Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 40

message: The use of UTF-8 characters in Wikipedia is starting to become rather popular (which I think is wonderful). However, Unicode is a complex subject and there are lots of pitfalls. I believe the Manual of Style should start to address these. In particular, I have recently seen some Unicode-enthusiasts overdoing it a bit, for example replacing the perfectly appropriate unit symbol °C with the obsolete Unicode legacy character ℃. The latter has been included into Unicode for the sole reason of round-trip compatibility with some existing Chinese character set, of which Unicode wanted to be a superset. It was never intended to be used in new texts. Unicode is full of so-called legacy characters that are in Unicode solely for backwards compatibility with huge East Asian character sets, but that were never intended to be used in English publications. These compatibility characters should clearly be avoided in Wikipedia (especially the English version), and it would be useful to have some guidance on what subset of Unicode is deemed appropriate for Wikipedia. Should we make this just a new section of this article, or should we start a new MoS sub-article? A separate page would also provide space to collect advice for authors on how to enter Unicode characters conveniently. Suggestions welcome! Markus Kuhn 19:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The MoS is primarily a dispute resolution tool.  Have there been any disputes on this issue?  I.e., have you attempted to change an incorrect glyph into a correct one, and had someone revert you or disagree with you on a talk page? If using the correct Unicode glyphs is simply a matter of "", I don't think it belongs here. --TreyHarris 19:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unicode characters 

message: 47 rules for writers. "The passive voice should never be used," "Avoid cliches like the plague," and my all-time favorite "No sentence fragments." -- Jmabel | Talk 09:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear, hear!  Neonumbers 10:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see any references to passive voice in the Manual of Style (aside from a single one in passing). I feel that this is a fairly important issue for writers. Even though this isn't the simple English wikipedia, if writers avoid passive voice, their writing becomes clearer. Perhaps more importantly, it would only be a good thing for attribution of information--most of the time when I read "it is said..." I want to ask "who said that?" CommanderFalafel 18:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find nothing wrong with the passive voice.  There are times when it does a better job than the active voice ... I guess that's why it exists at all. Jimp 15:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen! Passive voice can become like a diseases when used poorly; however, when passive voice is used well, it can be more effective than the active voice.  (For example, to provide the same subject for clauses or in such cases as "The ambassador was shot by an unknown assailant." where the passive voice empahasizes the importance of the ambassador rather than the assailant. ) Cool3 02:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lest we forget