This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Writing better articles page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2 |
Manual of Style | ||||||||||
|
Essays Top‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Wikipedia Help NA‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Re: [1]
I'm reverting this per
WP:BRD, a few weeks months after the fact. Not because I'm particularly attached to this hatnote, but because I disagree with
Codename Lisa's rationale for removing it. It's a matter of principle, something that affects all hatnotes of this type.
The link provides a convenient pointer to further relevant information and, to my knowledge, this is the only (or best) mechanism we have for doing that. If the wording of parameter 1 can be improved to make it seem less awkward or cumbersome, then by all means improve it. ― Mandruss ☎ 08:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Done [2] by CL, thank you. ― Mandruss ☎ 08:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
This page is important, so it should be fully protected! Thx! (P.S, The protect request box is at the top.) Carlitos Carrisoza ( talk) 02:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm not a contributor of the MOS, and I'm not really qualified as English isn't my first language, but I went through Nielsen Norman's Writing Digital Copy for Domain Experts and I found it highly relevant for Wikipedia contributors :
I contribute mainly to technical articles so I found those spot-on, but they can be applied to scientific articles and even cultural ones. I don't know if it could be used as a reference and where? -- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 08:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC) (Note: moved from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style)
Widefox, regarding this and this, it seems that you have an issue with the page's wording. I recommend fixing it instead of adding that tag since this is not a Wikipedia article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I just did a bit of an overhaul on WP:BETTER#Information style and tone, to:
Some further cleanup to do:
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
STEFFENM82 ( talk) 10:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
The explanation about avoiding the use of "refers to" is non-sensical and completely at odds with customary practice. The following examples from reputable encyclopedias suggest that the phrase "refers to" is widely used.
Just thinking about the previous discussion which suggest that the phrase "Dog is a domesticated canine ..." is somehow an improvement on "A dog refers to a domesticated canine..." I am sorry to say that I cannot agree. The word, dog is no more than three letters D - O - G which we have learned to associate with a specific type of animal. It is easier to write the word than to go and get an actual animal to illustrate our meaning. But the word is NOT the same as the animal. Words are referents - that is to day that they are symbols that refer to something else; they stand in the place of something else. I simply cannot see how it is a problem to remind readers of the fact that words refer to an object or a concept or a process or something else. If we do away with this handy phrase, then we will be creating all manner of problems with grammar, expression and meaning. Why are we trying to problematise something that was never a problem in the first instance? BronHiggs ( talk) 08:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
The domestic dog ... is a member of genus Canis...is clearly a better opening than "The term "domestic dog" refers to ...".
In psychology, temperament refers to those aspects of an individual's personality..., where it would not be good to replace "refers to" with "is". The section in question does not command "never use "refers to"", it points out that "refers to" and the like is
sometimes used inappropriately in the introduction to an article, suggesting that we think before choosing such a formulation : Noyster (talk), 10:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jomontscb ( talk) 13:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Is there any policy guidance on this? Was about to change "her" to "its" on a windmill article until I saw the HTML comment "windmills are always referred to as 'she'", and checking other articles it looks like we do this for ships. Do we do it for windmills, and for anything else where there's a tradition of it? -- Gapfall ( talk) 18:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
A user at
Talk:Shammar#Shammar in Syria (the 2-year-old given citation are exclusively related to al-Sanadid and ISIS
, para 5) is arguing that sources being cited are off-topic. Where the main subject of a reliable source does differ from the article where it is being cited, should this policy prevent them from being cited?
Batternut (
talk) 11:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
How badly does an article require that its headings be spaced properly? For example, is it appropriate for articles to include the spaces between the equal signs and the heading text...
Or do pages require...
And also, is it necessary to hit a return between the heading of question and the body paragraphs above and below? The "Like this?" heading has a return line above and below, yet the "That the equal signs" have no return lines, so each line before and after that heading are left without gaps between them. UtopianPoyzin ( talk) 14:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I have 2 different sources that are both from credible organizations that say the exact opposite of each other are true. How should I go about showing both ideas? Freedom4U ( talk) 18:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedians,
I seem to recall that once upon a time, we were instructed to write articles at a high-school level. Does anyone know if I can find that guideline (if it still exists), or even if it ever existed at all? Thanks. Red Slash 19:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The section "First sentence format" ends with "Use as few links as possible before and in the bolded title." This is contradicted by MOS:BOLDAVOID which categorically advises against any linked terms in the bolded part. I think the latter is what's widely followed, so I suggest to rephrase this: "Use as few links as possible before and no links in the bolded title." -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 04:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
In the last paragraph, the sentence (of the Tone section) is as follows: "Using explanatory prose also helps identify and remove trivia; if we cannot explain to readers why something is important, then it is not important." Which can be edited to: "Using explanatory prose also helps identify and remove trivia; if it cannot be explained to readers why something is important, then it is not important." This is because "we" is giving rise to a self contradictory paragraph ( the whole paragraph talks about a formal style of writing and advises against using pronouns like we ). 2405:204:33A6:C902:7428:F697:34FE:454E
Not done: This is a project page, not an article. It's appropriate to use "we" here to refer to Wikipedia editors. Dan Bloch ( talk) 17:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
We really need to discourage the use of this shortcut as an "explainer" in edit summaries. Writing only "per WP:XYZ" in an edit summary is fine when that shortcut leads to an immediately understandable "do" or "do not".
But using WP:WBA in this manner amounts to "the article was bad and is now better", since this article discusses so very many different things. Which makes it not useful as an edit summary. CapnZapp ( talk) 17:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Flyer22 Frozen: Yes, we did. The previous version was a wall of text. No, it wasn't fine. I would get lost looking for the pronouns section from the rhetorical questions section from the colloquial language section. Nothing like it on the rest of the page. · • SUM1 • · ( talk) 12:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest re-jiggering this further. Compress the material to restate less of what MoS does; this isn't a place to list out rules, but to summarize a very general gist of tone issues. Throw out most of the new shortcuts, and have fewer subsections (if any remain actually coded as subsections).
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 04:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
{{
Anchor}}
tags in the headings (using templates inside headings messes them up in the edit summary window; moved to them to under the headings). A few shortcuts might be useful. Unless this is a "one-stop shop" for everything to do with pronouns on Wikipedia, a shortcut like WP:PRONOUN is probably not a good idea. That might be better as a disambiguation page, like
WP:CONSISTENCY. I can think of at least two MOS places alone where pronouns are a big deal,
MOS:PERSON and
MOS:IDENTITY, but since it's a "WP:" shortcut not a "MOS:" one,
WP:NOT#HOWTO may also be relevant along with
WP:SELFREF (which also involve not writing at the user in "you" and "we" style – they're basically the broader principles behind MOS:PERSON), and see also
Help:Magic words#Gender and
Template:Pronoun, which address pronouns in an internal-to-the-community sense. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 20:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Y !-- Write your request ABOVE this line and do not remove the tildes and curly brackets below. --> 2409:4072:10F:E572:9DE3:5516:B029:3CBC ( talk) 07:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Macrakis, and anyone else, I am confused by the recommendation to use {{CURRENTYEAR}}. If it is ongoing at the time, but nobody edits the article for another year or two, and in the meantime, the statement is no longer current, doesn't this make it incorrect? I usually use {{as of|ddmmyyyy}} (using just year or month if more suitable), so that it is clear when reading the article, if not updated 5 years later, that the info could be incorrect. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 01:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Just for clarification, should a fictional character's biography be entirely in the narrative present? Some material describes their history before their first appearance in the medium, and to me talking about that in past tense is fine. Would it be appropriate to mention everything from their first appearance onwards in the narrative present, and leave more leeway to narrative present or past tense for everything before that? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Muthvannakzin ( talk) 17:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Josephzaumoon ( talk) 08:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
K- Series Marathi ( talk) 12:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Pablic K- Series Marathi ( talk) 12:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Manzihe ( talk) 11:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
add https://grammarchecker.net Remove http://www.spellonline.com/ it is no longer available for use.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mama1Gal ( talk) 12:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Please can I have some help about my article in Sandbox and any additional advice about editing. Because I was sent articles to edit, I thought this was ok. My sincerest apologies. Please give me time to get to grips with this.
The Paris Hilton example in the principle of least astonishment section about the use of hatnotes is confusing - it gives the history of the use of hatnotes in the article about Paris Hilton but it is extremely unclear to me what conclusion I am intended to draw from it about how hatnotes are best used. Breatheforpeace ( talk) 03:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Is there a reason for this talk page to be semi-protected? -- Lambiam 08:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Writing better articles page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2 |
Manual of Style | ||||||||||
|
Essays Top‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Wikipedia Help NA‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Re: [1]
I'm reverting this per
WP:BRD, a few weeks months after the fact. Not because I'm particularly attached to this hatnote, but because I disagree with
Codename Lisa's rationale for removing it. It's a matter of principle, something that affects all hatnotes of this type.
The link provides a convenient pointer to further relevant information and, to my knowledge, this is the only (or best) mechanism we have for doing that. If the wording of parameter 1 can be improved to make it seem less awkward or cumbersome, then by all means improve it. ― Mandruss ☎ 08:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Done [2] by CL, thank you. ― Mandruss ☎ 08:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
This page is important, so it should be fully protected! Thx! (P.S, The protect request box is at the top.) Carlitos Carrisoza ( talk) 02:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm not a contributor of the MOS, and I'm not really qualified as English isn't my first language, but I went through Nielsen Norman's Writing Digital Copy for Domain Experts and I found it highly relevant for Wikipedia contributors :
I contribute mainly to technical articles so I found those spot-on, but they can be applied to scientific articles and even cultural ones. I don't know if it could be used as a reference and where? -- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 08:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC) (Note: moved from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style)
Widefox, regarding this and this, it seems that you have an issue with the page's wording. I recommend fixing it instead of adding that tag since this is not a Wikipedia article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I just did a bit of an overhaul on WP:BETTER#Information style and tone, to:
Some further cleanup to do:
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
STEFFENM82 ( talk) 10:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
The explanation about avoiding the use of "refers to" is non-sensical and completely at odds with customary practice. The following examples from reputable encyclopedias suggest that the phrase "refers to" is widely used.
Just thinking about the previous discussion which suggest that the phrase "Dog is a domesticated canine ..." is somehow an improvement on "A dog refers to a domesticated canine..." I am sorry to say that I cannot agree. The word, dog is no more than three letters D - O - G which we have learned to associate with a specific type of animal. It is easier to write the word than to go and get an actual animal to illustrate our meaning. But the word is NOT the same as the animal. Words are referents - that is to day that they are symbols that refer to something else; they stand in the place of something else. I simply cannot see how it is a problem to remind readers of the fact that words refer to an object or a concept or a process or something else. If we do away with this handy phrase, then we will be creating all manner of problems with grammar, expression and meaning. Why are we trying to problematise something that was never a problem in the first instance? BronHiggs ( talk) 08:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
The domestic dog ... is a member of genus Canis...is clearly a better opening than "The term "domestic dog" refers to ...".
In psychology, temperament refers to those aspects of an individual's personality..., where it would not be good to replace "refers to" with "is". The section in question does not command "never use "refers to"", it points out that "refers to" and the like is
sometimes used inappropriately in the introduction to an article, suggesting that we think before choosing such a formulation : Noyster (talk), 10:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jomontscb ( talk) 13:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Is there any policy guidance on this? Was about to change "her" to "its" on a windmill article until I saw the HTML comment "windmills are always referred to as 'she'", and checking other articles it looks like we do this for ships. Do we do it for windmills, and for anything else where there's a tradition of it? -- Gapfall ( talk) 18:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
A user at
Talk:Shammar#Shammar in Syria (the 2-year-old given citation are exclusively related to al-Sanadid and ISIS
, para 5) is arguing that sources being cited are off-topic. Where the main subject of a reliable source does differ from the article where it is being cited, should this policy prevent them from being cited?
Batternut (
talk) 11:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
How badly does an article require that its headings be spaced properly? For example, is it appropriate for articles to include the spaces between the equal signs and the heading text...
Or do pages require...
And also, is it necessary to hit a return between the heading of question and the body paragraphs above and below? The "Like this?" heading has a return line above and below, yet the "That the equal signs" have no return lines, so each line before and after that heading are left without gaps between them. UtopianPoyzin ( talk) 14:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I have 2 different sources that are both from credible organizations that say the exact opposite of each other are true. How should I go about showing both ideas? Freedom4U ( talk) 18:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedians,
I seem to recall that once upon a time, we were instructed to write articles at a high-school level. Does anyone know if I can find that guideline (if it still exists), or even if it ever existed at all? Thanks. Red Slash 19:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The section "First sentence format" ends with "Use as few links as possible before and in the bolded title." This is contradicted by MOS:BOLDAVOID which categorically advises against any linked terms in the bolded part. I think the latter is what's widely followed, so I suggest to rephrase this: "Use as few links as possible before and no links in the bolded title." -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 04:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
In the last paragraph, the sentence (of the Tone section) is as follows: "Using explanatory prose also helps identify and remove trivia; if we cannot explain to readers why something is important, then it is not important." Which can be edited to: "Using explanatory prose also helps identify and remove trivia; if it cannot be explained to readers why something is important, then it is not important." This is because "we" is giving rise to a self contradictory paragraph ( the whole paragraph talks about a formal style of writing and advises against using pronouns like we ). 2405:204:33A6:C902:7428:F697:34FE:454E
Not done: This is a project page, not an article. It's appropriate to use "we" here to refer to Wikipedia editors. Dan Bloch ( talk) 17:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
We really need to discourage the use of this shortcut as an "explainer" in edit summaries. Writing only "per WP:XYZ" in an edit summary is fine when that shortcut leads to an immediately understandable "do" or "do not".
But using WP:WBA in this manner amounts to "the article was bad and is now better", since this article discusses so very many different things. Which makes it not useful as an edit summary. CapnZapp ( talk) 17:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Flyer22 Frozen: Yes, we did. The previous version was a wall of text. No, it wasn't fine. I would get lost looking for the pronouns section from the rhetorical questions section from the colloquial language section. Nothing like it on the rest of the page. · • SUM1 • · ( talk) 12:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest re-jiggering this further. Compress the material to restate less of what MoS does; this isn't a place to list out rules, but to summarize a very general gist of tone issues. Throw out most of the new shortcuts, and have fewer subsections (if any remain actually coded as subsections).
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 04:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
{{
Anchor}}
tags in the headings (using templates inside headings messes them up in the edit summary window; moved to them to under the headings). A few shortcuts might be useful. Unless this is a "one-stop shop" for everything to do with pronouns on Wikipedia, a shortcut like WP:PRONOUN is probably not a good idea. That might be better as a disambiguation page, like
WP:CONSISTENCY. I can think of at least two MOS places alone where pronouns are a big deal,
MOS:PERSON and
MOS:IDENTITY, but since it's a "WP:" shortcut not a "MOS:" one,
WP:NOT#HOWTO may also be relevant along with
WP:SELFREF (which also involve not writing at the user in "you" and "we" style – they're basically the broader principles behind MOS:PERSON), and see also
Help:Magic words#Gender and
Template:Pronoun, which address pronouns in an internal-to-the-community sense. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 20:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Y !-- Write your request ABOVE this line and do not remove the tildes and curly brackets below. --> 2409:4072:10F:E572:9DE3:5516:B029:3CBC ( talk) 07:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Macrakis, and anyone else, I am confused by the recommendation to use {{CURRENTYEAR}}. If it is ongoing at the time, but nobody edits the article for another year or two, and in the meantime, the statement is no longer current, doesn't this make it incorrect? I usually use {{as of|ddmmyyyy}} (using just year or month if more suitable), so that it is clear when reading the article, if not updated 5 years later, that the info could be incorrect. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 01:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Just for clarification, should a fictional character's biography be entirely in the narrative present? Some material describes their history before their first appearance in the medium, and to me talking about that in past tense is fine. Would it be appropriate to mention everything from their first appearance onwards in the narrative present, and leave more leeway to narrative present or past tense for everything before that? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Muthvannakzin ( talk) 17:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Josephzaumoon ( talk) 08:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
K- Series Marathi ( talk) 12:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Pablic K- Series Marathi ( talk) 12:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Manzihe ( talk) 11:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
add https://grammarchecker.net Remove http://www.spellonline.com/ it is no longer available for use.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mama1Gal ( talk) 12:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Please can I have some help about my article in Sandbox and any additional advice about editing. Because I was sent articles to edit, I thought this was ok. My sincerest apologies. Please give me time to get to grips with this.
The Paris Hilton example in the principle of least astonishment section about the use of hatnotes is confusing - it gives the history of the use of hatnotes in the article about Paris Hilton but it is extremely unclear to me what conclusion I am intended to draw from it about how hatnotes are best used. Breatheforpeace ( talk) 03:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Is there a reason for this talk page to be semi-protected? -- Lambiam 08:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)