Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 56

message: Wikipedia:Guide to writing about U.S. state highways --SPUI (T - C) 01:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed guide for writing about and linking to U.S. state highways

message: Hello every-body! (Dr Nick). I put an idea on the village pump - really just to play devil's advocate - and after several days the idea has morphed to the idea of assessing new articles - especially those about people (which are often  vanity articles) and giving them (in the case of 'keep' - as so many are borderline) a rating or icon at the top which will say 'notable' or 'not-notable'. This could be non-erasable and applied by an admin somehow. They could be amended to 'notable' later after the appropriate discussion. I know this is not really 'style' but it would help give users an immediate idea of whether something's worth reading or not or purely of local or specailised interest. Comments?? Lgh 04:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's a good idea; there's a reason there's a full AfD process to be followed in the event that an article topic doesn't seem to be notable. And I'm not sure "notable" implies "worth reading" to most people; I'll grant that Green Day is notable, for example, but I've no plans to read their article. Ruakh 15:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability icon at the top of articles? 

message: Kaldari and I are having a little debate about how periods are to be used in captions. As this would be a change of the current MoS standard, I thought it would be a good idea to drop everyone a line here. Plus our attempts at starting some sort of discussion have failed miserably; we posted our arguments five days ago, and nobody has responded...
If people could weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Captions#Using periods, that'd be swell. Thanks! EVula 21:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption period discussion 

message: If the caption is a single sentence or a sentence fragment, it does not get a period at the end.
: Why?? — Omegatron 21:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sentence-fragment part should be obvious — it’s not a sentence. The full-sentence part is not unheard of when it’s just one sentence. De stilis domorum non est disputandum. --Rob Kennedy 00:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captions 

message: I don't know if this is covered somewhere already (I would guess that it is, but I haven't found it), but I have a  question about converting units.  If an article needs to reference multiple sources, and these sources use different units of measure, such as cubic feet per hour vs. cubic meters per hour, should the article report facts in these varying units, or should all these measures be converted to the same units.  If the article reports in a single unit, that makes things easier for the average reader, but makes it harder for someone who wishes to verify the article against the references.  On the other hand, reporting in different units, makes the article more confusing for the average reader, but it becomes easier to verify assertions against the references.  Any help, thoughts, suggestions, places to look for guidelines, would be appreciated.  --BostonMA 14:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The general convention is to use the number as in the reference, and add the standard unit of measure in parentheses or, within a direct quote, in brackets. For all I know, some subjects might do it differently. DGG 04:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is covered elsewhere (esp. here).  As I write there I think the best thing would be it put the source value first with a conversion in parentheses/brackets or put the metric value (where appropriate) first with other units in brackets and a footnote alerting the reader that the bracketed value is the source value if this is the case. --Jimp 01:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Converting Units of Measure 

message: We should add something about the writing style of Wikipedia - be clear and brief (like news style)... ··gracefool |☺ 05:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that describing an ideal article's style as "clear" is sort of obvious, while describing it as "brief" is somewhat deceptive, as we actually aim for comprehensiveness, rather than artificial brefity.  In any case, only parts of news style are applicable, and primarily to the structure of the lead section rather than the article as a whole; once we get past the lead, the bulk of an article's text can be written in any number of organizational styles (e.g. chronological narrative, thematic, etc.) that aren't really "news style" in any meaningful way. Kirill Lokshin 05:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  News style 

message: The IBM 1401 article contains the following markup:
:
A 1401 Restoration Project is in process at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, California, complete with the old "false floor" of the mainframe era, used to hide cabling.
which produces the following:
:A 1401 Restoration Project is in process at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, California, complete with the old "false floor" of the mainframe era, used to hide cabling.
:::.........lots of vertical space .......
:1. 
While it could be improved by moving the ref to follow 'Project", what happens is that the reader encounters "A 1401 Restoration Project ... and the ref, the reader knows only that there is some sort of additional information.  The reader can choose to interrupt reading, click the refence number, and learn there is an external link, only to then click to return to the original text.  A lot to do, an interruption, only to learn there is an external link. This is a common occurance, and with the internet seemingly growing without bound, can only occur more and more often.  
The Wikipedia external link can be used in a way that better meets reader needs, as follows:
:
A 1401 Restoration Project is in process at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, California, complete with the old "false floor" of the mainframe era, used to hide cabling.
which produces the following
:A 1401 Restoration Project is in process at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, California, complete with the old "false floor" of the mainframe era, used to hide cabling.
Now, the reader knows immediately -- no footnote number, no click, no scan of noted text, no back click -- that an external link for the Restoration Project is available.  But Wikipedia editors have been trained to reject such external links (at least those editors that I have encountered!).  
Would you please make this an accepted style, it provides the best service to the reader!  Indeed it should be the preferred style when the link is exact to what is being referenced. 
Thanks tooold 06:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion a full citation should always be provided, in a footnote.  The reference should be something like  instead, producing "".  That way, if the site goes down in the future, etc., there will be some reference information that could help interested people track down the info.  If only a link is provided, then yeah, there's no point in a footnote, but more than a link should be provided. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, Rwwww, but I strongly disagree. This would be an absolute invitation to linkspammers. It also often conceals the fact that we have or need an article on the linked topic. - Jmabel | Talk 17:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, the purpose of that link is not just to provide an external link to the given project. The link is there to provide a citation to back up the facts stated in that sentence. And that’s why the <ref> should go at the end of the sentence, too. It’s not simply asserting the existence of the project; it’s talking about where the project is being developed and what sort of floor it has. A simple link doesn’t accomplish that. --Rob Kennedy 06:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Is "No mass moving of pages" an appropriate section for a MOS subpage? There is currently one on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (U.S. state highways). --SPUI (T - C) 18:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see what it has to do with style -- niether with regard to highways nor in general. It looks more like a topic to be covered at Wikipedia:Move. --Rob Kennedy 22:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's merely a more specific (and necessarily more pointed) version of the "Disputes over style issues" section here.  Kirill Lokshin 22:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Rob in that it doesn't belong here. Sometimes, mass moving is acceptable and benefits the articles; if it isn't, it falls under vandalism, which is outside the scope for the Manual of Style. EVula 22:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that this is something of a special case. Kirill Lokshin 22:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Why are you bringing this here, rather than discussing this at the talk page? Is this "venue-shopping"? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections