Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 47

message: It is quite common to have arguments in the text of a page. Examples include parapsychology and solipsism, both of which have extensive debates in their article text. Is there a guideline for how to deal with this kind of "for and against" text, and where the line is between encyclopedic documentation of lack of consensus and message board? I've been pushing (in the articles that I see this happen to) to get each objection or argument properly cited, and "responses" limited to a sentence or two with another citation. Even that's a hard standard to get people to meet, though. If I could point them to a style guideline that clarifies Wikipedia's position, that would really help. -Harmil 21:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments 

message: Though it may be obvious in the context of articles, news articles and other such items could really benefit from a universal way to distinguish between the many currencies that use the $ dollar sign.  I'm proposing templates..  would display  before an item and the $ sign links to United States dollar.
Example: 8,060,000
Another commonly used unit is the australian dollar.. 
Example: 5,000
There is a list of currencies that use the $ dollar sign in this article.. Canadian dollars are also commonly used.  drumguy8800 - speak? 06:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I don't know why the AU/US and the $ are overlapping.. it works fine in the preview.  If this is considered, someone who can mess with the coding can look into it..? drumguy8800 - speak? 07:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to say it, but I think this is a horrible idea.  Templates are horrible things, and templates to compensate for bad writing are particularly horrible.   Much better to write the article properly in the first place and prevent confusion that way. Markyour words 21:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What's wrong with: If it's ambiguous, specify US$ or use the ISO code (USD). PizzaMargherita 23:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinguishing currencies 

message: It has recently come to my attention that some articles use a comma between a person's name and suffix and others do not. For example, Martin Luther King, Jr. and William Strunk Jr. I (nor a few other people who have discussed the issue with me) have not found any guideline on Wikipedia, but I have noticed that, while commas historically have often been used, it seems that the pedulum is swinging the other way again.
Logically, they should not be used, since even though, for example, there are three MLKs, they are three people. Therefore, following comma rules, Jr./Sr. is much more restrictive (no commas) than non-restictive (commas) becuase it's determining the person. Additionally, many people forget that, when a comma is used, a comma must follow: [Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote "I Have a Dream."] is incorect, while [Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote "I Have a Dream."] is better, since it correctly uses commas.
Furthermore, both the Chicago Manual of Style and Strunk and White's Elements of Style (and probably others, but I just checked these two becuase of issues of time and access) support not using commas.
Therefore, I would like to propose that a style guideline be created stating not use commas with suffixes based on the support from major/popular manuals of style and on the appeal of logic/comma rules). //MrD9 00:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second your proposal.  It's good to have consistancy and the non-use of commas seem more logical. Jimp 01:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Ugh, British English... I totally forgot about this (btw, the "ugh" is not due to British English, it's due to my lack of remembering this difference between Britsh/US usage). I do not know what to say, since I havent seen any WP (or other) names ever written without the period in Jr/Sr, but that's because I'm from the US and chance has it I haven't stumbled across any. There are probably others who are better aware of this issue (and the whole Brit/Amer English policies in general) who could better answer, but my logical guess would be that the period could be used in names that tie with Britsh English-speaking countries, while the opposite with the US? Regardless, though, I still think we have to standardize the comma usage (rather, a lack of comma usage), and hoepfulyl someone can comment on the period/nonperiod issue with a good solution. //MrD9 02:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree - we have no right or need to alter people's names. Use what they used. For many that will be with a comma. Like "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.". There is no need to impose a false consistency. Rmhermen 03:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I seriously doubt that most articles are written by the people they are about. Therefore, the article titles are most likely commaed or not based on the author's preferences, and to people unaware of the style issues regarding them, they will most likely use a comma becuase it is what has been used up until recent years. While still used widely today, like I said, the lack of a comma is growing and becoming more preferable due to the logic behind it. //MrD9 00:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Mr., Mrs., Dr., etc. only lack a period in British punctuation. To North American readers, it looks wrong. Felicity4711 03:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not, though. It's most likely there due to the gramatically illogical use of it by most people in the past. Your last name is still your last name; your first, your first; your middle, your middle; and your suffix, if you have one, your suffix. The last names you mentioned are official (or are used as if they were official, in some cases). They are their last names. But junior/senior are suffixes, and it depends on the writer's style to determine the punctuation with it. For example, the U.S. government varies between use of "Martin Luther King Jr." and "Martin Luther King, Jr." when talking about the national holiday, his national memorials, documents, and various other topics (I googled it before). And in a regular enecylopedia, the usage would be standardized, so why should it not be standardized here (preferably without the comma, as it is becoming more preferred, is logical, and looks better). //MrD9 03:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Birth certificates are also issued by many different agencies in many different places, so by their very nature they are going to be (and are) inconsistent, since people in different places, even if there are standardized rules in one office, are going to create different standard styles for their documents (or if there are no standards, then there's even less consistency. //MrD9 03:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe that without a comma is more logical, nor that suffixes are not part of a legal name. Whatever is on the certificate is the name. Rmhermen 00:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense.  In the United States, typopgraphy and orthography and even spelling on some birth certificate has little or nothing to do with it.  What you use is what matters, and even then, the presence or absence of a comma has no legal significance and no real bearing on whether or not we include it here.  Gene Nygaard 06:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia.  There are plenty of people indexed by names other than their birth names.  Certainly a suffix can be (and almost always is) part of a legal name; my interpretation of MrD9's point is that people (generally) have a first, middle, and last name (of course there can be multiple or no middle name – and, frankly, I can only speak for most of the United States), and possibly a suffix.  The former president's birth certificate may list "James Earl Carter, Jr.", but it is accurate to say that his first name is James, his middle name is Earl, his last name is Carter, and his suffix is Jr.  Wikipedia <I>could</I> choose to index names as <first> <middle> <last> <suffix> (thus indexing the president as "James Earl Carter Jr.").  We could also index him as Carter, James Earl, Jr. (though I definitely vote for the former).  The point is that this question is about indexing not what's on their birth certificate.  Needless to say, I third (or whatever we're at) the nomination for such a style guideline.  (If some special note as to how their birth certificate appears is necessary, it can always be added; it needn't be in the page title.)  How does this process work, anyway?  Something tells me that it's not as simple as three people agreeing and then voilà, it's in. Alan smithee 07:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jr., Sr., and other suffixes 

message: This might be and probably is covered somewhere, but does the MoS say to bold honorary titles like Sir and Dame? Examples: Roger Moore, Judi Dench, Anthony Hopkins. One of them is currently bolded, the other two aren't. What's the proper way here? K1Bond007 05:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bolded. (I'm not sure it's written down anywhere, but it's the way it's always done.) Proteus (Talk) 11:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Honorary titles

message: For external links, should the entire line be linked (e.g., "The Rochdale article from the OSCA website" or "The Rochdale article from the OSCA website")?  Is either one correct or incorrect?  -Danspalding 18:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links question 

message: Well, what about cases like BYTE magazine? I don't believe there's any dispute over the way in which the magazine presented its own title, which to the best of my recollection was always in all-caps. I don't see anything that addresses this issue specifically. It seems to me that the proper thing to do is to preserve information by presenting the publication title in the way in which the publication presented it, but I'm not a MoS maven. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). Nohat 23:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  All-caps in articles about publications, etc. that use all caps 

message: Just a small point about the otherwise accurate section on capital letters: in the article there is a distinction made between American English and Commonwealth English, are we forgetting other anglophone countries who do not form part of the Commonwealth (ie. Ireland, who also use Commonwealth linguistic rules but aren't a member, despite being a former British colony). I would edit this entry but I can't think of a term to replace 'Commonwealth' (the Commonwealth and Ireland, etc.?)
Any suggestions?
: What about Mozambique? The official language there is Portuguese. I propose "Commonwealth and Ireland, except Mozambique".
: (Yes, I am being sarcastic.) PizzaMargherita 12:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just stick a weasel word in there somewhere, that should keep everyone happy. ;-) Martin 12:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like your idea even better actually: "Commonwealth English, or something like that". PizzaMargherita 13:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital letters (Commonwealth... any suggestions?) 

message: Florida Gators or Blue Devils (Duke University)? 
I note these are  inconsistent.  Is there any consensus on this?  I'm working on the University of Montana -Missoula  and Grizzly athletics.  I can't find this in any style manuals, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place?
I would personally favor  Grizzlies (University of Montana - Missoula),  to avoid confusion with the real bears who live  in the Montana woods that you might get with Montana Grizzlies. Probably with a  reference from Griz.  Other ideas? CGMullin 20:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format for  school athletic programs?