![]() | 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 50 | ← | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | → | Archive 60 |
I propose a new section, maybe on Village Pump, somthing like the Signpost, but wherever it's relevent, where this section lists word choice for article content. This section, would list, for example: 'Instead of using 'craftsman' or 'craftsmen' in articles, use 'craft worker' or 'craftsperson.'. Another example: 'Do not use the word: 'Indian' to refer to indigenious peoples of the Americas, because 'Indian' most appropriatly refers to a person from or of India.'. This new section would also say help and say that people who come across this section, & people who find errors like listed in said section would correct them. It also has the power to be cited, in discussions, for example: in talk pages, where people blue link, for example 'WP:NPOV' or 'WP:MOS'. 100110100 11:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I've read articles, but I don't remeber which ones, which refered to Galicia, but didn't state Iberian Galicia or East European Galicia. Just to let you guys know. Hhhmmmm, maybe it would have been more appropriate to list this in a section, like which that I proposed............................... 100110100 11:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi folks, other Filipino editors and I are trying to gauge consensus on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Philippine-related articles) so that we can make it into an official style guide. Could any of you give it a look-see and leave any constructive comments on the talk pages? We would really appreciate it. This was my first time writing a Manual of Style, so I'm sure it could use some work. Thanks. -- Chris S. 04:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I have been going around wikipedia and I have seen many articles about middle aged weapons, bronze aged buildings and modern systems reference games, saying it is featured in games like Civilization. I think these references is cruft and the game's own article should reference these weapons, buildings and systems instead. I propose we remove game references that are not highly relevant to an article. This will stop game developers plugging games all over wikipedia, which is spam, and help cut down on article size keeping the most notable parts, thus raising the quality of articles. -- Orbit One Talk| Babel 15:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
"See Article for more information" seems to be the convention at the moment for referring to another article: initial letter of the title capitalized, no other markings except the link. A few points:
— Simetrical ( talk • contribs) 18:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Thing to consider are the {{ further}} and {{ see also}} templates.
I don’t think the article title needs to be in quotation marks. As you said, some other publications use other styles; let Wikipedia’s style be the wikilink.
I agree we should avoid the parenthetical style for section links. I think a colon is a good separator, as in Article: Section. It’s what’s used to separate a book’s title from its subtitle, which I think is an analogous situation. Colons might already occur in article titles, meaning some link text might have multiple colons, but that’s not a problem. This isn’t something that needs to be absolutely perfect; if a link or two look a little awkward, that’s OK. The link isn’t going to be broken because something reads oddly, and any confusion in the reader should be cleared up well enough after following the link and reading the section heading at the top of the viewport.
For choosing how to capitalize the name of the article, I tentatively suggest using the formal name of the article after any redirect or {{ wrongtitle}} message, although I’m of the opinion that article titles, like sentences, should always start with a capital letter, so in addition to See Article for more information, I’d also go with See C#, but See EBay.
-- Rob Kennedy 04:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
There needs to be a consistent style for where stub tags are to be placed, as there appears to be none at the moment and as a result I've seen them all over the place - top, middle, and at varying places at the end. A bot (I'm sorry I don't know which one) is currently placing stub tags AFTER categories which, while it doesn't affect the page layout, is extremely awkward for editing especially when (and I've had to fix this a number of times) the stub tage is mistaken for a category and ends up in the middle of the category list or language tags. Same bot (and others) have also been placing stub tags below template lists which looks rather awkward, too. In my opinion, stub tags both on the edit page and in the final layout need to be between "External links" -- or, rather, the last major piece of text in an article -- and either the template(s) or categories, whichever is present first. Thoughts? 23skidoo 21:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The subsection heading, "Use of punctuation in presence of brackets/parentheses" repeats the word "punctuation", which is the section heading. I propose changing this subsection heading to "Presentation with brackets and parentheses". -- Charles Gaudette 18:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not familiar with editting the Manual Of Style and how it should be done, thus I am putting this on the discussion page for a person more familiar with wikipedia to comment on.
Recently, a discussion and poll regarding usage of the word "Allah" vs. "God" in Islam-related articles took place. The results are to be found here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)/God vs Allah. Since the poll has evidently passed, how does one go about implementing this in the Manual of Style itself? Thanks in advance for your help. Starwarp2k2 03:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I recall reading a U.S. Dept of Defense manual of style, which recommended using contractions only for negated verbs such as "won't", "didn't", "isn't" etc. The reason given is that a reader who skims a document will often skip over the word "not" and misinterpret the sentence. Using a contraction instead guarantees that the verb negation reaches the reader's brain. The fragment "it isn't" (contracting the verb) is preferable to "it is not" (no contraction) or "it's not" (using possessive "it"). In rushed emergency situations where missing a simple "not" may have life-or-death consequences, the verb contraction serves an important clarifying purpose, although I admit it isn't as meaningful in an encyclopedic reference.
I would add a recommendation to avoid sentence structure that demands a contraction; for example instead of using don't for did not in The experiment did not produce the expected result, one can avoid the possibility for a contraction altogether with The experiment failed to produce the expected result, which is a more compelling sentence as active voice. - Amatulic 00:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Can anybody explain why the Wikipedia style guide encourages the use of sentence case in headings? Every where else, headings are set in title case, meaning you always capitalize the first word, and you capitalize anything else except articles, prepositions, and conjunctions. That's the way I've been trained to do it every where else. Once again, it makes no sense to create a style rule will be violated by any literate person who hasn't read WP's Manual of Style, as somebody said elsewhere on this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MiguelMunoz ( talk • contribs) 12:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC).
I haven't been able to find a title casing pattern in my bookshelf. I personally kind of like Sentence case, but I like Title Case as well. But more than that I like consistency. Currently all articles use use Sentence case, and if change policy, we'll need to change everything. Let's stick to what we have; people who really, really want Title Case can always use some user script that changes the headings only for them. Shinobu 22:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, and that's probably not a lot, the Canadian Press Style Guide, which is standard for Canadian newspapers, recommends sentence case. Ground Zero | t 12:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone point me to a specific Wikipedia policy about how to reference specific people within articles? Journalism style is to use the full name "John Smith" in the first reference but then to use just the last name "Smith" in all other references. (This has some flexibility if there are two people with the last name of Smith in the article.)
I'm also interested in finding out if there is any specific policy about the use of "social titles" within articles, such as referring to someone as "Mr. Smith" throughout an article instead of just "Smith".
Thanks! -- Sue Anne 20:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Proposal:
Bad: When the criminal is caught he should be punished (emphasis added)
Good: When the criminal is caught they should be punished (emphasis added)
-- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Surrender to the singular they. We will take away your hes and shes and its just as we took away your thous and thees. Mwahaha! ;) — Simetrical ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of gender and pronouns, is it passé to refer to countries and ships as "she"? Since I read so much older writing, I find it perfectly natural to write something like "Great Britain and her colonies", whereas I suppose "its" rather than "her" would sound better to modern readers. True? And are ships still "she"? • Kevin (complaints?) 13:39, 30 August 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 50 | ← | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | → | Archive 60 |
I propose a new section, maybe on Village Pump, somthing like the Signpost, but wherever it's relevent, where this section lists word choice for article content. This section, would list, for example: 'Instead of using 'craftsman' or 'craftsmen' in articles, use 'craft worker' or 'craftsperson.'. Another example: 'Do not use the word: 'Indian' to refer to indigenious peoples of the Americas, because 'Indian' most appropriatly refers to a person from or of India.'. This new section would also say help and say that people who come across this section, & people who find errors like listed in said section would correct them. It also has the power to be cited, in discussions, for example: in talk pages, where people blue link, for example 'WP:NPOV' or 'WP:MOS'. 100110100 11:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I've read articles, but I don't remeber which ones, which refered to Galicia, but didn't state Iberian Galicia or East European Galicia. Just to let you guys know. Hhhmmmm, maybe it would have been more appropriate to list this in a section, like which that I proposed............................... 100110100 11:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi folks, other Filipino editors and I are trying to gauge consensus on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Philippine-related articles) so that we can make it into an official style guide. Could any of you give it a look-see and leave any constructive comments on the talk pages? We would really appreciate it. This was my first time writing a Manual of Style, so I'm sure it could use some work. Thanks. -- Chris S. 04:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I have been going around wikipedia and I have seen many articles about middle aged weapons, bronze aged buildings and modern systems reference games, saying it is featured in games like Civilization. I think these references is cruft and the game's own article should reference these weapons, buildings and systems instead. I propose we remove game references that are not highly relevant to an article. This will stop game developers plugging games all over wikipedia, which is spam, and help cut down on article size keeping the most notable parts, thus raising the quality of articles. -- Orbit One Talk| Babel 15:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
"See Article for more information" seems to be the convention at the moment for referring to another article: initial letter of the title capitalized, no other markings except the link. A few points:
— Simetrical ( talk • contribs) 18:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Thing to consider are the {{ further}} and {{ see also}} templates.
I don’t think the article title needs to be in quotation marks. As you said, some other publications use other styles; let Wikipedia’s style be the wikilink.
I agree we should avoid the parenthetical style for section links. I think a colon is a good separator, as in Article: Section. It’s what’s used to separate a book’s title from its subtitle, which I think is an analogous situation. Colons might already occur in article titles, meaning some link text might have multiple colons, but that’s not a problem. This isn’t something that needs to be absolutely perfect; if a link or two look a little awkward, that’s OK. The link isn’t going to be broken because something reads oddly, and any confusion in the reader should be cleared up well enough after following the link and reading the section heading at the top of the viewport.
For choosing how to capitalize the name of the article, I tentatively suggest using the formal name of the article after any redirect or {{ wrongtitle}} message, although I’m of the opinion that article titles, like sentences, should always start with a capital letter, so in addition to See Article for more information, I’d also go with See C#, but See EBay.
-- Rob Kennedy 04:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
There needs to be a consistent style for where stub tags are to be placed, as there appears to be none at the moment and as a result I've seen them all over the place - top, middle, and at varying places at the end. A bot (I'm sorry I don't know which one) is currently placing stub tags AFTER categories which, while it doesn't affect the page layout, is extremely awkward for editing especially when (and I've had to fix this a number of times) the stub tage is mistaken for a category and ends up in the middle of the category list or language tags. Same bot (and others) have also been placing stub tags below template lists which looks rather awkward, too. In my opinion, stub tags both on the edit page and in the final layout need to be between "External links" -- or, rather, the last major piece of text in an article -- and either the template(s) or categories, whichever is present first. Thoughts? 23skidoo 21:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The subsection heading, "Use of punctuation in presence of brackets/parentheses" repeats the word "punctuation", which is the section heading. I propose changing this subsection heading to "Presentation with brackets and parentheses". -- Charles Gaudette 18:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not familiar with editting the Manual Of Style and how it should be done, thus I am putting this on the discussion page for a person more familiar with wikipedia to comment on.
Recently, a discussion and poll regarding usage of the word "Allah" vs. "God" in Islam-related articles took place. The results are to be found here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)/God vs Allah. Since the poll has evidently passed, how does one go about implementing this in the Manual of Style itself? Thanks in advance for your help. Starwarp2k2 03:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I recall reading a U.S. Dept of Defense manual of style, which recommended using contractions only for negated verbs such as "won't", "didn't", "isn't" etc. The reason given is that a reader who skims a document will often skip over the word "not" and misinterpret the sentence. Using a contraction instead guarantees that the verb negation reaches the reader's brain. The fragment "it isn't" (contracting the verb) is preferable to "it is not" (no contraction) or "it's not" (using possessive "it"). In rushed emergency situations where missing a simple "not" may have life-or-death consequences, the verb contraction serves an important clarifying purpose, although I admit it isn't as meaningful in an encyclopedic reference.
I would add a recommendation to avoid sentence structure that demands a contraction; for example instead of using don't for did not in The experiment did not produce the expected result, one can avoid the possibility for a contraction altogether with The experiment failed to produce the expected result, which is a more compelling sentence as active voice. - Amatulic 00:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Can anybody explain why the Wikipedia style guide encourages the use of sentence case in headings? Every where else, headings are set in title case, meaning you always capitalize the first word, and you capitalize anything else except articles, prepositions, and conjunctions. That's the way I've been trained to do it every where else. Once again, it makes no sense to create a style rule will be violated by any literate person who hasn't read WP's Manual of Style, as somebody said elsewhere on this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MiguelMunoz ( talk • contribs) 12:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC).
I haven't been able to find a title casing pattern in my bookshelf. I personally kind of like Sentence case, but I like Title Case as well. But more than that I like consistency. Currently all articles use use Sentence case, and if change policy, we'll need to change everything. Let's stick to what we have; people who really, really want Title Case can always use some user script that changes the headings only for them. Shinobu 22:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, and that's probably not a lot, the Canadian Press Style Guide, which is standard for Canadian newspapers, recommends sentence case. Ground Zero | t 12:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone point me to a specific Wikipedia policy about how to reference specific people within articles? Journalism style is to use the full name "John Smith" in the first reference but then to use just the last name "Smith" in all other references. (This has some flexibility if there are two people with the last name of Smith in the article.)
I'm also interested in finding out if there is any specific policy about the use of "social titles" within articles, such as referring to someone as "Mr. Smith" throughout an article instead of just "Smith".
Thanks! -- Sue Anne 20:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Proposal:
Bad: When the criminal is caught he should be punished (emphasis added)
Good: When the criminal is caught they should be punished (emphasis added)
-- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Surrender to the singular they. We will take away your hes and shes and its just as we took away your thous and thees. Mwahaha! ;) — Simetrical ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of gender and pronouns, is it passé to refer to countries and ships as "she"? Since I read so much older writing, I find it perfectly natural to write something like "Great Britain and her colonies", whereas I suppose "its" rather than "her" would sound better to modern readers. True? And are ships still "she"? • Kevin (complaints?) 13:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)