![]() | 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 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | → | Archive 65 |
It's been suggested that I post here. I've opened a preliminary discussion in userspace about developing a consistent approach to cultural references lists. The featured list Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc is a proposed model for other core biographies. Preliminary discussion has begun at my userspace with User:Durova/Cultural depictions of core biography figures. Welcoming comments and participation. Durova 20:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I read about glosses as requested, in this Article and at gloss. I didn't see anything related to the example here, namely, deuce means two. Everything I read was about translations of foreign languages. And the examples -- for example chaika -- had italics in the predicate! Very much like two.
Besides, would we agree that this is correct? --
and this? --
and this? --
And then does it make sense to say "if we say anything else, we must draw the line and switch from two to 'two'"?
Also, I think the discussion of linguistics is too obscure for the general reader. If we say "you must put a definition in single-quotes because linguists call that a gloss and have adopted that convention", no one (I exaggerate) is going to buy that argument, and compliance across Wikipedia will be at 5% if you're lucky.
If anyone disagrees, let's see some non-obscure examples (meaning: not just linguists talking to linguists) or citations from outside Wikipedia. (Wikipedia requirement of verifiability.) Otherwise, let's stick with the two relevant simple Wikipedia rules: italicize a word-as-word (or phrase-as-phrase); and start with double-quotes not single-quotes.
TH 04:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I've rewritten this to recognize the distinction between foreign terms and loan words, at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Foreign terms and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Foreign terms. Please review.
Perhaps this should also mention that familiar Latin terms are not italicized in normal use: ad hoc, a priori, bona fide, de facto, et cetera, habeas corpus, in camera, in situ, post mortem, status quo, vice versa. Also French: avant-garde, bourgeois, café, communiqué, coup d'état, debacle, de rigueur, elite, émigré, en masse, en route, esprit de corps, façade, fête, fiancée, mêlée, nouveau riche, parvenu, pâté, protégé, raison d'être, vis-à-vis. Others: apartheid, machismo, pogrom, putsch, realpolitik.
References:
— Michael Z. 2006-10-19 16:51 Z
Someone just moved Wal-Mart to Wal★Mart. (It's been reverted.) Now, a while ago a section was added to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) concerning this, however it's only been loosely followed. Other contentious pages include I Love New York/ I ♥ NY, I ♥ Huckabees/ I Heart Huckabees, We ♥ Katamari, I♥.... – flamurai ( t) 02:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I added it to Wikipedia:Naming conventions, [1]. Maybe should also be added to some of the subguidelines, like the ones referenced in there. — Centrx→ talk • 05:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
'"When using multiple images in the same article, they can be staggered left-and-right (Example: Kremlings)."' Does anyone else find the staggering of images on the Kremlings page adversely affects readability? Coming from a noob, this observation probably isn't worth much, but as someone with a fair amount of graphic design experience, I find this example of style to be quite poor. I should clarify that I have no issues with the staggering of images. My complaint is that in the example of the Kremlings, each heading is defining a new entry in a list of what are essentially definitions and thus, from a graphic style standpoint, should have uniform image placement. I suggest finding a better article to illustrate this point.
I should also bring up a more general image-layout issue that I notice all the time on Wikipedia articles, and that is when an image is floated left and is immediately below a heading. This pushes the text under the heading far to the right and interrupts proper reading/visual flow. Examples of this are in abundance on the Kremlings page. As a newcomer I have to ask: is this just one designer being too picky about layout? (fyi, if you answer "yes," my reply will be the next question: "But effective layout means a more effective communication of information, and isn't an encyclopedia all about the dissemination of information?"). Crazynorvegian 21:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
For simplicity, I deleted this section. Here's what the section said:
A gloss, translating or defining an unfamiliar term, may be surrounded by single quotation marks, to distinguish it from a short quotation. This is a common convention in linguistics.
If you want to put this section back, first please
TH 18:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
TH 00:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I never heard of this rule, that the article advocates:
Most American guidebooks say that the comma or period is always inside the quotation marks. I thought that British guidebooks say that the comma or period is always outside. Is that right?
The (contrary) rule in this article seems unworkable to me. What if I put the period outside the quotes --
and then I tell you "sure, the sentence that Arthur spoke was the four-word sentence. But I chose to quote only the four words, I chose to terminate my quote just before Arthur's period. Then of course per British custom and Wikipedia rules, I put my period outside the quotes"?
Also, I have changed "the situation" to "The situation". If we're quoting the full sentence, then it must begin with a capital. But I really don't know the rules (US/UK) for capitalizing the initial letter of a quoted sentence --
or
-- which is correct?
TH 05:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
A good guide to British English is Fowler's Modern English Usage (3rd edition). If you want an online guide, try that of The Times, jguk 12:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
In the
Ultrahard fullerite article, and in several astronomy articles dealing with
Supernovae, I came across Roman numerals which I did not recognize as such. The default sans serif font used by Wikipedia makes "l" and "I" indistingushable from each other, so I thought I was seeing "Type LA" or "Type LLA" or some such. I have edited the Ultrahard fullerite article to enclose the Roman numerals in <code>...</code> pairs, which not only makes it clear that the letter is an upper-case "I
", but has the added advantage that they actually look the way that Roman numerals are normally represented, with the serif. I propose that this or a variant of it be standard for representing Roman numerals. --
Scott McNay
04:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Currently, the Manual of Style has a section called "Headings" and another called "Sections" (which just contains 3 links). Does anyone object to me moving the links into the "Headings" section, and renaming the merged section as "Section headings"? This would keep related information together, and I think it would be more obvious what sort of headings are being discussed. JonH 16:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
There's a thread at Template talk:Navigation bar about the usability of this recently created template. I suspect at least some of the folks watching this page might have an opinion on this topic. Please comment there. Thanks. -- Rick Block ( talk) 18:48, 26 October 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 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | → | Archive 65 |
It's been suggested that I post here. I've opened a preliminary discussion in userspace about developing a consistent approach to cultural references lists. The featured list Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc is a proposed model for other core biographies. Preliminary discussion has begun at my userspace with User:Durova/Cultural depictions of core biography figures. Welcoming comments and participation. Durova 20:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I read about glosses as requested, in this Article and at gloss. I didn't see anything related to the example here, namely, deuce means two. Everything I read was about translations of foreign languages. And the examples -- for example chaika -- had italics in the predicate! Very much like two.
Besides, would we agree that this is correct? --
and this? --
and this? --
And then does it make sense to say "if we say anything else, we must draw the line and switch from two to 'two'"?
Also, I think the discussion of linguistics is too obscure for the general reader. If we say "you must put a definition in single-quotes because linguists call that a gloss and have adopted that convention", no one (I exaggerate) is going to buy that argument, and compliance across Wikipedia will be at 5% if you're lucky.
If anyone disagrees, let's see some non-obscure examples (meaning: not just linguists talking to linguists) or citations from outside Wikipedia. (Wikipedia requirement of verifiability.) Otherwise, let's stick with the two relevant simple Wikipedia rules: italicize a word-as-word (or phrase-as-phrase); and start with double-quotes not single-quotes.
TH 04:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I've rewritten this to recognize the distinction between foreign terms and loan words, at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Foreign terms and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Foreign terms. Please review.
Perhaps this should also mention that familiar Latin terms are not italicized in normal use: ad hoc, a priori, bona fide, de facto, et cetera, habeas corpus, in camera, in situ, post mortem, status quo, vice versa. Also French: avant-garde, bourgeois, café, communiqué, coup d'état, debacle, de rigueur, elite, émigré, en masse, en route, esprit de corps, façade, fête, fiancée, mêlée, nouveau riche, parvenu, pâté, protégé, raison d'être, vis-à-vis. Others: apartheid, machismo, pogrom, putsch, realpolitik.
References:
— Michael Z. 2006-10-19 16:51 Z
Someone just moved Wal-Mart to Wal★Mart. (It's been reverted.) Now, a while ago a section was added to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) concerning this, however it's only been loosely followed. Other contentious pages include I Love New York/ I ♥ NY, I ♥ Huckabees/ I Heart Huckabees, We ♥ Katamari, I♥.... – flamurai ( t) 02:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I added it to Wikipedia:Naming conventions, [1]. Maybe should also be added to some of the subguidelines, like the ones referenced in there. — Centrx→ talk • 05:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
'"When using multiple images in the same article, they can be staggered left-and-right (Example: Kremlings)."' Does anyone else find the staggering of images on the Kremlings page adversely affects readability? Coming from a noob, this observation probably isn't worth much, but as someone with a fair amount of graphic design experience, I find this example of style to be quite poor. I should clarify that I have no issues with the staggering of images. My complaint is that in the example of the Kremlings, each heading is defining a new entry in a list of what are essentially definitions and thus, from a graphic style standpoint, should have uniform image placement. I suggest finding a better article to illustrate this point.
I should also bring up a more general image-layout issue that I notice all the time on Wikipedia articles, and that is when an image is floated left and is immediately below a heading. This pushes the text under the heading far to the right and interrupts proper reading/visual flow. Examples of this are in abundance on the Kremlings page. As a newcomer I have to ask: is this just one designer being too picky about layout? (fyi, if you answer "yes," my reply will be the next question: "But effective layout means a more effective communication of information, and isn't an encyclopedia all about the dissemination of information?"). Crazynorvegian 21:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
For simplicity, I deleted this section. Here's what the section said:
A gloss, translating or defining an unfamiliar term, may be surrounded by single quotation marks, to distinguish it from a short quotation. This is a common convention in linguistics.
If you want to put this section back, first please
TH 18:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
TH 00:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I never heard of this rule, that the article advocates:
Most American guidebooks say that the comma or period is always inside the quotation marks. I thought that British guidebooks say that the comma or period is always outside. Is that right?
The (contrary) rule in this article seems unworkable to me. What if I put the period outside the quotes --
and then I tell you "sure, the sentence that Arthur spoke was the four-word sentence. But I chose to quote only the four words, I chose to terminate my quote just before Arthur's period. Then of course per British custom and Wikipedia rules, I put my period outside the quotes"?
Also, I have changed "the situation" to "The situation". If we're quoting the full sentence, then it must begin with a capital. But I really don't know the rules (US/UK) for capitalizing the initial letter of a quoted sentence --
or
-- which is correct?
TH 05:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
A good guide to British English is Fowler's Modern English Usage (3rd edition). If you want an online guide, try that of The Times, jguk 12:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
In the
Ultrahard fullerite article, and in several astronomy articles dealing with
Supernovae, I came across Roman numerals which I did not recognize as such. The default sans serif font used by Wikipedia makes "l" and "I" indistingushable from each other, so I thought I was seeing "Type LA" or "Type LLA" or some such. I have edited the Ultrahard fullerite article to enclose the Roman numerals in <code>...</code> pairs, which not only makes it clear that the letter is an upper-case "I
", but has the added advantage that they actually look the way that Roman numerals are normally represented, with the serif. I propose that this or a variant of it be standard for representing Roman numerals. --
Scott McNay
04:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Currently, the Manual of Style has a section called "Headings" and another called "Sections" (which just contains 3 links). Does anyone object to me moving the links into the "Headings" section, and renaming the merged section as "Section headings"? This would keep related information together, and I think it would be more obvious what sort of headings are being discussed. JonH 16:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
There's a thread at Template talk:Navigation bar about the usability of this recently created template. I suspect at least some of the folks watching this page might have an opinion on this topic. Please comment there. Thanks. -- Rick Block ( talk) 18:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)