Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 2

message: Sometime back there was a discussion on the village pump on these issues :
# whether "See also" can use links already mentioned in the page. There are scenarios where duplicating links are helpful.
# what is the difference between "See also" and "Related pages" ? This page makes no attempt at distinguishing them.
There was no consensus and I'd think they're still open. Should the discussions be copied to over to here ? They're currently at Wikipedia:Village_pump/January_2004_archive_3#Wikipedia_guide_to_the_See_also_lists
Jay 14:13, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ''See also'' discussion on Village Pump

message: :OK, we've tried to add NPOV description of the various dashes that does the following:
*Briefly describes the standard usage for the various dash types. (For detailed descriptions, there's a reference to Dash (punctuation).)  
*Shows the special markup that's valid for each type of dash and also identifies how to represent each using the hyphen key on the keyboard. (Note that I don't have final info on whether someone implemented an automated tool that changes groups of hyphens to something else.)
*Gives a  nod to the fact that there might be technical issues involved in using the special markup.
Elf 17:17, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above. But I must strongly oppose the use of (--) for en dashes or (---) for em dashes. -- for en dash is absolutely wrong as it is far too long, and -- for em dash is wrong because in all computer fonts I know of they do not connect, and thus instead of providing the "long dash" which it should (as the practice does on old-style typewriters) it gives an ugly series of characters. — Jor (Darkelf) 22:18, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Current status

message: This is really minor, but if you're interested, I'm looking for input on "copyediting" vs "copy editing" vs "copy editor"; see Talk:Copy editing. Elf 18:02, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyediting article

message: For picture alignment in article, Docu said that for pictures where the person is facing right, they should be left aligned. I totally disagree. To me, regardless of which way the person is facing, the picture should be right aligned. So let me make a proposal - that we horizontally invert pictures where the person is facing the to the right (so that they are now facing left) and we put them on the right side of the article. Does that sound good? →Raul654 09:17, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
:I'd prefer if the photos are not edited too much. Next thing, some may want to change the background to match one of the stylesheets. Maybe we should simply drop the part on alignment. -- User:Docu
::I'd prefer dropping the part on alignment. It makes more sense for a picture at the very top of the article to be on the right--has to do with people reading from left to right--but I don't feel that it's something we need to mandate.  Certainly don't want to mandate its position by its content.  I understand that the human eye is drawn subconsiously in the direction of a person or animal's gaze, but I wouldn't want to have to put all the right-facing dog breed tables on the left side of the articles while the others are on the right.  And I really don't like the idea of flipping photos; this distorts reality in some way that we might not even be able to anticipate (e.g., someone doing a study of how often photos are taken of people facing the right rather than the left--I dunno--)  Elf | Talk 16:01, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with a policy of always right-aligning pictures.  The option to use a variety of alignment of images is used effectively in many articles.  Sometimes I've used borders to get a pleasing text wrap. - Bevo 18:22, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I said that I agree with requiring left-facing photos to be right aligned. I said I understood why that's appealing. I *did* say that I don't think we should mandate the alignment of images based on their content. If a particular project wants to mandate that a certain thing always goes right/left at the top of the article (again, like dog projects have the dog breed table on the right), that's fine, but otherwise I disagree with mandating any alignment.  Elf | Talk 19:09, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture Alignment

message: *Sexuality
Avoid homosexuality and thus heterosexuality, use alternatives such as gay/lesbian/bisexual/straight/same-sex/different-sex. Avoid the use of queer (or any term) as being most inclusive.
:What is this about? homosexuality and heterosexuality are the proper medical/biological terms, the rest of the above are pop-culture/alt-culture jargon. I don't hear the word gay used any more often than fag, and both are POV. Homosexual and heterosexual are the precise, clinical terms, regardless of what is seen on "queer eye for the straight guy". Sam Spade 19:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that they're medical/biological terms, and thus carry the implication of being a pathology instead of an identity. Snowspinner 19:36, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I think the ruling of the APA is pretty much solid when talking about this issue - I've put the passage back in, with an added citation of the APA guide. Snowspinner 20:02, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you bother to read that link? "Because no universal agreement exists on terminology, and because language and culture continually change, the ideas in this article should be considered helpful suggestions rather than rigid rules." And even if it were describing "rigid rules", who says the APA dictates wikipedia content? I find the APA  to be generally wrong, and I'm a psyche major ;) Sam Spade 20:13, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've consulted MLA, Chicago, and APA guidance on this - APA guidance is cited by MLA in terms of unbiased language, whereas Chicago remains silent on the usage. Regardless, there is clear precedent for using external styleguides to determine the style guide for Wikipedia. Unless you can find a current style guide that argues for heterosexual and homosexual as the preferred words, I think APA pretty much stands, and a poll is unnecessary. Snowspinner 20:29, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I refer you to the following quote from the article: "If you are faced with a fine point, please use other resources, such as The Chicago Manual of Style (from the University of Chicago Press) or Fowler's Modern English Usage (from the Oxford University Press)." The APA is one of the most-cited publication guides, with many disciplines requiring its usage. And the most recent APA Publication Manual does say not to use those terms. I think that's pretty much definitive. This is not an issue of disagreeing with the APA, but with accepted style for an academic discipline. If we don't use widely accepted style guides, what would we use? Snowspinner 20:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

text: FWIW, straight is a disambiguation page that points to heterosexual.  The problem with the neologisms goes beyond gay.  Smerdis of Tlön 20:59, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It should probably be changed to straight (sexual orientation) or something along those lines. Snowspinner 21:00, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

text: If one has a problem with the APA one could also consult the The Guardian style guide the Newswatch Diversity Style Guide and I imagine other sources, and they would all suggest one should not use homosexual. Hyacinth 21:38, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

text: As a note, the quote referenced about guidelines, at least in the APA manual I have in front of me, applies to three guidelines earlier in the chapter than the section on sexual orientation. The sexual orientation section is part of the same larger section on biased language, but it is not one of the three guidelines marked - the APA is clear that the preferred usage is not homosexual or homosexuality. Based on Hyacinth's production of two further styleguides, I'm putting the section back in until some source indicating a reason for deletion is actually provided beyond one person's personal experience. Snowspinner 21:49, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I think you refer to them as having had gay male experiences, as having preferred men, etc. i.e. you simply describe their behavior instead of ascribing an identity to them. Snowspinner 03:27, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I find a poll unnecessary. I added the sexuality section April 6th (at the latest, I can't figure out revision histories) and there were no objections until you decided to cut. Thus you are the only one who disputes the guideline, and you have provided only one reason with no references, sources, or documentation. However, you are right to point out that &;quot;no universal agreement exists on terminology, and...language and culture continually change." I suggest the guideline indicates that pluralism is necessary and beneficial as being more neutral. Hyacinth 22:56, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think a poll is necessary, but in the short term finding a better rewording will have to suffice. Something that makes it clear there is a diversity of opinion on the subject would do nicely. Sam Spade 23:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from article 

message: I suggest a poll on this matter, one which specifically outlines style guidelines for the wikipedia sexuality project. Sam Spade 20:16, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I find a poll unnecessary. I added the sexuality section April 6th (at the latest, I can't figure out revision histories) and there were no objections until you decided to cut. Thus you are the only one who disputes the guideline, and you have provided only one reason with no references, sources, or documentation. However, you are right to point out that &;quot;no universal agreement exists on terminology, and...language and culture continually change." I suggest the guideline indicates that pluralism is necessary and beneficial as being more neutral. Hyacinth 22:56, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think a poll is necessary, but in the short term finding a better rewording will have to suffice. Something that makes it clear there is a diversity of opinion on the subject would do nicely. Sam Spade 23:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: Yikes Sam, did you call the APA gay? Hyacinth 22:46, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he called them homosexual. Remember, there's a difference. ;) Snowspinner 22:48, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL... you guys got a laugh out of me on that one, I will admit :) Sam Spade 23:32, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: APA gay?

message: Is there a way to remove underlining from links?  The reason I want to do this is because the underlining can be confused as part of a Chinese character if the character appears in a link.  See Chinese family name.  ☞spencer195 00:02, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Check your preferences Dysprosia 02:30, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Anyway to remove underlining?

message: style ain't really my thing - but just checked this page for the "correct" style for adding a scientific reference... eg Lancet 2004;363:1747,1757-1763. is there such a style recomendation? if so it should really be on this page shouldn't it? (i could link to the online version but you need to pay - so seems a bit pointless) Erich 03:04, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it seems like that hsould be here. I think we should make the references as complete as possible (including article names) and link to public-access databases such as PubMed when possible. AdamRetchless 20:05, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: scientific references

message: Did I miss the the statement on this? For quotation marks, I've found the recommendation toward straight ones.
What about the apostrophe?  Pjacobi 20:13, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  U+0027 versus U+2019 for apostrophe? 

message: I looked high and low for a recommendation on referring to printed matter. I wound up finding some articles with a style that looked plausible and went with that for the article in question. Here's a first attempt at a recommendation (I thought it better to put it up for discussion here rather than just drop it in):
:To refer to a book or magazines in your article, start a new level-2 heading at the bottom of the article titled "Further Reading", followed by a list of publications. Books in the list should have the following format:
:*Author/Editor Name, Book Title (Publisher, City) 
:Magazines in the list should have the following format:
:*Author Name, "Article Title" Periodical Title edition # (Date): pages X-Y; ISSN 12345678
Points to resolve:
* Is "Further Reading" the best title for this section?
* Should there be a preferred order of appearance of outside-reading sections (external links, related articles in wikipedia, etc)
adamrice 18:53, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. That covers similar (though not the same) ground I'm trying to get at. Perhaps the '"See also" and "Related topics"' section of the style manual could be expanded a bit...? adamrice 20:25, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommended style for book references 

message: I just did a search and could find no information on syntax highlighting for source code on wikipedia. It's the strangest thing that I don't seem to have found a clear guideline on it, perhaps I missed it someplace.
There's 3 ways of looking at syn highlighting (if it hasn't been mentioned yet):
* Syntax highlighting is evil, and should be avoided. (about 10% of the world population of programmers feels this way I estimate)
* Syntax highlighting drastically improves code readability, and should be done by default (the other 90% ;-) )
To avoid a holy war here, perhaps a middle road anyway:
* Syntax highlighting would be very useful in articles about syntax and syntax highlighting in any case. In other cases limited highlighting might be used to make much clearer which parts of the code are more important or most relevant to the discussion.
Right now sometimes people have made painstaking efforts to syntax highlight stuff in the clearest possible way, only to have it reverted out a little later.
Kim Bruning 22:27, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syntax highlighting for source code 

message: I think that ther eshould be a standard of english for every article regardless of topic. It should be American English because it was started in America and the servers are hosted there too. Anyway, whatever the standard, it should be used.
Perhaps bots could automatically change words to the standard for example colour to color.
:Don't be a dickhead.  And eef ze servers were 'osted een France we would 'av to write like zees?  Wikipedia should be in standard English, but since there are huge numbers of Americans here, it'll always have to be a mixture of standard and American English.  That's not going to change.  Sorry, "gonna".   — Chameleon My page/My talk 10:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no such thing as "standard" English.  Each system is just as correct as the other. Mr. Grinch 17:14, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Or alternatively, it should be in American English, but the Brits get all pissy when you try to step on their illogical spelling system. — Meelar (talk) 13:12, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: All English spelling systems are illogical. *shrug*. Who cares? We cope. Using both systems of spelling reflects both the diversity of contributors and the nature of wikidom. As someone who loves language and cares deeply about how it is used, I'm baffled by the energy expended over inconsequential trivia (British vs. American spelling, the Oxford comma, singular 'they') rather than the things which really matter - like clarity, precision, concision, wit, and the avoidance of Latinate circumlocution. — Harry R 14:27, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I still don't understand why there's a problem with the current system. It's a global encyclopedia which reflects the diversity of global usage. That seems reasonable enough to me. Personally I couldn't actually spell if I had to use American English, which would be a pain in the arse, but generally - it ain't broke. Don't fix it. — Harry R 10:02, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't think we should adopt any suprerior spelling systems. — Nunh-huh 22:14, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I think we should adopt a logical system based on patterns of binary digits, just like computers. Ianb 22:26, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Speaking as an "American" (more precisely, a U.S. citizen), I strongly suspect that most people who argue for American English spelling believe there is a single standard which can be deterministically followed by conscientious editors and/or bots. This is a myth. We've all been taught "standard" English rules in school, but you'll find that, if you compare notes between regions, such rules don't necessarily jibe. What's more, when you get out into the real world, professional writers have their own disagreements about exactly how to compose text, including spellings and punctuation. Anyone who has actually read the oft-referenced Chicago Manual of Style will recall seeing many passages that mention general practices, guidelines, and preferences which are frequently not followed by respected publishers. Many times the CMoS takes the trouble to point out that its publisher, the University of Chicago Press, recommends a practice that is in variance with others. If our professional editors aren't even agreement with what is "American English", how can we Americans impose anything on the rest of the world, regardless of rationale? Rodney King's plea ("Can't we all just get along?") remains the wisest course in the face of such conflict. — Jeff Q 22:21, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. I wish all the poeple complaining about speelling would expend as much effffort with they're own spelling befour they complain about otherz. ☺ — Jeff Q 22:27, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100%.  Check your own spelling before you complain about others.  If we add any bots anytime soon, please add a spellchecking system to the editor. Mr. Grinch 17:14, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Irony --zippedmartin 19:36, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Re Jiang's comment on the superiority of American spelling - actually most of the planet thinks that calling American spelling 'American English' is simply a way of covering up the fact that Americans can't spell (or in the case of Bush, can't speak. His latest garbled attempt at communication is being played on radio and tv stations worldwide for the last thirty-six hours and people are laughing their heads off at it. Jeez, and this amadan (Irish for fool) is US president)!!! :p Seriously though, American English, is a non starter as a standard for wikipedia. This is an international encyclopaedia, not an American one. If someone Americans wants to go off and launch their own encyclopaedia with their own standard of english, that's fine. But as internationally many people baulk at American spelling (which they see as a form of linguistic imperialism), just as they baulk at the American mm/dd/yy dating standard. A decision by wikipedia to adopt American English would be sending the message that wikipedia is the world's American encyclopaedia. The current solution, that each side tolerate each other's spellings works adequately (even if people in Ireland have to restrain themselves from turning every annoying ize to ise and get a migraine when they see paycheck for pay cheque or fetus for foetus! :-) FearÉIREANN 19:26, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Bots anyone?

message: Marshman added this to the section on uniformity of spelling within an article. I removed it because talk is a better place for it →Raul654 17:20, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
: Note: This idea is naive and impractical. It comes from the concept of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia like any other that is published and produced as a book. Wikipedia is a hypertext document subject to constant change; the concept of an "article" as a fixed feature written by one person and read from top to bottom by a user is, in fact, incompatible with the general purposes and best features of Wikipedia. Consequently, either Wikipedia rules support multiple English spellings or they do not. It is impossible to avoid "jarring" a reader except by making it a rule that only one form of English is acceptable. Oddly, this rule assumes writers are above being jarred, as it requires, for example, British contributers to use only American spellings in any article first started by an American and vice versa.)
:I might agree with you if there is anyone paying attention to this discussion page. However, the "Rules" are not fixed for all to follow blindly, but are merely suggestions. Therefore, it seems that the best way to better define a "Rule" is to modify it where it is presented. Of course, if I thought it was  a stupid rule, I could just replace it or erase it. I did not do that because all points of view need to be presented. I do not see this rule "changing", but thought needs to be given to its application,. I provided that thought. - Marshman 17:29, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed section

message: This manual, under words as words, says that when one writes about a word rather than using the word to write about what it refers to, it should be italicized.  That convention is often followed in publishing.  Thus:
* Bishop is derived from a Greek word.
(with italics), and
* John Smith is the Bishop of Wherever.
(without italics).
Usually it's better to begin an article by writing about the thing rather than the word, thus:
* A dog is an animal that barks.
but sometimes one should write about the word, especially if there's a need to clarify divergent meanings, or clear up confusion about the word, or to say that the word is offensive, etc., thus:
* Dog is a term that, when used by omphalogic veterinarians, does not mean the same thing as when used by lay persons.
Thus sometimes it is appropriate that the first appearance of the title word, which should of course be bolded, is also an instance of writing about the word rather than about the thing the word refers to, so that it should be italicized.  For example, in Oriental Orthodoxy, it once said something to this general effect:
* Oriental Orthodoxy is a confusing term, because oriental means eastern, but Oriental Orthodoxy differs from Eastern Orthodoxy.
So I deleted the statement that one should use bold italics only for terms that are always italicized.  It contradicts the "words as words" section. Michael Hardy 00:33, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the sentence you deleted applied only to the convention of bolding the title in the first sentence--I think the point was that in that specific context you should only use bold italic if the word or phrase would normally be italicized, such as the titles of books, or names of songs. I think the direction is appropriate. older≠wiser 01:09, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And now I've altered the sentence so that it says what you thought it meant.  Now it does not contradict the advice given in the later section.  And now it makes sense. Michael Hardy 00:58, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What a clever trick! I've changed it back to what it was. Your special case is not a justification - David Gerard 18:28, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: This manual gave contradictory advice about italics

message: Are there any guidelines advising on when two articles should be merged together, or one article broken into multiple ones? I didn't find anything in the manual of style or elsewhere adamrice 21:29, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno where you'd put it ... two articles should be merged when they're really about the same thing, or when a bunch of very short articles really should be sections of a longer article and work that way pretty much as-is. Articles tend to be split, or at least made into a summary of more detailed articles, when they hit 32 kilobytes - which is a technical limit, but seems to work quite well as an editorial one - David Gerard 13:23, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I vaguely remember something somewhere - but opinions are all over the place, for instance on whether a game sequel should have its own article.  Different areas tend to have different consensuses too; wikiprojects often document what there is for agreed standards for their areas. Stan 17:38, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  guidelines for article splitting/merging/refactoring..?