![]() | 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 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 |
I cannot find a consensus for how to treat wikilined possessives. Should the "'s" be located within the link or outside of it? My preference is the former, with the "'s" included in the link:
rather than:
Stylstically, I think keeping the link intact throughout the word makes more sense than linking only part of a word. Perhaps there is already a consesus on this, but I haven't found anything... Anyone? Porlob 17:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else have thoughts on which should be the preference? Let's try to work towards consensus. - Porlob 17:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
By hitting "random page", I ran across 1,3-Butadiene (data page) today. It's a bit odd in that it has no text, no stub, or anything. My first thought was to put {{ context}} on it. But apparently it's linked from the infobox of 1,3-Butadiene, and is meant to be an "expanded infobox" for that page.
Category:Chemical data pages has many other pages similar to that, though at least they give a clue as to their context (eg. Barium hydroxide (data page)). Others are more or less a giant infobox ( Bentiromide (data page)), though since they're not remotely like a normal encyclopedia page, they sometimes pick up robotic templates like {{ linkless}}. Anyway, is this sort of page to be encouraged, or discouraged? If discouraged, are there any suggestions on how to procede?
I know that some templates sometimes use page-specific "subpages" in template space (eg. Template:Latest stable release/AOL Instant Messenger is pulled in by Template:Infobox Software2), would that be more appropriate for this?
(I wasn't sure where to ask this question, sorry if this isn't the right place) -- Interiot 01:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
How exactly is the word "one" either "self-referential" or "personal"? Isn't One should note... basically the exact same as It should be noted...? I can't see any possible reason to discourage its usage as "unencyclopedic". As far as I can tell it is exactly the same as French on, which mostly has the meaning given above. elvenscout742 17:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I have a different problem with this section - it seems to introduce an irrelevent injunction against the passive voice: 'and it is certainly better than using the passive voice: "When the eyes are opened, something is seen."' There's really no reason for this to be there: the section isn't about using passives, there's no reason to disparage them in general, and leaving this spurious anti-passive sentiment out still gets the intended point across. Really, I think this is just an attempt to seem Strunk and White-ish, which is a Bad Thing. -- Dom 02:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, so am I totally crackers or what?
— DLJessup ( talk) 15:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Aren't the first letter of every word in a title supposed to be capitalized? So why aren't the first letters of all the words in Wikipedia articles capitalized? That would mean the section headings too. And then there's the template that says, i.e.: iPod, the first letter of the article is specifically supposed to be uncapitalized. It teaches the reader how to write iPod, but then none of the articles have a lineatthetop to say [something like] how you're supposed to capitalize the word, when you should, when you shouldn't, i.e.: if it is the first word of a sentence of in a title, or if it compounded into a name, and never in all other circumstances. What's the deal? 100110100 07:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Merged from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).
I like to think that the word 'data' should always be treated as a plural, but more often than not it seems to be regarded as a mass noun. I know that it is generally thought that using it in both ways is acceptable, but for an encylopedia it seems to me that it is more 'correct' to regard it is a plural. So "this data" should become "these data", "data is" should become "data are" and so on. Whichever way round people prefer, should wikipedia have a uniform approach? I'd be interested to hear your opinions. Mumby 23:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I would say that Wikipedia should not have a uniform approach, because whether one wants to emphasise the mass-nouness or the pluralness of the data depends on the context. -- 83.253.36.136 18:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The American Oxford in OS X says:
noun [treated as sing. or pl. ] ...
USAGE Data was originally the plural of the Latin word: datum,... Data is now used as a singular where it means 'information': | this data was prepared for the conference. It is used as a plural in technical contexts and when the collection of bits of information is stressed: | all recent data on hurricanes are being compared....
And my Canadian Oxford has four meanings:
1 quantities or characters operated on by a computer. 2 (treated as sing.) ... 3 (treated as pl.) ... 4 pl. of DATUM. ¶ In scientific writing, data is almost always treated as a plural, but the singular use is standard in all other levels of writing.
I think the first definition must be a mass noun. Definitions 2 and 3 both essentially mean "facts".
And I agree that the style guide should not start dictating the way particular words are used (although I suppose it could remind us about common errors). For definitions we can refer to a dictionary, and for writing, we can let editors write. — Michael Z. 2006-10-13 17:34 Z
I see what you mean about not wanting to dictate to people about how to use a particular word. The reason I asked is that I could imagine a situation in which the objective pronoun was changed from "these" to "this", for example, then changed back again, and again and again in a mini revert-war because people thought that their way of doing it was 'more correct'. If I see, for instance, "this data" in a scientific article here, I think I will change it.
Mumby
20:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
No. Would you say "The FBI raided a 50 kg cocaine."? No. You say "The FBI raided 50 kg of cocaine." That's how mass nouns work. -- Slashme 08:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Realise, though, that we're going to hit up against an American vs. British issue in a moment as regards mass nouns. To use an easier example:
Adam Cuerden talk 15:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Depending on context, it is correct to use 'data' as a singular or mass noun, a plural noun, or even an adjective. I'd say use the form that best fits what you're trying to say. In my experience, data is universally singular in the context of information technology hardware representations. Even so, I can't say I've ever seen the construct 'a data' in the context of computing, unless 'data' is an adjective. One might say, "The carry flag holds a data bit." I'd never say, "Read a data." I might say, "Read the data, compare data, and then write some data." I'm not sure what to make of this. In a computing context, data is used as a singular noun, as a mass noun, and occasionally as an adjective, yet it's never used as a noun with the article 'a' preceeding it. Hmm. -- Loqi T. 18:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I've encountered {{ sisterlinks}} templates in both sections; i.e.: some articles have their templates in ==See also== and other articles have their templates in ==External links==. The same goes with footer templates like {{ china}}, {{ japan}}, {{ Provinces of Mongolia}}, {{ communisim}} and {{ social sciences-footer}}, etc.. 100110100 06:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Navigation templates which form a box across the bottom of an article are clearly not in any section. They create a visual break as strong as any section heading.
The sisterlinks remove themselves visually from the flow of the article by their appearance in a box on the right. But the way they are usually placed at the top of an "external links" section, they do have a clear relationship with it—and this makes sense, since they link to things which are not part of Wikipedia (Wikipedia has a strong identity to its readers, the Wikimedia Foundation not so much).
The only difficulty is when they are placed in an article with no "external links" section. Having them hang from an empty header is ugly. — Michael Z. 2006-10-18 18:59 Z
=={{footer section}}==
” immediately before any navigational templates, categories, or interwiki links. This creates a section which appears to have a blank section header. (Simply inserting “== ==
” fails to work because MediaWiki refuses to generate an empty h2 element.) In essence, it adds some vertical space, a horizontal rule (in those skins that use a horizontal rule with h2 elements), and an “[Edit]” wikilink visually. Now, by default, the starting edit summary for the section is “/* {{footer section}} */”, which is much clearer than the normal “/* External link */” or “/* References */” in terms of describing what is being affected.![]() | 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 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 |
I cannot find a consensus for how to treat wikilined possessives. Should the "'s" be located within the link or outside of it? My preference is the former, with the "'s" included in the link:
rather than:
Stylstically, I think keeping the link intact throughout the word makes more sense than linking only part of a word. Perhaps there is already a consesus on this, but I haven't found anything... Anyone? Porlob 17:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else have thoughts on which should be the preference? Let's try to work towards consensus. - Porlob 17:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
By hitting "random page", I ran across 1,3-Butadiene (data page) today. It's a bit odd in that it has no text, no stub, or anything. My first thought was to put {{ context}} on it. But apparently it's linked from the infobox of 1,3-Butadiene, and is meant to be an "expanded infobox" for that page.
Category:Chemical data pages has many other pages similar to that, though at least they give a clue as to their context (eg. Barium hydroxide (data page)). Others are more or less a giant infobox ( Bentiromide (data page)), though since they're not remotely like a normal encyclopedia page, they sometimes pick up robotic templates like {{ linkless}}. Anyway, is this sort of page to be encouraged, or discouraged? If discouraged, are there any suggestions on how to procede?
I know that some templates sometimes use page-specific "subpages" in template space (eg. Template:Latest stable release/AOL Instant Messenger is pulled in by Template:Infobox Software2), would that be more appropriate for this?
(I wasn't sure where to ask this question, sorry if this isn't the right place) -- Interiot 01:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
How exactly is the word "one" either "self-referential" or "personal"? Isn't One should note... basically the exact same as It should be noted...? I can't see any possible reason to discourage its usage as "unencyclopedic". As far as I can tell it is exactly the same as French on, which mostly has the meaning given above. elvenscout742 17:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I have a different problem with this section - it seems to introduce an irrelevent injunction against the passive voice: 'and it is certainly better than using the passive voice: "When the eyes are opened, something is seen."' There's really no reason for this to be there: the section isn't about using passives, there's no reason to disparage them in general, and leaving this spurious anti-passive sentiment out still gets the intended point across. Really, I think this is just an attempt to seem Strunk and White-ish, which is a Bad Thing. -- Dom 02:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, so am I totally crackers or what?
— DLJessup ( talk) 15:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Aren't the first letter of every word in a title supposed to be capitalized? So why aren't the first letters of all the words in Wikipedia articles capitalized? That would mean the section headings too. And then there's the template that says, i.e.: iPod, the first letter of the article is specifically supposed to be uncapitalized. It teaches the reader how to write iPod, but then none of the articles have a lineatthetop to say [something like] how you're supposed to capitalize the word, when you should, when you shouldn't, i.e.: if it is the first word of a sentence of in a title, or if it compounded into a name, and never in all other circumstances. What's the deal? 100110100 07:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Merged from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).
I like to think that the word 'data' should always be treated as a plural, but more often than not it seems to be regarded as a mass noun. I know that it is generally thought that using it in both ways is acceptable, but for an encylopedia it seems to me that it is more 'correct' to regard it is a plural. So "this data" should become "these data", "data is" should become "data are" and so on. Whichever way round people prefer, should wikipedia have a uniform approach? I'd be interested to hear your opinions. Mumby 23:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I would say that Wikipedia should not have a uniform approach, because whether one wants to emphasise the mass-nouness or the pluralness of the data depends on the context. -- 83.253.36.136 18:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The American Oxford in OS X says:
noun [treated as sing. or pl. ] ...
USAGE Data was originally the plural of the Latin word: datum,... Data is now used as a singular where it means 'information': | this data was prepared for the conference. It is used as a plural in technical contexts and when the collection of bits of information is stressed: | all recent data on hurricanes are being compared....
And my Canadian Oxford has four meanings:
1 quantities or characters operated on by a computer. 2 (treated as sing.) ... 3 (treated as pl.) ... 4 pl. of DATUM. ¶ In scientific writing, data is almost always treated as a plural, but the singular use is standard in all other levels of writing.
I think the first definition must be a mass noun. Definitions 2 and 3 both essentially mean "facts".
And I agree that the style guide should not start dictating the way particular words are used (although I suppose it could remind us about common errors). For definitions we can refer to a dictionary, and for writing, we can let editors write. — Michael Z. 2006-10-13 17:34 Z
I see what you mean about not wanting to dictate to people about how to use a particular word. The reason I asked is that I could imagine a situation in which the objective pronoun was changed from "these" to "this", for example, then changed back again, and again and again in a mini revert-war because people thought that their way of doing it was 'more correct'. If I see, for instance, "this data" in a scientific article here, I think I will change it.
Mumby
20:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
No. Would you say "The FBI raided a 50 kg cocaine."? No. You say "The FBI raided 50 kg of cocaine." That's how mass nouns work. -- Slashme 08:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Realise, though, that we're going to hit up against an American vs. British issue in a moment as regards mass nouns. To use an easier example:
Adam Cuerden talk 15:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Depending on context, it is correct to use 'data' as a singular or mass noun, a plural noun, or even an adjective. I'd say use the form that best fits what you're trying to say. In my experience, data is universally singular in the context of information technology hardware representations. Even so, I can't say I've ever seen the construct 'a data' in the context of computing, unless 'data' is an adjective. One might say, "The carry flag holds a data bit." I'd never say, "Read a data." I might say, "Read the data, compare data, and then write some data." I'm not sure what to make of this. In a computing context, data is used as a singular noun, as a mass noun, and occasionally as an adjective, yet it's never used as a noun with the article 'a' preceeding it. Hmm. -- Loqi T. 18:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I've encountered {{ sisterlinks}} templates in both sections; i.e.: some articles have their templates in ==See also== and other articles have their templates in ==External links==. The same goes with footer templates like {{ china}}, {{ japan}}, {{ Provinces of Mongolia}}, {{ communisim}} and {{ social sciences-footer}}, etc.. 100110100 06:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Navigation templates which form a box across the bottom of an article are clearly not in any section. They create a visual break as strong as any section heading.
The sisterlinks remove themselves visually from the flow of the article by their appearance in a box on the right. But the way they are usually placed at the top of an "external links" section, they do have a clear relationship with it—and this makes sense, since they link to things which are not part of Wikipedia (Wikipedia has a strong identity to its readers, the Wikimedia Foundation not so much).
The only difficulty is when they are placed in an article with no "external links" section. Having them hang from an empty header is ugly. — Michael Z. 2006-10-18 18:59 Z
=={{footer section}}==
” immediately before any navigational templates, categories, or interwiki links. This creates a section which appears to have a blank section header. (Simply inserting “== ==
” fails to work because MediaWiki refuses to generate an empty h2 element.) In essence, it adds some vertical space, a horizontal rule (in those skins that use a horizontal rule with h2 elements), and an “[Edit]” wikilink visually. Now, by default, the starting edit summary for the section is “/* {{footer section}} */”, which is much clearer than the normal “/* External link */” or “/* References */” in terms of describing what is being affected.