Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 94

message: I know that whether punctuation should be inside or out of quotes has been discussed before here, but not in relation to references. I completely understand the concept of 'logical quotation,' but nowhere do I see anything mentioning what applies to references. In wikipedia the cite template and sources page recommend having punctuation outside quotes such as in this example: 
#Brandybuck, Meriadoc (1955). "Herb lore of the Shire". Journal of the Royal Institute of Chemistry 10 (2), 234–351.
However, apart from this one   linked from the Harvard referencing pages (which does not make clear which style it is using), all of the major style guides such as MLA,   and Chicago put the punctuation inside the quotes like this:
#Brandybuck, Meriadoc (1955). "Herb lore of the Shire." Journal of the Royal Institute of Chemistry 10 (2), 234–351.
APA doesn't seem to use quotes in its titling. I'm not sure why wikipedia style seems to go against three of the most widely used styles and put the punctuation outside of the quotation in references. Therefore, I propose that the style guide me modified to reflect the most common usage. This could be done by adding in a new section to the quotation marks section of the punctuation section noting that referencing follows different rules from text used in the body, and then modifying the cite template as well as the various examples littered around the help sections on referencing in wikipedia.Zeus1234 16:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Punctuation after the closing quotation marks would be consistent and logical in references too. But here, we're less concerned about not tampering with quoted material. So I find any reasonable formatting system for reference lists will do, provided it's consistent. Tony (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly oppose, on the basis of consistency. If we make an exception for this, then soon we'll have clamoring for 14 other exceptions. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 00:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes and punctuation in references 

message: Right now it seems that Wikipedia provides no guidance on the best practices for creating maps and diagrams. These types of images are rapidly proliferating on Wikipedia. In fact, the Wikimedia Foundation has just started a grant program to pay illustrators to add new diagrams to articles in need. It would be nice if most of these additions followed similar styles and conventions instead of continually reinventing the wheel (with various degrees of success). Although I don't believe Wikipedia needs to enforce one particular style on all maps and diagram, there are some helpful conventions that I think we should put into writing somewhere. Wikipedia:Image use policy doesn't seem like the appropriate place for this, so I've decided to be bold and create a proposed Manual of Style page for maps and diagrams. Right now it is mostly blank as I would like to know what suggestions the Wikipedia community has to offer. Feel free to hop over there and edit it to your heart's content or add ideas to the talk page. Thanks! Kaldari 01:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've worked on it a little.  Has potential. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 12:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help create a manual of style for maps and diagrams 

message: The MOS needs to say this explicitly.  All of the relevant templates ( , , , , , DAB hatnotes like , etc., etc., etc.) already do it.  The MOS should state specifically that when making a cross-reference or other instructive-to-the-reader ("see..." "for...", "compare...", etc.) and therefore (permissibly) self-referential note in article prose, it should be italicized, and that like these templates it should be indented with ":" if it is not inline in a sentence (e.g. "The dates were established by dendrochronology. See diagram of tree-ring data collected.  These dates indicate...")  In-prose, non-templated usage is wildly inconsistent all over Wikipedia, even in MOS pages themselves, but the template usages are remarkably uniform, and have been for years. Thus they are guiding, and strongly indicate consensus – a consensus that is hard to "enforce" because no one has bothered to write it down yet. Writing down what consensus already is, is the principal purpose of Wikipedia guidelines. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 12:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks like a good proposal. Tony (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I agree! By the way, I would refer to these as cross-references, rather than the banned self-references. In usage, however, capitalization should follow that of the article to which reference is made; this is a cross-reference to the article, not wikilinking a word. Finell (Talk) 05:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italicize self-refs 

message: This is odd:
Initial capitalization: The MediaWiki software automatically renders wikilinks with an upper-case initial character; therefore, a linked item should not be rendered with an initial capital letter in article text solely because it is linked. Linked items that begin sentences or are proper nouns should be capitalized as normal.
It is not exactly that the software renders the link with an initial capital: it interprets it that way. Our text currently suggests that the software converts the appearance of the link, which it does not. Guidelines elsewhere are permissive about capping these links; but I think this is a mistake. There is a difference between an incidental link, as when one wishes to gloss a word or a phrase (in the course of discussing diatonic harmony, say) and when one wants to link explicitly to an article by its name:
See Diatonic and chromatic.
Does anyone really think it makes no difference in this case whether or not we capitalise? I propose this guideline instead:
Initial capitalization: The MediaWiki software automatically interprets wikilinks with an upper-case initial character, so there is no need to capitalize the first letter simply to make a successful link. Only capitalize the first letter where this is naturally called for, or when specifically referring to the linked article by its name:Snakes are often venomous, but lizards only rarely. (See Poison.)
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 04:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My fault, earlier today. Do you want to do the honours? Tony (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed on all points, but "The MediaWiki software automatically interprets wikilinks with an upper-case initial character" is still likely to be confusing to people who are not computer scientists.  Maybe "Wikipedia's MediaWiki software does not require that wikilinks begin with an upper-case character, so..." — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 14:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikilinks 

message: Proposal
I seek consensus here that Template:Style-guideline be renamed Template:Manual of Style. 
This would reflect the function of the template (redirect to be added to deal with back-compatibility). At the moment, we have a profusion of similar template names: the others are via Template:Subcat_guideline, where editors fill in "editing guideline" or "style guideline" at their whim. This itself is an uneasy distinction. (See the list above for the lack of logic in these categorisations. Stub is a style guideline, and Categorization is an editing guideline. But this can be dealt with later.) Tony (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename

message: [Forking this into a separate thread, though it relates to the discussion immediately above in part.] The WP:MOS (and subpages) versus WP:NCA (and related naming conventions) disjuncture not only needs to be resolved, but is at multiple levels. Two minor examples are the IUPAC-related article naming stuff in WP:MOS itself (arguably misplaced) and a -flagged US/U.S. naming issue at WT:MOSABBR.  The short version is that for now MOS should defer to and refer to NCA on article naming, while NCA should do vice versa with regard to article prose, and neither should even bother to summarize what the other says, but instead cross-reference, or the two documents will inevitably become more and more out-of-synch. In the longer term, and inter-guideline meeting of minds has to happen so that what MOS recommends for prose and NCA recommends for article names are consistent. I suggest that we first resolve the "cross-advising" problem, by replacing all naming advice in MOS with cross-references to NCA's appropriate sections (add span link targets if necessary), and do the opposite with NCA, replacing any prose advice in it with cross-ref links to the proper Manual of Style parts.  I have a strong suspicion that the second part, getting NCA and MOS to agree across-the-board, will take much more effort and time, though I think it is plausible to actually do it eventually and mostly keep it that way. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 16:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I guess the first step would be to identify the sections at issue on both pages, ponder it, then post a note at NCA talk. Tony (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MOS and NCA

message: Here are two questions about how to begin an article.
Should the first sentence be a grammatically complete sentence? Some articles start with a fragment that is not a complete sentence. For example, an article might begin "A country in western Europe." (I made that example up to illustrate the idea.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fg2 (talk • contribs) 
:Complete sentence, please. Tony (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's one way of doing it. Tony (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence: two questions 

message: Meta:Reading level (discussion)
Any point in retaining it? It seems out of place, since it contains only personal opinions. Tony (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does seem out of place.  I wouldn't mind it if the MOS explicitly stated that en.wikipedia is written for the intended audience of adult, educated, fluent English speakers, and that simple.wikipedia exists as a separate project for a readership with lower English-language skills. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 07:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's intended for non-fluent speakers of the language, too. (Doesn't mean that it should be written non-fluently, of course.) Tony (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section lists a mere discussion 

message: I propose to add the following sentence at the end of the paragraph "Consistency within articles" in WP:ENGVAR. 
:"Consistency with other articles is not necessarily grounds for change. For examples, see the mismatch between :Orange (colour) and :Color, or between :Equaliser (mathematics) and :Coequalizer."
At the end of the paragraph "Strong national ties to a topic", I propose to add
:"One spelling may be predominantly used in published work, but this is not necessarily grounds for change. For example, some academic publishers may enforce American English spellings, but this need not reflect the day-to-day usage of the academic community." 
I have recently had discussions about these points when trying (unsuccessfully) to move the page :Equaliser (mathematics). These clarifications would have saved me quite some time. But I'd like to discuss them before making any changes to the style manual. Sam Staton 10:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Naming conventions issues are different from MoS issues.  We aren't necessarily limited to one slot in the text of the article.  The proposal is too much addressed to naming conventions--and probably instruction creep in any case.  Gene Nygaard 06:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of style, ENGVAR 

message: On advice from User:Itub at the MOS subpage on technical terms and definitions, I've removed this section, which doesn't belong at MOS, and have offered it up for use at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals/Style_guidelines. It's probably all there anyway. Tony (talk) 09:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Several editors at WP:CHEMS are looking at it: the current solution would seem to be a page like Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics), possibly with links to other MoS-related pages such as Wikipedia:Chemical infobox. The idea would be that everyone cane find information more easily, and that chemical style guidelines would also be subject to greater scrutiny from the community as a whole. Can you give us a week or two on this one? It's quite a big job… Physchim62 (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Tony (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone wants to give input on early drafts, the page is being created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/MOSCHEM: as I say, it will probably take us a good couple of weeks to get it into shape for wider community approval. Physchim62 (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incongruous MOS section on chemistry articles 

message: (Copying from way up the page where I think it got lost)
Can we get something in the MOS about this? I appreciate the fact that keeping tabs on whether certain things still exist could be problematic, but in the vast majority of cases this is not a case. That examples of the English Electric Lightning still exist is not in doubt (the article even mentions airworthy survivors), so to read that it "was" a supersonic fighter aircraft just doesn't sound right. This is a widespread problem too - pretty much every article on planes, trains and automobiles uses the wrong tense in the opening sentence. Miremare 14:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to get some traction on this issue, you should make a tentative proposal. Nohat (talk) 08:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'd just like for it to say something along the lines of that we should use the present tense when describing an object, unless we know that no instances of it now exist (or that it's fairly obvious that none exist), or when describing a specific example of the object that no longer exists, or when describing the object in relation to a past event. Using the English Electric Lightning article as an example (that's where I first noticed the problem) it says "The English Electric Lightning was a supersonic fighter aircraft of the Cold War era" when it should read "The Lightning is a supersonic fighter aircraft of the Cold War era". The tense there seems to be because of the mention of when it was in production and service, but that shouldn't take precedence over whether the thing actually still exists or not (and imply that it doesn't), and of course it is still of the cold war era despite existing in the present. I'm sure someone can put it more coherently and concisely than that - I'm certainly no guideline writer. :) Miremare 10:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me.  Now that you mention it, I reflexively fix this sort of error all the time. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 10:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, so did I on the article mentioned above, and another one, and was reverted both times with a vague comment about "reading the rest of the sentence for context"... Anyway, I'm sure this isn't a widely contentious issue - at least two Wikiprojects that I know of (Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games) have had discussions on this issue with a very clear consensus towards the usage I've suggested above. It's been entered into WP:VG's article guidelines but it would be nice to have it more visible and relevant to the whole of Wikipedia. Miremare 19:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggested language? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 22:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tense part 2 

message: I have to dispute this:
:...attribution is unnecessary for well-known quotations (e.g., from Shakespeare)...
I don't see any rationale for such an exception (though I agree with the one that follows this snippet in the guideline). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 05:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Going once... — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 21:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Going twice... Any dispute about removing this? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 21:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed; a lot of "well known" quotations are actually misquotations. "Beam me up, Scotty," etc. <eleland/talkedits> 22:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor "Quotations" section dispute 

message: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 December 8#MOS: and related non-standard shortcuts
No one bothered to mention here that all of the "MOS:" shortcuts have been nominated for deletion at RfD. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 18:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MOS shortcuts all nominated for deletion 

message: Does wiki have a policy on this? I think they should be avoided. Shniken1 (talk) 11:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, see Article titles at the top of MOS. Tony (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links in section titles 

message: In the Block Quotations subsection of Quotations, the first example given of a quote from Taras Bulba appears incorrect.  The "code" shows "-Taras Bulba, by Nicolai Gogol", but then shows the resultant text as "-Nicolai Gogol, Taras Bubla".  I'm not feeling quite bold enough to fix the MoS, so perhaps someone else would, or otherwise might explain my error in thinking.Pete Jacobsen (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was pretty silly.  Either style would work.  I edited it to be self-consistent by changing the code to match the rendered example, though if someone prefers the "title by author" versus "author, title" format they are free to reverse both occurrences of course. I just decided the code should match the example, on the basis that the example was intended to be exemplary (obviously), and the code snippet was therefore necessarily intended to accurately represent how that example was coded. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 10:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations, subsection Block Quotations 

message: Also, it would be easy for someone to read "Linking a term provides sufficient indication that you are using a term as a term, which requires italics" quickly to mean that linking requires italics, perhaps better would be "...which would otherwise require italics", or "Italicize a term used as a term, unless it is also a link." (Perhaps this should be in the Italics subsection?)
And yes, I'm aware it's arrogant to suggest changes to the MOS when I haven't been here long :)  Feel free to shoot me down, but I already feel pretty comfortable with the MOS, you guys did a good job of keeping the learning curve small for folks who are already familiar with other MOS's.
Dan
Dank55 (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone see what I'm saying about "linking a term"?  — Dan Dank55 (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes. I'd missed that part of your question the first time. I like your suggestion. Mine would be "Although using a term as a term is normally signalled by setting the text in italics, in the case of a link to a term, the link itself provides sufficient indication that you are using a term and the addition of italics is unnecessary." — Dave (Talk | contribs) 17:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur...I was too timid to add a lot of words to the MOS, but your sentence is very clear-cut.  If no one objects, I'll wait a day for comments and then "make it so". — Dan Dank55 (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This would produce a lot of consistency problems.  If some terms are italicized (or put in quotation marks, another valid option) but not linked, then linked ones should also be italicized (or quoted). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 21:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not new. This is the current direction for heads and sub-heads given at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings so, presumably, any consistency problems are already amply evident. We were merely discussing a way to clarify the current wording, which is: "Italicize the section name only if it otherwise requires italics (such as the title of a book). Linking a term provides sufficient indication that you are using a term as a term, which requires italics." Note that the second sentence is a bit unclear. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 02:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This may or may not be helpful, but it's my experience that academics (and maybe others too) vary in what they italicize more than in any other orthographic conventions, so I wasn't criticizing the intent of the MOS, I just thought it was easily misunderstood.  I thought you guys had come up with a solution that lacked purity but had great efficacy, reducing the number of times you had to make the call. — Dan Dank55 (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the liberty of making the change. Let me know if there is anything untoward in the result. — Dave (Talk) 02:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Linking...which requires italics"

message: Can I draw your attention to a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Writing better articles#Proposed addition. I would like to know what people's views are, but I think that page gets little traffic. Please comment there rather than here. Thanks, Matt 19:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions sought 

message: Template:Sc is really problematic.  Aside from the fact that it's a very grotesque kluge that has major accessibility and content-reuse problems, for MoS it is also problematic, because it is recommending itself for all sorts of usages of small-caps font styling that are not recognized by MoS.  I'm about 50/50 on whether this should be cleaned up in some way, or simply taken to WP:TFD.  It's Template:Smallcaps counterpart does not present as many problems, and should not be TfD'd, but it does require cleanup, I think, since it too suggests uses of small-caps that MoS does not recommend and almost certainly would deprecate if it addressed the issue.  (Hint: I think MoS should address small-caps.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 21:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Icky small-caps template 

message: Can we adopt Wikipedia:Quotations into the manual of style?  What needs to be done to fix it up? It would be useful to have a separate page for quotations, and the MOS seems the best place for it. Hiding T  12:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Quotations 

message: Hi there,
The wikipedia-pages of operating systems(for example: Mac OS X v10.5, Mac OS X, Windows XP, Ubuntu and so on) are all very different and totally not following one line.
It may be usefull to have a MoS for operating system-pages and their versions, just like there is for films for example.
For example the way of viewing the version history(table layout), System requirements(table, list or text), content of infobox. Order of content(version history at bottom, or prices at bottom) etc. etc.
If there's going to come one, I suggest using the layout en style of Mac OS X v10.5. But other layout's may be better
User:TijhofGraphics/Sig}} 12:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manual of Style (operating system(versions)) 

message: MOS says: "If possible, an article title should be the subject of the first sentence of the article; for example, "The Manual of Style is a style guide" instead of "This style guide is known as ...". Um ... what does it mean? It's the subject in both examples. Tony (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase "Manual of Style" is not the subject in the second sentence. Strad (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is. Tony (talk) 12:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the way I parse the second sentence. I'd be interested in seeing your version. "This style guide [guide is the subject of the sentence.] is known [is is the verb, part of the verb phrase is known. Alternatively, one can consider is to be the auxiliary to the verb known. Both analyses, for practical purposes, get you to the same point.] as The Manual of Style. [The Manual of Style is a complement to the predicate, sometimes called a predicate completion or a subjective predicate complement]" The sentence structure is identical to the sentence "Dave is (known as) a buffoon." In that case, Dave is the subject of the sentence, not buffoon which, again, is the complement. Note that I'm but a dilletante as a grammarian so someone who really knows this stuff will quickly correct me, I'm sure. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 14:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence 

message: I've been citing WP:HEAD as the convention which outlines we do not (generally) use the word "The" at the beginning of headings and subheadings. However, I've come to find that WP:HEAD no longer mentions this. Has the position changed or has this been overlooked as part of a rejig of the material? -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the first bullet of "Section headings". Does it need to be highlighted further, I wonder? Tony (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so. For someone like myself who didn't get fantastic education in the subtleties of the English language, this section is not as explicitly clear as it once was. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 

message: Are there any editors who want to create an MOS specific to Vietnamese articles? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnamese MOS

message: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English states that articles that are linked to a specific English-speaking country should use the English variety of that particular country. An article about an American subject, for instance, should use American English. But how far does that extend? The reason I'm asking this, is this edit to Interpol (band), in which the spelling of a word in the disambiguation header was changed from "organisation" (British English) to "organization" (American English). Are such tags covered by Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English as well, or does the guideline only cover the content of the article itself? AecisBrievenbus 01:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way this has been "solved", if you will, is by using the topic of origin's spelling. Therefore, an American subject would have American English spelling throughout and consequently a British topic would use British English. Hope this helps. NSR77 TC 04:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew that. That's why I wrote: "Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English states that articles that are linked to a specific English-speaking country should use the English variety of that particular country. An article about an American subject, for instance, should use American English." My question was if that guideline covers the entire text of the page, so including disambiguation headers, possible stub tags, etcetera, or just to the body of the article? AecisBrievenbus 16:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's safe to say that it covers everything. Otherwise it's only going to cause mass confusion. Grim (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always interpreted it as covering everything.  It makes most sense this way.  Of course, categories create problems here since you can't change the displayed spelling. Jɪmp 19:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding national varieties of English 

message: There is a current proposal to change a naming convention, which directly effects the the Manual of Style guideline, and the naming conventions policy. If you are interested, your input would be appreciated. Justin chat 06:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed naming convention change 

message: There is a discussion going on at the talk page of the numbers manual of style () that would change all piped wikilinks like "2007" to "2007". Those kinds of wikilinks are being referred to as surprise links. Wikilinks like 2007, 2007, etc (basically any wikilink to any of the articles at List of '2007 in' articles (and every other year) that has a pipe and then just the year would be replaced with just the plaintext year, with no wikilink. Input from the community would be appreciated. --Pixelface (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: YEAR in TOPIC wikilinks

message: There is also a discussion going on at the the talk page of the numbers manual of style () where it's been proposed that editors stop using ISO-format dates (such as 2007-12-16) in citation templates like . When an ISO format date is placed in the date field and wikilinked, (like 2007-12-16), it will be shown according to a user's date preferences. Some editors are saying we should stop doing this. Input from the community would be appreciated. --Pixelface (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ISO format dates in citation templates

message: How do you make a word into a link AND have a set of square brackets around it for the reader?  I can't find the answer anywhere - and even if it is included somewhere else, it probably ought to be here too.
Example:
"[Nickelback is] probably the most over-hyped garbage ever."
where 'Nickelback' is a link
Nialsh (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This generally shouldn't be done, since we do not wikilink inside quotations (except in the rare case that Wikitext itself is being quoted, and did originally contain a link). If there is some case in which this is needed, use the HTML character entities for square-brackets: [ ( "[" ) and ] ( "]" ). I also assume that you understand that the example text you used would not be permissible in an article, per WP:NPOV. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 23:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Square brackets surrounding a linked word 

message: I'm posting here to see if MOS experts will respond.  Aircraft articles routinely have a "Related Content" section listing similar aircraft.  This appendix is at the end of the article.  A user seems unhappy at this arrangement and has brought this up in several aircraft articles citing MOS prohibiting this style.
I seek guidance.  The article in question follows WikiProject guidelines.  Here's an example of an aircraft article that I don't edit but has the same section (at the bottom, shown here only for illustration not to prove that other articles have it).  
The discussion is here.  To avoid having a discussion spread over several areas, please address any comments here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Manual_of_Style_dispute Archtransit (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MOS dispute holding up a FA discussion 

message: I opened an RfC on an issue of some relevance to the WP:MOS.  It is at Wikipedia talk:Citizenship and nationality#RfC: Should bio infoboxes distinguish between nationality and citizenship?. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 22:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Should bio infoboxes distinguish between nationality and citizenship? 

message: Hello!  About a week ago, I decapitalised most capitalised occurrences of Pug in that article.  It seems the MOS (and specifically the subsection on animals) agrees with this, but the capitalisation was restored soon after, citing consensus on WP:DOGS and Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds (I've left a pointer to this discussion on talk pages there).
What do people feel?  Should dog breed names be capitalised?  Note also that MOS:CAPS mentions a few special cases that are not made explicit. Phaunt (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Kennel Club in the UK, which is the organisation which defines breed standards in the country, capitalises dog names in its publications. e.g. KC news article. The American Kennel Club, similar to the UKC, also capitalises breed names e.g. Welsh Springer Spaniel article. I would argue that we should follow the example of these organisations and use capital letters for actual breed names. I think that they shouldn't be used when referring to groups of dogs e.g. terriers, hounds, gundogs etc. --Cheesy Mike (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds right to me. Consider that a lot of dog breeds ("Labrador", "Rottweiler", "German Shepherd") are derived from demonyms, and would be capitalized anyway. Capitalizing all dog breeds seems like the most consistent approach. Zetawoof(ζ) 11:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a dog as a little kid.  My teacher said that if I was referring to a specific, AKC recognized purebreed, to capitalise.  However, if one is referring to the generic breed then it is not capitalised.  Technically, that means when describing ancient history before the breeds' establishment with AKC or equivalent, it would not be capitalised.  This may confuse the matter as the word would be capitalised in some places of the article. Archtransit (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see the logic of that approach but, as you suggest, it would be confusing - and also difficult to standardise, given that KCs in different countries register breeds under different names. I think Cheesy Mike's approach may be the best: capitalise specific breeds, but not generics (a Cocker Spaniel, but a spaniel). Having said that...the only style guide I have immediately to hand (AP's) disagrees, and it would be useful to know if there is a general consensus among style guides. (The AP suggestion is to follow Webster's (!) and if the breed is not therein to capitalise only proper nouns - it gives the example "Boston terrier".) Barnabypage (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation of dog breed names 

message: Someone told me to be bold and put this in.  Then someone reverted it and told me to discuss it.  What do you all think of this?
Academic titles and honorifics
*Academic titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should be used the first time the person is mentioned, and generally not thereafter except when there are unusual circumstances, such as a need to maintain a consistent style in a list, or when the section is such that it is likely to be used in isolation.
*For the use of titles and honorifics in biographical articles, see Honorific prefixes and Academic titles.
——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit description you added said there wasn't a guideline on this already, but the "Academic titles" guideline already covers this. It says "Academic and professional titles (such as 'Doctor' or 'Professor') should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name. Verifiable facts about how the person attained such titles should be included in the article text instead. Other encyclopedias and biographies follow a similar format. It's a better format because some folks are jack of all trades. Listing off their credentials gives more information than the nondescript "Doctor" or "Professor". Often professors are doctors as well. Number of other reasons. --Nealparr (talk to me) 05:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is for biographies.  It also makes sense only for biographies. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would it be any different in other articles? Using examples included in that guideline, how is "Professor Stephen Hawkings" any more informative than "Stephen Hawking, the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge" or "Dr. David Pinsky" versus "David Pinsky, a board-certified physician and addiction medicine specialist"? --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you in principle of course- because that is more good information.  But can editors always reasonably get that information?  Also, we need special dispensation for things such as lists, where some of the people on it might have been mentioned in the article, and some haven't.  Suggest? ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to say I disagree. Insertions of that nature are likely to become a magnet for appeals to authority in contentious articles. Encyclopaedia Britannica, for one, does not seem to adopt such a policy. Its article on Hawking Radiation, for example, simply declares that "Stephen W. Hawking proposed in 1974 that... ", without the use of academic honorifics, and its article on ionosphere that "An English mathematician, Oliver Heaviside, and... ", without adding FRS after his name. — BillC  talk 23:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition

message: As proposed above, I have established a page for the hard-space campaign.
Please conduct discussion there, now. All interested editors are welcome, of course.
The page is User:Noetica/ActionMOSVP. I look forward to seeing you there!
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 07:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New page for discussion of the hard space: [[User:Noetica/ActionMOSVP]] 

message: I'm reading the manual of style for the first time, and I'm working on an article at the same time. I noticed I'm going to have to change the name of NEE (which is Dutch for no, not an acronym but written in all caps, and is the name of a political party) to the translated English name without all capitals, "No", right?
A problem that will rise then is that the name of the party will be confusing if used in a sentence (confusion with the English word no). How do I make it clear that I'm using No as a name. Italics? Key to the city (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response. Personally, I'm fine with keeping the all caps, but I'm confused. This suggest to always avoid all caps, and this suggests the same even when the organisation, NEE in this case, has the habbit of writing its own name in all caps: Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official": avoid: REALTOR®, TIME, KISS; instead, use: Realtor, Time, Kiss. Key to the city (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about an article title 

message: Throw English grammar to the wind? Where I learned English, or rather punctuation, the rule was to put periods and commas inside quotation marks. So we're not advocating against proper rules, but for them. And rather than "peddling" the idea that internal punctuation is nicer to read, I think rowley was basing what he said on readability studies and/or years of printing tradition. It's the idea that he is "peddling" something that is itself simply opinion. But this is clearly not a new question. Here's what Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage, a British source, says:
:::"Questions of order between inverted commas [quotation marks] and stops [commas, periods, colons, semi-colons] are much debated and a writer's personal preference often conflicts with the style rules of editors and publishers. There are two schools of thought, which might be called the conventional and the logical. The conventional prefers to put stops within the inverted commas, if it can be done without ambiguity, on the ground that this has a more pleasing appearance. The logical punctuates according to sense, and puts them outside except when they actually form part of the quotation, thus: (examples snipped) ...
:::"The conventional system is more favoured by editors' and publishers' rules. But there are important exceptions, and it is to be hoped that these will make their influence felt. The conventional system flouts common sense, and it is not easy for the plain man to see what merit it is supposed to have to outweigh that defect; even the more pleasing appearance claimed for it is not likely to go unquestioned." (A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, Second Edition, H.W. Fowler, revised and edited by Sir Ernest Gowers (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965).
How prescient is that? My point is not that conventional punctuation should be adopted, but that we shouldn't insult those who disagree. The Chicago Manual of Style calls for conventional punctuation: "When the context calls for a comma at the end of material enclosed in quotation marks, parentheses, or brackets, the comma should be placed inside the quotation marks but outside the parentheses or brackets" (13th edition, page 146). The Careful Writer by Theodore M. Bernstein does not appear to deal with the question explicitly but uses conventional punctuation throughout. So those of us who advocated conventional punctuation are doing so based on solid editing and publishing ground. I'm interested in seeing sources that call explicitly for logical punctuation. I don't know of any myself, and in fact have never seen it widely used, which is why Wikipedia's use of it baffles me. Maybe in some countries it is the norm. It is not in the United States. — InkQuill 00:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: InkQuill, please see the archives of this talk page for copious debates, some of them quite recent. Tony (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do we have to go back their? That's why editors kept discussing on this for this guideline is not yet over. Why don't you go over on this Tony: "Smells Like Teen Spirit." --BritandBeyonce (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Research on conventional vs. logical punctuation

message: We have finalised a reasonable shortlist of options for the hard space. You can register your vote now! Just click HERE.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 03:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opportunity to vote now

message: HI. Please, I am having a little "dispute" (not really a dispute, because the editor involved is very courteous) regarding the use of Native American or Indian in William Cooley. Native American has been used in the past and changed to Indian during article reviews, now the editor wants to use Native American. I do not have any preference for one or other, I just could not find what is the MOS recommendation.--Legionarius (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In Canada, the term "First Nations people" is also used. In the US, "Indians" was unpopular for a long time, but now many Native Americans are working to reclaim the word, and refer to themselves as Indians. There is even a bit of folk etymology that says that "Indian" comes from en diós, meaning "with God", because the Spanish supposedly found the native inhabitants to be spiritual and blessed (but see this.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. So either way can be used in Wikipedia?--Legionarius (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the point I was making is that there's little agreement, and it tends to be controversial.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Indian doesn't bother me, but I can't speak for the whole Cherokee Nation.  —MJCdetroit (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, this has been discussed(look for "massacre")... it is called massacre in the article for historical purposes. Anyway, I think we are deviating from the point here. Looks like there is nothing against or pro "Indians" in the MOS. In this case, I think it can stay like it is; important as the question is, I do not think this article is the stage it should be discussed. This article is just a biography of the life of William Cooley, nothing else. --Legionarius (talk) 04:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The latest APA style guideline on Unbiased language - Racial and Ethnic Identity, says "American Indian and Native American are both accepted terms for referring to indigenous peoples of North America, although Native Americans is a broader designation because the U.S. government includes Hawaiians and Samoans in this category. There are close to 450 Native groups, and authors are encouraged to name the participants' specific groups."(p.68) Which to me would mean specifying Seminoles or whatever specific group Cooley was interacting with, although either of the preferred terms would work in the broader sense.- Optigan13 (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hawaiians and Samoans, really? News to me. I would have thought the "American" in "Native American" referred to the Americas, not to the United States of America--the "native" part refers to ancestry rather than to the individual (otherwise I'm a native American), and in the era from which the ancestry is being considered, the United States didn't exist. And for the benefit of the geographically challenged, neither the Hawaiian Islands nor Samoa is in the Americas. Though I do admit I don't have an alternative suggestion for "peoples indigenous to lands currently making up the territory and possessions of the United States", which I suppose must be what the USG is getting at here. --Trovatore (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah really. When the census bureau refers to Native American they would be referring to territorial distinctions. I believe areas designated as Hawaiian and Samoan homelands have similar legal protections/restrictions as areas designated as American Indian reservations.  So the US territory and possessions is in fact the distinction there. In terms of defining race the census bureau uses "American Indian and Alaska Native alone" and "Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone". I had always understood Native American to refer to the indigenous people of North America, and Samoans and Hawaiians would be part of what is sometimes referred to as the Asian and Pacific Islander (API) group. In the article being referred to here either of the broad terms would work. -Optigan13 (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind that Yupik (Eskimos) and Aleuts are indigenous to the Americas, are also indigenous to areas now part of the US, and are not Indians.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Sensible suggestion. In this particular article, a bit complicated, since it was a mix of different tribes (mostly Seminoles, though).--Legionarius (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indians or Native Americans? 

message: There is discussion here about improved markup for the hard space (non-breaking space, non-break space,  , etc.). Some of us are working towards an important proposal for this essential element in good editing, which escapes attention because spaces are invisible. See some of the earlier discussion above.
Editors still have the opportunity to vote for their preferred markup for the hard space. But voting ends soon: about 24 hours from the time of this posting, at 00:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Markup for hard space: voting ends soon! 

message: The hard-space working group has voted on preferred markup. See the results and join the discussion HERE. All editors are welcome, of course. The page has been trimmed and archived. Get oriented by reading at the top. The current agenda item is highlighted in yellow.
These discussions and votes do not aim at "official" status, but they will feed into a big proposal that we will make to the whole Wikipedia community.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 08:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard space: results of the vote on preferred markup 

message: Would like to see something on the Wikipedia MOS page on good Wikipedia practice re specific demonyms and toponyms, as these are frequently troublesome and indeed, frequently contentious. (I see various past and ongoing discussions on these issues here on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.)
(Or please point me to this info if it's on the page and I've somehow missed it.)
For that matter, IMHO page should also have a link in the main text to Wikipedia:Citizenship and nationality, as these issues are also a frequent cause of edit wars. 
-- Writtenonsand (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Demonym]]s / [[Toponym]]s / [[Wikipedia:Citizenship and nationality]]