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 185 | ← | Archive 189 | Archive 190 | Archive 191 | Archive 192 | Archive 193 | → | Archive 195 |
Older version
|
---|
|
Topics are limited to a certain level of detail, factoring in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. If an article gives examples, the choice must be substantiated. That someone simply listed them does not automatically mean that we must copy them in the style of "X is an example of Y". Examples should be the most prominent cases, of unique character, of defining contribution, or otherwise encyclopedically relevant. The remaining ones may be referred to in a "List of ..." article, providing that they meet the article's inclusion criteria. Reasonable exceptions may be found in many topics outside the realms of culture, aesthetics, or the humanities, which often depend on arbitrary examples to effectively illustrate their subject (i.e. Equation, Algorithm, Cryosphere, Mammal).
Option B, proposed on 23 March
|
---|
|
Should the quoted text be added under a section titled "Examples"?-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 16:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
The proposed addition was worked out by myself, @ Staszek Lem:, and @ SMcCandlish:. It is an attempt to tie together the following:
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject)
While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article.)
Many readers need just a quick summary of the topic's most important points. Others need a moderate amount of information on the topic's more important points)
Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence.)
We have several related cleanup templates for this issue, none of which can be linked to any one of the above. They are: {{ Refexample}}, {{ Specific-section}}, {{ Example farm}}, {{ Importance example}}. I've written more at WP:NAMEDROP. There was also a similar proposal which could not find consensus due to its ambiguous wording.-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 16:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
the realms of culture, aesthetics, or the humanitiesoften need examples to explain to the reader what's being described (anyone fancy trying to describe Picaresque novel, Romanticism or Hudson River School without giving representative examples?). This would give the MOS hardliners carte blanche to gut Wikipedia's arts and humanities coverage. ‑ Iridescent 18:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, every previous attempt to establish a policy or guideline on content relevance, scope, trivia, and related concepts, as a new "venue" in itself, has failed to gain consensus, so pursuing that again is likely to be seen as WP:PERENNIAL, and a rehash of "fame and importance" debates from WP's early days. The resolution of that was the creation of WP:Notability for articles, and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE for content in them, yet we still have continual problems with "example-itis" and obsessive attempts at "completion" of incompletable lists by the addition of cruft. So, just having our already-broad style and presentation guideline tie together all the P&G rationales for avoiding endless lists of examples is the obvious choice. It's a main-MoS thing because overuse of examples is not particular to any type or format of article.
Option B
|
---|
... or otherwise encyclopedically relevant. For example:
The remaining ones may be referred to in a "List of ..." article, providing that they meet the article's inclusion criteria. ... |
Does it bother anyone else that the mobile app ignores the WP:BQ parts of our manual of style on block quotes? Our MOS says "avoid decorative quotation marks", and to use the more plainly-formatted {{ quote}} instead of fancy-decorative-quote-mark methods like {{ cquote}}, but on the mobile app, quotes formatted with {{ quote}} get fancy decorative quotation marks anyway. (I kind of like the fancy quote marks, myself, but I don't think mobile should be changing things up in this way.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Should MOS say something about standardized telephone number format?
I've searched the archives for previous discussions, with no success.
We have this article in mainspace. It can be summarized as "it depends".
There is also this as a handy summary to what US-centric style guides say about it. Jeh ( talk) 19:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
It appears that major authorities capitalize all the words for the names of butterflies and birds: Canadian Biodiversity Information Facility [1], UK Butterflies [2], Butterflies of North America [3] and (Audabon Magazine [4]). Shouldn't Wikipedia follow such authorities, at least with regard to butterflies and birds?
I gather that there has been a vigorous debate around this topic and the Audabon organization and magazine web pages are a useful source. Rwood128 ( talk) 15:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Izno Thanks, I don't have the time to delve any further, and, furthermore, I don't expect to be again editing articles on butterflies or bird. Peter coxhead, also thanks, Rwood128 ( talk) 16:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
The Yellow Warbler was near the white-tailed deer.I was reading a butterfly field guide recently that capitalized butterfly names, but used lower case for plants and other animals. People who specialize in an area like birds or butterflies are used to seeing them capitalized in their sources and it looks wrong to them to have them lower case. Generally, encyclopedias and journalism use lower case and that is the style we have adopted for Wikipedia. It's a complex question, that has been debated, but as far as Wikipedia goes, it has been answered decisively – lower case except for proper nouns. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 20:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
CMOS Shop Talk Tony (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Is there an exception for this sort editing. A sports season has ended so is it acceptable to say that the "season was", or keep it in the present tense: the "season is"? Similarly, wan a musical group disbands, do we keep present tense or not? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
We also use "will be" for team 'future' season articles, during off-seasons. GoodDay ( talk) 18:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
BTW: We also have been using "was" for past league season articles & "will be" for future league season articles. Examples: 2012-13 NBA season & 2017-18 NHL season etc. GoodDay ( talk) 18:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
(moved from talk 'Naming conventions clergy') I've recently been extending 'St.' to 'Saint' in the text in several long editing runs. The guideline (EDIT: at the above, now removed) stated in its lead that this application would apply not only to titles but "on how to refer to them in the article body". Although I've made a few mistakes in titles and in text, it seemed pretty clear that in the text, when 'St.' refers to the individual (and not, of course, to a church, artwork, or other proper name) that it should be extended to 'Saint'. The abbreviation 'St.' doesn't even appear on the Saint page itself except for one proper name. Most pages that I've edited per this guideline are inconsistent, and include both 'Saint' and 'St.' when referring to individuals (often in the same sentence), and I've been editing out those inconsistencies by using 'Saint' (have stopped for the time being after an objection on my talk page). Consistency and the title guideline seems to suggest that 'Saint' is preferable in text to 'St.' when referring to a person, especially when Wikipedia usage is now so mixed that both forms are not only used on the same page but in paragraphs and even in the same sentences. A clarity discussion seems the next step. Randy Kryn 13:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, the entire point of a manual of style on any site like this is site-wide consistency, and virtually every line-item in our Manual of Style is intended that way; the few exceptions are explicitly worded to defer to per-article local consensus. It's time to put this silly "MoS is only for in-one-article consistency" myth to bed, since it's self-evidently false. If it were true, we would have no MoS, MoS could never be cited at RM or any other discussion about site-wide consistency practices, and what we would have instead would be innumerable topic-specific competing style guides all in conflict with each other, plus a great deal of reader and editor confusion. The fact that things were heading in that direction already in WP's early days is the reason that a centralized, site-wide MoS was instituted at all. So, let's just drop the pretense.
—
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Users who watch this page may be interested in this RFC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MOS:GENDERID for genderqueer people. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 20:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
The merger proposal on {{ infobox song}} and {{ infobox single}} is discussed at WT:WikiProject Songs. I invite you to comment there. -- George Ho ( talk) 10:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
In grammar, is the use of hyphens and dashes a matter of punctuation, spelling, or something else? If something else, what? Thank you.-- John Cline ( talk) 11:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Hyphens are used in spelling (eg the noun 'check-in'), whilst dashes are used in punctuation - like this - or to separate a subordinate clause (as demonstrated). -- Sb2001 ( talk) 20:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Please see this edit and WP:2SHORTCUTS.— Wavelength ( talk) 02:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
This relates specifically to MOS:QUOTE. Should the published title of a ref be reproduced verbatim (i.e., typos and hyphens left untouched) or corrected accordingly? Example here, used in this article. Is it up to us to fix the "decison" typo? MOS:QUOTE says to do so for quotes in prose, but nothing is mentioned of ref titles, unless they are assumed to form part of quoted material. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 18:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I believe this is the wrong talk page to discuss references; they should be discussed at WP:Citing sources. Jc3s5h ( talk) 22:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
{{cite ...}}
but before the ending </ref>
, if it seems important to say something about it. If no note is desired, the entire cite can be wrapped in a hidden sic template to prevent bots or gnomes from messing with the spelling:
{{sic |hide=y |reason=Apparent typo in the title is intentional and should not be "fixed". |1=<ref>{{Cite book |title=I Cant Spel |...}}</ref>}}
According to § Images, bullet-point 3:
(emphasis mine) but if there are subsections (level 3 or deeper) and we have more specifically relevant images for them, shouldn't each image go in its specific subsection rather than stacking them all in the level-2 intro? I think the goal is to avoid dangling images down from an earlier section when we want them to appear at the beginning of any section, not to hoist images to a higher-level section than appropriate for content reasons. I propose changing "major" to "specific" and removing "level 2" in this guideline. DMacks ( talk) 14:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
An image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section; if this is not possible, try not to place an image "too early" i.e. far ahead of the point in the text discussing what the image illustrates, if this will puzzle the reader.People know without being told, from seeing in existing articles if no other way, that heads of sections are the default placement., E Eng 22:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Ideally, an image should be inside the section to which it relates (within the section defined by the most recent heading or at the top of the lead section), not immediately above the section heading.? That resolves my concern. I like the idea of rationalizing it for accessibility. Maybe add
Having an image be before the section on its specific topic can be confusing to readers who only see one section at a time in on their display (the preceding section would have an image that is possibly off-topic for its content and the intended section of content would not have the image).?
try not to place an image "too early" i.e. far ahead of the point in the text discussing what the image illustrates, if this will puzzle the reader, but I would consider broadening it further (or making it a separate bullet-point rather than only as an "if this is not possible..." detail of the section choice. We don't want to suggest that images even need to go at the start of a section. I know we don't say to do it, but it seems to be a common pattern especially given how short some sections are, or that a chosen image usually relates to a section as a whole. Consider an image that only relates to a relatively late paragraph of a section (but one whose subtopic is not substantial enough to merit a subsection) and having no other image that is more general for the section as a whole. I often place such an image adjacent to that late paragraph. DMacks ( talk) 07:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Some feedback on a a self-reference issue would be welcome. Please see WT:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid#Is "not a policy" useful?. Johnuniq ( talk) 05:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Please come participate in the discussion at WP:VPP#Date links on portal date-specific pages. Thank you. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I see that a number of details have recently been removed. As a MOS user I would like to complain about how frustrating it is when I encounter text that could be expressed a couple of different ways and come here for advice. I don't want to consult external style guides, and my brain has been addled by seeing many variations at Wikipedia so I am rarely confident about what "should" be done. A couple of hours ago I tried to search for advice so I could link to it. I believe the advice was once here, but I cannot see it now (see "force-length units would be torque and length-force units would be energy" here and the "discussion here" that it links to).
Another issue that arises in connection with {{ convert}} concerns other advice that has just been excised:
It hasn't arisen for a while, but in the past people have complained either that converts repeats the symbols in a range, or that (with some options) it does not repeat them. It is really handy to be able to defer to MOS. We know that, with reason, a guideline can be ignored blah blah but people come here for advice and removing it leaves a riddle that results in unnecessary arguments at other pages. It is very useful, for example, to search MOS for "range" and find advice. Johnuniq ( talk) 05:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Johnuniq: I assume I may be the culprit, or a culprit, in creating an alleged blizzard of edits. Among my changes, there was one that was just plain wrong, which was helpfully fixed by DrKay after it was reverted and I made it a second time. My other changes were just clarifications of existing text and should not have been controversial.
Detailed recapitulation of edits
|
---|
My first edit, of 21:18, 7 May 2017, had edit summary
This is literally what's in the edit, as long as you read the hyphen as a minus sign; -a+b means "minus a plus b" or "I changed a to b". In the following text, regular bullets are portions of my edit summary and nested bullets are the corresponding edits.
A further clarification of "like → such as": A classic use of "like" is "This program is made possible with the support of viewers like you." That means, "We don't know if you are a supporter, but other viewers like you are supporters." But "wording like 'presently' and 'current'" leaves the user confused as to whether "presently" and "current" are included or if we mean, "not these two, but other words like these two". My subsequent edits were similarly un-substantive clarifications. |
So, you see, my description was reasonably explanatory; there were no substantive change but just some clarifications. I am sorry this method caused you or anyone else any difficulty. If I edit any of the MOS pages again, controversial changes will be only after talk page consensus (as I have always done), and minor clarifications like these will be in smaller groups to make it easy to see that the changes are benign.— Anomalocaris ( talk) 05:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Citations. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I just noticed the suggestion to spell out electronvolt, along with any prefix. As far as I know, physicists would pretty much never do that. I believe also, that if one did, it would be two words. As I don't have an account, I can't check OED to see if it is considered a word yet. It is a little unusual, as electron by itself is not normally a unit, other than counting of the particle with that name. Gah4 ( talk) 00:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
If the question you are asking is 'is "electronvolt" a word?', the answer - as far as I can tell - is yes. It does seem to be a matter of taste whether you spell it as one word or two. -- Sb2001 ( talk) 00:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks all, NIST is good enough for me. Note that there is MOS:JARGON, for example, and also do not invent abbreviations or acronyms (yes I know that this isn't either). It is just spelled out so rarely that it looks strange to see it. Gah4 ( talk) 20:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
{{convert|1|J|eV|abbr=off}}
→ 1 joule (6.2×1018 electronvolts){{convert|1|J|MeV|abbr=off}}
→ 1 joule (6.2×1012 megaelectronvolts)I think this is what the header should be. After really looking at it, it seems jarring to have an imperative header, as it creates a situation where any text following it reads in a much "quieter"(?) tone, or possibly as unnecessary (as has been noted by User:EEng). With a "Capitals for emphasis" header, the section itself could advise against this practice while also providing the preferred alternative. Thoughts? Primergrey ( talk) 02:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have imposed a one-week full protection on this page (and yes, it was almost certainly the wrong version), because in the space of less than three hours, three people ( Anomalocaris, DrKay and EEng)) have made thirteen edits, several of which negated the effects of previous edits. I am sure that you are all aware of WP:BRD and WP:EW - please respect those guidelines. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 23:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, I've just about had my fill of shoot-from-the-hip highhanded admins today, so I'm a bit pissy. This is ridiculous.
In other words, after an initial misunderstanding there's no problem now, and no need for protection. I believe both Anomalocaris and DrKay will endorse this summary. So can we please unprotect so everyone can get back to work? Ping Redrose64. E Eng 00:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I can't see a pressing need for page protection at the current time. I realise that, to someone not paying attention to the actual edits involved (but rather to the edit comments), it may seem like there was edit warring but the three very experienced editors named by the protecting admin would likely have sorted things out between themselves and, more importantly, the changes were not hugely substantive. BushelCandle ( talk) 07:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
This does actually present the issue that it is not that clear on the MoS page that changes should not be made unless they have come here first. Maybe it is appropriate for us to be working on a more long-term solution. Protection is maybe not quite the right approach, although I do understand the reasoning. -- Sb2001 ( talk) 17:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
To mention BRD in the rationale for page protection (a last-resort action that seems to have been an overreaction) is wholly improper. Linking an essay to justify, in part, an heavy admin action (at a major guideline page, no less) seems entirely rogue-ish behaviour. Knowingly protecting the "wrong" version of a heavily trafficked guideline page for a week seems to show a lack of respect for the guideline and/or those wanting to refer to it. (Not mention that B and R, two-thirds of the advice, cannot be done on a protected page.) Primergrey ( talk) 07:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
any changes that are introduced [should be] agreed in advance– that's nuts. Like it says at the top of the page itself,
Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus.I put the key word in bold to help you understand. By your logic, the page would be under indefinite protection.
I have noticed a change that appears to have happened the last week. Infoboxes started appearing to me, an android app user, in the very beginning of every article instead after a lead paragraph, which renders the article preview that appears when I press hyperlinks empty and useless. would anyone tell me what happened? • Sammy Majed • Talk • Creations • Wikipedia Arabic • 11:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
It's clear what MOS:SANDWICH is trying to say: avoid sandwiching text horizontally between an image or infobox or similar, one being on the left and the other on the right of the page. We're not, of course, bothered about sandwiching text vertically. This has been expressed for some time using the wording "facing", but this can be mis-interpreted to refer to the direction in which images of people look. I wrongly reverted a reversion, but have now tried different wording. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
This is fine, but there should also be a line which says not to sandwich text vertically, unless it is a substantial block of text between (say five lines). Otherwise there can be confusion, and people can miss parts of the text (it could easily look like (part of) a caption). -- Sb2001 ( talk) 18:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The first bullet at
WP:MOS#Keep markup simple reads: The simplest
markup is often the easiest to edit, the most comprehensible, and the most predictable. Markup may appear differently in different browsers. Use HTML and CSS markup sparingly; in particular, do not use the CSS
float
or line-height
properties because they break rendering on some browsers when large fonts are used.
I agree broadly with the sentiment of keeping markup simple, not least because it makes editing faster (editors would rather not process lots of CSS). My concern comes with the "in particular" and following: Do we know which browsers exhibit these problems? I did a quick Google check and didn't see anything. Float is regularly used on-wiki (tables floated one side or the other, most often), and while I've never seen line-height in-use, I don't think it needs to be called out specifically with the "use markup sparingly" statement.
Would anyone have any heartburn with removing in particular, do not use the CSS
? --
Izno (
talk) 16:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
float
or line-height
properties because they break rendering on some browsers when large fonts are used
line-height
is often used to reduce the internal spacing of cladograms produced with {{
Clade}} or {{
Cladex}}. As just one very small example, see
Synspermiata#Phylogeny. I think the advice re float
and line-height
is out of date now, and I agree the reference to them should be removed.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 17:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Following a discussion at the Language helpdesk, I propose 'eg', 'ie' and 'etc' should be written for British English articles, whilst 'e.g.', 'i.e.' and 'etc.' are used for US English articles. This means US articles can follow the guidance of US style guides and UK articles can follow the guidance of UK style guides.
See the following; Guardian style guide - 'eg no full points' UK government style guide - 'eg, etc and ie' Economist style guide - 'ie and eg' University of Oxford style guide - 'etc', 'eg' and 'ie'
As 'The Rambling Man' comments, 'there seems to be good evidence to support an ENGVAR split in punctuation'.
'Jnestorius' summarised that 'style guides for web publications are more likely than those for hardcopy printing to favour eg over e.g'. Since Wikipedia is a website, it would make sense to apply this split here. I would - however - note that the Guardian and the Economist are printed publications. -- Sb2001 ( talk) 15:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
The assumption this is about saving ink is just wrong. It is also wrong that it is about typewriters. As someone in education rather more recently than the rest of you seem to have been, I can tell you that in the UK it is no longer recommended to abbreviate with full stops. Part of the educational process involves referring to style guides, grammar books, etc and I can tell you everything I have read which has been recently published says not to include full stops. The point of this discussion is to come to a conclusion as to whether Wikipedia should follow the more up-to-date way of writing these common abbreviations in British English. In response to @Rhialto 's claim that 'eg', etc is about making things accessible to all, for one - why should Wikipedia not be accessible to all, and my education certainly was not of poor quality - I was told to write with no full stops. These rules have only been adopted recently, so may seem unfamiliar to some. I can say that examination boards in the UK all (or at least that I have come across) include examples using 'eg' for their associated paperwork. Part of the reason I started this discussion is as some instances of 'eg', etc in UK articles were removed in favour of 'e.g.'. A potential solution to this could be to allow both, maybe with the aim of moving towards the new standards. -- Sb2001 ( talk) 18:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Rhialto: The inclusion of the NHS' style guide was to demonstrate support from other users, not to pad the claim. I was not aware the NHS had a style guide until this discussion. It is actually quite different to that of the government, including what it says about 'eg', etc. -- Sb2001 ( talk) 20:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the current official policy is on such abbreviations, but the past general Wikipedia tendency has been to allow national variants in spelling, but not usually in punctuation. So Wikipedia follows British practice in that commas etc. are not automatically reordered before quote marks, but follows American practice in that outer quote marks should be double (not single) -- and so on. We probably shouldn't change this without a good reason... AnonMoos ( talk) 09:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it is a good idea to stop people writing these abbreviations, and instead write 'for example', etc as everyone can understand them. I have become used to seeing 'e.g.', but was very confused at first as it is not what I saw first. Some people are taught the other way around. A simple solution would be to not use them at all.-- Sb2001 ( talk) 13:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Unspaced text messing up mobile browsers
|
---|
perhapswikipediashouldlookaheadandtrytosetatrendforachangeforhundredsofyearswevebeentyrannisedbypeopleinsistingonallsortsofridiculousextraneousstuffwhenallweneedis26lettersoopsand10numeralsisupposedidyouknowthataboutthetimeoftherussianrevolutiontheydecidednottobotherwiththeletterъwhichappearedattheendoflotsandlotsofwordsrepresentingasortofnullvowelwhichwasntpronouncedanymoreasaresultrussiannewspapersshrankby7%orsomethinglikethatwellthisisourbigopportunityareductioninpaperelectronskeypressesandeductinalstandardswillriseovernight Imaginatorium talk201704111520utc |
I would oppose any change. This is not universal. As an English person who always writes most abbreviations without full stops, I wouldn't dream of writing eg or ie! It looks very weird to me. Claiming this is standard British usage is just not true. This is not an ENGVAR issue. It's a personal style issue only. I also agree, though, that generally these abbreviations shouldn't be used on Wikipedia at all. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Would I be right in saying that people here do not - generally - oppose 'etc' being used as a BE equivalent to 'etc.'? This could be advised for UK articles, and then people can be asked to avoid using 'eg' or 'e.g.' and 'ie' or 'i.e.'. Many people seem to support this. Can I assume that this change is to go ahead unless there are a significant number of objections by, say, Sunday at 1.00pm UK time? -- Sb2001 ( talk) 20:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: I do disagree that 'etc' is not universal as I see it far more frequently than 'etc.' (which I actually only see on Wikipedia) and it is what is taught in educational establishments. Yes, you are right in saying regional splits in language are to be avoided, but surely UK articles should be written in a style which most people in the UK would understand, and apply themselves. I am willing to accept 'eg' and 'ie' are possibly as common as 'i.e.' in certain places, but do not accept the argument that 'etc' is not the generally accepted way of writing this abbreviation. I would just like to clarify the change I proposed at 9.44pm (UK) doesn't ask people to write 'eg' and 'ie', only 'etc'.-- Sb2001 ( talk) 21:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
It's certainly not sloppiness, @Redrose64: most British style guides recommend it, and it is what you are taught to write currently in English. Would you and other editors be happy with both 'etc' and 'etc.' being options? -- Sb2001 ( talk) 13:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Updated change: 'etc' and 'etc.' are acceptable in UK articles. 'eg' or 'e.g.' and 'ie' or 'i.e.' should not be used in any articles. This means existing instances of this can be gradually removed from Wikipedia. People should avoid changing 'etc' to 'etc.' and vice versa in UK articles. -- Sb2001 ( talk) 00:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I do sometimes wonder if all the time and effort spent trying to make MOS agreeable to every editor ought to be spent in article creation. In general readers (and remember WP:RF) want information, not rigorously standards-conforming typographical masterpieces. We should primarily be generating the world's best encyclopaedia, not an international style guide. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 10:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
It appears some users have not noticed the most recent motion I presented: 'Updated change: 'etc' and 'etc.' are acceptable in UK articles. 'eg' or 'e.g.' and 'ie' or 'i.e.' should not be used in any articles. This means existing instances of this can be gradually removed from Wikipedia. People should avoid changing 'etc' to 'etc.' and vice versa in UK articles. -- Sb2001 ( talk) 00:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)'. A consensus seems to have been reached that the MoS should be changed to something like this. -- Sb2001 ( talk) 18:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Justlettersandnumbers: There are plenty of style guides which advise otherwise (the Guardian, the Economist, the NHS, the University of Oxford, the University of Cambridge are just some examples). I think it is wise to allow people to write both in order to avoid this sort of 'my style guide is better than yours' debate this seems to be turning into. -- Sb2001 ( talk) 22:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
User:EvergreenFir: I am interested to know why you think a less common way of writing 'et cetera' ('etc.') should be adopted over the widely used 'etc'. I would like to again point out that we would - under this change - be making Wikipedia more accessible by advising people to write 'for example' and 'that is' (or words to that effect) instead of 'eg' or 'e.g.' and 'ie' or 'i.e.'. As User:Graham87 seems to be saying, screen readers have trouble with 'eg' and 'e.g.', so it would make sense to avoid using them in my opinion. I think we should allow both 'etc' and 'etc.' to end this dispute, which seems to be going round in circles. Do any editors have a reasonable objection to the barring of 'eg' or 'e.g.' and 'ie' or 'i.e.' and permission to use 'etc' and 'etc.'? -- Sb2001 ( talk) 19:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Peter coxhead: You are effectively dismissing this side of the argument. The number of editors in favour of both being allowed seems about equal to those against. If both are recommended, why disallow one? Please, also, speak to me as an equal: your tone (and use of bold text) comes across as somewhat rude. I did not bring this to the talk page to cause an argument. Other editors and I find the MoS restrictive in the way it demands 'etc.' rather than 'etc'. You may not have this issue. As someone who was taught to write 'etc', I find it quite strange to have to write something I was taught is no longer common in UK English. I have backed down, and been persuaded by some editors to not use 'eg'/'e.g.' and 'ie'/'i.e.', so is it really that unreasonable for you to accept the opinions of some? I am not asking you to write 'etc' with no full stop. I am just asking for those who prefer this style to be give the option of doing so. In regards to the proposer/closer point, if this is a rule, I was not aware of this. I have never used this talk page before. I would appreciate it if you could show some understanding of this. I do think we have had an array of comments from people of many opinions (including one who writes '&c'), so am not quite sure what you mean when you ask for a 'proper RfC' - can you please explain? -- Sb2001 ( talk) 20:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Martin of Sheffield: Sorry if what I meant was unclear - I was saying that I was taught it is no longer common. I was not trying to say I was right. I understand it is used, but I was taught (and I imagine this is fairly standard in schools, etc today) not to write it due to its dwindling frequency of use. -- Sb2001 ( talk) 22:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Does there seem to be a consensus here? I think people don't seem to have a preference (or if they do, are open-minded to the alternative) for 'etc' and 'etc.'. There also seems to be general opposition against e.g. or eg and i.e. and ie being used at all. Should we therefore avoid them (unless is absolutely necessary, in which case full stops are optional)? -- Sb2001 ( talk) 23:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I've just read back a bit in the thread. One editor's comments prompted me to research how screen readers deal with this. It seems 'eg' if often read as 'for example' and others as 'egg'. However, 'e.g.' is generally read as 'e dot g dot' with the odd exception where 'for example' is said. Writing the extended version would remove this as an issue. I think this deserves more consideration. We didn't seem to comment on it very much at the time. Besides, some people don't understand 'e(.)g(.)' and 'i(.)e(.)'. The actual English words remove this as an issue completely. I am now completely in favour of discouraging their words unless it is necessary to save space. 'etc(.)' is fine. Everyone seems to understand it, and screen readers have no issues interpreting it. Forget my original proposal. I think this is far more important. -- Sb2001 ( talk) 18:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
It would be very useful for editors to comment their opinions on this new proposal which;
It doesn't matter what you think, we currently do not have a clear consensus either way. - Sb2001 ( talk) 17:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A discussion has been taking place, and a consensus cannot be reached on whether the MoS should advise against using 'eg' or 'e.g.' and 'ie' or 'i.e.' (and instead to write such things as 'for example' and 'that is'), and allow editors to write both 'etc' and 'etc.' in UK articles, as long as only one is used in an article. Different style guides advise different things, and both are common in UK English. Editors have suggested it is possibly a generational issue, with 'etc' being preferred by younger people. People may find it useful to read the thread on the MoS talk page, as links to some style guides are given, and advantages and disadvantages of applying this change are discussed. -- Sb2001 ( talk) 00:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I know both are theoretically acceptable, and external reliable sources are split. A lot of prominent ones (like the ADL) appear to actively prefer "anti-Semitism", but sources could easily be located that say there is no "Semitism" to be "anti-", and so the proper spelling should be "antisemitism". (I've definitely seen something on Henry Abramson's YouTube channel, and it was expressed as his opinion so he's probably said it in a bunch of places.)
So yeah, I guess both are fine, but is changing from one to another a violation like changing one ENGVAR to another without a valid reason? (I'm assuming Antisemitism#Usage is meant to be descriptive of the real world rather than normative for Wikipedians.)
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I would definitely write 'antisemitism'. I've noticed the BBC write 'anti-Semitism' and always think it looks remarkably odd. The fact there is no 'Semitism' means antisemitism is the same as racism and sexism. -- Sb2001 ( talk) 16:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I've just checked the Guardian style guide. It says to write 'antisemitism' and 'antisemitic' (p32). -- Sb2001 ( talk) 16:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I'm a relative newbie editing biology articles. I'm confused and/or unsure about the use of external links and further reading. If I want to give readers the option to read the text of a complete, open, published research paper that I have not cited in the article, I think I should put that link in the "Further reading" section. Is that correct?
If I want to give readers a "head's up" about a relevant video, I believe that link should go in an "External links" section. Is that correct? IF that is correct, shouldn't the section be titled "External videos" or "Further viewing"?
If I want to give readers the option to view a single, open, image licensed by cc4.0, I put it on the commons and insert it into the article as a thumb on the right side of the page, as I did extensively in Vesicular transport adaptor protein, because my experience in the classroom has taught me that images are crucial for understanding. If there is an open, but copyrighted image that cannot be put on the commons, I make an external link to the image at the appropriate place in the body of the article, which can be seen at this archived version of the article. Those external links passed review by many, perhaps dozens, of editors that I invited to look at the article, including Boghog initially. More recently, Boghog has removed them, which is why you need to look at the archived version. Those removals, in this newbie's opinion, are absolutely contrary to the educational mission of wikipedia and to the consensus of all of the other editors who let them stay in the article. So, what is to be done about this conflict? Thank you. JeanOhm ( talk) 03:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Boghog, Izno, and EEng:Thanks to all for the comments. The external media template may come in handy sometime, but, as i wrote above "my experience in the classroom has taught me that images are crucial for understanding" and I am fortunate in the field of cell biology to have lots of open images that are available through NC licenses. Having lots of the EM template boxes distributed around the article is inferior to having the link right at the appropriate place. This is very frustrating to me (almost to the point of being worse than my IBS-d). The EM template puts a box in the article with an external link. If I were to put the same link in the text, it would be viewed by some but not all editors as unacceptable, even though what I wrote above indicated that the English Wikipedia content guideline (in the fourth paragraph, not buried deep in the article, and in bold) states "These external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the article." WTF am I missing??? Multiple editors let my ELs in the body stand. The guideline indicates in bold that they are OK. 2 editors objected. Boghog removed them all. Why am I not to think that Boghog is wrong in this case? Just because (s)he has more experience than me? I read guidelines. I read that what I'm doing is OK. I read that there are no rules on wikipedia. What a damn joke that is. Boghog, thanks for the offer to make images, but I'm not going to take up anybody's time making images that are available for linking.
Regarding Boghog's comment "Third, it is very clear that the Wikipedia manual of style advises against external link in prose." The MOS has a very brief discussion of El"s, then links to the guideline that states near the top, above the contents box, in bold that "These external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the article."
I wonder if this is a discussion more or less unique to cell biology fostered by modern microscopy and the trend toward open publishing, developed more since the MOS and guidelines were agreed upon, and if I should look for a consensus at the molecular cell biology project talk page? I'm thinking that since most editors let me EL's in the body stand, that there would be a consensus in favor of inclusion.
Also, nobody replied to my suggestion of a superscripted link to an EL. Between trips to the procelian throne, I am going to make one and ping you all to judge it. Thanks, JeanOhm ( talk) 23:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
These external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the articlein turn refers to WP:CITE which states that inline citations should appear as footnotes using <ref>...</ref> markup so that the citations appear in a "References" section at the end of the article. As a consequence, any external link contained in a citation is displayed in the "References" section and not in the prose of the article. WP:CITE further states
Embedded links should never be used to place external links in the content of an article. Also per WP:LINKDD:
Don't put external links in article prose. If a graphic is critical to understanding a subject, then a graphic with a compatible license should be displayed directly in the article. Forcing the reader to switch back and forth between a Wikipedia article and external sources is not good style. Boghog ( talk) 04:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
See
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2#Sequel, which includes the text Gunn stated [...] ["]But we know unless something goes horribly—which is always possibly [sic], you never know["]
, but if one looks at the cited source, which is an article/video, part of the former transcribing part of the latter, it is clear that Gunn actually said "possible", and the transcription included a misprint.
In cases like this, where we can clearly hear the spoken dialogue, should we (a) just spell the word the word the way he actually said it and "correct" that portion of the published transcription, (b) give the misspelling with "[sic]" and attribute the quotation to the publisher of the transcription rather than just Gunn himself, (c) do what the article currently does and imply that Gunn slurred his words, or (d) some other option?
I am of course assuming that we are allowed include our own original transcriptions when quoting spoken sources, even "correcting" published but misprinted transcriptions by third parties. This is something I've never done in an article myself, but if Wikipedian-original translations of foreign-language texts are acceptable then it seems like a safe assumption that simple transcriptions are as well.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 03:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I see incoherence in some areas when naming transgender people in other articles than their main biographical article. My understanding is that a transgender person is changing his/her name and this name is then also his/her name starting from birth (certificate). Many on/offline sources used for article often have the old wrong names or can't chenge that because they are printed etc. - So I understand that in references the old names should be kept. But in the rest of the articles I think that it is appropiate to use the name chosen by the transgender person.
In the Wikipedia:Manual of Style it says in the section "gender identity" when "referring to the person in other articles" […] "use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis." To which 'context' should I refer? In the context that the person change hers/his name even back to birh (certificate) I should use the right name, right? Example: Lilly Wachowski. Her former name "Andy Wachowski" is used 49 times in enWP. Most of that uses aren't in the main biographical article or in refernces. Shouldn't they be change into "Lilly Wachowski"? -- Jensbest ( talk) 13:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I will need some information in order to understand this policy. LakeKayak ( talk) 16:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I still made a mistake, I meant to say "I created the section to understand why the policy was in effect". LakeKayak ( talk) 22:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Does the section title of
Austin Powers (film series)#Future look a bit goofy/out-of-place to anyone else? The first paragraph in particular, but in a fashion almost the entire section, deals exclusively with past events, and the only way this could change would be if As of 2017, Austin Powers 4 has yet to be produced.
wound up being literally true.
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや) 15:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a formatting change being proposed to {{ link language}} which could impact the visual style of a page. Your input is requested here. Thank you. Primefac ( talk) 22:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
In my experience, the standard usage is to use United States exclusively as a (singular) noun, U.S. (with periods) exclusively as an adjective. Thus, one might write "The United States has done X" or "the U.S. President has done X," but not vice versa. The Manual of Style does not seem to make this distinction, and usage in articles is all over the map. I'm not familiar with the history, so I ask three questions:
Welcome information and comments. NPguy ( talk) 17:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Looks like a fun gang.[13] a noun adjunct anyway. I always assumed it was to be used as an adjective as well as a noun, even if I would never write "funner" or "funnest" (I could have guessed that these are used, but I've rarely seen or heard them). Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 09:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
the recent appearance in US English of comparative and superlative forms funner and funnest. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:51, 30 May 2017 (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 185 | ← | Archive 189 | Archive 190 | Archive 191 | Archive 192 | Archive 193 | → | Archive 195 |
Older version
|
---|
|
Topics are limited to a certain level of detail, factoring in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. If an article gives examples, the choice must be substantiated. That someone simply listed them does not automatically mean that we must copy them in the style of "X is an example of Y". Examples should be the most prominent cases, of unique character, of defining contribution, or otherwise encyclopedically relevant. The remaining ones may be referred to in a "List of ..." article, providing that they meet the article's inclusion criteria. Reasonable exceptions may be found in many topics outside the realms of culture, aesthetics, or the humanities, which often depend on arbitrary examples to effectively illustrate their subject (i.e. Equation, Algorithm, Cryosphere, Mammal).
Option B, proposed on 23 March
|
---|
|
Should the quoted text be added under a section titled "Examples"?-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 16:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
The proposed addition was worked out by myself, @ Staszek Lem:, and @ SMcCandlish:. It is an attempt to tie together the following:
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject)
While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article.)
Many readers need just a quick summary of the topic's most important points. Others need a moderate amount of information on the topic's more important points)
Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence.)
We have several related cleanup templates for this issue, none of which can be linked to any one of the above. They are: {{ Refexample}}, {{ Specific-section}}, {{ Example farm}}, {{ Importance example}}. I've written more at WP:NAMEDROP. There was also a similar proposal which could not find consensus due to its ambiguous wording.-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 16:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
the realms of culture, aesthetics, or the humanitiesoften need examples to explain to the reader what's being described (anyone fancy trying to describe Picaresque novel, Romanticism or Hudson River School without giving representative examples?). This would give the MOS hardliners carte blanche to gut Wikipedia's arts and humanities coverage. ‑ Iridescent 18:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, every previous attempt to establish a policy or guideline on content relevance, scope, trivia, and related concepts, as a new "venue" in itself, has failed to gain consensus, so pursuing that again is likely to be seen as WP:PERENNIAL, and a rehash of "fame and importance" debates from WP's early days. The resolution of that was the creation of WP:Notability for articles, and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE for content in them, yet we still have continual problems with "example-itis" and obsessive attempts at "completion" of incompletable lists by the addition of cruft. So, just having our already-broad style and presentation guideline tie together all the P&G rationales for avoiding endless lists of examples is the obvious choice. It's a main-MoS thing because overuse of examples is not particular to any type or format of article.
Option B
|
---|
... or otherwise encyclopedically relevant. For example:
The remaining ones may be referred to in a "List of ..." article, providing that they meet the article's inclusion criteria. ... |
Does it bother anyone else that the mobile app ignores the WP:BQ parts of our manual of style on block quotes? Our MOS says "avoid decorative quotation marks", and to use the more plainly-formatted {{ quote}} instead of fancy-decorative-quote-mark methods like {{ cquote}}, but on the mobile app, quotes formatted with {{ quote}} get fancy decorative quotation marks anyway. (I kind of like the fancy quote marks, myself, but I don't think mobile should be changing things up in this way.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Should MOS say something about standardized telephone number format?
I've searched the archives for previous discussions, with no success.
We have this article in mainspace. It can be summarized as "it depends".
There is also this as a handy summary to what US-centric style guides say about it. Jeh ( talk) 19:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
It appears that major authorities capitalize all the words for the names of butterflies and birds: Canadian Biodiversity Information Facility [1], UK Butterflies [2], Butterflies of North America [3] and (Audabon Magazine [4]). Shouldn't Wikipedia follow such authorities, at least with regard to butterflies and birds?
I gather that there has been a vigorous debate around this topic and the Audabon organization and magazine web pages are a useful source. Rwood128 ( talk) 15:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Izno Thanks, I don't have the time to delve any further, and, furthermore, I don't expect to be again editing articles on butterflies or bird. Peter coxhead, also thanks, Rwood128 ( talk) 16:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
The Yellow Warbler was near the white-tailed deer.I was reading a butterfly field guide recently that capitalized butterfly names, but used lower case for plants and other animals. People who specialize in an area like birds or butterflies are used to seeing them capitalized in their sources and it looks wrong to them to have them lower case. Generally, encyclopedias and journalism use lower case and that is the style we have adopted for Wikipedia. It's a complex question, that has been debated, but as far as Wikipedia goes, it has been answered decisively – lower case except for proper nouns. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 20:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
CMOS Shop Talk Tony (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Is there an exception for this sort editing. A sports season has ended so is it acceptable to say that the "season was", or keep it in the present tense: the "season is"? Similarly, wan a musical group disbands, do we keep present tense or not? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
We also use "will be" for team 'future' season articles, during off-seasons. GoodDay ( talk) 18:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
BTW: We also have been using "was" for past league season articles & "will be" for future league season articles. Examples: 2012-13 NBA season & 2017-18 NHL season etc. GoodDay ( talk) 18:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
(moved from talk 'Naming conventions clergy') I've recently been extending 'St.' to 'Saint' in the text in several long editing runs. The guideline (EDIT: at the above, now removed) stated in its lead that this application would apply not only to titles but "on how to refer to them in the article body". Although I've made a few mistakes in titles and in text, it seemed pretty clear that in the text, when 'St.' refers to the individual (and not, of course, to a church, artwork, or other proper name) that it should be extended to 'Saint'. The abbreviation 'St.' doesn't even appear on the Saint page itself except for one proper name. Most pages that I've edited per this guideline are inconsistent, and include both 'Saint' and 'St.' when referring to individuals (often in the same sentence), and I've been editing out those inconsistencies by using 'Saint' (have stopped for the time being after an objection on my talk page). Consistency and the title guideline seems to suggest that 'Saint' is preferable in text to 'St.' when referring to a person, especially when Wikipedia usage is now so mixed that both forms are not only used on the same page but in paragraphs and even in the same sentences. A clarity discussion seems the next step. Randy Kryn 13:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, the entire point of a manual of style on any site like this is site-wide consistency, and virtually every line-item in our Manual of Style is intended that way; the few exceptions are explicitly worded to defer to per-article local consensus. It's time to put this silly "MoS is only for in-one-article consistency" myth to bed, since it's self-evidently false. If it were true, we would have no MoS, MoS could never be cited at RM or any other discussion about site-wide consistency practices, and what we would have instead would be innumerable topic-specific competing style guides all in conflict with each other, plus a great deal of reader and editor confusion. The fact that things were heading in that direction already in WP's early days is the reason that a centralized, site-wide MoS was instituted at all. So, let's just drop the pretense.
—
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Users who watch this page may be interested in this RFC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MOS:GENDERID for genderqueer people. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 20:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
The merger proposal on {{ infobox song}} and {{ infobox single}} is discussed at WT:WikiProject Songs. I invite you to comment there. -- George Ho ( talk) 10:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
In grammar, is the use of hyphens and dashes a matter of punctuation, spelling, or something else? If something else, what? Thank you.-- John Cline ( talk) 11:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Hyphens are used in spelling (eg the noun 'check-in'), whilst dashes are used in punctuation - like this - or to separate a subordinate clause (as demonstrated). -- Sb2001 ( talk) 20:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Please see this edit and WP:2SHORTCUTS.— Wavelength ( talk) 02:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
This relates specifically to MOS:QUOTE. Should the published title of a ref be reproduced verbatim (i.e., typos and hyphens left untouched) or corrected accordingly? Example here, used in this article. Is it up to us to fix the "decison" typo? MOS:QUOTE says to do so for quotes in prose, but nothing is mentioned of ref titles, unless they are assumed to form part of quoted material. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 18:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I believe this is the wrong talk page to discuss references; they should be discussed at WP:Citing sources. Jc3s5h ( talk) 22:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
{{cite ...}}
but before the ending </ref>
, if it seems important to say something about it. If no note is desired, the entire cite can be wrapped in a hidden sic template to prevent bots or gnomes from messing with the spelling:
{{sic |hide=y |reason=Apparent typo in the title is intentional and should not be "fixed". |1=<ref>{{Cite book |title=I Cant Spel |...}}</ref>}}
According to § Images, bullet-point 3:
(emphasis mine) but if there are subsections (level 3 or deeper) and we have more specifically relevant images for them, shouldn't each image go in its specific subsection rather than stacking them all in the level-2 intro? I think the goal is to avoid dangling images down from an earlier section when we want them to appear at the beginning of any section, not to hoist images to a higher-level section than appropriate for content reasons. I propose changing "major" to "specific" and removing "level 2" in this guideline. DMacks ( talk) 14:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
An image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section; if this is not possible, try not to place an image "too early" i.e. far ahead of the point in the text discussing what the image illustrates, if this will puzzle the reader.People know without being told, from seeing in existing articles if no other way, that heads of sections are the default placement., E Eng 22:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Ideally, an image should be inside the section to which it relates (within the section defined by the most recent heading or at the top of the lead section), not immediately above the section heading.? That resolves my concern. I like the idea of rationalizing it for accessibility. Maybe add
Having an image be before the section on its specific topic can be confusing to readers who only see one section at a time in on their display (the preceding section would have an image that is possibly off-topic for its content and the intended section of content would not have the image).?
try not to place an image "too early" i.e. far ahead of the point in the text discussing what the image illustrates, if this will puzzle the reader, but I would consider broadening it further (or making it a separate bullet-point rather than only as an "if this is not possible..." detail of the section choice. We don't want to suggest that images even need to go at the start of a section. I know we don't say to do it, but it seems to be a common pattern especially given how short some sections are, or that a chosen image usually relates to a section as a whole. Consider an image that only relates to a relatively late paragraph of a section (but one whose subtopic is not substantial enough to merit a subsection) and having no other image that is more general for the section as a whole. I often place such an image adjacent to that late paragraph. DMacks ( talk) 07:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Some feedback on a a self-reference issue would be welcome. Please see WT:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid#Is "not a policy" useful?. Johnuniq ( talk) 05:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Please come participate in the discussion at WP:VPP#Date links on portal date-specific pages. Thank you. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I see that a number of details have recently been removed. As a MOS user I would like to complain about how frustrating it is when I encounter text that could be expressed a couple of different ways and come here for advice. I don't want to consult external style guides, and my brain has been addled by seeing many variations at Wikipedia so I am rarely confident about what "should" be done. A couple of hours ago I tried to search for advice so I could link to it. I believe the advice was once here, but I cannot see it now (see "force-length units would be torque and length-force units would be energy" here and the "discussion here" that it links to).
Another issue that arises in connection with {{ convert}} concerns other advice that has just been excised:
It hasn't arisen for a while, but in the past people have complained either that converts repeats the symbols in a range, or that (with some options) it does not repeat them. It is really handy to be able to defer to MOS. We know that, with reason, a guideline can be ignored blah blah but people come here for advice and removing it leaves a riddle that results in unnecessary arguments at other pages. It is very useful, for example, to search MOS for "range" and find advice. Johnuniq ( talk) 05:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Johnuniq: I assume I may be the culprit, or a culprit, in creating an alleged blizzard of edits. Among my changes, there was one that was just plain wrong, which was helpfully fixed by DrKay after it was reverted and I made it a second time. My other changes were just clarifications of existing text and should not have been controversial.
Detailed recapitulation of edits
|
---|
My first edit, of 21:18, 7 May 2017, had edit summary
This is literally what's in the edit, as long as you read the hyphen as a minus sign; -a+b means "minus a plus b" or "I changed a to b". In the following text, regular bullets are portions of my edit summary and nested bullets are the corresponding edits.
A further clarification of "like → such as": A classic use of "like" is "This program is made possible with the support of viewers like you." That means, "We don't know if you are a supporter, but other viewers like you are supporters." But "wording like 'presently' and 'current'" leaves the user confused as to whether "presently" and "current" are included or if we mean, "not these two, but other words like these two". My subsequent edits were similarly un-substantive clarifications. |
So, you see, my description was reasonably explanatory; there were no substantive change but just some clarifications. I am sorry this method caused you or anyone else any difficulty. If I edit any of the MOS pages again, controversial changes will be only after talk page consensus (as I have always done), and minor clarifications like these will be in smaller groups to make it easy to see that the changes are benign.— Anomalocaris ( talk) 05:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Citations. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I just noticed the suggestion to spell out electronvolt, along with any prefix. As far as I know, physicists would pretty much never do that. I believe also, that if one did, it would be two words. As I don't have an account, I can't check OED to see if it is considered a word yet. It is a little unusual, as electron by itself is not normally a unit, other than counting of the particle with that name. Gah4 ( talk) 00:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
If the question you are asking is 'is "electronvolt" a word?', the answer - as far as I can tell - is yes. It does seem to be a matter of taste whether you spell it as one word or two. -- Sb2001 ( talk) 00:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks all, NIST is good enough for me. Note that there is MOS:JARGON, for example, and also do not invent abbreviations or acronyms (yes I know that this isn't either). It is just spelled out so rarely that it looks strange to see it. Gah4 ( talk) 20:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
{{convert|1|J|eV|abbr=off}}
→ 1 joule (6.2×1018 electronvolts){{convert|1|J|MeV|abbr=off}}
→ 1 joule (6.2×1012 megaelectronvolts)I think this is what the header should be. After really looking at it, it seems jarring to have an imperative header, as it creates a situation where any text following it reads in a much "quieter"(?) tone, or possibly as unnecessary (as has been noted by User:EEng). With a "Capitals for emphasis" header, the section itself could advise against this practice while also providing the preferred alternative. Thoughts? Primergrey ( talk) 02:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have imposed a one-week full protection on this page (and yes, it was almost certainly the wrong version), because in the space of less than three hours, three people ( Anomalocaris, DrKay and EEng)) have made thirteen edits, several of which negated the effects of previous edits. I am sure that you are all aware of WP:BRD and WP:EW - please respect those guidelines. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 23:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, I've just about had my fill of shoot-from-the-hip highhanded admins today, so I'm a bit pissy. This is ridiculous.
In other words, after an initial misunderstanding there's no problem now, and no need for protection. I believe both Anomalocaris and DrKay will endorse this summary. So can we please unprotect so everyone can get back to work? Ping Redrose64. E Eng 00:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I can't see a pressing need for page protection at the current time. I realise that, to someone not paying attention to the actual edits involved (but rather to the edit comments), it may seem like there was edit warring but the three very experienced editors named by the protecting admin would likely have sorted things out between themselves and, more importantly, the changes were not hugely substantive. BushelCandle ( talk) 07:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
This does actually present the issue that it is not that clear on the MoS page that changes should not be made unless they have come here first. Maybe it is appropriate for us to be working on a more long-term solution. Protection is maybe not quite the right approach, although I do understand the reasoning. -- Sb2001 ( talk) 17:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
To mention BRD in the rationale for page protection (a last-resort action that seems to have been an overreaction) is wholly improper. Linking an essay to justify, in part, an heavy admin action (at a major guideline page, no less) seems entirely rogue-ish behaviour. Knowingly protecting the "wrong" version of a heavily trafficked guideline page for a week seems to show a lack of respect for the guideline and/or those wanting to refer to it. (Not mention that B and R, two-thirds of the advice, cannot be done on a protected page.) Primergrey ( talk) 07:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
any changes that are introduced [should be] agreed in advance– that's nuts. Like it says at the top of the page itself,
Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus.I put the key word in bold to help you understand. By your logic, the page would be under indefinite protection.
I have noticed a change that appears to have happened the last week. Infoboxes started appearing to me, an android app user, in the very beginning of every article instead after a lead paragraph, which renders the article preview that appears when I press hyperlinks empty and useless. would anyone tell me what happened? • Sammy Majed • Talk • Creations • Wikipedia Arabic • 11:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
It's clear what MOS:SANDWICH is trying to say: avoid sandwiching text horizontally between an image or infobox or similar, one being on the left and the other on the right of the page. We're not, of course, bothered about sandwiching text vertically. This has been expressed for some time using the wording "facing", but this can be mis-interpreted to refer to the direction in which images of people look. I wrongly reverted a reversion, but have now tried different wording. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
This is fine, but there should also be a line which says not to sandwich text vertically, unless it is a substantial block of text between (say five lines). Otherwise there can be confusion, and people can miss parts of the text (it could easily look like (part of) a caption). -- Sb2001 ( talk) 18:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The first bullet at
WP:MOS#Keep markup simple reads: The simplest
markup is often the easiest to edit, the most comprehensible, and the most predictable. Markup may appear differently in different browsers. Use HTML and CSS markup sparingly; in particular, do not use the CSS
float
or line-height
properties because they break rendering on some browsers when large fonts are used.
I agree broadly with the sentiment of keeping markup simple, not least because it makes editing faster (editors would rather not process lots of CSS). My concern comes with the "in particular" and following: Do we know which browsers exhibit these problems? I did a quick Google check and didn't see anything. Float is regularly used on-wiki (tables floated one side or the other, most often), and while I've never seen line-height in-use, I don't think it needs to be called out specifically with the "use markup sparingly" statement.
Would anyone have any heartburn with removing in particular, do not use the CSS
? --
Izno (
talk) 16:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
float
or line-height
properties because they break rendering on some browsers when large fonts are used
line-height
is often used to reduce the internal spacing of cladograms produced with {{
Clade}} or {{
Cladex}}. As just one very small example, see
Synspermiata#Phylogeny. I think the advice re float
and line-height
is out of date now, and I agree the reference to them should be removed.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 17:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Following a discussion at the Language helpdesk, I propose 'eg', 'ie' and 'etc' should be written for British English articles, whilst 'e.g.', 'i.e.' and 'etc.' are used for US English articles. This means US articles can follow the guidance of US style guides and UK articles can follow the guidance of UK style guides.
See the following; Guardian style guide - 'eg no full points' UK government style guide - 'eg, etc and ie' Economist style guide - 'ie and eg' University of Oxford style guide - 'etc', 'eg' and 'ie'
As 'The Rambling Man' comments, 'there seems to be good evidence to support an ENGVAR split in punctuation'.
'Jnestorius' summarised that 'style guides for web publications are more likely than those for hardcopy printing to favour eg over e.g'. Since Wikipedia is a website, it would make sense to apply this split here. I would - however - note that the Guardian and the Economist are printed publications. -- Sb2001 ( talk) 15:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
The assumption this is about saving ink is just wrong. It is also wrong that it is about typewriters. As someone in education rather more recently than the rest of you seem to have been, I can tell you that in the UK it is no longer recommended to abbreviate with full stops. Part of the educational process involves referring to style guides, grammar books, etc and I can tell you everything I have read which has been recently published says not to include full stops. The point of this discussion is to come to a conclusion as to whether Wikipedia should follow the more up-to-date way of writing these common abbreviations in British English. In response to @Rhialto 's claim that 'eg', etc is about making things accessible to all, for one - why should Wikipedia not be accessible to all, and my education certainly was not of poor quality - I was told to write with no full stops. These rules have only been adopted recently, so may seem unfamiliar to some. I can say that examination boards in the UK all (or at least that I have come across) include examples using 'eg' for their associated paperwork. Part of the reason I started this discussion is as some instances of 'eg', etc in UK articles were removed in favour of 'e.g.'. A potential solution to this could be to allow both, maybe with the aim of moving towards the new standards. -- Sb2001 ( talk) 18:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Rhialto: The inclusion of the NHS' style guide was to demonstrate support from other users, not to pad the claim. I was not aware the NHS had a style guide until this discussion. It is actually quite different to that of the government, including what it says about 'eg', etc. -- Sb2001 ( talk) 20:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the current official policy is on such abbreviations, but the past general Wikipedia tendency has been to allow national variants in spelling, but not usually in punctuation. So Wikipedia follows British practice in that commas etc. are not automatically reordered before quote marks, but follows American practice in that outer quote marks should be double (not single) -- and so on. We probably shouldn't change this without a good reason... AnonMoos ( talk) 09:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it is a good idea to stop people writing these abbreviations, and instead write 'for example', etc as everyone can understand them. I have become used to seeing 'e.g.', but was very confused at first as it is not what I saw first. Some people are taught the other way around. A simple solution would be to not use them at all.-- Sb2001 ( talk) 13:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Unspaced text messing up mobile browsers
|
---|
perhapswikipediashouldlookaheadandtrytosetatrendforachangeforhundredsofyearswevebeentyrannisedbypeopleinsistingonallsortsofridiculousextraneousstuffwhenallweneedis26lettersoopsand10numeralsisupposedidyouknowthataboutthetimeoftherussianrevolutiontheydecidednottobotherwiththeletterъwhichappearedattheendoflotsandlotsofwordsrepresentingasortofnullvowelwhichwasntpronouncedanymoreasaresultrussiannewspapersshrankby7%orsomethinglikethatwellthisisourbigopportunityareductioninpaperelectronskeypressesandeductinalstandardswillriseovernight Imaginatorium talk201704111520utc |
I would oppose any change. This is not universal. As an English person who always writes most abbreviations without full stops, I wouldn't dream of writing eg or ie! It looks very weird to me. Claiming this is standard British usage is just not true. This is not an ENGVAR issue. It's a personal style issue only. I also agree, though, that generally these abbreviations shouldn't be used on Wikipedia at all. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Would I be right in saying that people here do not - generally - oppose 'etc' being used as a BE equivalent to 'etc.'? This could be advised for UK articles, and then people can be asked to avoid using 'eg' or 'e.g.' and 'ie' or 'i.e.'. Many people seem to support this. Can I assume that this change is to go ahead unless there are a significant number of objections by, say, Sunday at 1.00pm UK time? -- Sb2001 ( talk) 20:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: I do disagree that 'etc' is not universal as I see it far more frequently than 'etc.' (which I actually only see on Wikipedia) and it is what is taught in educational establishments. Yes, you are right in saying regional splits in language are to be avoided, but surely UK articles should be written in a style which most people in the UK would understand, and apply themselves. I am willing to accept 'eg' and 'ie' are possibly as common as 'i.e.' in certain places, but do not accept the argument that 'etc' is not the generally accepted way of writing this abbreviation. I would just like to clarify the change I proposed at 9.44pm (UK) doesn't ask people to write 'eg' and 'ie', only 'etc'.-- Sb2001 ( talk) 21:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
It's certainly not sloppiness, @Redrose64: most British style guides recommend it, and it is what you are taught to write currently in English. Would you and other editors be happy with both 'etc' and 'etc.' being options? -- Sb2001 ( talk) 13:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Updated change: 'etc' and 'etc.' are acceptable in UK articles. 'eg' or 'e.g.' and 'ie' or 'i.e.' should not be used in any articles. This means existing instances of this can be gradually removed from Wikipedia. People should avoid changing 'etc' to 'etc.' and vice versa in UK articles. -- Sb2001 ( talk) 00:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I do sometimes wonder if all the time and effort spent trying to make MOS agreeable to every editor ought to be spent in article creation. In general readers (and remember WP:RF) want information, not rigorously standards-conforming typographical masterpieces. We should primarily be generating the world's best encyclopaedia, not an international style guide. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 10:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
It appears some users have not noticed the most recent motion I presented: 'Updated change: 'etc' and 'etc.' are acceptable in UK articles. 'eg' or 'e.g.' and 'ie' or 'i.e.' should not be used in any articles. This means existing instances of this can be gradually removed from Wikipedia. People should avoid changing 'etc' to 'etc.' and vice versa in UK articles. -- Sb2001 ( talk) 00:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)'. A consensus seems to have been reached that the MoS should be changed to something like this. -- Sb2001 ( talk) 18:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Justlettersandnumbers: There are plenty of style guides which advise otherwise (the Guardian, the Economist, the NHS, the University of Oxford, the University of Cambridge are just some examples). I think it is wise to allow people to write both in order to avoid this sort of 'my style guide is better than yours' debate this seems to be turning into. -- Sb2001 ( talk) 22:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
User:EvergreenFir: I am interested to know why you think a less common way of writing 'et cetera' ('etc.') should be adopted over the widely used 'etc'. I would like to again point out that we would - under this change - be making Wikipedia more accessible by advising people to write 'for example' and 'that is' (or words to that effect) instead of 'eg' or 'e.g.' and 'ie' or 'i.e.'. As User:Graham87 seems to be saying, screen readers have trouble with 'eg' and 'e.g.', so it would make sense to avoid using them in my opinion. I think we should allow both 'etc' and 'etc.' to end this dispute, which seems to be going round in circles. Do any editors have a reasonable objection to the barring of 'eg' or 'e.g.' and 'ie' or 'i.e.' and permission to use 'etc' and 'etc.'? -- Sb2001 ( talk) 19:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Peter coxhead: You are effectively dismissing this side of the argument. The number of editors in favour of both being allowed seems about equal to those against. If both are recommended, why disallow one? Please, also, speak to me as an equal: your tone (and use of bold text) comes across as somewhat rude. I did not bring this to the talk page to cause an argument. Other editors and I find the MoS restrictive in the way it demands 'etc.' rather than 'etc'. You may not have this issue. As someone who was taught to write 'etc', I find it quite strange to have to write something I was taught is no longer common in UK English. I have backed down, and been persuaded by some editors to not use 'eg'/'e.g.' and 'ie'/'i.e.', so is it really that unreasonable for you to accept the opinions of some? I am not asking you to write 'etc' with no full stop. I am just asking for those who prefer this style to be give the option of doing so. In regards to the proposer/closer point, if this is a rule, I was not aware of this. I have never used this talk page before. I would appreciate it if you could show some understanding of this. I do think we have had an array of comments from people of many opinions (including one who writes '&c'), so am not quite sure what you mean when you ask for a 'proper RfC' - can you please explain? -- Sb2001 ( talk) 20:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Martin of Sheffield: Sorry if what I meant was unclear - I was saying that I was taught it is no longer common. I was not trying to say I was right. I understand it is used, but I was taught (and I imagine this is fairly standard in schools, etc today) not to write it due to its dwindling frequency of use. -- Sb2001 ( talk) 22:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Does there seem to be a consensus here? I think people don't seem to have a preference (or if they do, are open-minded to the alternative) for 'etc' and 'etc.'. There also seems to be general opposition against e.g. or eg and i.e. and ie being used at all. Should we therefore avoid them (unless is absolutely necessary, in which case full stops are optional)? -- Sb2001 ( talk) 23:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I've just read back a bit in the thread. One editor's comments prompted me to research how screen readers deal with this. It seems 'eg' if often read as 'for example' and others as 'egg'. However, 'e.g.' is generally read as 'e dot g dot' with the odd exception where 'for example' is said. Writing the extended version would remove this as an issue. I think this deserves more consideration. We didn't seem to comment on it very much at the time. Besides, some people don't understand 'e(.)g(.)' and 'i(.)e(.)'. The actual English words remove this as an issue completely. I am now completely in favour of discouraging their words unless it is necessary to save space. 'etc(.)' is fine. Everyone seems to understand it, and screen readers have no issues interpreting it. Forget my original proposal. I think this is far more important. -- Sb2001 ( talk) 18:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
It would be very useful for editors to comment their opinions on this new proposal which;
It doesn't matter what you think, we currently do not have a clear consensus either way. - Sb2001 ( talk) 17:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A discussion has been taking place, and a consensus cannot be reached on whether the MoS should advise against using 'eg' or 'e.g.' and 'ie' or 'i.e.' (and instead to write such things as 'for example' and 'that is'), and allow editors to write both 'etc' and 'etc.' in UK articles, as long as only one is used in an article. Different style guides advise different things, and both are common in UK English. Editors have suggested it is possibly a generational issue, with 'etc' being preferred by younger people. People may find it useful to read the thread on the MoS talk page, as links to some style guides are given, and advantages and disadvantages of applying this change are discussed. -- Sb2001 ( talk) 00:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I know both are theoretically acceptable, and external reliable sources are split. A lot of prominent ones (like the ADL) appear to actively prefer "anti-Semitism", but sources could easily be located that say there is no "Semitism" to be "anti-", and so the proper spelling should be "antisemitism". (I've definitely seen something on Henry Abramson's YouTube channel, and it was expressed as his opinion so he's probably said it in a bunch of places.)
So yeah, I guess both are fine, but is changing from one to another a violation like changing one ENGVAR to another without a valid reason? (I'm assuming Antisemitism#Usage is meant to be descriptive of the real world rather than normative for Wikipedians.)
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I would definitely write 'antisemitism'. I've noticed the BBC write 'anti-Semitism' and always think it looks remarkably odd. The fact there is no 'Semitism' means antisemitism is the same as racism and sexism. -- Sb2001 ( talk) 16:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I've just checked the Guardian style guide. It says to write 'antisemitism' and 'antisemitic' (p32). -- Sb2001 ( talk) 16:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I'm a relative newbie editing biology articles. I'm confused and/or unsure about the use of external links and further reading. If I want to give readers the option to read the text of a complete, open, published research paper that I have not cited in the article, I think I should put that link in the "Further reading" section. Is that correct?
If I want to give readers a "head's up" about a relevant video, I believe that link should go in an "External links" section. Is that correct? IF that is correct, shouldn't the section be titled "External videos" or "Further viewing"?
If I want to give readers the option to view a single, open, image licensed by cc4.0, I put it on the commons and insert it into the article as a thumb on the right side of the page, as I did extensively in Vesicular transport adaptor protein, because my experience in the classroom has taught me that images are crucial for understanding. If there is an open, but copyrighted image that cannot be put on the commons, I make an external link to the image at the appropriate place in the body of the article, which can be seen at this archived version of the article. Those external links passed review by many, perhaps dozens, of editors that I invited to look at the article, including Boghog initially. More recently, Boghog has removed them, which is why you need to look at the archived version. Those removals, in this newbie's opinion, are absolutely contrary to the educational mission of wikipedia and to the consensus of all of the other editors who let them stay in the article. So, what is to be done about this conflict? Thank you. JeanOhm ( talk) 03:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Boghog, Izno, and EEng:Thanks to all for the comments. The external media template may come in handy sometime, but, as i wrote above "my experience in the classroom has taught me that images are crucial for understanding" and I am fortunate in the field of cell biology to have lots of open images that are available through NC licenses. Having lots of the EM template boxes distributed around the article is inferior to having the link right at the appropriate place. This is very frustrating to me (almost to the point of being worse than my IBS-d). The EM template puts a box in the article with an external link. If I were to put the same link in the text, it would be viewed by some but not all editors as unacceptable, even though what I wrote above indicated that the English Wikipedia content guideline (in the fourth paragraph, not buried deep in the article, and in bold) states "These external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the article." WTF am I missing??? Multiple editors let my ELs in the body stand. The guideline indicates in bold that they are OK. 2 editors objected. Boghog removed them all. Why am I not to think that Boghog is wrong in this case? Just because (s)he has more experience than me? I read guidelines. I read that what I'm doing is OK. I read that there are no rules on wikipedia. What a damn joke that is. Boghog, thanks for the offer to make images, but I'm not going to take up anybody's time making images that are available for linking.
Regarding Boghog's comment "Third, it is very clear that the Wikipedia manual of style advises against external link in prose." The MOS has a very brief discussion of El"s, then links to the guideline that states near the top, above the contents box, in bold that "These external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the article."
I wonder if this is a discussion more or less unique to cell biology fostered by modern microscopy and the trend toward open publishing, developed more since the MOS and guidelines were agreed upon, and if I should look for a consensus at the molecular cell biology project talk page? I'm thinking that since most editors let me EL's in the body stand, that there would be a consensus in favor of inclusion.
Also, nobody replied to my suggestion of a superscripted link to an EL. Between trips to the procelian throne, I am going to make one and ping you all to judge it. Thanks, JeanOhm ( talk) 23:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
These external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the articlein turn refers to WP:CITE which states that inline citations should appear as footnotes using <ref>...</ref> markup so that the citations appear in a "References" section at the end of the article. As a consequence, any external link contained in a citation is displayed in the "References" section and not in the prose of the article. WP:CITE further states
Embedded links should never be used to place external links in the content of an article. Also per WP:LINKDD:
Don't put external links in article prose. If a graphic is critical to understanding a subject, then a graphic with a compatible license should be displayed directly in the article. Forcing the reader to switch back and forth between a Wikipedia article and external sources is not good style. Boghog ( talk) 04:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
See
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2#Sequel, which includes the text Gunn stated [...] ["]But we know unless something goes horribly—which is always possibly [sic], you never know["]
, but if one looks at the cited source, which is an article/video, part of the former transcribing part of the latter, it is clear that Gunn actually said "possible", and the transcription included a misprint.
In cases like this, where we can clearly hear the spoken dialogue, should we (a) just spell the word the word the way he actually said it and "correct" that portion of the published transcription, (b) give the misspelling with "[sic]" and attribute the quotation to the publisher of the transcription rather than just Gunn himself, (c) do what the article currently does and imply that Gunn slurred his words, or (d) some other option?
I am of course assuming that we are allowed include our own original transcriptions when quoting spoken sources, even "correcting" published but misprinted transcriptions by third parties. This is something I've never done in an article myself, but if Wikipedian-original translations of foreign-language texts are acceptable then it seems like a safe assumption that simple transcriptions are as well.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 03:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I see incoherence in some areas when naming transgender people in other articles than their main biographical article. My understanding is that a transgender person is changing his/her name and this name is then also his/her name starting from birth (certificate). Many on/offline sources used for article often have the old wrong names or can't chenge that because they are printed etc. - So I understand that in references the old names should be kept. But in the rest of the articles I think that it is appropiate to use the name chosen by the transgender person.
In the Wikipedia:Manual of Style it says in the section "gender identity" when "referring to the person in other articles" […] "use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis." To which 'context' should I refer? In the context that the person change hers/his name even back to birh (certificate) I should use the right name, right? Example: Lilly Wachowski. Her former name "Andy Wachowski" is used 49 times in enWP. Most of that uses aren't in the main biographical article or in refernces. Shouldn't they be change into "Lilly Wachowski"? -- Jensbest ( talk) 13:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I will need some information in order to understand this policy. LakeKayak ( talk) 16:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I still made a mistake, I meant to say "I created the section to understand why the policy was in effect". LakeKayak ( talk) 22:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Does the section title of
Austin Powers (film series)#Future look a bit goofy/out-of-place to anyone else? The first paragraph in particular, but in a fashion almost the entire section, deals exclusively with past events, and the only way this could change would be if As of 2017, Austin Powers 4 has yet to be produced.
wound up being literally true.
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや) 15:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a formatting change being proposed to {{ link language}} which could impact the visual style of a page. Your input is requested here. Thank you. Primefac ( talk) 22:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
In my experience, the standard usage is to use United States exclusively as a (singular) noun, U.S. (with periods) exclusively as an adjective. Thus, one might write "The United States has done X" or "the U.S. President has done X," but not vice versa. The Manual of Style does not seem to make this distinction, and usage in articles is all over the map. I'm not familiar with the history, so I ask three questions:
Welcome information and comments. NPguy ( talk) 17:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Looks like a fun gang.[13] a noun adjunct anyway. I always assumed it was to be used as an adjective as well as a noun, even if I would never write "funner" or "funnest" (I could have guessed that these are used, but I've rarely seen or heard them). Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 09:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
the recent appearance in US English of comparative and superlative forms funner and funnest. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)