Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 38

message: The other issue is noted on the talk page as well: ideally, in-line external links should be treated as references, and many pages do in fact do so. This does however currently have a drawback with simple external links, as it forces a reader to first visit the 'references'-section; and only then can ve follow the actual link. It has been suggested that it would be useful to somehow remove this redundant step, possibly by adding two links in each reference ([3][*], for example). One link would lead to the footnotes section, while the other links directly to the external site. 
Alternatively, references that contain only an external link (there is only an external link within the -tags) could be formatted differently (like this 3, for example), and could lead directly to the external site, while still displaying the reference in the references section  as well, though without a convenient link to that section. 
The logic being that a reader hardly ever cares to go to the footnotes section if the footnote of interest is merely a link, but that a reader might still be interested in a list of references used by the page.
There hasn't really been a lot of discussion regarding this specific point, and it isn't really a priority. Any input is of course welcome. -- Ec5618 01:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. I had seen that discussion on Ævar's talk page and my eyes had glazed over about midway through :-) I think I get the idea now. I have to say, I think the ideas suggested so far sound confusing for the end reader. I appreciate the problem, but I'm not positive "two clicks" isn't still the best solution. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of me agrees with you, and I agree that no existing proposal could be implemented without change. However, consider the consequences of using the current system in an article such as Intelligent falling; articles which contain references, but as external links exclusively. Using the ref-tag to format these references would result in a less intuitive and more conplicated layout. Currently these links are formatted as external links () which is, in my opinion, not a good thing. Ideally, external links should in some way be marked as such (by the ref-tag, for example), so that they can be properly formatted. This would also allow us to list all references in an article using the tag. -- Ec5618 15:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually do think intelligent falling would be better served by footnotes linking to the external sites with a more human-readable name than the raw URL.  But then, dogmatic adherence to that belief is what got SEWilco in trouble  , so I know opinions differ. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited Intelligent falling, as you suggested, and I'm inclined to agree that the fully fleshed out references are far superior to bland links. The links should probably be formatter differently though (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)). Still, if the external reference is quoted to some extent, the user shouldn't need to visit the external page. -- Ec5618 12:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Please see Wikipedia:Root page for info on this proposed policy.
I've actually listed it on MfD since I feel it is instruction/confusion creep. A discussion is also on going at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Root pages.... Thanks/wangi 01:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Root pages

message: I prefer headings with only first letter capitalized (except for proper nouns, etc.), as does the current Manual of Style. For example, "External links" should be used instead of "External Links". However, I've increasingly come across capitalized headings. For a while I started "correcting" them to conform to MoS, but I gave up as I kept coming across too many. (It's strange, whenever I find a particular pet peeve on Wikipedia, I'm confronted with it more and more...) So I'm wondering if this MoS guideline should stay as-is or not, and what I should do when I come across the nonstandard capitalization. - furrykef (Talk at me) 01:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, found discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (headings). - furrykef (Talk at me) 02:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalized headings 

message: According to both Skrunk & White's Elements of Style (http://orwell.ru/library/others/style/e/estyle_1.htm) and the Chicago Manual of Style s always follows the apostrophe after a name. In other words, it's
# Rawls's not Rawls'
# Dawkins's not Dawkins'
# Jones's not Jones'
# Charles's not Charles'
Given that the error of omitting the s is so common I was wondering if anyone would object particularly strongly if I include a section on possessives? Mikkerpikker 15:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never heard this before, and I don't think I like it. In fact, I don't believe this is an error at all. I have never seen such spelling, and much prefer the less bothersome way. More to the point, even if these sources suggest adding an s, they refer only to American English spelling. A section on style should probably not be limited to a single form of English. -- Ec5618 16:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure about it being an American convention, reputable publications in South Africa (where I'm from) such as the Mail & Guardian use the prescribed form of possessives, as does Britain's The Economist (and its sister publication, Financial Times). Maybe this is an example of only seeing what you want to see, but in my experience reputable publications and publishers always use the form I'm advocating. Besides, aren't The Elements of Style and the Chicago Manual of Style regarded as canonical throughout the English speaking world? (I may be wrong, but I always thought they were) Mikkerpikker 16:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Associated Press style is to omit the second "s" on possessives from proper nouns ending in an "s." -- Mwalcoff 16:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: FWIW, the UK Guardian's style guide says, "The possessive in words and names ending in s normally takes an apostrophe followed by a second s (Jones's, James's), but be guided by pronunciation and use the plural apostrophe where it helps: Mephistopheles' rather than Mephistopheles's".  Mark1 18:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've clearly raised a dead issue then... sorry, Mikkerpikker 16:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. It's quite a common occurance here since it's not humanly possible for anyone to actually read all the archives. Kaldari 16:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possessives after a name 

message: I was taught that quotation marks were always outside punctuation, even if the words were "quoted" for emphasis.  For example, 
:My son told me my hairstyle looks "fat," whatever that means.
:If something is quoted for "emphasis," I feel the comma goes inside the closing quotation mark.
This goes against what I now read as wikipedia "style."  Am I out in left field?  I was about to change some of the many examples I'm running across, but, apparently, I have been "out voted."  Or, is it because of my American grammar text?  JJ 22:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Americans (for the most part) still follow the outdated typographic quoting style that was replaced by "logical quoting" during the 1940s and 50s (everywhere except in the US). Wikipedia uses logical quoting. Kaldari 23:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm old, but I'm not that old!  I asked, and received no reply, for Kaldari to define "logical quoting."  Can anyone do this?  JJ 23:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too was taught that quotes are to go outside of punctuation, but this has always seemed very illogical to me. So I assume Kaldari means: be logical, quotes should only surround what they mean to emphasize. I'm happy to move this American "style" to a more logical one. - Marshman 00:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotation marks around emphasized words

message: There is a discussion and poll at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Disambiguation subcategories. We are discussion the future of separate disambig subcategories (e.g. TLAdisambig, geodis, ...), or if everything should just be tagged with . Thanks/wangi 22:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: --William Allen Simpson 15:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation subcategories and template poll 

message: "Commonwealth English uses capitals more widely than American English does." says the MoS.  I don't think I agree, "creeping capitlisation" seems more prevelaqnt in US text than UK text. Rich   Farmbrough. 18:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitals for positions

message: For many, many months there has been a  on the "look of quotation marks" section, but no corresponding section on the talk page that the template links to.  Yes, I know there's a Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Quotation marks and apostrophes), but it's had little activity in the past few months and weeks, and yet the dispute tag remains.
Let me be clear: I do not want to discuss the issue of straight versus curly quotes right here.  Go back to that subpage for that.  What I do want to discuss is:
# It appears that on 26 September  modified this MoS to change the exhortation to use straight quotes into a statement that no consensus exists.  I have scrutinized the page history of this page and the subpage fairly carefully, and can find no reason that, on or about 26 September, one might surmise that a consensus to change this section to say no consensus had emerged.  Lacking a new consensus, status quo ante, which was to forbid curly quotes, should apply, so I would appreciate a pointer to what, if anything, happened on 26 September to allow this section to change.
# At some point, it seems to me that this section needs to stop being disputed, especially if it's going to be stable.  It was stable for over a year with the straight quote exhortation, and now it's been stable for over three months with the no consensus statement, but the dispute tag has survived.  Can a section be "permanently disputed"?
Please don't change the heading of this section — it's what the tag points at, and it's false advertising to have a link inviting readers to discuss "there" when there's no "there" there :-) --TreyHarris 22:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed