Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 6

message: * Wikipedia talk:Establish context
* Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization)
* Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dashes)
* Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style--Archive Directory
* Because this page is so long, I have moved the archives list to the archive directory. Maurreen 17:12, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: See also

message: Because the word "period" is apparently offensive to some people, why don't we compromise on that issue somehow, and restore the differences concerning:
*"U.S."
*Fowler's good guidelines
*serial comma
:Maurreen 16:41, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The amendments to the first and third are a compromise, and they aren't enormous changes either. You seem to object to deletion of the phrase "we prefer it that way", which isn't necessary, and does not correspond with the poll results which showed half of those responding don't prefer it that way. Quite what's wrong with removing the opinion that Burchfield's guidelines are "good", I don't know. Readers can decide for themselves on Burchfield (personally I think some of what he writes is good, some bad). Finally, whether it is relevant or not, I do not know, but there appears to be a clear US/non-US divide here. I would ask US contributors to recognise this and not to try the "US has more English speakers than the rest of the world" argument to force a US POV. jguk 20:13, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: References to numbers for American English were made in response to Zoney's suggestion that it is a minority dialect. Maurreen 16:38, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise?

message: Because this page is so long, and because the discussion is continued below, does anyone mind if this section is archived? Maurreen 17:17, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This section is effectively the start of a larger section comprising Jguk's changes, Neutrality,  RfC, Fowler, Period, Serial comma and "U.S.". I would like to continue the "U.S." discussion a bit unless you feel it has been accepted that the whole "U.S." policy should be removed. This is because I can't understand how having "U.S." makes it easier to search for things, particularly in the light of comments already made there. I have no objection to the remainder of the discussions are archived en masse. However, in the light of your query under "Serial comma" and my response thereto, I would oppose archiving the "Jguk changes" section without archiving those other sections. jguk 19:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive?

message: A few people here have made comments more or less that they don't see what the big deal is. I can empathize with them to a degree. But in my view, an overblown discussion is at least better than edit wars or revert wars, for one example. I hope this comes across the right way; I mean it only as explanation. Maurreen 07:55, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Much ado about nothing

message: The rules in this Manual of Style are not set down as permanent, fixed rules. They do not discuss every scenario that you will come across and must therefore be applied with elasticity. As both Wikipedia and English usage continue to develop, these rules will also change with time
I happen to dislike the CMS's quote, personally, since "rock-ribbed law" has also the implications of hoary, old, and hidebound as well. I do not think this quote should be changed lightly, however. As a possible alternative (unlikely to earn jguk's approval however) may I suggest the final introductroy paragraph of Strunk's Elements of style?
:It is an old observation that the best writers sometimes disregard the rules of rhetoric. When they do so, however, the reader will usually find in the sentence some compensating merit, attained at the cost of the violation. Unless he is certain of doing as well, he will probably do best to follow the rules. After he has learned, by their guidance, to write plain English adequate for everyday uses, let him look, for the secrets of style, to the study of the masters of literature.
(or better yet, rule #13 [now #17]: Use no unnecessary words.) - Amgine 18:33, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I think we should have Wikipedia's own version of the paragraph. There's no real reason why we shouldn't. Perhaps you could either comment on my suggestion, or come up with your own? jguk 22:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Amgine's rule #1: Be brief. (tongue in cheek, of course) - Amgine 22:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested rephrasing (please suggest other options below)

message: Jguk, because your preference for what you call "neutral language" appears to be at the heart of much of what you do, why don't you have that discussion?
This is not a rhetorical question. I'd really like to know. Maurreen 11:49, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Neutrality"

message: Because we are so closely divided, I am listing this at WP:RFC.
The disagreements concern:
#The quote at the beginning of style guide.
#Fowler's "good" guidelines.
#The expressions "period" and "full stop."
#The serial comma.
#"U.S."
Along the lines Jallan has suggested, I am breaking up the discussion. Maurreen 17:28, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: It appears that jguk is the only person who supports removing the word "good" from the following: "This is the British style. (Fowler has good guidelines for this." 
Does anyone else agree with jguk on this issue? Maurreen 17:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, 4 people agreed with all the changes I made (see above). Only 3 people, including yourself, have so far disagreed with this change. jguk 22:35, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: But do they still agree?  If so, why do they agree? This is discussion, not a poll.Again, jguk's removal of the word "good" doesn't make the statement more netural, only less idiomatic. In its context, a sudden note that Fowler discusses the matter implies that Fowler's discussion is "good" just as strongly as inserting the word, otherwise why mention that at all. What is the understood intention of either version in mentioning Fowler in particular as a reference, and as a "good" reference whether or not the word "good" appears? Surely to indicate a place where the reader can go for more information ... even though that is not explicitly stated as its intention. Fowler's discussion is only arguably better than that of other books discussing logical punctuation with quotations. I don't think it is better on worse than others I have seen or have at hand. The reason why the passage mentions Fowler rather than other books is probably 1) because logical punctuation is usually poorly discussed in style guides recommending the alternate method and so it is worthwhile to indicate a particular source or particular sources, 2) because Fowler is later given special status as one of the sources which one should consult when the MoS regulations fail and the only one of those to cover this decently, 3) and because the Burchfield Fowler discussion is far more complete than that in the MoS, and may help in edge cases. I would recommend replacing good with fuller (which indicates precisely the kind of goodness) were it not that the Robert Allen pocket Fowler, the most easily found edition, has reduced the particular discussion to a point where it is very little longer than the discussion in the MoS. Accordingly, either note that the Burchfield Fowler has substantially fuller information, or that this is covered in Fowler and many other British English style guides. Either gives the reader the idea of where they can look for more information. Jallan 23:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jallan. Maurreen 07:01, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarifying where we stand

message: If the issue is a matter of potentially not understanding the word "period", I'm sure there must be a smoother way to solve the problem. For example, why not use both "period" and "full stop" the first time, and link further instances of the word "period" to further explanation? Maurreen 07:32, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is to some degree an issue of understanding too - the word "period" is never used on this side of the Atlantic to refer to a full stop. So conceiveably anyone who is perfectly literate in English but not familiar with American practice would just have to discern its meaning from the context. Now the meaning is fairly clear from the context, but it's quite offensive to insist on non-US readers being forced to "translate" from US English - particularly in an important document such as this. zoney ♣ talk 12:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  On two occasions I have randomly polled the non-U.S. contributors in the IRC as to "period" and "full-stop"; all have understood the period to be equivalent to full-stop, the New Zealanders in particular couldn't decide which was more common in their schooling, but felt the full-stop was probably a bit more widely understood. In comparison, almost none of the Canadian or united staters understood full-stop. Thus the doctrine of least harm would suggest full-stop is likely to cause more confusion than the use of period. - Amgine 02:53, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarifying "period"

message: Does anyone besides jguk agree with the change made about serial commas, as shown in the beginning of this section? Maurreen 17:14, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, 4 people agreed with all the changes I made (see above). Only 3 people, including yourself, have so far disagreed with the change about Oxford commas. jguk 19:26, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I would be happy with the changed text, except that it leaves open the possibility that a bold editor will just change the policy, unchecked by supporting citations. On the other hand, adding a selected set of references just seems to foment argument, so perhaps that's a wash. I think User:Jallan's subpages for references (with accompanying Talk pages) and jguk's suggestion of a subarticle on this frequently contested topic are worth considering. (That wasn't very clarifying, was it? ☺) — Jeff Q 20:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: When a conjunction joins the last two elements in a series of three or more elements, a comma should be used before the conjunction to prevent the last two elements from being confused as a unit. For example: 'The wires were brown, blue, and green'. (This is recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style and other authorative sources.)
As an aside, the argument about confusion only makes sense since this rule exists. Other languages, such as Dutch and Swedish, do never use a comma in such constructions. Moreover, based on the argument, you would also need to place a comma if there are only two elements. -- Han-Kwang (talk) 21:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: The two-element case does not apply, as the rule (no matter which version you follow) specifically states "three or more". English style guides typically reinforce this by explicitly pointing out that there are no commas when the word "and" occurs between each parallel term in the series (e.g., "red and blue and green"). But this isn't really the place to debate serial/Oxford comma usage, just its MoS phrasing. — Jeff Q 22:02, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Then ditch the remark about confusion and write: When a conjunction joins the last two elements in a series of three or more elements, a comma should be used before the conjunction. For example: 'The wires were brown, blue, and green'. (This is recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style and other authorative sources.)
By the way, I don't feel that this whole discussion is such an important issue, but I strolled in through the RfC page  -- Han-Kwang (talk) 22:47, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Because jguk's change essentially had two elements (removing the references and weakening the style), I'd like to find out where we stand on each of those. Maurreen 07:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarifying where we stand

message: I prefer not to weaken the style, mainly because jguk has provided insufficient justification, in my view. Maurreen 07:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comma weakening

message: * Wikipedia talk:Establish context
* Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization)
* Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dashes)
* Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style--Archive Directory
* Because this page is so long, I have moved the archives list to the archive directory. Maurreen 17:12, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: See also

message: Archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style archive (spelling 3). Maurreen 10:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to remove ''consistent synonym'' recommendation.

message: At Talk:Ampersand, User:66.32.255.51 wrote:
:Has anyone talked about when to use  and  and when to use  &  in Wikipedia??
I replied:
:I think, in general, "and" should be used unless the ampersand is part of a work's proper name (for example, Dungeons & Dragons or Beyond Good & Evil (video game)).  I've brought the question up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.
Is there any previous discussion on when or if ampersands should be used instead of "and" in article text or titles?  -Sean Curtin 02:09, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
:::I don't recall seeing such a discussion in the archives. And I agree with your usage. Maurreen 02:16, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ampersand 

message: I would like to add the following under the section titled Italics: That foreign words always be italicized (not quoted, bold, etc.) Sean Kelly 05:51, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's needed. Maurreen 06:04, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I just had a colleague told that Chicago (or maybe it was another university press house style—I haven't personally verified it in CMOS) states that a foreign word used repeatedly is only italicized on the first occurrence, unless its sense would be lost otherwise (e.g., Fr. colon, in reference to a person of European blood born and resident in a colony, which is a somewhat different meaning from the English word).  When ambiguity would result, however, italics should always be used.  —Tkinias 20:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If the word is in another alphabet (for example, Greek), it should, of course, never be italicized just because it's in a foreign language. Transliterations, though, should be in italics. (Always? Or is a transliteration the same as any other foreign word?) -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:25, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: That sounds right.  My proposal wasn't so much to make italics manditory, but rather to prevent unnecessary bolding and quotation marks.  Sean Kelly 10:41, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal up for quick vote: italics

message: Does anyone mind if discussion of the following is moved to a separate page?
#The quote at the beginning of style guide.
#Fowler's "good" guidelines.
#The expressions "period" and "full stop."
#The serial comma.
#"U.S."
:Maurreen 06:20, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved all of the discussion related to the above toWikipedia talk:Manual of Style (jguk's changes). Maurreen 07:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Page split?

message: I have filed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment about jguk's behavior. Maurreen 09:56, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC No. 2

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (titles)#Classical music titles for my explanation of the accepted style for classical music titles. — Flamurai 01:53, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Flamurai. That is an excellent and concise guideline which I much appreciate. - Amgine 04:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical music titles 

message: Archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style archive (spelling 3). Maurreen 10:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to remove ''consistent synonym'' recommendation.

message: I would like to add the following under the section titled Italics: That foreign words always be italicized (not quoted, bold, etc.) Sean Kelly 05:51, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's needed. Maurreen 06:04, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I just had a colleague told that Chicago (or maybe it was another university press house style—I haven't personally verified it in CMOS) states that a foreign word used repeatedly is only italicized on the first occurrence, unless its sense would be lost otherwise (e.g., Fr. colon, in reference to a person of European blood born and resident in a colony, which is a somewhat different meaning from the English word).  When ambiguity would result, however, italics should always be used.  —Tkinias 20:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If the word is in another alphabet (for example, Greek), it should, of course, never be italicized just because it's in a foreign language. Transliterations, though, should be in italics. (Always? Or is a transliteration the same as any other foreign word?) -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:25, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: That sounds right.  My proposal wasn't so much to make italics manditory, but rather to prevent unnecessary bolding and quotation marks.  Sean Kelly 10:41, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal up for quick vote: italics

message: Does anyone mind if discussion of the following is moved to a separate page?
#The quote at the beginning of style guide.
#Fowler's "good" guidelines.
#The expressions "period" and "full stop."
#The serial comma.
#"U.S."
:Maurreen 06:20, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved all of the discussion related to the above toWikipedia talk:Manual of Style (jguk's changes). Maurreen 07:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Page split?

message: I have filed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment about jguk's behavior. Maurreen 09:56, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC No. 2

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (titles)#Classical music titles for my explanation of the accepted style for classical music titles. — Flamurai 01:53, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Flamurai. That is an excellent and concise guideline which I much appreciate. - Amgine 04:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical music titles 

message: In case anyone is interested, I wanted to let you know that I have reopened the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (jguk's changes). Maurreen 06:57, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that other Wikipedians would prefer this sleeping dog to lie. jguk 22:19, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't take my occasional silences for complacency or disinterest. I was off the 'Net for a week or so (including the brief Request for comments period on these changes). Now that I'm back, I'm rather weary of seeing people deliberately misconstrue each others' arguments which are already largely based on personal opinions and anecdotal experiences. Since I'm not getting sufficient action on my call for authoritative sources, I'm slowly working on my own research on leading authoritative sources in the various dialects of English. I expect it will take me at least another month, maybe significantly more. (American sources are relatively easy; British, Canadian, et al. are more challenging from my location. But I'd rather do it right than quickly.) If I find that the constant repetition of opinions, unscientific, biased polls, Google searches, and general bickering still haven't produced adequate research on global English publishing practices by then, I'll publish my results. Where and if warranted by the multi-national results, moderated by Wikipedia philosophy, I'm liable to do some jguk-style major editing and page moving, then challenge everyone to prove me wrong for doing so. Editing the Manual of Style and its associated elements should not be done as casually as it's been for the past few months, and I plan to raise the level of this debate even if it kills me. ☺ — Jeff Q 04:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Jguk's changes

message: What do you say about a section advocating the usage of the non-breakable space? Cases I would start with are:
# Separating the initials from a name, or other cases distinguishing an abbreviation ending from the end-of-sentence period, as in B.N. Delaunay
# Preventing a stand-alone (before a comma or a period) numeral or short acronym/abbreviation carried over to a new line
# em-dash tying, as with the "Tom and Jerry" example in the Sections:Introduction in the article
Please add more.
BACbKA 22:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advocating <nowiki>&amp;nbsp;</nowiki> 

message: I don't wish to get back into a revert war, but I do have some queries regarding Maurreen's latest changes. I'd be grateful if she would answer them: jguk 15:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with jguk on this: it's harmless to say "period (full stop)", and, to a portion of the world, it's a useful clarification. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:38, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
"but I do agree with the deletion, as it seems silly to keep on saying period/full stop. Everyone knows what a period is. While we shouldn't assume readers of this page are linguists, we also shouldn't assume they're stupid."  Slim 09:40, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC) So if I replace every instance of period with full stop, as everyone knows what a full stop is, and while we shouldn't assume readers of this page are linguists, we also shouldn't assume they're stupid, you will not object? Did you read Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (jguk's changes)#Period? Philip Baird Shearer 11:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: No! ... whilst WP editors may be aware that a period in typographical terms is usually known as a  full stop by many, that would be a very US-centric approach to take for our users. Around the English-speaking world both terms are used (and, probably, both can be mis-understood!) so it would *not* be harmless to drop either in favour of the other. We shouldn't assume people are stupid, but we shouldn't assume that their primary language is US English either. --Vamp:Willow 12:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: This is one of those cases that is right on the cusp between two policies, and we simply ought to adopt one consistently. It seems to me entirely appropriate that we adopt the dominant spelling from the country that the name designates. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:41, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
===Maurreen's response===
I have copied the comments and questions from jguk and Jmabel to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (jguk's changes), and I answered jguk there.
Jguk has suggested on my talk page that he and I "not re-address the issue for a while, and let other Wikipedians add their commments." I am willing to do that. Maurreen 19:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Some questions regarding Maurreen's changes

message: A large number of Wikipedians, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was most, do not use the Oxford comma. This is not surprising. It tends to not be used by those outside North America, and tends to be used in North America. But both using and not using the Oxford comma are permitted by all forms of standard English.  Commonsense would be to keep the de facto status quo of not preferring one permitted form of English over another. My queries to Maurreen, who wishes to require Wikipedians to use the Oxford comma, are: 1. Why? 2. Is she proposing that copyediting Wikipedians should actively hunt out instances where the Oxford comma is not used (which, I'd guess, number in the tens of thousands)? jguk 15:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Oxford comma

message: Assuming Maurreen recognises that not everyone understands the usage of the word "period" as a punctuation mark, what does Maurreen have against clarifying the word for British and Irish users. Maybe we could try "period (full stop)" if Maurreen does not like the British/Irish English word to go first? jguk 15:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with jguk on this: it's harmless to say "period (full stop)", and, to a portion of the world, it's a useful clarification. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:38, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
"but I do agree with the deletion, as it seems silly to keep on saying period/full stop. Everyone knows what a period is. While we shouldn't assume readers of this page are linguists, we also shouldn't assume they're stupid."  Slim 09:40, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC) So if I replace every instance of period with full stop, as everyone knows what a full stop is, and while we shouldn't assume readers of this page are linguists, we also shouldn't assume they're stupid, you will not object? Did you read Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (jguk's changes)#Period? Philip Baird Shearer 11:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: No! ... whilst WP editors may be aware that a period in typographical terms is usually known as a  full stop by many, that would be a very US-centric approach to take for our users. Around the English-speaking world both terms are used (and, probably, both can be mis-understood!) so it would *not* be harmless to drop either in favour of the other. We shouldn't assume people are stupid, but we shouldn't assume that their primary language is US English either. --Vamp:Willow 12:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing the clarification of "full stop (period)" to "period"

message: I have copied the comments and questions from jguk and Jmabel to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (jguk's changes), and I answered jguk there.
Jguk has suggested on my talk page that he and I "not re-address the issue for a while, and let other Wikipedians add their commments." I am willing to do that. Maurreen 19:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Maurreen's response

message: We need guidelines about equations. Some people are treating equations in articles as the continuation of the sentence even though they are on a different line (embedded math tags look really bad), which leads to a comma or period at the end of the equation. I feel this is confusing to the reader, who wonders where the dropped multiplication operand is...
My suggestion is to write equations stand-alone and introduce them mostly through colons. Do not treat them as part of the sentence. I did not want to start a fruitless edit war, so I looked here for guidelines. And found zilch.
Comments?
Urhixidur 03:18, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
:I agree at least generally having equations stand alone and introducing them through colons. But I'm not sure we need to add it. Maybe whoever is writing it differently just hadn't thought of another way. Maurreen 05:11, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equations