Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 35

message: I think that the rules of respect of each religion should be obeyed whenever possible. In particular, the Christian rule of capitalizing words referring to God. I don't think that this conflicts with any Wikipedia principle such as the NPOV, and while I am a Christian myself, I wouldn't mind  to obey similar rules of other religions. Therefore, I propose this to be changed regarding the "Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents" policy.
Jorge 03:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So how do you propose, at the same time, to accommodate the rule in Judaism that would be violated by writing out the name of the deity in the way you just wrote it? (A practicing Jew in such a context would use a locution like "G-d"." -- Jmabel | Talk 17:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: But even if a majority of wikipedia readers DID prefer capitalizing pronouns that refer to the christian god, would that really be the deciding point?  For me, such a capitalization is tantamount to proclaiming the christian god is the One True God, which is POV, regardless of what percentage of the readership wants it.  Alecmconroy 20:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think that the various news organisations, being neutral at least in name, should avoid capitalising "God" so as to avoid any seeming bias in favour of Christianity? It is my contention that rules and guidelines generally followed by the news media are no less applicable to Wikipedia.--chris.lawson 05:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think User:Alecmconroy was talking about not capitalizing personal pronouns that refer to the Christian god (i.e. He vs he), rather than not capitalizing the word "god" when it's being used as a proper noun to refer to a particular god (which would go against the English convention of always capitalizing proper nouns.) In the case of pronouns referring to one particular god or another, I agree that capitalization smacks of POV (unless the pronoun begins the sentence, obviously.) Eloil 06:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't think of this when I made my earlier comment, but what I said only applies to the article text, not quotes. I think changing "He" to "he" in a quote would also add inappropriate POV. Eloil 06:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes. In that case (pronouns only), I agree fully. I might make the further argument that referring to the gender of God/Allah/Jehovah/etc. is also inherently POV. (I'm not a Bible scholar by any stretch, but who are we to say that a deity has a gender?)--chris.lawson 23:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd tend to agree with that as well in the cases you mentioned (God/Allah/Jehovah), but it opens up some questions as far as extending the idea to other deities. For example, Jesus is considered by many to be a deity, but as a historical figure his gender is not seriously disputed (to my limited knowledge, anyway.) The idea of removing gendered pronouns from the articles on Thor or Zeus seems to me a bit like overkill as well, although I don't know if I could say exactly why this is. Eloil 04:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant source literature always refers to Yahweh, and Allah as masculine; and except for a few very recent and deliberate projects, the same is also true of "God." The relevant source literature also always refers to Thor and Zeus as masculine.  The urge to make the sex (or "gender" if you prefer) of the  God of the monotheistic revealed religions ambiguous is a product of very recent and temporary Western enthusiasms.  God, Allah, Yahweh, and the like should remain masculine; to alter the sex of this or these deities is historically inaccurate revisionism.  Smerdis of Tlön 05:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text:   Wow-- such really good points.  I completely agree, Eloil, about the capitalization of "He" is appropriate if quoting another writer who used that case.  It's interesting to imagine what to do if quoting not a writer but a SPEAKER-- though I can't expect that one to come up.   Whether to capitalize the word "god" is trickier for me, because it can be both a proper name (and therefore capitalizable) or just a noun (and therefore lowercase).  I'd be inclined to not capitalize in the sentence "Is there a god?" but would capitalize in the ever-so-slightly different sentence "Does God exist?".  The gender issue is interesting.  English really needs a good neuter third person that's not "it" (and a good second person plural that's not "ya'll").Alecmconroy 09:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents 

message: Is 'a' the best abbreviation for year as in 'Mt/a'?
I would welcome ISO, NIST, BIPM or other respectable references on this. The article 'Acetic acid' quoted 'Mt/a'. I changed it to 'Mt/year' but it was changed back. Bobblewik 23:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Would this be worth noting at ISO 31-1 or year? It would perhaps give Bobblewik something useful to link to (i.e. Mt/a). It would probably be very difficult to find out what unit "a" indicated if you didn't already have a very good idea from context. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-10-24 00:07:37Z
* The texts alluded to here all have 'million tonnes per year (Mt/a)' as first use of the abbreviation. Seems good enough to me. Wim van Dorst 23:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A year is exactly 365.24 etc earth days. Exactly. Stevage 16:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Hello!  I agree that a, while common, is also ambiguous to many.  While year would do if there's doubt, this would appear odd in combination with SI or other abbreviations (e.g., Mt/year); how about yr or yr. (which appear in both Oxford and Webster's dictionaries) – e.g., Mt/yr? E Pluribus Anthony 03:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The question was brought up as regards annual production of industrial chemicals.  In the industrial news publications I'm familiar with, Mt/a is the usual abbreviation, or it is spelled out "million metric tons annually."  As long as there is an explanatory note with the first use of the abbreviation (as there is in this case), Mt/a seems to fall into the category of units used for "historical or pragmatic reasons..." they are the standard unit in which the quantity is cited. Shimmin 03:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When there is sufficient context (as in the initial example), a is acceptable; I think the topic, though, has mushroomed into one which concerns usage where insufficient context or explanation is provided, in which case a might be ambiguous ... ISO standards notwithstanding.  In any case, a wikilink (Mt/a or Mt/a) would do in a pinch.  We should ask ourselves, "what will visitors easily understand?" (as not all of them will be industrial engineers and chemists) and proceed on that basis.  E Pluribus Anthony 03:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is interesting. I've always seen year abbreviated with a y in scientific context. I would associate a with are or a possibly ampere or ångström. I would never have thought about annum, unless the context suggested that the quantity in question was time. Actually, in that case, I might have suspected the attosecond. Don't take me as an expert or anything; I'm just a college sophomore. --TantalumTelluride 04:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd go for Mt/year. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In my earlier science classes, I always saw a used for year.  I proposed the alternate yr since it would be in sync with abbreviations used elsewhere.  It seems odd to abbreviate only one term but not another.  That's it for me! :)  E Pluribus Anthony 06:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Scientific units can have different names in different languages, or even dialects of the same language, but the abbreviations are internationalized.  Hence SI doesn't care that Americans call it a 'meter' and the British call it a 'metre', but does insist that everyone abbreviate it m.  Now, the traditional units of time day, month, and year are not SI units, but they are used in the scientific literature, and a similar internationalizing principle applies, and the (highly western-centric) internationalizing principle is the Latin language, wherein the units in question are diem, mensem, and annum.  We English speakers don't notice the abbreviations d and m as not-English, but a(nnnum) sticks out to us.  Other languages suffer even greater mismatch between the international abbreviations and the local names, and use the abbreviations anyway.  For example, the German wikipedia, in the entry de:Tag has the expression "1 d = 24 h = 1440 min = 86400 s".  In local terms, that would mean "1 Tag = 24 Stunden = 1440 Minuten = 86400 Sekunden" Shimmin 00:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your note; agreed.  I think we need to focus on what abbreviation will suffice for this non-SI unit, year, in this English Wikipedia.  In any event, I would advocate for a logical abbreviation for year (e.g., yr in English; a(nnum) et al. in non-English wikipedias) based on common usage, precedent, and consensus.  E Pluribus Anthony 19:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is 'a' the best abbreviation for year as in 'Mt/a'? 

message: In taxonomy it is standard to italicize the Genus and species for all organizms, not limited to bacteria.  I have not payed particular attention, or noticed this is not being done in Wikipedia, but the MoS states it is specific to bacteria.  Comments? SailorfromNH 01:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics, and species references 

message: I would suggest that, for example, "50 metres" should be expressed as "50m" rather than "50 m". If using an abbreviated unit, it almost always looks better to close up the number and unit (note that bar - the unit of pressure - is not an abbreviation, and thus should not be closed up). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.201.25.22 (talk • contribs) 28 Nov 2005
There has to be a space, see http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/checklist.html Cacycle 22:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But then the markup gets uglly. :-) — Omegatron 22:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested style for using abbreviated units of measurement 

message: I have listed :Category:Signpost articles (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (signpost articles)) on Categories for deletion. Thanks/wangi 17:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also removed Signpost articles from the main MoS page (the  template). I cannot find any discussion on the creation of this type of article in the discussion archives. Thanks/wangi 09:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: And added it to miscellany for deletion: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Manual of Style (signpost articles). Thanks/wangi 09:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signpost articles 

message: It says it doesn't matter whether you use single or double spaces in the markup, which is fine.  But using   to "enforce" double spaces in the rendered output (like  this) is definitely bad, right? — Omegatron 02:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, generally it shouldn't be done. PizzaMargherita 17:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Would you look at that, WP eats up the space automagically! PizzaMargherita 17:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double spaces