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.

Does it make sense to have a talk page template that would indicate the currently prefered dialect for the article (UK, U.S., Australian, Irish, etc.)? It would go where it is clear by the rules here which should be used. For example, The Beatles talk page would have a template on it that would say something like "contributions to this artcle should follow the conventions of XYZ English" and refer to the appropriate section of this page. John (Jwy) 18:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a more radical proposal in mind... PizzaMargherita 23:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point in making a new template, when a simple comment at the top would do:

 <!-- this article is written in Canadian English [[en-CA]] -->

However, this has been tried before, and has always been opposed by too many editors, and removed. — Michael  Z. 2006-03-11 23:48 Z

I don't know about anyone else, but seeing notices like that splashed all over the place would piss me off more than any variations in spelling do. Gene Nygaard 00:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

To put it anyother way, let sleeping dogs lie. Gene Nygaard 00:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. As I said in my edit reverting to British English on The Beatles page, its not a big deal to revert stuff. It would be useful to have an easy way to refer to the policy (I think its in the middle of a page at the moment) and some examples of the differences (ize/ise, etc.) - so we could put an appropriate edit summary like "using British dialect for spelling as per WP:DIALECT" or something like that to make it easier to spread the word. John (Jwy) 00:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to add in a clear policy for users to reference for those enteries that have doctorates from unaccredited universities or simply have honorary doctorates. Neither in academia are able to use the title and thus, should not be allowed to use it in an encyclopedia. The article for Doctor (title) makes it clear that a honorary doctorate is not applicable to use "Dr." and unaccredited universities are unrecognized academic instiutions and thus, those degrees (which include doctorates) are not recognized by academia, government, or mainstream public.

This issue has come up in a varity of articles such as Peter Ruckman, which parties plead to enter the title because the person is "known as that title." Yet, wikipedia needs to take a stance against unaccredited doctors to prevent quacks from using wikipedia to build a reputation. Arbusto 03:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue has nothing to do with whether a university is accredited or not. WP:MOSBIO states: "After the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only." Why may is used instead of should I don't know, but accreditation has nothing to do with it. We don't say "Mr. Smith" or "Dr. Smith" on subsequent references, just "Smith". -- TreyHarris 04:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but in many articles the first line of the entry introduces the subject as Dr. This title should not be used for unaccredited schools or honoary degrees. Arbusto 04:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be used for accredited schools or non-honarary degrees, either. I don't think anyone disputes that Oliver Sacks is actually a neurologist, but there's no title there. -- TreyHarris 07:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, which shows that those who attended diploma mills for their doctorates merely want the title and not the position it brings. Thusly, themselves and their followers will push the "Dr." title on the entry. In the case of unaccredited doctorates wiki users should be able to point to a policy that doesn't allow an unaccredited degree to earn the title. Arbusto 07:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I always liked newspaper style -- you ain't a doctor unless you're a licensed medical doctor. Anything else is confusing. References to academic "doctors" should say professor, lecturer, whatever, with Ph.D. or some other degree designation. My 2 cents. DavidH 05:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any such thing as "newspaper style"—The New York Times uses titles ("Dr. Smith"), the Associated Press does not ("Smith"), even when the person is a medical doctor. The Times uses "Dr." for any person who holds a doctorate (linguists have Ph.D.'s, not M.D.'s.):

Blair A. Rudes, a linguist at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, who specializes in reconstructing Indian languages, said several Algonquian communities in the East had efforts under way to recover their lost languages and return them to daily use.

"What turns out to be really important is just that they learn some piece of the language because it is reclaiming their heritage," Dr. Rudes said." [1], boldface mine.

I prefer the surname-only style; it sidesteps these arguments entirely. -- TreyHarris 07:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

People use the title (an example is the redirect page Dr. Martin Luther King) on wikipedia. They are academically allowed/recognized to use the title. Either there is a clear policy for the title or there isn't. I think there should be a policy on wikipedia to exclude those who claim their doctorates from diploma mills from using the title. Arbusto 00:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be stuck in a groove here. The answer is to eliminate the titles regardless of the individual's doctorate status. The source of the doctorate is completely irrelevant. I don't know what you're proposing here when you say there should be "a policy": "Use last name only on subsequent references, unless the person has a doctorate from a diploma mill, in which case you should still use last name only"? The redirect of Dr. Martin Luther King isn't relevant; redirects should exist for every likely lookup term, including incorrect ones (such as misspellings), so if someone is often called Dr. Phil, that redirect should exist, even if the person has a lesser claim to the title (or even none at all).-- TreyHarris 06:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why should a valid title be removed? Why shouldn't there be a policy regarding the validity? For every article that doesn't use the title for a PhD I can post one that does. Arbusto 01:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this regarding those who have obtained their doctorate from unaccredited, religious institutions? Or are there other sorts of unaccredited institutions that are doing this?

You mentioned above ". . . those who attended diploma mills . . ." Diploma mills don't have campuses. They mail degrees to people who send them money.

I think you'd be surprised if you knew all the people who have honorary doctorates and how people know them as "Dr. such and such." To say that those with honorary doctorates cannot or do not use them with their name is false. Dr. Jerry Falwell comes to mind. Most people have no idea that his doctorate is honorary. -- Yuk Yuk Yec 03:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, outside religious media he is almost never refered to as Dr, just reverend. In any event, even if the common media does something stylistically bad/innaccurate doesn't mean Wikipedia should. JoshuaZ 05:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

1)Religion has nothing to do with accreditation. There are religious and non-religious schools that lack accreditation. There are religious schools and non-religious schools that have accreditation. 2) Some diploma mills have "campuses." (such as the one 60 minutes exposed Hamilton University) 3) Someone who has an honorary doctorate from an accredited school and lets people call themself a "Dr." is misleading those people. Arbusto 04:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"Why should a valid title be removed?" Because it's not compliant with the style guide to use any title, valid or not. "For every article that doesn't use the title for a PhD I can post one that does." So click edit and remove the titles. -- TreyHarris 04:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you are completely wrong. [2] The MOSBIO reads "Academic and professional titles may be used in the head paragraph." So can we add a policy on accreditation now? Arbusto 04:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That text got added to WP:MOSBIO after you asked your question. This is absolutely ridiculous. MOSBIO is not a style guide that I have had on my watchlist; so when you asked your question, I looked at what MOSBIO had to say and replied, based on the guide's text at the time. Now you tell me I'm "completely wrong", based on text that didn't exist when I examined it. This sort of situation is exactly why I proposed Wikipedia:Changing policies and guidelines. If there is a dispute currently in progress, it shouldn't be allowed to change policy page guidance to affect the outcome of the dispute. The dispute should be resolved first, and then the policy changed to reflect consensus. This addition was made without any prior discussion I can see. -- TreyHarris 05:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It is logical and consistent with common usage to give the title of "Dr." to physicianson their first mention, but to omit the title in subsequent mentions. It would be better to either append "Ph.D" after the name in the first location, or to discuss the academic degrees later in the article. Honorary degrees should be mentioned along with other honors and prizes. Degrees from unaccredited schools deserve special mention, but not special treatment. - Will Beback 06:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think there should be a policy on this. I respect that Arbusto is trying to uphold quality standards here but I don't think this is the right battleground. It's not Wikipedia's job to decide whether a degree is of an acceptable quality level; we should simply reflect the way that people are standardly described, let consensus do its work, and leave it at that. If that leads to edit wars, so be it (though I think that this is kind of an overreaction to the Gastrich War; until then, we didn't really have that much of a problem--the Ruckman Flap, though annoying, didn't result in some kind of unaccredited doctorate armageddon). I support noting that an institution is unaccredited if that's the case, but I don't think we should carry the "war" against unaccredited schools to every page an alumnus is mentioned on. If Jerry Falwell is commonly called "Dr." Jerry Falwell, then that's a reasonable way to refer to him here; if you want to mention that his doctorate is honorary, that's a judgment call and the collective will of Wikipedia should pronounce on it. (As an aside, I have a Ph.D. from a well-known, highly respected university, and I have nevetheless seen any number of really crap dissertations earn doctorates. Accreditation is, alas, not a guarantee of quality.) ·  rodii · 16:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. While accreditation is not a guarantee of quality, it is a minimal requirement. Wikipedia has no reason to be repeating questionable degrees or aiding what is in some places considered fraud. Furthermore, the Ruckman and Gastrich fiascos point to why we should have this policy so if this sort of matter comes up again we can point to a style guideline rather than get into edit wars over it. JoshuaZ 16:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"While accreditation is not a guarantee of quality, it is a minimal requirement."

Are you saying that without accreditation there can't be any quality? PizzaMargherita 16:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Poor wording on my part, accreditation is a minimal requirement for having verifiable quality, and Wikipedia does have heavy emphasis on verifiability. JoshuaZ 16:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The solution is simply never to use courtesy titles. If someone's a medical doctor, then say so, or put M.D. at the end of their name on first reference. Subsequently just surname, or first name and surname if it migt be confusing (in an article where there might be more than one person with the same surname, such as a family), or whatever second-reference name is appropriate if a surname is not usually used ("Sting"; "Björk"; "Saddam"). The use of Dr. always sounds like an honorific and thus NPOV. ProhibitOnions 17:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I would not object to such a policy, although it would require a fair bit of refactoring. JoshuaZ 17:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What about Dr. Dre, Doctor Who and Dr. Feelgood? ·  rodii · 18:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how about the above policy excepting a) fictional characters or b) when a title is part of a stage name. JoshuaZ 19:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I was just kidding. I know the policy wouldn't apply to such cases. ·  rodii · 20:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What about Mr. for a surgeon? Always seems to worry an Americans when in a London casualty ward and the junior doctor say "Mr Smith will take a look, and if he thinks it is necessary, he will be operating on you" ;-). "never to use courtesy titles" what about for people like Lord William Bentinck? Would you recommend that such people are called by their surname "Cavendish-Bentinck" rather than Bentinck even though that is not the common form? -- Philip Baird Shearer 17:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine, excepting peerage. There is no need to refer to people by Mr. anyways. The articles make clear who is a medical doctor. JoshuaZ 17:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Most common name policy would seem approprite. For exmple, Lord Lucan, Screaming Lord Such but Shirley Williams, Similarly Doctor Crippen, and Father Christmas. Rich Farmbrough 13:25 19 March 2006 (UTC).

The referencing of birth names is inconsistent. See Boris Karloff, Peter Lorre and Judy Garland for example. I would suggest that birth names should go in the lead paragraph, along with maiden names, e.g.:

Aliced Foo, née Bar ( November 23, 1887 – February 2, 1969), ...

Boris Karloff ( November 23, 1887 – February 2, 1969), born William Henry Pratt, ...

The three listed have one in the style above, one in bold at the start of the Background section, and one where the "childhood" section starts "At the age of 2, Frances Ethel Gumm made her first appearance on stage ..." leaving the reader to infer that Frances Gumm was her birth name. I would fix that but I won't just yet pending this discussion. Just zis Guy you know? 13:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively I could just read WP:MOSBIO... Just zis Guy you know? 13:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The MoS suggests using <blockquote> for longer quotes to indent both sides. However, this cannot be used with the current MediaWiki software where the quotation consists of multiple paragraphs, since the newlines are ignored inside the <blockquote> element. Is there a more wiki-like alternative that indents both sides (say, an officially recommended template putting an appropriately styled div around it)? Or can MediaWiki be changed to take account of wiki markup inside the element? Hairy Dude 04:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, it might equally be considered that more than one paragraph is too much for a quotation on Wikipedia. FYI, the one I'm working on right now is on Voiceless palatal-velar fricative. Hairy Dude 04:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think:

It is untrue that wiki markup is ignored within blockquotes—not the italics in this sentence.

But paragraphing using blank lines, it is true, is ignored.

You can use a <p> tag for that.

(Look at the wikitext to see what I did above.) I think in general, multi-paragraph quotes are discouraged. But rules are made to be broken, so if you have an exception, just use the <p> tag. (This also works for lists, which is a useful thing to know when you need to add a paragraph to a numbered list without restarting the numbering.) -- TreyHarris 04:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I just discovered this and I really like it. Shall we encourage its use in the MoS?

PizzaMargherita 00:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You also have <br>. Rich Farmbrough 13:18 19 March 2006 (UTC).

Symbols that are not in the alphabet, but in the Unicode character set, are intended for decoration. These should not be used in article text. Articles like I ♥ NY and I ♥ Huckabees should be moved to I Love New York and I Heart Huckabees. I don't understand why people don't see the difference between a logo and a name. A name is something that can be written using standard language. A logo is a stylized representation of the name. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should not be what amounts to inlining logos. Everything in the text should follow standard language rules. In fact I helped with guidelines on this a while back at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), and it seems people are ignoring them or not applying them to this situation. Perhaps a new guideline reading, "do not use analphabetic characters in an attempt to recreate logos," would be appropriate. (See also: Talk:I ♥ NY) –  flamurai ( t) 18:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Please reply at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks) –  flamurai ( t) 18:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I am confident in my use of them, within a quotation, to add text that the original speaker did not include. This is clearly set out in brackets. However, I cannot find a style ruling on this. Perhaps I am looking in the wrong place -- can anyone advise? I have already been reverted and want a book to throw if necessary! Thanks. BrainyBabe 13:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty standard English, but if you want to find something to back you up, you might look at any of the references listed here. ^{Blank Verse} 16:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I know my usage is standard. I was wondering if there was a Wikipedia MOS statement to back me up, that's all. If not, and if it becomes more of an issue in the article I'm editing, I'll gladly use the sources you point out. BrainyBabe 17:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are quotes on the matter from three style manuals, two American and one British:

Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed., 11.14: Tenses and pronouns. In quoting verbatim, writers need to integrate tenses and pronouns into the context.

Original] Mr. Moll took particular pains to say to you, gentlemen, that these eleven people here are guilty of murder; he calls this a cold-blooded, deliberate and premeditated murder.

As quoted] According to Darrow, Moll had told the jury that the eleven defendents were "guilty of murder" and had described the murder as "cold-blooded, deliberate and premeditated."

Occasional adjustments to the original may be bracketed. This device should be used sparingly, however.

Mr. Graham has resolutely ducked the issue, saying he won't play the game of rumormongering, even though he has "learned from [his] mistakes."

Ibid., 11.19: Brackets to indicate a change in capitalization. In legal writing, textual commentary, and other contexts where silently changing form capital to lowercase or vice versa might mislead readers or make reference to the original text more difficult, any change in capitalization should be indicated by brackets.

According to article 6, section 6, she is given the power "[t]o extend or renew any existing indebtedness."

"[R]eal estates may be conveyed by lease and release, or bargain and sale," according to section 2 of the Northwest Ordinance.

Let us compare Aristotle's contention that "[i]nferiors revolt in order that they may be equal, and equals that they may be superior" (Politics 5.2) with his later observation that "[r]evolutions also break out when opposite parties, e.g., the rich and the people, are equally balanced" (5.4).

Ibid., 11.68: Use of brackets. Insertions may be made in quoted material to clarify an ambiguity, to provide a missing word or letters, or, in a translation, to give the original word or phrase where the English fails to convey the exact sense. Such interpolations, which should be kept to a minimum lest they irritate or distract readers, are enclosed in brackets (not parentheses).

Marcellus, doubtless in anxious suspense, asks Bernardo, "What, has this thing [the ghost of Hamlet's father] appear'd again tonight?"

"Well," said she, "if Mr. L[owell] won't go, then neither will I."

MLA Style Manual, 2nd ed., 3.9.6: Other Alterations of Sources. Occasionally, you may decide that a quotation will be unclear or confusing to your reader unless you provide supplementary information. For example, you may need to insert material missing from the original, to add sic ("thus," "so") to assure readers that the quotation is accurate even though the spelling or logic might make them think otherwise, or to underline words for emphasis. While such contributions to a quotation are permissible, you should keep them to a minimum and make sure to distinguish them from the original, usually by explaining them in parentheses after the quotation or by putting them in square brackets within the quotation . . . A comment or an explanation that goes inside the quotation must appear within the square brackets, not parentheses.

He claimed he could provide "hundreds of examples [of court decisions] to illustrate the historical tension between the church and state."

Milton's Satan speaks of his "study [pursuit] of revenge."

Oxford Style Manual, 2003, 8.1.1: Accuracy and interpolation. All extracts quoted in a work must be in the exact words of the original; treat any deviation as paraphrasing rather than as a direct quotation. Set words interpolated by anyone other than the original author in square brackets ([]) to show that they are not part of the quoted matter. Square brackets can also be used to alter quoted matter to match its placement in text or conventions adopted elsewhere. — Wayward ^Talk 21:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for all your trouble! This is very detailed information. So far, I don't need to use it, i.e. my revert of someone changing my square brackets to inappropriate parentheses has not been challenged, but I certainly now have ammunition if that editor chooses to try to change it another time. Thanks again. BrainyBabe 15:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It is unlikely to be a problem, although I had a similar entity changed way back. I should probably "watch" that page... Rich Farmbrough 12:59 19 March 2006 (UTC).

Browsing through articles that are deal with a foreign subject, all names are always translated to the original language. For example: On The Protocols of the Elders of Zion The first sentence is The Protocols of the (Learned) Elders of Zion...(Russian: "Протоколы Сионских мудрецов" or "Сионские Протоколы"). Here the article gives a direct translation to Russian which is okay in my opinion. But dealing with an foreign subject many foreign names come up through out the article and are translated every time which in my opinion looks kind of messy.

I suggest that beside all foreign names instead of translating it we place a small box such as

and when the user puts his mouse over the box a popup text will display the translation. What do you guys think? Tutmosis 00:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a mouse. PizzaMargherita 01:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to operate a computer without a mouse? Or is yours just integrated into the keyboard? Tutmosis 01:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite possible, so long as everything you want to do is properly tab-stopped. On the other hand, anything that requires mouse-overs won't work, for obvious reasons. Kirill Lok s hin 01:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

So I guess my proposal failes? haha Tutmosis 01:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

There was previously a discussion here about Columns in articles

As I mentioned there, I don't think they should be used, but if they are, they should use CSS, not tables, so I've tried to make a new version of the templates to do the visual styling that some people like without modifying the article structure. (Additionally, with the CSS-based layout, people who really don't like the columns can turn them off in their monobook.css.)  ;-) The original table-based templates are at {{ col-begin}}, and my new div- and CSS-based ones are at Template talk:Columns. I need feedback and it needs tweaking. Bypass your cache if you don't see the example. — Omegatron 20:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The German wikipedia has standardised on a set of geographical coordinates templates that place the coordinates link above the horizontal rule that runs below the article's title (see de:New York City or de:Kaffee Alt Wien for examples). This is a rather nifty feature, and I think the English Wikipedia should consider whether adopting this as a style standard would be a good idea.

A proof-of-concept template has been created at {{ CoorHeader}} that implements this for coordinates in the degree-minute-seconds format that {{ coor dms}} uses. The template takes into account the space needed by the Featured Article star in {{ featured article}}, as an attempt to address one concern I've heard already.

The other coordinate formats could easily be supported. The code could also easily be rolled into the existing family of coordinate templates so that their inclusion in the body of the text of existing articles would place the coordinates at the top of the page as well.

Is there support for some or all of this as a new standard? Comments? Objections? — Saxifrage ✎ 08:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes! See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Coordinates at the top of the article.

-- William Allen Simpson 11:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of standarization, I've seen one major problem that might contradict this. I've begun implimenting this feature in some articles ( kalasha, Carthage, London) but other areas where I'd like to add it (such as US cities) already have a template for coordinates. Or rather, the "city template" has space set out for it for coordinates whether they are added or not. One example would be Madison, Wisconsin where I attempted to delete the current coordinates in the box and add this new standard...it would not delete the actual coordinate option. :( Sean WI 18:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to leave the original and just have both. You'll notice that de:New York City uses a coordinates template that both places the coordinates inline in the text and at the top of the article, so there's precedent for this. Even if it's at the top of the page, people will probably like to have it in the city infoboxes for layout reasons and completeness' sake. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Is not "Manual of Style" rather a confusing title for this document? Wikipedia:Manual of Style is a style guide for Wikipedia articles, and is also one of Wikipedia guidelines, more specifically a Wikipedia style guideline. However, Wikipedia:Manual of Style is not a comprehensive style guide for Wikipedia articles as there are numerous other documents that specify style for various sorts of Wikipedia articles. For one, Wikipedia:Manual of Style does not cover the layout of document that is covered in any regular style guides such as MLA. In Wikipedia, layout is explained by Wikipedia talk:Guide to layout instead, an independent style guideline document. Nor is Wikipedia:Manual of Style the only style guideline. It's just one of them.

I suppose that in the beginning Wikipedia:Manual of Style was in fact the only document that specified the style of all Wikipedia articles, and only later were those complementary style guideline documents created. If so, should not Wikipedia:Manual of Style be now renamed and rewritten as a kind of meta document that organize various style guideline documents like Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines does? Hermeneus ( user/ talk) 01:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Haven't looked into it extensively, but your points make sense. "Manual of Style" is a guide that technical writers and copyeditors understand; it may sound like a graphic design manual to people not in those specialized fields (I am). I'm generally in favor of breaking things up (to a point) and having a meta navigation document. DavidH 22:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)