Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Words as Words

I'm not sure I agree that italics is proper for words as words. I think it is better to state this way:

"Deuce" means "two"

Unless of course one of the words is a true foreign word:

zwei means "two"

Anyone else care to comment?

- Marshman 04:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

But what about quotes? F'er instance, "ZWEI Was Eine Initially"? --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Also a proper use of quotes is quoting something (as is indenting a paragraph w/o quote marks). Usually, something in italics is rendered as an underline, or vice versa. So while one can use quotes for a word as a word, I've not seen this underlined (therefore italics may not be a proper substitute - Marshman 04:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

When I was in elementary school, I was taught that underlining is appropriate for words as words. Of course, now I realize that most of the rules I learned are not set in stone but are typically just vague conventions. Recently, I've found that many people, especially Wikipedians (perhaps because many are not Americans), like to use quotation marks to indicate words as words. This might be a case of #National varieties of English. --TantalumTelluride 05:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure does, because I learned (US) quotes for such and that underline was a form of italics where italic print not available - Marshman 23:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the usage that you've identified above. I don't know if there is a Canadian standard style, but this usage is how I've been doing things on WIkipeida all along. Ground Zero | t 23:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

additional WikiLinks style guidelines?

I have noticed that when a WikiLink is written for a plural word with the "s" outside the link, Wikipedia renders it with the "s" linked in with the word. i.e.

 [[anecdote]]s

becomes

 anecdotes

Should this be documented as a preferred style policy over [[anecdotes]] or [[anecdote | anecdotes]]?

Twp 13:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). —Michael Z. 2005-12-6 20:02 Z

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations

The standard writing style is to spell out initialisms on the first reference and include the initialism in parentheses after it. Many editors do not follow this style, either because they assume that everyone knows what the initialism stands for, or maybe they wikilink it assuming that anyone who doesn't will follow the links through, although often the links to the initialism go only to a disambiguation page. I would like to put something into the style manual to encourage editors to help readers out by following standard writing style, e.g.,

• Do not assume that your reader is familiar with the acronym, initialism or abbreviation that you are using. The standard writing style is to spell out initialisms on the first reference and include the initialism in parentheses after it. This makes signals the reader to look out for this later on in the text, and makes it easy for him or her to refer back to it, e.g.,

The New Democratic Party (NDP) won the 1990 Ontario election with a significant majority. The NDP quickly lost favour with the voters, however....

Anyone agree or disagree? Ground Zero | t 20:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I've even seen editors go to the trouble of typing out the full name of a government department, then pipe in the mystery acronmym. We shouldn't assume that readers know any acronyms and should always spell out the first use. This is ties in with WP not being a paper encyclopedia. -Willmcw 21:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

In broad terms I agree. Apart from a certain number of acronyms that are so well known worldwide (I'd suggest UK, US, UN, NASA, eg and ie are perhaps the only ones), it is always necessary to spell out an acronym on first usage. As you rightly say, some users may not understand it, and they shouldn't be required to read another article first before understanding it. On the details, I'd omit the word "initialism" - I for one have never come across the word, and, even if you told me its meaning, I'm not sure it adds anything. I'd replace "e.g." with "for example" in your proposed text to make it easier to read; I'd use a final phrase that doesn't have a difference in US and UK English (here US English would use "favor") as, in an example in WP's MoS it's best to express things in an entirely neutral way; I'd omit "in parentheses" for similar reasons (but in the opposite direcion), plus nothing is lost by omitting it as there's an exmaple. I'd also suggest repeating the spelling out of the acronym if it is used after a big gap in the article without the acronym being used. Who necessarily remembers an acronym introduced briefly 3,000 words ago? In summary, in broad terms, I agree, though I'd make slight tweaks, jguk 21:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. There should be a mention of this in the manual. And, after large gaps, it may be worth doing so too. The reader should not have to rely on links to understand what the acronym is: the article should be still understandable if all the links were removed. Neonumbers 23:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Here is a revised proposal:

Do not assume that your reader is familiar with the acronym or abbreviation that you are using. The standard writing style is to spell out initialisms on the first reference and include the acronym after it. This makes signals the reader to look out for this later on in the text, and makes it easy for him or her to refer back to it, for example,

The New Democratic Party (NDP) won the 1990 Ontario election with a significant majority. The NDP quickly became unpopular with the voters, however....

It can also be helpful in a longer article to spell out the acronym for the reader again if it has not been used for a while.

I think these a good improvements. Any other comments? Or can someone suggest a non-country-specific example? Ground Zero | t 13:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• And, by the way, an initialism is where the initials of a string of words is used in place of the string of words. An acronym, strictly speaking, is an initialism that is used as if it were a word itself. Scuba is the only one that comes to mind. (See Acronym and initialism.) This is a distinction that, as you point out, is not known to most people, so I agree that there is no point making it here. Ground Zero | t 13:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Make I suggest the following text instead, jguk 20:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC):

Do not assume that your reader is familiar with the acronym or abbreviation that you are using. The standard writing style is to spell out the acronym or abbreviation on the first reference and then show the acronym or abbreviation after it. This signals to readers to look out for it later in the text, and makes it easy for them to refer back to it, for example,

The New Democratic Party (NDP) won the 1990 Ontario election with a significant majority. The NDP quickly became unpopular with the voters, however.....

These are the only exceptions allowed to this rule, and are allowed on the basis that they are so well known as to not need explanation: eg, ie, NASA, UK, UN, US, USA.

I see that I had left in an "initialism". Thanks for cleaning it up. I still like the bit about longer articles. Also, "i.e.," an "e.g.," are specificially discouraged by some part of the style manual, so I think it best to leave those out. Here is what we have then:

Do not assume that your reader is familiar with the acronym or abbreviation that you are using. The standard writing style is to spell out the acronym or abbreviation on the first reference and then show the acronym or abbreviation after it. This signals to readers to look out for it later in the text, and makes it easy for them to refer back to it, for example:

The New Democratic Party (NDP) won the 1990 Ontario election with a significant majority. The NDP quickly became unpopular with the voters, however.....

These are the only exceptions allowed to this rule, and are allowed on the basis that they are so well known that they do not need explanation: NASA, UK, UN, US, USA. It can also be helpful in a longer article to spell out the acronym or abbreviation for the reader again if it has not been used for a while.

Any further comments? Since there has been no objection to the basic idea, I will add this to the manual in a day or two after everyone has had a chance to comment on the above. Thanks everyone. Ground Zero | t 23:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I generally support GZ's proposal: other exceptions (not many) may need to be included too. I would probably nix NASA, though: even though it's well known, most people may not know what the letters in this initialism stand for. As well, perhaps wikilinks can be used for initial instances of such exceptions in articles? E Pluribus Anthony 02:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The point with NASA is that you don't need to know what it stands for:) jguk 06:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Noted. I'm unsure that's totally the point: I don't want to be belabour this, but the other initialisms cited are known by name (e.g., United Kingdom): while NASA's purpose might be known, what the initialism stands for may not be. Just food for thought. E Pluribus Anthony 07:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Likewise, I don't wish to belabour the point. As long as people are sensible and accept that there may be a very limited number of abbreviations and acronyms that are very well known that aren't specifically listed here at a start, I don't see a problem. My support is for an approach that makes things easier to read for a reader whose location and background are unknown, jguk 07:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed; perhaps a wikilink would be of utility in such instances, then? E Pluribus Anthony 07:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this discussion highlights some of the issues around making exceptions. There will always be those who want to remove things from the list, and others who want to add to the list. Regrettably, not all Wikipedians follow the style manual anyway. With thousands joining every week, Wikipedia will always be full of article that do not follow the manual. Is it a big problem if Jguk writes an edit that starts with "The UN debated the issue at length in 2004....", and then Anthony edits that to "The UN debated the issue at length in 2004....", and I then edit it to "The United Nations (UN) debated the issue at length in 2004...."? In all three cases, the large majority of readers will understand the sentence. So need we get hung up about have the manual dictate one form over another? My original point was about acronyms that many readers will not understand. For example, I have come across many articles that refer to the CCF without further expalantion. Many readers will not be familiar with that Canadian political party that dissolved itself in 1961.

I have indicated in the proposal above a strikeout section that I think that we can leave out. Since many editors don't follow the manual, and since there are no penalties for failure to comply, I think that we can leave out the exceptions and just tolerate them when they appear. If they get changed to confirm with the manual, that isn't going to be a big problem either. Ground Zero | t 13:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi there; thanks for your note. I agree about not getting too hung up about this version or that version: therein lies the benefit of wikifying a term – any of them would suffice with a wikilink, with or without elaboration. Like so:

Do not assume that your reader is familiar with the acronym or abbreviation that you are using. The standard writing style is to spell out the acronym or abbreviation on the first reference and then show the acronym or abbreviation after it, with an accompanying wikilink. This signals to readers to look out for it later in the text, and makes it easy for them to refer back to it, for example:

The New Democratic Party (NDP) won the 1990 Ontario election with a significant majority. The NDP quickly became unpopular with the voters, however.....

It can also be helpful in a longer article to spell out the acronym or abbreviation for the reader again or to rewikify it if it has not been used for a while.

Or similar. I wasn't trying to diminish this proposed guideline or to make exceptions: I only suggest that there be some sort of consensus or basis to determine what the potential exceptions may be, if any. (Of course, all issues aren't so clear cut ... :)). E Pluribus Anthony 13:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's go with Ground Zero's latest version and trust people to be reasonable with it. I'm sure if some idiot decides to go round changing all first instances of US to United States (US) he'll soon be stopped - and there isn't a great problem with United States (US) on first instance anyway, jguk 14:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I hear ya; I've made mild editions above ... I hope they suffice. A segue: another can of worms is usage of US instead of U.S. ... ;) E Pluribus Anthony 14:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

We should permit both (which is what happens in practice anyway, regardless of what the MoS says), jguk 14:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I have added the section as discussed, with minor changes. I don't see the need to include the acronym in the wikilink. I just makes for more blue-and-underline, which is unneceessary, IMHO. Thank you to everyone who contributed comments. Ground Zero | t 23:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey there ... works for me! :) E Pluribus Anthony 23:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Dialects

I wondered if anyone has any thoughts on a suggestion I've made in the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (spelling)#Tagging_pages section. --Splidje 13:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Requiring approval for changes

It occurred to me that in order to avoid accidental changes garbling up an article, any change should be subject to, say, two other people agreeing that it is a good change. There could be a section with articles "waiting to be approved" be peers.

Just a thought. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 142.179.174.176 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 7 December 2005

Thanks for the idea. Peer review would require a complete change in the software that operates Wikipedia and would violate the underlying principles of the wiki. If an article is vandalized or otherwise changed incorrectly, it can be reverted to its previous revision. (It is true that the history pages of some articles are cluttered with hardly nothing but vandalism and respective reverts. A policy of semi-protection is being discussed to address this issue.) --TantalumTelluride 23:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think TantalumTelluride is exactly right. Most articles are watched carefully by multiple editors which is why the problem you envision is not a problem at all. The only real question is whether an open community effort like Wikipedia can produce a product as good as an encyclopedia based on the writings of "experts" in all subjects. My experience here tells me that it can be done, is being done, and only suffers from the fact that many articles may lag behind that quality curve, but will be brought up to a high standard eventually. It seems like this is pretty much the difference between printed (and therefore peer-reviewed and edited) material and the internet as sources of information. - Marshman 04:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and speak with some experience! Namely: I proceeded to edit a long-standing guideline erroneously ... not out of malice, but out of disagreement and a firm belief that the guideline should not be unequivocal. Substantial Wp discussion (mostly fruitful) regarding this has ensued: most oppose the change, and I'm in a minority. I'm OK with whatever results, and I'm glad that the manual (and perhaps user behaviour ... particularly mine!) might be enhanced because of it. :) E Pluribus Anthony 05:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Scripture references

I noticed this on some articles, and I think it needs to be addressed. In religious articles, scripture references need to be cited like other citing. One major reason is that scripture translations are copyrighted texts which need to be qualified as such. Another is for ease of reference as different translations read differently, so if someone went to the text they might find something different than what is quoted. Something that might be taken into consideration is using one english translation across all articles (which would be quite difficult to do for many reasons, but would be more consistent). glocks out 23:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see this as a problem as long as chapter and verse are cited. There are dozens of websites where you can look up a passage; we could, however, create a template to at least one of them. I'd be reluctant to enforce a single translation, especially for articles which might be comparing different translations for analytical reasons. Could you suggest some articles in which the Bible is quoted other than articles on the passages themselves (e.g. John 3:16)? —Wahoofive (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I really don't think one translation will work, it's just ideal. Of course people will fight over which one to use, and it's hard to control as well. But the translation should be referenced just as any other book reference. One article I was reading today was Sabbath which quoted scripture with no references except to the verse. When it is quoted, it should include a tag like (KJV) or (NIV) or whichever is used. This would be for reference sake as well as for copyright.

British vs. American English in São Paulo article

An anonymous british ip (Special:Contributions/213.122.19.181) edit São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro and rewrote them to British standard instead of American one. So, he changed all -ize to -ise and downtowns to city centres.

Well, since Brazil is not exactly a place under the area of influence of English, there's no natural rule to specify which variant should be used. Yet, those articles were written following American standard and they are now britishfied.

These anon changes should be kept? Must they be reverted? Is there wikipedia rules on it?

14:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi! This is a doozy. What to do ... it's hard to rationalise what dialect of English a Wp article with global reach should use. I recall there being a note about, if all else fails, using the dialectic standard set by the article's first major contributor. Given the scope and time behind this article, not to mention that it concerns New World lusophonic locales, I believe that may not be wholly applicable here ...

So: as São Paulo and Rio are in South America, or alternatively the Americas, I would support including (or restoring) American English in this article. (Of course, this would not apply where Canada or a similar Commonwealth topic may be at issue.) The mere fact that someone (the anon IP) went through to "Britify" (?) the article without stated reason would be cause enough to return it to its prior state. Make sense? E Pluribus Anthony 14:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The first major contribution uses British spelling. So the anonymous IP has not done anything wrong to apply that more consistently. Bobblewik 14:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, B, about inadvertently deleting your comment: perhaps because we were editing at the same time, that section was duplicated like five times.

In any event: after two years, should this hold even at the expense of what was in place just recently? One user asked here whether this was sound, so obviously they found something 'wrong' about the changes. The unexplained change (or any similar ones) seems irksome and almost POV where dialect is concerned. I'm really neither here nor there regarding this, but the reasoning should give one pause. E Pluribus Anthony 14:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

If the article has been relatively stable for several months with one spelling used consistently AND if the only changes made by the anon were to convert from one type of spelling to another, then I'd argue that changes of that sort could be summarily reverted. The only place such changes would be warranted, IMO, are where there is inconsistent usage in the article. older≠wiser 15:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with that assessment, o≠w. E Pluribus Anthony 15:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet another example of how an initiative like this would be very welcome. PizzaMargherita 15:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

What I see is:

• Some editors prefer American English, some prefer other styles.
• The manual of style guidance was written to resolve conflicts of spelling style.
• An editor made changes consistent with the manual of style.
• A user asked if there is Wikipedia guidance.
• The answer is 'yes the editor acted in accordance with the guidance'.

If duration and stability are desirable considerations but not acknowledged by the guidance, then we can easily change the guidance. Bobblewik 15:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Noted. I believe the guidance should be changed to reflect this, B, but it isn't a pressing concern. E Pluribus Anthony 15:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Bobblewik 15:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Relatedly, I've observed a row unfolding about dialectic English in the Australia article. (A similar proviso exists in the Canada article, which is stable but has not been wtihout detractors.) To that end, perhaps it is more important to revisit and enhance the guidance ... sooner rather than later? E Pluribus Anthony 08:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you, I'm leaving the article in the new British English style, then. I changed just two downtown's. Yet, if we think "if Brazil is in the Americas ... ", we should have adopted Guyana English for this article. José San Martin 14:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• • OK: I don't think anyone would besmirch if you implemented the status quo; I'm unsure whether Guyana English is significant enough (in terms of Brazil, despite its proximity) to have warranted its use in the Brazilian articles of note. Mine was a suggestion about a possible course of action or rationalisation given the prevalence of this or that (American or Commonwealth English) on either side of the pond. The overall point (that I think may still require clarification) is what one should do when minuscule 'POV' dialectic edits are made without substantial reason and where the guidance may be iffy or inapplicable. Anyhow, I think this does beg for a review or enhancement of the cited guidance in some way. Thanks again for your note! E Pluribus Anthony 14:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

"We"

The example here about "When we open our eyes, we see something". I can't think why that would come up in an encyclopedia article. Can someone cite an example of an actual good article (preferably a featured article) that would demonstrate the principle this is intended to illustrate? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any big difference between using "we" and using "one" as a pronoun. Both are preferable to using "they" as a pronoun with "a person" or something similar as an antedent ("When a person opens their eyes...", mixing up the number), something we see far too often in Wikipedia writing and in writing in general. Gene Nygaard 03:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

My English textbook says that "they" and "their" can be used for third person singular or plural.  :-P. I disagree with it though. Politically correct New Zealand, I guess. I can see both points though — it generally doesn't happen, but in the rare occasion where it does, use "we" or "one". Me, I prefer "one", but that's not important. :-) Neonumbers 06:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I have a question about using "we" that is separate from this one. In mathematics and science papers, the use of we is sometimes acceptable (though there is no general consesus). It is most often used to avoid the passive voice, and can be seen in the article on surreal numbers. It generally improves readability. However, the aforementioned papers have specific authors, whereas encyclopedias do not. I support the use of "we" in science writing, but I am not sure about encyclopedias. Do any other science or mathematics people have opinions on this? Benandorsqueaks 22:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is, okay for maths but not science; and for maths, only when explaining or proving a concept (e.g. never in the lead paragraph). But I defer to those that know more than I do. Neonumbers 23:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that either we or you in any of these contexts is preferable to generic one, which borders on being an archaism, and is always stuffy and awkward. This comes up fairly often in philosophy articles, which frequently discuss the mental states and perceptions of a generic Everyperson. In this context, I see little problem with you, since most such statements are invitations to perform a thought experiment of sorts. Smerdis of Tlön 15:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, here is a fairly extended example of using we in this sense, from the article on Arthur Schopenhauer. A better example might be taken from it. This would sound wrong with you, and with one it would sound both wrong and snotty:

We know our human bodies have boundaries, and occupy space, the same way other objects known only through our named senses do. Though we seldom think of our bodies as physical objects, we know even before reflection that it shares some of their properties. We understand that a watermelon cannot successfully occupy the same space as an oncoming truck. We know that if we tried to repeat the experiment with our own bodies, we would obtain similar results. We know this even if we do not understand the physics involved.

We know that our consciousness inhabits a physical body, similar to other physical objects only known as phenomena. Yet, our consciousness is not commensurate with our body. Most of us possess the power of voluntary motion. We usually are not aware of our lungs' breath, or our heartbeat, unless our attention is called to it. Our ability to control either is limited. Our kidneys command our attention on their schedule rather than one we choose. Few of us have any idea what our livers are doing right now, though this organ is as needful as lungs, heart, or kidneys. The conscious mind is the servant, not the master, of these and other organs. These organs have an agenda which the conscious mind did not choose, and has limited power over.

When Schopenhauer identifies the noumenon with the desires, needs, and impulses in us that we name "will," what he is saying is that we participate in the reality of an otherwise unachievable world outside the mind through will. We cannot prove that our mental picture of an outside world corresponds with a reality by reasoning. Through will, we know—without thinking— that the world can stimulate us. We suffer fear, or desire. These states arise involuntarily. They arise prior to reflection. They arise even when the conscious mind would prefer to hold them at bay. The rational mind is for Schopenhauer a leaf borne along in a stream of pre-reflective and largely unconscious emotion. That stream is will; and through will, if not through logic, we can participate in the underlying reality that lies beyond mere phenomena. It is for this reason that Schopenhauer identifies the noumenon with what we call our will.

-- Smerdis of Tlön 05:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've thought about this for a while (well, about twenty seconds), and I think I may have laid a finger on why that, even though it sounds right, doesn't go in an encyclopedia. It's kind of hard to explain.

The above prose - even though it is not opinion - sounds to me like persuasive writing. The use of the pronoun we aids the convincing of the reader about these concepts. It attempts to relate to the reader, and make him feel what the paragraph is trying to get at. To show him what he thinks now, and what he should think.

I do not mean to say this violates NPOV; it does not violate neutrality at all. However, it is for this reason: that the writing has a tinge of persuasiveness and relationship to it; that it doesn't sit fully in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias don't develop close relationships with readers.

I won't go and rewrite the whole thing to demonstrate how it should be written, I will provide one (very easy) example: We know that our consciousness inhabits a physical body becomes Consciousness inhabits a physical body or Consciousness is believed to inhabit a physical body (if strict objective-view rules are to be followed). To rewrite the whole thing, of course, would be much harder than just removing and replacing a few words.

Anyway, point is, this is my best explanation of why it is not encyclopedic style. I don't intend to make any implications about accuracy nor neutrality; just that the style relates to the reader, which is something generally not found in an informative document.

If anyone wants, I can try to rewrite that to demonstrate what I'm getting at, this of course would involve having to read the article and understand what it's about... This is just what I think. :-) Neonumbers 06:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Can someone please comment on my above post? I'm inconfident on this viewpoint and I really want to know what others think. If there is agreement it might be worth refining the manual. Neonumbers 05:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The use of the word we tends to include the authors and the reader. That's why in a math text, it might read something like, "We can refine this formula by...". There's no contention--yes, we can all refine the formula by following those same methods. Conversely, saying "We know that our consciousness inhabits a physical body" is jarring because, well, some people don't agree. We is inclusive of people that don't know that our consciousness inhabits a physical body. I would consider rewriting it to something such as, "Schopenhauer believed that people know that the consciousness inhabits a physical body...that most people (or humans, as suggested below) possess the power of voluntary motion..." and so on. FireWorks 07:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Just another idea: What's wrong with "people" or in certain contexts (science, anthropology, say) "humans"?

When Schopenhauer identifies the noumenon with the desires, needs, and impulses in people that we name "will," what he is saying is that people participate in the reality of an otherwise unachievable world outside the mind through will.

DavidH 20:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)