Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 44

message: Should there be any rule regarding linking to London, Ontario, Canada versus London, Ontario, Canada?  Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Location Format. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-09 10:27Z
:The latter.
:*The current guidelines at WP:MOS-L say: "For example, "Rome, Italy" rather than "Rome, Italy", and...."
:*The current guidelines at WP:CONTEXT say: "Go for the more specific reference.  Instead of linking individual words, e.g. Latin phrases, consider linking the more detailed concept: Latin phrases."
::--William Allen Simpson 03:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location wikilinks 

message: The italics section has become pretty big. Anyone else think it should become its own topic?
It should be Wikipedia:Manual of Style (italics). I am going to move it and leave a summary at main MoS page. It can always be reverted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Italics

message: Suggested rules:
*ALL CAPS should not be used for emphasis
*Bold should not be used for emphasis 
*"Quotation marks" should not be used for emphasis but to show that the exact word used is correct
*Italics should be used sparingly for emphasis
Should we standardize on bold or italics for emphasis or have a laissez-faire attitude?
--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Emphasis -> italics. PizzaMargherita 18:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I vote for italics. Ground Zero | t 18:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emphasis 

message: ;Support
#weak support — note the use of bold — and italics — given that this MoS frequently describes differences between regional usage, and advises to leave them alone! --William Allen Simpson 22:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the MoS be enforceable? 

message: ;Support
#Support for only the reason that I don't see why it shouldn't.  Just like WP won't ever be finished doesn't mean we shouldn't give it (WP & MoS) a go and see how complete it gets.  I guess I support because I don't want the opposite to happen: stuff not added for fear of making it complete. Cburnett 00:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the MoS be a complete style guide? 

message: Does the Manual of Style say anything about the use of imperatives in articles?  For example, the article earwax states:
:Never irrigate the ear if the eardrum is not known to be intact, because irrigation with a ruptured eardrum may cause ear infection or acoustic trauma.  Never irrigate if the ears have burning, bleeding, pus discharge, or pain, without calling a doctor first. Never irrigate the ear with a jet irrigator designed for cleaning teeth (such as a WaterPik) because the force of the irrigation may damage the eardrum.
All those "Never" statements seem to amount to medical advice and imply that Wikipedia is the authority telling the reader what not to do.  I believe they should be restated in a non-imperative form, such as "It is advised never to irrigate the ear if the eardrum is not known to be intact."   However it seems it would be difficult to read if all those statements were rephrased in that way.
I would like to hear your suggestions about this. Is it necessary to explicitly proscribe the use of imperatives in articles?  In my opinion, they should be avoided in most cases. --Dforest 16:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This comes under the spirit, if not the letter, of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Avoid_the_second_person. Markyour words 10:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of imperatives