Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 4

message: Triskaideka, I'm not clear on what you mean by "terms in common usage." 
Is this better?
:Directions and regions: 
::Directions are not capitalized. Do capitalize regions that are proper nouns, include widely known expressions such as "Southern California," and their related forms. 
::But whether a region has attained proper-noun status can be a gray area. Use an appropriate reference if needed. Use lowercase when in doubt.
Maurreen 04:34, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft 2?

message: I want to comment on the formatting of lists of inline translations of words. Compare this, from the preceding topic:
:Three French words with related meanings are maison 'house', domaine 'estate, property', and château 'castle'.
with this from the following topic on this page:
:...englisch transcription for Bulgarian (Bulgarisch), Macedonian (Mazedonisch), Russian (Russisch), Serbian  (Serbisch), and Ukrainian (Ukrainisch).
The latter--parens instead of quotes without dividing punctuation--is much easier to scan, read, comprehend than the former, and that's the form I've been changing things to as I have found them.  For example, History of the Scots language was almost unreadable until parens were used.  Elf | Talk 15:52, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good idea – should be policy, although I'm not sure how often it pops up. Derrick Coetzee 02:49, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think such a policy is needed. For one thing, I doubt it's a common problem. Maurreen 04:38, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Inline lists of translated words

message: I'm sure I saw a comment a while ago that several users who can just about read Cyrillic find the italicised forms difficult (as some of the italicised forms aren't immediately obviously the same character as their non-italicised forms). Naturally, now I want to re-read it, I can't find it, nor can I find anything in the Manual of Style.
I'd like to propose that we create a policy thus:
: When transliterating Cyrillic words, the Cyrillic should not be italicised, but the Roman alphabet transliteration should be. Ideally, a translation into English should follow.
A possible addition might include a guide on how to iotised and palatised characters, such as Ч (Che), Ш (Sha), Щ (Shcha), Я (Ya) and Ё (Yo). (Personally I'd suggest a háček on the core consonant(s) — so č, š, šč — and a letter Y before a vowel — ya, yo).
Opinions? :o) — OwenBlacker 21:46, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
:There are pretty complete tables on de.wikipedia at :de:Kyrillisches Alphabet, I assume you can make sense out of the tables even when not speaking German. They give a) scientific transliteration (with ISO variants where applicable) and b) german and c) englisch transcription for Bulgarian (Bulgarisch), Macedonian (Mazedonisch), Russian (Russisch), Serbian  (Serbisch), and Ukrainian (Ukrainisch). Pjacobi 23:06, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See also http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/rom1_ru.pdf -- Pjacobi 15:15, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Transliteration]] of [[Cyrillic]] 

message: Because the discussion on gender neutrality for pronouns has died out, I'm going to remove the link to the discussion from the style guide. Maurreen 14:04, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronouns

message: Moved from Village pump. Reuben 18:30, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Considered incorrect by who? And why should be listen to them? I would avoid these constructions not because they're wrong, but because they're a little bit informal, colloquial, and awkward. Also, they're a little too wishy-washy. But wrong? I think not. Nohat 08:43, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: One example is the New York Times, which puts considerable effort into its formal and traditional style.  As I understand it, that's an important component of the encyclopedic style that Wikipedia aims for.  Whether to talk about things being incorrect or just informal, colloquial, and awkward is more a question of philosophy than style.  Careful U.S. sources seem to avoid using "somewhat" as a pronoun.  What I'm wondering is whether this carries over to other parts of the English-speaking world.  I have changed "somewhat" to "something" in a few articles, but will revert those edits if they are not appropriate.  If the point of style I was applying is U.S.-only, then I certainly would not want to impose it on somebody else's text when copy editing. Reuben 09:27, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Nohat. "Somewhat" is wishy-washy, but not wrong. Nor is it a U.S. taste. The New York Times style guide has no entry for it. And the "something of" construction is not familiar to me. Maurreen 16:56, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?  I don't have access to the NYT style guide, but I have always known them to avoid "somewhat of a."  A quick check on their usage, from Google: "somewhat of a" (a few hits, mostly in direct quotes), "something of a" (very many hits).  Thanks for looking it up in their style guide.  Also, is there a better place in the Wikipedia to ask for comments on style?  Thanks. Reuben 17:20, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Maurreen 17:39, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure that we should be using 'somewhat' or 'something of a...' at all in these contexts in an encyclopaedia. Surely Wikipedia should say exactly how much or how far a fact is correct or incorrect. It's one thing for a newspaper to use this kind of style, because they often want to introduce an attitude or a comment on previously discussed items whereas we but it's another thing in an encyclopaedia. In Wikipedia we should be discussing items pared down to facts. Dieter Simon 22:29, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Somewhat of a..."

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)
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 practicle 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)
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 such a descriptive style guide? Hyacinth 03:07, 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)
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)
replies: text: Or, the question is: Are style guides prescriptive by definition? Maurreen 03:34, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reformatting

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)

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: I object to this poll. The person who started it didn’t even sign the proposal. This proposed change in policy has had no previous discussion, let alone a serious effort at consensus.
Further, the poll does not list the option of leaving the policy as is.
See  Wikipedia:How to create policy, which includes changing current policy. It includes the following:
*Consult widely.
*Do not rush.
Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines says: "Wikipedia policy is formulated for the most part by consensus. This consensus may be reached through open debate over difficult questions, or it may simply develop as a result of established practice."
Wikipedia:Survey guidelines says:
"Wikipedia is not a democracy. In general decisions are made by consensus (see consensus decision making) rather than a strict majority rule. However, on occasion it is useful to take a survey of opinions on some issue, as an aid to achieving consensus and an indication of which options have the most support. ... Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process."
Maurreen 06:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Objection to poll

message: :#RickK 20:46, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC).  Brit-centric.  RickK 20:46, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
:# Jmabel | Talk 21:30, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
:#Aranel ("Sarah") 22:26, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: # Violations of the policy could be fixed across all articles with a SQL query and a single dedicated editor. Use of "US" seriously damages the ability of a case-insensitive search engine (as most are) to locate the word, as well as not meeting the general convention used in the U.S. itself. To use the same form for UK and US also implies some strong analogy or relationship between them which does not exist. Deco 00:16, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: #Nunh-huh 01:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose Proposal 1

message: :I would support allowing authors to choose whichever style sounds better if clarity is not an issue, but as the serial comma has actual utility and the alternate style is just some people's preference, I'd rather see our policy favor the serial comma a little more strongly than this proposal does. Perhaps it could say that the serial comma is the "default" style, or the one that should be used when there is any doubt. I think a style guide should say something definite that people can refer to in an argument. —Triskaideka 21:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem saying that the serial comma (or Oxford comma, to give it its technical term) should be used when there is any doubt. The proposal is about dropping the obligation to use the Oxford comma and (possibly) replacing it with a more general requirement to make sure lists are unambiguous. (The replacement wording clearly needs some work, and proposed amendments of it are welcome.) jguk 21:22, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

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