Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 86

message: I didn't get any reply at MOS:CL, so I thought I'd bring this up here. Should RIAA certifications for albums such as the "P" in "Platinum" or "G" in "Gold" be capitalised (e.g. 2x platinum or 2x Platinum)? It's an adjective (which means it shouldn't be capitalised) but at the same time, the RIAA capitalise it, so it's also a trademark. If we treat it as a trademark, then it should be capitalised per WP:MOSTM. Spellcast 05:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe capitalization is the way to go here, via your reasoning.  — The Storm Surfer 01:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many organisations capitalise erroneously in their publicity material. Unless it actually IS a registered trademark, or there is precedent in professionally-edited publications for capping these terms, I think we should stick to lower-case. Barnabypage 12:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php says: "The RIAA® also certifies Gold®, Platinum®, Multi-Platinum™, and Diamond sales awards". So yes, it does qualify as a trademark and should thus be capitalised. Spellcast 19:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Barnabypage 19:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Additionally, this is a proper name for a specific award.  They aren't certifying the record element 79.  — The Storm Surfer 00:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RIAA certifications

message: Wikipedia articles contain an enormous number of lines that begin with, "It is believed...", or "It is thought...", or "It has been said...". Who is this mysterious IT? I am no grammarian, but passive wording like that changes the nature of what is being communicated because such wording is intended to be accepted at face value.
I could decide that I think the sky is lime green. I could then write a sentence in the Sky article that accurately states, "It is believed that Earth's sky is lime green." However, this does not mean that the sky is green. Such a statement only means that somebody (could be 90% of the world's sighted people, could be just me) thinks that the sky is green.
I think the manual of style should call for logical, clear structure that informs the reader just who it is that thinks this, believes that, or said such and such.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.171.248 (talk • contribs) 07:59, July 7, 2007
:This belongs in the usage section, which I believe is ripe for expansion. But we'll need to be very cautious in doing so, because it will be easy to be accused of imposing one usage over others. Suggestions for inserting subsections should probably be raised here first for a week or so, to gather feedback and consensus. Tony 00:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And just as many articles contain phrases like "Critics contend..." or "Researchers claim...". The passive voice does not exist so people can make vague attributions; it exists to allow constructions where the subject is the semantic patient. Discouraging the passive voice is as ridiculous as discouraging the active voice.Strad 06:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might take a look at Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words and Wikipedia:Words to avoid.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 13:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I strongly agree with Strad. Andre (talk) 07:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Passive Voice and Vague Attribution

message: Per discussion above, I have merged the only content that was in MOSDASH but not here, and then redirected MOSDASH to here.  The article on dash is much better than what used to be in MOSDASH, actually. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you hit the MOSDASH link in the box at the top of MOS, it still takes you there. Tony 01:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I must have missed that.  If you didn't actually click the link, try doing that and see if you get redirected back to the right section here.   If the link should be deleted, I'll do that instead. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if the page doesn't exist, functionally, it should be deleted. Are you quite sure that all unique info has been retained in dash article or here at MOS? If so, remove the link from the box here and put a speedy delete notice at the top of the MOSDASH article. I suppose that it would be proper to announce your intentions on the talk page of MOSDASH for a ?week? I can't imagine anyone will object—it's such a bombsite and there's the messy duplication of information as is. This is the first step towards a properly organised hyphen and dash article in addition to what we now have here on MOS. Tony 01:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll remove the link from  which is the box on this page. There has been an announcement on this page for a long time, so I think anyone who was following the pages would have noticed what was going on.  The article on dash looks better than what was in MOSDASH, and the style guidelines have been rewritten here and MOSDASH was lagging behind them.  Rather than deleting the MOSDASH article, I have made it redirect to the proper section of this article. That has the benefit of preserving the edit history there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I just happened to go to WP:MOSDASH a few minutes ago, and for reasons I can't begin to guess I am redirected to the top of MOS rather than the relevant section.  Hopefully someone can figure this out? — The Storm Surfer 03:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's odd - contents of the redirect are right  and when I just tried it it worked. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly is odd.  I tried it in Opera 9.20 Mac OS X and Firefox 2.0.0.4 Mac OS X, and it worked, so it must be some sort of Safari 2.0.4 Mac OS X bug or sensitivity.  Even more strangely, if I go to  and click on the redirect link, that works like a charm.  Oh well, curious, but not of great importance.  — The Storm Surfer 18:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The support of anchors in redirects is a relatively recent feature, and apparently still buggy.  It's not a surprise that the link works correctly when click on directly, and not a surprise that the two-step method of getting to the page anchor via redirect fails on some browsers. Dicklyon 18:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dashes 

message: "The en dash was the traditional typographic symbol for this operator, but now that unicode defines a character for this specific use, the minus is preferred, except in fonts where it is too short. In contexts such as code, where the text is intended to be copied and executed or evaluated, the ordinary hyphen works better and is preferred."
Issues:
**"operator" and subsequent singular number—it's two roles, isn't it? Operator and negative sign.
**Why introduce the complication of fonts? Doesn't WP use just one font? Likewise, what exactly is "code", and do WPians normally use it in their contributions to WP?
Thanks for the edits, by the way. Tony 06:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome.  I think both the unary operator and the binary operator are the same use, same glyph, same mathematical symbol and meaning, and both can be conveniently referred to as operators.  But if you'd like to treat them as distinct, feel free.  Fonts are not chosen by wikipedia, I think. I'm not sure what the problem is, but in my browser the minus comes out as short as the hyphen for any fonts that I've chosen; so my comment is probably moot, or wrong, or irrelevant.  There is a tag for code that makes text look like this:  3 - 2 = 1; it uses monospaced fonts, which don't have such a narrow hyphen, and is used where computer code is displayed. Dicklyon 16:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: My guess would be that the fact that there can be drawn a distinction between the two roles is being overlooked here.  Doesn't WP use just one font? ... Go to "my preferences", go to "skin", click on some of the previews.  No, not only one, but I still wouldn't bother introducing this.  Code here would be refering to the type of stuff you find at m:Help:Calculation (which I'd mentioned to you, Tony) and it is used (it's very useful in templates).  However, it is possible to keep the hyphens within the code and convert to minuses for display (I might just write the template if it doesn't already exist). Jɪmp 16:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think it's a pity that the text has bloated in a way that isn't going to help your average WPian. Tony 13:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So be bold, and prune back to just what is useful, if you like. Dicklyon 15:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a technical dummy, so I need consensus among you people to do so. What's the disadvantage of removing the font/code stuff? Can't it be in the dash article? Tony 17:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took out my font clause; the rest I think is OK, but I'll entertain edits by others.  I think the code comment is more useful than the previous weasel words about "many scientists insist" or something like that, which was really about code. Dicklyon 18:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New edits to en dash section 

message: I noticed that some MoS pages like Wikipedia:When to use tables and Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections are not even mentioned or linked to from this main MoS page. Shouldn't they at least have an entry? heqs ·:. 03:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tables and trivia 

message: In starting the job of overhauling this important submanual, I've realised that the main MOS is absolutely silent on numbers and dates. This is inconsistent with other aspects of style in which the information in submanuals is summarised in the main article. Apart from this inconsistency, there are two disadvantages in this situation: (1) there's nowhere in the main text here that links to the submanual; (2) it looks to the casual observer as though WP doesn't care about numbers and dates; and (3) style WRT numbers and dates doesn't fall under centralised scrutiny as a fully integrated part of style policy.
I suggest that as part of the process of overhauling MOSNUM, we arrive at a summary and post it here for feedback. Is that a good idea? Tony 09:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MOSNUM: structural issue 

message: "This page is part of the Manual of Style, and is considered a guideline for Wikipedia."
I thought that was funny, since this artice IS the MOS. Shouldn't it be "This is (not "is part of") the Manual of Style, and is considered a guideline for Wikipedia."? --PostScript (info/talk/contribs) 11:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit:'I am aware that, we use the same template throughout the various pages of the MOS, where it is justified to use that template. However, we ARE writing about the MOS, so shouldn't we use proper grammar? --PostScript (info/talk/contribs) 11:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that this page, like those pages, are only part of the manual of style.  And I don't see your improper grammar. — The Storm Surfer 00:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header 

message: A somewhat off-topic request, but a formatting and style question.  What should be the standard for italicizing foreign terms, especially in songs?  Foreign terms in common usage should not be italicized, and several style guides suggest that only "phrases" or "unfamiliar terms" should be italicized, but that would leave lots of room for inconsistency.  The country infoboxes and the articles on the anthems themselves vary wildly on this topic, as do sources on the Internet.  La Marseillaise, "La Marseillaise," and La Marseillaise have all been seen; and if italicizing for being a foreign word is correct, "La Marseillaise" may well actually be the correct form, despite appearing practically nowhere.  I was thinking of editing in something approaching a standard at least for country infoboxes...  but I've seen absolutely no response at all on talk pages for a while now, and I'd be nervous about such an undertaking without input.  Since I am no expert on the subject, I'm coming to a more heavily trafficked talk page, since going to the more specific Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Foreign Books didn't get any responses.  Anyway, input at Template talk:Infobox Country#Anthems: Italicized, quoted, or nothing? would be appreciated. SnowFire 17:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Foreign was meant in the sense of "foreign language" which is the same thing. SnowFire 17:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics and foreign titles