Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 68

message: :Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. Instead, place the image directly above the heading.
How long has this been the rule? It looks really bad to do it this way, as it forces the following section heading over to the right to allow for the picture. Placing the image below the section heading does not, as the MoS currently claims, separate the heading from the text; the text begins immediately below the heading as usual, only moved over by the image. It looks much better to have all left-aligned section headings than to do what the MoS is currently advocating. -- — Brian 02:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, never mind. I was confusing first-level headings (==) and second-level headings (===). The MoS is discussing second-level. — — Brian (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left-aligned image placement 

message: This probably isn't the place to come, except for an onward reference.
Is there an expert who can help with all types of end matter (references, books written, books about, scholarly perspectives, journalism written, journalism about, speeches, interviews, see also and external links)?
The specific case is George Soros and the article has all of the above, plus remnants of an edit war from the last election.  I'm overwhelmed and need some help.  Smallbones 16:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to go for help? 

message: I'd have left this in the edit summary, but there wasn't enough room!
I've just changed "By default" back to "Whenever reasonable" on the quotations paragraph, because I don't think the altered version is nearly strong enough - if something is only the 'default', then almost any reason (for example, consistency with other quotes, or a different style being usual in the national variety of English being employed) would be good enough to change it.  I think that the MoS needs to be much stronger than this on quotations - to alter a direct quotation in any way should be vastly the exception, and require a really pressing reason.  The grammatical concerns of the editor may be valid (though I think that "whenever reasonable" is perfectly clear, by analogy with "whenever possible"), but I don't think that they're a good enough reason for such a dramatic change in meaning. TSP 23:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, TSP. While I don't agree that "by default" weakens or even significantly changes the message, I also don't need to contest the matter. I have applied a compromise that I think ought to satisfy all needs. The only objection I can foresee is that it is too wordy; and to that I would say that we ought to make the grammar unimpeachable, especially if the cost is so slight. – Noetica 05:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Whenever reasonable" 

message: With the best of intentions, I have added something here and there about non-breaking spaces. But I seem to have got things wrong. From the article non-breaking space, and from the way things work in MSWord, it would seem that   prevents a break at its location. But it doesn't seem to do so between double quotes. I'll leave my alterations in place for now: but I do hope that someone else will advise how " " can be kept intact, if   won't do the trick. This is important, because such a break is always to be avoided, and because it certainly is a widely respected norm to have a space between adjacent quote marks. Any ideas? – Noetica 05:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it help to nowikify the " "?--JoergenB 00:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-breaking spaces: Help! 

message: How does one treat capitalization of a phrasing of the sort "XYZ was promoted to C/captain"? Would it be any different if it was phrased "XYZ was promoted to the rank of C/captain"? The former connotes a change in formal title (to "Captain XYZ"), while the latter states the grade to which the person was elevated. TIA, Askari Mark (Talk) 03:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep them lowercase unless they’re being used as part of the person’s name, just like any other titles. “Joe Bloggs was promoted to captain. After Joe’s promotion, everyone called him Captain Bloggs.” --Rob Kennedy 18:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military Ranks 

message: WP:CAPS does not currently address the issue of foreign language titles adequately, and there are many pages that use naming conventions for English or for the native language.  I've made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Proposal for foreign language titles to address the issue.  ShadowHalo 21:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign language titles 

message: A template I made was recently changed to eliminate multiple Wikilinks to the same coach when they coached non-consecutive terms.  See [before] and [after].  I was wondering if there is consensus for this.  When I look at Template:IDGovernors, it is made in the way I originally had the coach template, with the governor linked multiple times if they served non-consecutive terms.  Allowing this for governors but not for coaches would be a double standard, so consensus needs to decide which we should go with and change all the related templates accordingly.  Personally, I prefer the way I originally had it since I think it is helpful to show if someone served two non-consecutive terms in the template.  But, I will accept if consensus determines otherwise. VegaDark 19:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no harm to include multiple links in this manner. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple identical Wikilinks for non-consecutive terms in templates or no?

message: Maybe I'm missing it in here, but shouldn't it be listed to never refer to a person by their first name? Such as for Michael Jordan, "Mike then scored..." but to always use the last name or occasionally full name? It's probably in there and if so I apologize, I just can't find it. Quadzilla99 03:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never? No. Surely there are occasions to refer to people by their first names. I can’t think of any good examples off-hand, though. “Never” is a strong word. Anyway, please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names. --Rob Kennedy 04:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kings and queens ... there's a good example of such an occasion. Jimp 00:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: People from Iceland are invariably known by their first name - indeed the Icelandic phone book is ordered by first name. This is because most don't have a family name, they are -son or -dóttir, but that's just their father's name. -- Arwel (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's sometimes necessary to use a subject's first name in the first part of his or her biography, when references to the subject's family members (all of whom have the same last name) can easily confuse the reader. --Tysto 23:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First/last name

message: Is it appropriate to refer to dead people as "the late so-and-so"? If not, what is a better format?Arcayne 02:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid. There is already an active discussion about the term. --Farix (Talk) 03:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I Refer to Dead People

message: Could we add an explicit statement at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation specifically stating whether commas should go inside or outside quotation marks? Or is there not enough consensus to do so? (I don't want to restart the debate over which way is better; I merely want to know whether a consensus has been reached at the English Wikipedia on this point.) --Lph 04:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For some time it's been (more or less) stable as "put the punctuation mark inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation".  That's not quite the same as "always outside", but no style guide actually uses "always outside".  Does that help?  Alai 01:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are always the descenters but general consensus has for some time been in favour of logical quotation.  Alai gives a good summary what this means.  The Punctuation section on this page goes into more detail.  Do you feel that it's either not clear or not explicite enough? Jimp 00:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your responses. Looking at it a second time, it is pretty clear. I guess I was unsure because the examples used a period and a question mark, i.e. sentence-ending punctuation marks, and not a comma. --Lph 17:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comma inside or outside quotation marks: can we clarify at [[WP:MoS]]? 

message: Where would I find MoS for do and don't on 'see also's sections?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some information at Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also (redirected from Wikipedia:See also. --Lph 17:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also