Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 5

message: For what it's worth, I think the elimination of all contractions on this page was a bit hasty. Some of the resulting expressions, such as "Do not get fancy", seem quite awkward to me. I'd also argue that Wikipedia's tone in general is more informal than paper encyclopedias and so benefits from more conversational wording (I also used this to argue for singular they.) While eliminating contractions is often acceptable, I would suggest it be avoided when it results in a stilted or awkward expression. Am I alone in this? Derrick Coetzee 16:18, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it was needed, especially because the style guide isn't part of the encyclopedia per se. For that matter, I'd be OK with eliminating the style guide's rule against contractions. Maurreen 16:26, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments above. Personally, the non-contraction style do not seem awkward to me in the examples. But people use different kinds of English and are used to different kinds of English. If most disagree, then I have no horrible objection to changing Wikipedia style. But unless a new consensus appears, the recommendation should remain and the style guide should follow it. Jallan 01:16, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a better solution for the Manual of Style would be to use different expressions that don't seem so awkward without contractions? "Keep it simple" would work instead of "Don't get fancy". (Although I agree that contractions are becoming more and more standard in English writing, and there are places where it seems appropriate to retain them.) Aranel ("Sarah") 03:20, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: That's a good idea. I don't feel strongly either way, but I'm a big believer in work-arounds. Maurreen 03:27, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree with Derrick Coetzee. The advice on contractions should be removed. Different articles adopt different styles. It would be inappropriate to use contractions in an article with a very formal style, and no doubt would be quickly edited out where there are inappropriate. But similarly, it is inappropriate to force a "no contractions" rule on articles that do not adopt a very formal style. Contractions are part of standard English: there should be no absolute ban on them. I propose leaving this discussion open for a further week to 20:00 on 3 November, and if there are no strong objections (or objections are in a clear minority), then I'll delete the section. jguk 06:45, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Jguk is going further than Derrick Coetzee. Jguk is the only person supporting changing the contractions policy. Maurreen 17:30, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Contractions

message: You're invited to a poll at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks over whether that should remain the article's title or it should be changed to "Attacks of September 11, 2001".
I favor the latter, because using two commas to set the year off is widely supported by U.S. English reference books, and Wikipedia style says: "If a word or phrase is generally regarded as correct, then prefer it to an alternative that is often regarded as incorrect." Maurreen 07:38, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This poll has now ended. jguk 04:30, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Sept. 11 attacks

message: I would like to suggest removing the following guidline:
:do not add any links to the "See also" section that are already present in the text of the article
I think this is wrong for the following reasons:
* It is difficult to maintain. 
* It is not really followed in practice.
* It makes the see also section less useful. Sometimes a practical way to search for a page is to go to a related page and check the see also section. If this guideline were enforced, you would need to check the entire article.
Gadykozma 14:45, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm ambivalent. Maybe it would be good to just soften the language. Maurreen 15:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Gadykozma's first two points. On the final one, it really depends on the length of the article. If it's one or two paragraphs long, there's no need to put the links in the "See also". Where it's a long article, Gady's comment is certainly correct. Since there's no need for the Manual of Style to have softer language when the advice is "do what seems most useful/appropriate in the circumstances", I support Gady's proposal to remove the guideline. jguk 15:48, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess that the original intent was that a "See also" section should be included only when there were useful links that could not be included easily in the text of the article. But it is more useful in long articles that the most useful links are together in one section. It could be changed to:In short articles, do not add any links to the "See also" section that are already present in the text of the article.A short article might be defined as an article entirely visible on a terminal without scrolling, but then that despends on the user's resolution settings. That's the best defence I can come up with to keeping this in some form. Unless someone has a better one and a different modification, I'd go with deleting it. Jallan 22:48, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this suggestion:In short articles, do not add any links to the "See also" section that are already present in the text of the article. Maurreen 17:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Duplicate links are sometimes useful in long, sectioned articles. I particularly find that the same topic is likely to occur in the lead paragraph but be fully treated in a much later section. In such cases a link in both places makes sense when the link is an important one. Also, in-text links may be applied to a different form when in text than those in the See also section (which should probably always contain the current proper name of the article linked to while a text reference may not.) There is a difference between a link casually appearing somewhere in the text and the same link appearing explicitly in a See also section as especially recommended. I take the "also" to as a recommendation that one should "also" check the other article(s), without indicating one way or the other whether a following reference is the only gateway to that other article in the article one is reading. I still prefer deletion, but very weakly. It would be nice to actually remove an instruction. But if kept as Maurreen wishes, I recommend shortening:Again, do not add any links to the "See also" section that are already present in the text of the article. If you remove a redundant link from the See also section of an article, it may be an explicit cross reference (see below), so consider making the link in the main text bold instead.toIn short articles and within sections of longer articles there should normally be no duplication of links: a particularly important link should be only in a See also section or in the main text in bold style, but not both.Or even:Avoid duplicating links in short articles or within sections of long articles. An especially important link can be emphasized by placing it within a See also section or by bolding it.Jallan 03:31, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Those work for me. Maurreen04:25, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Don't like Jallan's first one. Am ok with nothing, slightly prefer Maurreen's suggestion, and could live with a slightly revised reversion of Jallan's second one ('bold' is not a verb, 'by putting it in bold font' is correct). jguk 06:41, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In English adjectives and nouns are quite often quite acceptably used as verbs. Googling for the form bolding falls foul of the surname Bolding for obtaining counts, but bolded gets 128,800 hits. Common use of bold as a verb  probably arises from computerized word processing. I expect it has gained hold within the last fifteen years. Merriam-Webster Unabridged does list a transitive verb bold, but claims it is obsolete. (The 1913 Webster accepts it as current.) It would appear that many dictionaries, as usual, lag a decade or more behind usage, quite understandibly. However the Canadian Oxford Dictionary released in 1999, which I often consult, states: bold adj., n., & v." and gives for the verb  meaning under "v.tr.": "(also boldface) set in bold type."  The entry boldface just redirects to bold. This use of bold as a verb is not marked as being a distinctive Canadian practice and I would be astonished to find that this usage was especially Canadian. That said, I don't care if the verb bold is paraphrased. Jallan 19:30, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I'm perfectly aware that every noun can be verbed, but why not go with Maurreen's version? It has the benefit of being shorter. jguk 20:14, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for clarification: None of the versions are mine. I was just agreeing with all of Jallan's versions, which were compromises with me, because I'd prefer not to delete the section. Maurreen 04:07, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: OK. I thought 'In short articles, do not add any links to the "See also" section that are already present in the text of the article.' was yours. Go with that if you object to deleting it. jguk 17:22, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: I am looking for a input to help resolve a dispute about the article on style guides. The question is this: Was the article better before or after the rewrite? Thanks. Maurreen 15:30, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not the question in dispute. The question is should it be clearly mentioned that style guides may be descriptive and/or prescriptive or should the article be restricted to a discussion of prescriptive style guides with no reference to descriptive ones. jguk 15:44, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What would be the point of a descriptive style guide? Hyacinth 03:07, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, the question is: Are style guides prescriptive by definition? Maurreen 03:34, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say not. A "guide" is often something that shows you around an area, so I see no reason why a style guide couldn't be a map rather than a set of rules. I can't see what use this would be of (outside of in the development of future style guides, maybe a synthesis of guides). Hyacinth 04:05, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: The latest version of the best known British English style guide, Fowler's Modern English Usage (3rd Edition), is a mostly descriptive style guide. An interesting read, if you're into that kind of thing, though there are other style guides out there that are even more descriptive. . Birchfield's rewrite of Fowler into a far less prescriptive (and thereforE into a descriptive) form was not universally popular.  See in particular the first reviewer's comments. As far as the point of them: well, they are not suitable for publishers and newspapers as they don't impose consistency. They are suitable for users interested in how language is used and help the user decide what form of words, spelling, etc to choose for the particular audience the user is addressing. jguk 07:24, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  While a style guide could be descriptive, most style guides are not. I know of none that I would call mostly descriptive that also has a title indicating it is a style guide or style manual. A truly descriptive style guide would be one of those linguistic books about New England dialects, a guide to different styles of usage. I am not aware of a book of that kind being called a style guide, though such a book could in theory be called something like A Guide to Styles of English Midland Language. Birchfield's rewrite of Fowler was more descriptive than the two previous versions of Fowler's work. But it was a far cry from being only an informed and dispassionate study on the current state of the English language. The Chicago Manual of Style is also increasingly descriptive in recent editions, providing alternative ways of doing things, though still purportedly mainly for use as the style guide for the University of Chicago Press. That limitation provides freedom. One can prescribe firmly and absolutely without also making any claim that one's preferred way of doing things is the only correct way.  One would, I think, be better to refer to Birchfield's work as "more descriptive" rather than simply "descriptive". But almost all guides of that kind for the general public must be so today. Jallan 23:44, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Article on style guides

message: I've moved a list of where all the Manual of Style-type guidance can be found to the top of the page. (i) It will be easier to see what policies we've got now; (ii) It will shorten that annoyingly long contents list; (iii) it's slightly shorter. Hope this isn't seen as too controversial. (And I'm not attached to the linking sentence I've added at the top of the new list. If anyone can think of better wording, please change it.) jguk 20:38, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a drastic change, but I consider it an improvement. It's centralized things, eliminated a lot of redundancy, and drastically reduced the page and table-of-contents size. Derrick Coetzee 23:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it, partly to get the table of contents higher. Maurreen 04:02, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: The main point I have re: Maurreen's change is that many of the "guidance" bits really are policy and should be in the specialised section. These are Wikipedia:Captions; Wikipedia:Categorization; Wikipedia:Cite sources; Wikipedia:Explain jargon; Wikipedia:List; Wikipedia:Naming_conventions; Wikipedia:Proper_names. I'd rather rename these as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (captions), etc.. and put them in the first section. (I thought this too radical to do straightaway, without discussion, though.)jguk 06:21, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't clear to me, but I liked it better how it was before. Maurreen 21:06, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Maurreen, you've removed the guidance on Captions, Identity, Specific countries (and the references to the style guides within that section), When All Else Fails, Do Not Get Fancy, and all the other stuff that was at the end of the article. May I ask why?  jguk 06:27, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an accident that I didn't realize and can't fix on this computer without reverting. Apparently the page is too long for me to edit on this computer. My apologies. Maurreen 07:30, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reformatting

message: We might want to consider how to avoid or resolve alphabetic international rivalry within Wikipedia. For example, when listing items, do you have a preference for either of these two formats: "U.K. style guides, U.S. style guides" or "American style guides, British style guides" ? Maurreen 16:30, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Country order

message: In Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style--Draft Trim discussion archive, Jguk said: “Where we can, we should avoid using language that marks it out as being US/UK or as preferring one particular style of writing words over another.” He has made similar statements elsewhere.
I believe that his view in this regard is at least part of the basis for the poll above. If so, probably that is what should be discussed, at least initially to see if anyone shares his view. Maurreen 12:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: English versions

message: Along the lines of what Jallan suggested about organizing supporting material for the style guide, I've been working on organizing the archives topically. One of these is called "Visual presentation." 
I'm not sure what's the best title. Other options include "Layout" or "Design." What do you think? Maurreen 07:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I like "Visual presentation".  "Layout" or "Visual design" would also be OK.  Just "Design" would be bad, because the term has such a broad meaning.  —AlanBarrett 19:02, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Visual presentation

message: In Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style--Draft Trim discussion archive, Jguk said: “Where we can, we should avoid using language that marks it out as being US/UK or as preferring one particular style of writing words over another.” He has made similar statements elsewhere.
I believe that his view in this regard is at least part of the basis for the poll above. If so, probably that is what should be discussed, at least initially to see if anyone shares his view. Maurreen 12:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: English versions

message: Along the lines of what Jallan suggested about organizing supporting material for the style guide, I've been working on organizing the archives topically. One of these is called "Visual presentation." 
I'm not sure what's the best title. Other options include "Layout" or "Design." What do you think? Maurreen 07:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I like "Visual presentation".  "Layout" or "Visual design" would also be OK.  Just "Design" would be bad, because the term has such a broad meaning.  —AlanBarrett 19:02, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Visual presentation

message: I've created a new template to make it easier to navigate between all the various bits of guidance. I'll try it on this page first and roll it out more generally if people are ok with it. The template itself can be edited on Template:Style. jguk 10:38, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're going to put all of that into a template, maybe you should add the "Further information" section to it. All of it is "further information." Maurreen 17:38, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm tempted to add Wikipedia:How to edit a page and Wikipedia:The perfect stub article (and also Wikipedia:The perfect article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article which don't appear as "further information"). The other stuff in "further information" isn't really guidance on style, so wouldn't be suitable for the template. jguk 17:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New template

message: :This is also a reorganization. I think the two should be handled separately. Maurreen
::The simplest way to trim the style guide would probably be to put the section about links on its own page. Maurreen 00:22, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added my comments on the discussion page for the draft trim. I wonder if the above might be better moved there also, with a prominent and bolder announcement of the draft trim appearing instead. This would keep the draft time discussion quite separate from any discussion of substantive changes. Jallan 04:57, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I moved most of my response. Maurreen 06:12, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: The guidelines currently suggest that more than one link to the same target "may be considered" too much if the links are within 40 lines of each other.  I think we should distinguish between paragraphs of text, and tables.  Paragraphs are usually read from beginning to end, and more than one link to the same target within the same paragraph (or even within the same multi-paragraph section) is unlikely to be useful.  However, in tables such as those in List of asteroids (1-1000) or List of Members of the European Parliament 2004-2009, I think it's useful for every cell to be linked.  Tables are often searched to find a particular entry of interest, and the reader might easily ignore everything outside the one entry of interest, so it's useful if the entry of interest has links for all the relavant terms, whether of not those same terms are also linked elsewhere in the article.  —AlanBarrett 21:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Maurreen 05:17, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree as well. Matt 04:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple links to the same target 

message: When words are written about as words, they are italicised. But what is the convention when punctuation is written about as punctuation? Should the punctuation marks be italicised in the same way? I notice that there are inconsistancies within the articles about punctuation.
For example, should one write, "The & sign," or write, "The & sign"? Zoggie50 22:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How about something like: "The ampersand (&) is..."  —Mike 23:28, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
In other words, a punctuation symbol should never be used directly, but referred to by name instead. The symbol should only be used the first time that it is referred to, in which case it should be enclosed in parentheses. Zoggie50 14:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: That's a good idea. Maurreen 16:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Punctuation as punctuation

message: Um, some of this conversation seems to be diverting from the topic of the style guide. Maybe it should be moved elsewhere? Maurreen 16:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Divergence

message: I would like to propose that links not have additional character styles applied (such as bold or italics). As a professional technical writer/editor, that has been the convention whenever I have dealt with HTML writing/editing.  (Besides, it just looks ugly.) I know that this would go into effect slowly since people learn by imitation, rather than reading the style guide, but I have started making these changes wherever I see them. User:Ksnow
:In my opinion, whether or not something is a link should be independent of whether or not it is emboldened or italicised.  However, could you provide some links to diffs for edits you have made where you think removing bold or italic markup improved an article?  —AlanBarrett 20:42, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for style change

message: Some of the above discussion has veered into the topic of expressions which have different meanings in different countries, or exist in one country but not another (or countries, as the case may be). I'd like to suggest moving that topic here. Maurreen 11:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Unclear words

message: :I totally agree with them. violet/riga (t) 11:14, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I support all the changes visible in a diff between the versions of 18:55 26 Nov 2004 and 11:06 27 Nov 2004.  —AlanBarrett 13:45, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the diff above. zoney ♣ talk 20:28, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: Jguk, because your preference for what you call "neutral language" appears to be at the heart of much of what you do, why don't you have that discussion?
This is not a rhetorical question. I'd really like to know. Maurreen 11:49, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Neutrality"