![]() | 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 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | → | Archive 90 |
Some quotation marks in the article were recently changed from straight (") to curly (“ and ”). The Manual of Style was given as justification for the change. However, I reviewed this page, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting) and even the rejected Wikipedia:Quotations, but was unable to find anything for or against the use of curly quotation marks. I suggest that the matter be cleared up. The only reasonable options that I can come up with are to favor the use of straight quotation marks, to favor the use of curly quotation marks or to let editors use whichever kind they wish and not have them changed by later editors.
I think that straight quotation marks should be used. They are easily made with the most popular browsers. I do not know if there is any way at all to make curly quotation marks with any of the major browsers or not. If there is a way, I think that most people will not know how. Straight quotation marks are also easily made in word processors, which some editors use for writing. Some word processors will not make curly quotes at all. I do not think that allowing editors to decide which type of quotation mark they want to use is a good solution because it does not look good to have quotes changing styles throughout an article, depending on who wrote what part. I suppose that the style to use could be set by the first editor to use quotation marks in the article, but that can make editing tedious because people will have to check what style is being used. This may not be easy in a long article with only one or two quotes. You can try searching, but if you do not know how to make curly quotes for the search, you cannot find them that way. Also, there are many articles with both types and it would be a pain to have to check the history to find out which kind was used first so that you can add new quotation marks or make the existing ones the same style. Finally, if people do not know how to make curly quotes, or if there is no way to make them in a browser, they will have to copy and paste them from other examples on Wikipedia or from a word processor that can make them. This seems like a waste of time. -- Kjkolb 00:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
We should be using the correct "curly" quotes everywhere. This should be an automatic feature of the Mediawiki software's rendering, though, not something added in by hand. — Omegatron 00:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I've been working on the List of popes article and I have been adding images of all of the popes to their respective spots on the list. Doing this makes the page much more interesting and enjoyable to look at, however I am confronted with the problem of the size of the article itself. With all of the images that I plan to add to the article, It will surely be a burden for those with 56k processors to read. I wanted to ask if anyone had any advice on splitting the article up into smaller segments so that it could be easily loaded and read by everyone. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Is something like this against the manual of style for wikipedia?
Is this allowed? | |
---|---|
Would this be allowed in articles? |
Certainly one thing to consider is the printable version of the page, or the page when printed without using the special printable version. If it is not going to be shown when the page is printed, it should not be included in articles.
Also, this will not affect download times. The dial-up user's browser will still download the entire contents of the collapsible box when the page is loaded, without clicking on the Show link. — Centrx→ talk • 01:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
At the top, it's currently:
If this page does not specify which usage is preferred:
Examples of authoritative style guides are: The Chicago Manual of Style and Fowler’s Modern English Usage. Chicago provides an online guide, the Chicago Manual of Style Online. Style guides available at no cost are the Mayfield Electronic Handbook of Technical & Scientific Writing and the CMS Crib Sheet.
The third bullet sticks out, to my mind, and could be removed to improve the section (the links are bold because here they refer to this very page):
If this page does not specify which usage is preferred, use other reliable guides, such as those listed below, or discuss your issues or propose style guidance on the talk page of this manual.
The Chicago Manual of Style and Fowler’s Modern English Usage are examples of well-known style guides. Chicago provides an online guide, The Chicago Manual of Style Online. The Mayfield Electronic Handbook of Technical & Scientific Writing and the CMS Crib Sheet are among online style guides that are accessible gratis.
Tony 10:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The unicode in the section "Avoid second-person pronouns" does not work in my browser (IE). I can't be the only one (or am I?). Any chance of changing it to something we can all see? - Joelmills 02:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Quick question: Are there any specific tags to mark an article that is in second-person, as opposed to just using the standard {{ tone}}? -- Dreaded Walrus t c 19:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there any section of this style guide concerning the proper transliteration of the Greek alphabet? BassoProfundo 21:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The manual says:
When the word university is used as a common noun, it should not be capitalized. E.g. "Another university is also located in that city." But sometimes it's used as an abbreviation of the name of a particular university. Michael Hardy 21:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Please can someone explain why I cannot write a subheading such as The Prayer Books of Edward VI. There were two of them; they were not any old prayer books. I can understand why articles do not need to be cluttered up with definite or indefinite articles, to the confusion of indexers, and I realise that that correction of this breach of the style code can give endless amusement to some editors, but it seems to have no rationale. The book of 1662 is known as 'The 1662 Prayer Book', why call it '1662 Prayer Book'. In English English it sounds very strange, even bad grammar. Roger Arguile 13:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there any guideline on forcing a font display in the article namespace? I found an article where they are trying to describe an illustration with a serif I, but it is being done with a ponderous footnote stating that the letter may appear in an ambigious font like Arial and thus be incorrect. Is there any MOS prohibition against using <font face> in the article to force a sarif enabled font?-- Isotope23 18:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Separate style guidelines have been developed for particular topics, and some are listed in the "Special Article Style" box in this article. I wondered whether this article could clarify how these relate to this main manual and to Wikipedia principles.
For example, while they seem very useful, it seems that they could potentially go against WP:NPOV. I'm not thinking so much of the country/language ones (don't know about them) but of when a style manual outlines the approach and terminology of a particular scientific/professional field. It might then be applied to any articles related to it, shaping their headings and terminology (and coverage) in accordance with that manual of style. In some areas this might be fine but of course for many topics there are differing scientific/professional fields and views. Normally each article would develop on its own merits, balancing different points of view and terminologies - but specific style guidelines potentially distort this, especially if some fields have them but others don't. I can be more specific if necessary.
In other words, while this main manual is about encyclopedic style, other manuals might be about the style of a particular point of view. Can potential issues with this be addressed here? EverSince 11:58, 30 June 2007 (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 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | → | Archive 90 |
Some quotation marks in the article were recently changed from straight (") to curly (“ and ”). The Manual of Style was given as justification for the change. However, I reviewed this page, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting) and even the rejected Wikipedia:Quotations, but was unable to find anything for or against the use of curly quotation marks. I suggest that the matter be cleared up. The only reasonable options that I can come up with are to favor the use of straight quotation marks, to favor the use of curly quotation marks or to let editors use whichever kind they wish and not have them changed by later editors.
I think that straight quotation marks should be used. They are easily made with the most popular browsers. I do not know if there is any way at all to make curly quotation marks with any of the major browsers or not. If there is a way, I think that most people will not know how. Straight quotation marks are also easily made in word processors, which some editors use for writing. Some word processors will not make curly quotes at all. I do not think that allowing editors to decide which type of quotation mark they want to use is a good solution because it does not look good to have quotes changing styles throughout an article, depending on who wrote what part. I suppose that the style to use could be set by the first editor to use quotation marks in the article, but that can make editing tedious because people will have to check what style is being used. This may not be easy in a long article with only one or two quotes. You can try searching, but if you do not know how to make curly quotes for the search, you cannot find them that way. Also, there are many articles with both types and it would be a pain to have to check the history to find out which kind was used first so that you can add new quotation marks or make the existing ones the same style. Finally, if people do not know how to make curly quotes, or if there is no way to make them in a browser, they will have to copy and paste them from other examples on Wikipedia or from a word processor that can make them. This seems like a waste of time. -- Kjkolb 00:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
We should be using the correct "curly" quotes everywhere. This should be an automatic feature of the Mediawiki software's rendering, though, not something added in by hand. — Omegatron 00:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I've been working on the List of popes article and I have been adding images of all of the popes to their respective spots on the list. Doing this makes the page much more interesting and enjoyable to look at, however I am confronted with the problem of the size of the article itself. With all of the images that I plan to add to the article, It will surely be a burden for those with 56k processors to read. I wanted to ask if anyone had any advice on splitting the article up into smaller segments so that it could be easily loaded and read by everyone. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Is something like this against the manual of style for wikipedia?
Is this allowed? | |
---|---|
Would this be allowed in articles? |
Certainly one thing to consider is the printable version of the page, or the page when printed without using the special printable version. If it is not going to be shown when the page is printed, it should not be included in articles.
Also, this will not affect download times. The dial-up user's browser will still download the entire contents of the collapsible box when the page is loaded, without clicking on the Show link. — Centrx→ talk • 01:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
At the top, it's currently:
If this page does not specify which usage is preferred:
Examples of authoritative style guides are: The Chicago Manual of Style and Fowler’s Modern English Usage. Chicago provides an online guide, the Chicago Manual of Style Online. Style guides available at no cost are the Mayfield Electronic Handbook of Technical & Scientific Writing and the CMS Crib Sheet.
The third bullet sticks out, to my mind, and could be removed to improve the section (the links are bold because here they refer to this very page):
If this page does not specify which usage is preferred, use other reliable guides, such as those listed below, or discuss your issues or propose style guidance on the talk page of this manual.
The Chicago Manual of Style and Fowler’s Modern English Usage are examples of well-known style guides. Chicago provides an online guide, The Chicago Manual of Style Online. The Mayfield Electronic Handbook of Technical & Scientific Writing and the CMS Crib Sheet are among online style guides that are accessible gratis.
Tony 10:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The unicode in the section "Avoid second-person pronouns" does not work in my browser (IE). I can't be the only one (or am I?). Any chance of changing it to something we can all see? - Joelmills 02:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Quick question: Are there any specific tags to mark an article that is in second-person, as opposed to just using the standard {{ tone}}? -- Dreaded Walrus t c 19:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there any section of this style guide concerning the proper transliteration of the Greek alphabet? BassoProfundo 21:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The manual says:
When the word university is used as a common noun, it should not be capitalized. E.g. "Another university is also located in that city." But sometimes it's used as an abbreviation of the name of a particular university. Michael Hardy 21:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Please can someone explain why I cannot write a subheading such as The Prayer Books of Edward VI. There were two of them; they were not any old prayer books. I can understand why articles do not need to be cluttered up with definite or indefinite articles, to the confusion of indexers, and I realise that that correction of this breach of the style code can give endless amusement to some editors, but it seems to have no rationale. The book of 1662 is known as 'The 1662 Prayer Book', why call it '1662 Prayer Book'. In English English it sounds very strange, even bad grammar. Roger Arguile 13:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there any guideline on forcing a font display in the article namespace? I found an article where they are trying to describe an illustration with a serif I, but it is being done with a ponderous footnote stating that the letter may appear in an ambigious font like Arial and thus be incorrect. Is there any MOS prohibition against using <font face> in the article to force a sarif enabled font?-- Isotope23 18:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Separate style guidelines have been developed for particular topics, and some are listed in the "Special Article Style" box in this article. I wondered whether this article could clarify how these relate to this main manual and to Wikipedia principles.
For example, while they seem very useful, it seems that they could potentially go against WP:NPOV. I'm not thinking so much of the country/language ones (don't know about them) but of when a style manual outlines the approach and terminology of a particular scientific/professional field. It might then be applied to any articles related to it, shaping their headings and terminology (and coverage) in accordance with that manual of style. In some areas this might be fine but of course for many topics there are differing scientific/professional fields and views. Normally each article would develop on its own merits, balancing different points of view and terminologies - but specific style guidelines potentially distort this, especially if some fields have them but others don't. I can be more specific if necessary.
In other words, while this main manual is about encyclopedic style, other manuals might be about the style of a particular point of view. Can potential issues with this be addressed here? EverSince 11:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)