11:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Improper: There is, however, a letter from Anne in about 1514 which, some people believe, suggests she was a teenager when she wrote it.
Proper: There is, however, a letter from Anne in about 1514 which, some people believe, suggests she was a teenager when she wrote it. [2]
Should there be any rule regarding linking to London, Ontario, Canada versus London, Ontario, Canada? Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Location Format. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-02-09 10:27 Z
Bolding by the writer is reserved for the title of the article when it is repeated in the first sentence of the article. Bolding should not be used for emphasis. Italics should be used for emphasis.
This was added without discussion. It is third person. It is incorrect.
Italics are not used for emphasis, they are used for publication citations, and to indicate words as words, or words in other languages. These uses are already detailed in this MoS.
Bold is frequently used for emphasis — in journalism, legal briefs and opinions, and technical publications.
I don't believe this should be added without a thorough citation from multiple manual of style sources.
So does this mean I am misinterpreting this rule from MoS under italics: "Editors mainly use italics to emphasize certain words. They also use them in these other cases." (emphasis added) Can someone knowledgeable explain? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 11:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Do people think this version of this page Autobiographical comics is abusing bolding?-- Larrybob 21:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
-- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Emboldening words and phrases should be avoided wherever possible, except for the first use of the article title or its synonyms. Emboldening should not be used for emphasis within a sentence; instead italics can be used sparingly.
There are recently many new proper names being introduced into the language that are "officially" spelled with an inital lowercase letter. Of course, Wikipedia does not permit initial capitals in the titles of articles, so the titles of these articles are contrary to the "official" spelling, but anything goes in the body of articles. There is a very old rule of written English that sentences have to being with a capital letter. Many style guides even require that sentence-initial numbers must be written out in words, even if they would elsewhere be written using numerals. The reason for this is clear—finding sentence boundaries is important to scanning, which is an essential part of reading, and if sentences don't begin with capital letters, they are harder to find. I can't seem to find any style guides that rule specifically on this topic—these kinds of names are so new—but I have seen in the Wall Street Journal e.g. sentences begin with "IPod" rather than "iPod". To my mind, we would be best off respecting the norms of written English rather than the trendy typographical whims of the modern marketer. Can anyone cite a style guide that rules on this issue either way? Nohat 09:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Its a tough one. I have been going through conservative business publications to see how they handle odd company names. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Reduce to title case. I think they look best this way, and business publications have a mixed record on which to use.
Keep I don't think they look bad, and most business publications keep them. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Can we remove sections that are listed here when we have come to agreement on a set of rules? That way instead of blanking the page when it fills, only active discussions remain on the active talk page. What do you think? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The italics section has become pretty big. Anyone else think it should become its own topic? It should be Wikipedia:Manual of Style (italics). I am going to move it and leave a summary at main MoS page. It can always be reverted. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Suggested rules:
Should we standardize on bold or italics for emphasis or have a laissez-faire attitude? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Your proposed rules are unnecessary, except perhaps for "use italics, not bold, for emphasis." We have to assume a certain baseline level of common ground here among editors; certainly a working knowledge of the English language is one such assumption—we don't specify the rules of English grammar in the Manual of Style, exhorting editors, for instance, to "make verbs agree with their subjects". A working knowledge of the basic rules of typesetting should also be assumed. Italics are used for emphasis. Boldface is used only for specialized purposes, such as for marking a topic or for providing for an additional binary dimension of data in a table. The only case of boldface ever being used for emphasis is when the writer wants to essentially scream at the reader, laying on an additional layer of emphasis for which italics is insufficient: "I will not be ignored!" In an encyclopedia, we never have a use case for the writer screaming at the reader (since the "writer" should be fading into the background as much as possible), so boldface is never to be used for emphasis.
Your other rules are just exhorting editors to not be ignorant of typesetting rules they are apparently already ignorant of. Edit their errors, and if they persist, leave a note on their talk pages explaining their errors. If they continue, adding a rule to the MoS will be no more helpful than adding a rule on subject-verb agreement will be for editors who don't speak English well. -- TreyHarris 01:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
From recent commentary here and at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), it seems that there may not be consensus on two points which are pretty vital to the purpose and disposition of the Manual of Style (both this page and all the related MoS pages):
Perhaps we should have a straw poll soon about these questions. My take is that the answer to #1, enforceability, should be "yes", but the current state of the MoS, with its contradictions and great differentials in amount of detail and relevance from section to section, makes it the rational course for many editors to ignore the MoS in some cases. I think we should strive to fix these shortcomings, so that the MoS can be enforceable as a guideline. (Remember the difference between guideline and policy: policies are more inviolate than guidelines, but both are actionable.)
I think the answer to #2, completeness, should be "no". Many editors have complained that the sprawl that is already the MoS is impossible to keep tabs on if you want to do anything else in the encyclopedia. I think this is getting to be true, and recent expansions of this page and associated MoS pages have only worsened the problem. I think this MoS should strive for minimalism, taking up matters of actual ongoing dispute and cases where Wikipedia has a need for special-purpose guidelines (for example, naming conventions, linking, formatting, etc.). It should not take up matters where other style guides are in agreement, or where the rules of English grammar and typesetting are undisputed. It should also allow for editor's choice in most matters that are more presentation than content.
I would like to start discussion on these points, perhaps moving to a straw poll in a few days to try to resolve them. I will create two sections below so that the two questions can be dealt with separately. If we can get different viewpoints, that will help to determine if there is already rough consensus, and if not, what the options in the poll should be. -- TreyHarris 02:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
With the database problems of the past few days, I have no idea how some 60 edits were applied to this talk. Generally, I don't bother responding again until folks have had at least a day to think about it. I agree with Trey that we have an over-specification problem here. Especially where the recent proposals for this MoS contradict other pages at Italic type and Bold (currently a redirect to Emphasis (typography), for those of you who think bold is not used for emphasis).
Does the Manual of Style say anything about the use of imperatives in articles? For example, the article earwax states:
All those "Never" statements seem to amount to medical advice and imply that Wikipedia is the authority telling the reader what not to do. I believe they should be restated in a non-imperative form, such as "It is advised never to irrigate the ear if the eardrum is not known to be intact." However it seems it would be difficult to read if all those statements were rephrased in that way.
I would like to hear your suggestions about this. Is it necessary to explicitly proscribe the use of imperatives in articles? In my opinion, they should be avoided in most cases. -- Dforest 16:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I think there should probably be a cleanup template along the lines of "this article contains instructions or advice, and needs to be cleaned up to meet encyclopedia standards" or some such; I've also noticed many articles like this (often on technical subjects where they read like an instruction manual). I don't think the MoS needs to injuct against imperatives; they're a content issue, not a stylistic one. -- TreyHarris 04:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Should there be an s after the apostrophe in possessives ending in s?
Example:
The genome project would not be the same without
Francis Collins' contributions.
or
The genome project would not be the same without
Francis Collins's contributions.
Please drop a note on my talk page if you reply, as I may forget to check back here.
Thanks,
Wulf 20:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)