![]() | 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 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | → | Archive 60 |
Wikipedia:Guide to writing about U.S. state highways -- SPUI ( T - C) 01:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello every-body! (Dr Nick). I put an idea on the village pump - really just to play devil's advocate - and after several days the idea has morphed to the idea of assessing new articles - especially those about people (which are often vanity articles) and giving them (in the case of 'keep' - as so many are borderline) a rating or icon at the top which will say 'notable' or 'not-notable'. This could be non-erasable and applied by an admin somehow. They could be amended to 'notable' later after the appropriate discussion. I know this is not really 'style' but it would help give users an immediate idea of whether something's worth reading or not or purely of local or specailised interest. Comments?? Lgh 04:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Is (word word [word word]) the correct notation for nested parentheses? Brianhe 17:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Computer programmers like to nest parentheses, and that has influenced writing style for English in the last few decades. It used to be strictly Verboten. (word word [word word]) would have been the normal way to do this until quite recently; now (word word (word word)) is probably equally acceptable.
MediaWiki markup is a red herring. There are many contexts in which square brackets are simply correct (for example, editorial markup in a quoted passage). If you have a context where you might accidentally cross up wiki syntax, use <nowiki>[</nowiki> etc. - Jmabel | Talk 02:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
There's something to be said in favor of using brackets as well as parentheses. I read and write code all the time, so I have no trouble with nested parentheses in code, but when I'm reading normal text, it's like my "parenthesis stack" isn't active, so when I encounter a closing parenthesis, I expect to be back in the main body, not still in a parenthetical. The brackets provide a visual reminder that I'm still within a parenthetical. On the other hand, if I encounter a closing bracket, I know that I'm still reading a parenthetical. If the style manual is going to address the issue at all, I think it should express a preference for using brackets for nested parentheticals, and to recast the sentence if something needs to nest deeper than that. This is in the interest of making things easier for readers. With concentration, anyone could parse nested parentheses, but why make them work harder than they need to? They're reading an article to learn about the subject matter, and parentheses aren't the subject matter, so let's not distract readers with a harder-to-read style. -- Rob Kennedy 17:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
What does the MoS say about animated GIFs, especially those that don't actually contain an animation but rather several separate pictures? (E.g. at Le Chevalier D'Eon) I note that these detract from the visual stability of the page, cannot be properly resized, and cannot be printed properly. Several separate images however could, and they would also allow a reader to view them in his own tempo, rather than at the one the creator of the image proscribed. Shinobu 13:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Occasionally on a Wikipedia page I come across fully assimilated English words spelled with diaereses, apparently to indicate that two adjacent vowels should be pronounced distinctly (such as those in cooperate or reelect—rendered coöperate and reëlect). Some examples on Wikipedia are Organization for Security and Coöperation in Europe and Urho Kekkonen.
Now, I've seen this practice in a very few old books, but never on the internet or in any newer publications (except the New Yorker). Googling "coöperation" (with quotation marks) returns a small number of sites. A google search for cooperation (which will return cooperation, co-operation, and coöperation, because Google ignores diacritics and certain characters like hyphens) doesn't have any instances of coöperation for at least twenty pages. Wiktionary notes that "[this use of diaereses] has has become fairly uncommon—so much so that The New Yorker is famous amongst stylists and editors as the only well-known publisher that still insists upon it." The danger here is that many readers will be baffled or distracted by such an obscure spelling.
As far as I am aware, there is no official Wikipedia policy on this. However, the fact that almost no Wikipedia article uses diaereses this way (or articles from almost any book or publication, for that matter) in my mind is good grounds to codify the "bare" spellings (cooperate, reelect) and/or the hyphenated spellings (co-operate, re-elect) as official style. Strad 19:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
More seriously: diareses are never used to delineate syllables anymore. We're writing in the English of 2006, not the English of 1956 or 1886, and we should follow modern conventions. — Simetrical ( talk • contribs) 22:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
In professional typography, a language gloss (translation or explanation of a term) is often put in single quotation marks. In Wikipedia this is often useful in the first line of an article, especially when the title is a foreign term or derived from one, and often appears many times in a linguistics article. Arguments for including this in the MOS:
Suggested addition to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks:
A gloss, translating or defining an unfamiliar term, may be surrounded by single quotation marks, to distinguish it from a short quotation. Example: “The name moose is from mus or mooz (‘twig eater’) in several of the Algonquian languages.”
Suggested addition to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Words as words:
A defined word or foreign term may also be followed by a language gloss, in single quotation marks, for example “ Cossack, from the Turkic quzzaq, ‘freebooter’.”
Any comments or objections? — Michael Z. 2006-09-18 17:15 Z
Gloss2 noun a translation or explanation of a word or phrase.... ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: alteration of the noun gloze, from Old French glose (see GLOZE), suggested by medieval Latin glossa ‘explanation of a difficult word,’ from Greek glōssa ‘word needing explanation, language, tongue.’
Kaldari and I are having a little debate about how periods are to be used in captions. As this would be a change of the current MoS standard, I thought it would be a good idea to drop everyone a line here. Plus our attempts at starting some sort of discussion have failed miserably; we posted our arguments five days ago, and nobody has responded...
If people could weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Captions#Using periods, that'd be swell. Thanks! EVula 21:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
If the caption is a single sentence or a sentence fragment, it does not get a period at the end.
I don't know if this is covered somewhere already (I would guess that it is, but I haven't found it), but I have a question about converting units. If an article needs to reference multiple sources, and these sources use different units of measure, such as cubic feet per hour vs. cubic meters per hour, should the article report facts in these varying units, or should all these measures be converted to the same units. If the article reports in a single unit, that makes things easier for the average reader, but makes it harder for someone who wishes to verify the article against the references. On the other hand, reporting in different units, makes the article more confusing for the average reader, but it becomes easier to verify assertions against the references. Any help, thoughts, suggestions, places to look for guidelines, would be appreciated. -- BostonMA 14:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
We should add something about the writing style of Wikipedia - be clear and brief (like news style)... ··gracefool | ☺ 05:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The IBM 1401 article contains the following markup:
which produces the following:
While it could be improved by moving the ref to follow 'Project", what happens is that the reader encounters "A 1401 Restoration Project ... and the ref, the reader knows only that there is some sort of additional information. The reader can choose to interrupt reading, click the refence number, and learn there is an external link, only to then click to return to the original text. A lot to do, an interruption, only to learn there is an external link. This is a common occurance, and with the internet seemingly growing without bound, can only occur more and more often.
The Wikipedia external link can be used in a way that better meets reader needs, as follows:
which produces the following
Now, the reader knows immediately -- no footnote number, no click, no scan of noted text, no back click -- that an external link for the Restoration Project is available. But Wikipedia editors have been trained to reject such external links (at least those editors that I have encountered!).
Would you please make this an accepted style, it provides the best service to the reader! Indeed it should be the preferred style when the link is exact to what is being referenced.
Thanks tooold 06:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Is "No mass moving of pages" an appropriate section for a MOS subpage? There is currently one on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (U.S. state highways). -- SPUI ( T - C) 18:42, 25 September 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 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | → | Archive 60 |
Wikipedia:Guide to writing about U.S. state highways -- SPUI ( T - C) 01:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello every-body! (Dr Nick). I put an idea on the village pump - really just to play devil's advocate - and after several days the idea has morphed to the idea of assessing new articles - especially those about people (which are often vanity articles) and giving them (in the case of 'keep' - as so many are borderline) a rating or icon at the top which will say 'notable' or 'not-notable'. This could be non-erasable and applied by an admin somehow. They could be amended to 'notable' later after the appropriate discussion. I know this is not really 'style' but it would help give users an immediate idea of whether something's worth reading or not or purely of local or specailised interest. Comments?? Lgh 04:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Is (word word [word word]) the correct notation for nested parentheses? Brianhe 17:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Computer programmers like to nest parentheses, and that has influenced writing style for English in the last few decades. It used to be strictly Verboten. (word word [word word]) would have been the normal way to do this until quite recently; now (word word (word word)) is probably equally acceptable.
MediaWiki markup is a red herring. There are many contexts in which square brackets are simply correct (for example, editorial markup in a quoted passage). If you have a context where you might accidentally cross up wiki syntax, use <nowiki>[</nowiki> etc. - Jmabel | Talk 02:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
There's something to be said in favor of using brackets as well as parentheses. I read and write code all the time, so I have no trouble with nested parentheses in code, but when I'm reading normal text, it's like my "parenthesis stack" isn't active, so when I encounter a closing parenthesis, I expect to be back in the main body, not still in a parenthetical. The brackets provide a visual reminder that I'm still within a parenthetical. On the other hand, if I encounter a closing bracket, I know that I'm still reading a parenthetical. If the style manual is going to address the issue at all, I think it should express a preference for using brackets for nested parentheticals, and to recast the sentence if something needs to nest deeper than that. This is in the interest of making things easier for readers. With concentration, anyone could parse nested parentheses, but why make them work harder than they need to? They're reading an article to learn about the subject matter, and parentheses aren't the subject matter, so let's not distract readers with a harder-to-read style. -- Rob Kennedy 17:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
What does the MoS say about animated GIFs, especially those that don't actually contain an animation but rather several separate pictures? (E.g. at Le Chevalier D'Eon) I note that these detract from the visual stability of the page, cannot be properly resized, and cannot be printed properly. Several separate images however could, and they would also allow a reader to view them in his own tempo, rather than at the one the creator of the image proscribed. Shinobu 13:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Occasionally on a Wikipedia page I come across fully assimilated English words spelled with diaereses, apparently to indicate that two adjacent vowels should be pronounced distinctly (such as those in cooperate or reelect—rendered coöperate and reëlect). Some examples on Wikipedia are Organization for Security and Coöperation in Europe and Urho Kekkonen.
Now, I've seen this practice in a very few old books, but never on the internet or in any newer publications (except the New Yorker). Googling "coöperation" (with quotation marks) returns a small number of sites. A google search for cooperation (which will return cooperation, co-operation, and coöperation, because Google ignores diacritics and certain characters like hyphens) doesn't have any instances of coöperation for at least twenty pages. Wiktionary notes that "[this use of diaereses] has has become fairly uncommon—so much so that The New Yorker is famous amongst stylists and editors as the only well-known publisher that still insists upon it." The danger here is that many readers will be baffled or distracted by such an obscure spelling.
As far as I am aware, there is no official Wikipedia policy on this. However, the fact that almost no Wikipedia article uses diaereses this way (or articles from almost any book or publication, for that matter) in my mind is good grounds to codify the "bare" spellings (cooperate, reelect) and/or the hyphenated spellings (co-operate, re-elect) as official style. Strad 19:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
More seriously: diareses are never used to delineate syllables anymore. We're writing in the English of 2006, not the English of 1956 or 1886, and we should follow modern conventions. — Simetrical ( talk • contribs) 22:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
In professional typography, a language gloss (translation or explanation of a term) is often put in single quotation marks. In Wikipedia this is often useful in the first line of an article, especially when the title is a foreign term or derived from one, and often appears many times in a linguistics article. Arguments for including this in the MOS:
Suggested addition to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks:
A gloss, translating or defining an unfamiliar term, may be surrounded by single quotation marks, to distinguish it from a short quotation. Example: “The name moose is from mus or mooz (‘twig eater’) in several of the Algonquian languages.”
Suggested addition to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Words as words:
A defined word or foreign term may also be followed by a language gloss, in single quotation marks, for example “ Cossack, from the Turkic quzzaq, ‘freebooter’.”
Any comments or objections? — Michael Z. 2006-09-18 17:15 Z
Gloss2 noun a translation or explanation of a word or phrase.... ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: alteration of the noun gloze, from Old French glose (see GLOZE), suggested by medieval Latin glossa ‘explanation of a difficult word,’ from Greek glōssa ‘word needing explanation, language, tongue.’
Kaldari and I are having a little debate about how periods are to be used in captions. As this would be a change of the current MoS standard, I thought it would be a good idea to drop everyone a line here. Plus our attempts at starting some sort of discussion have failed miserably; we posted our arguments five days ago, and nobody has responded...
If people could weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Captions#Using periods, that'd be swell. Thanks! EVula 21:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
If the caption is a single sentence or a sentence fragment, it does not get a period at the end.
I don't know if this is covered somewhere already (I would guess that it is, but I haven't found it), but I have a question about converting units. If an article needs to reference multiple sources, and these sources use different units of measure, such as cubic feet per hour vs. cubic meters per hour, should the article report facts in these varying units, or should all these measures be converted to the same units. If the article reports in a single unit, that makes things easier for the average reader, but makes it harder for someone who wishes to verify the article against the references. On the other hand, reporting in different units, makes the article more confusing for the average reader, but it becomes easier to verify assertions against the references. Any help, thoughts, suggestions, places to look for guidelines, would be appreciated. -- BostonMA 14:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
We should add something about the writing style of Wikipedia - be clear and brief (like news style)... ··gracefool | ☺ 05:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The IBM 1401 article contains the following markup:
which produces the following:
While it could be improved by moving the ref to follow 'Project", what happens is that the reader encounters "A 1401 Restoration Project ... and the ref, the reader knows only that there is some sort of additional information. The reader can choose to interrupt reading, click the refence number, and learn there is an external link, only to then click to return to the original text. A lot to do, an interruption, only to learn there is an external link. This is a common occurance, and with the internet seemingly growing without bound, can only occur more and more often.
The Wikipedia external link can be used in a way that better meets reader needs, as follows:
which produces the following
Now, the reader knows immediately -- no footnote number, no click, no scan of noted text, no back click -- that an external link for the Restoration Project is available. But Wikipedia editors have been trained to reject such external links (at least those editors that I have encountered!).
Would you please make this an accepted style, it provides the best service to the reader! Indeed it should be the preferred style when the link is exact to what is being referenced.
Thanks tooold 06:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Is "No mass moving of pages" an appropriate section for a MOS subpage? There is currently one on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (U.S. state highways). -- SPUI ( T - C) 18:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)