Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 50

External links embedded in text

I have been coming across more external links embedded in the text of articles not as a numbered note, but linking a large swath of text:

It is extremely unlikely that Anne would have been over thirty at the time of her marriage, because such an age was considered unhealthy for a first-time mother. There is, however, a letter from Anne in about 1514 which, some people believe, suggests she was a teenager when she wrote it.

I think its a bad idea. External links should be at the end of articles or as embedded footnotes in parentheses:

It is extremely unlikely that Anne would have been over thirty at the time of her marriage, because such an age was considered unhealthy for a first-time mother. There is, however, a letter from Anne from about 1514 which, some people believe, suggests she was a teenager when she wrote it. [[1]

What do you think?

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITE says both embedded footnotes and full references are required.

--William Allen Simpson 03:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure which of the two choices you are endorsing, or are you saying both should be treated equal? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, in fact, I'd go a step further and use a footnote for the external link (so that the number goes to the footnote). Big chunks of text as external link = badness. Neonumbers 11:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed rule

• External links should not appear embedded as words or as large swaths of text but as a footnote at the end of the sentence after the period

Improper: There is, however, a letter from Anne in about 1514 which, some people believe, suggests she was a teenager when she wrote it.

Proper: There is, however, a letter from Anne in about 1514 which, some people believe, suggests she was a teenager when she wrote it. [2]

Location wikilinks

Should there be any rule regarding linking to London, Ontario, Canada versus London, Ontario, Canada? Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Location Format. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-09 10:27Z

The latter.

• The current guidelines at WP:MOS-L say: "For example, "Rome, Italy" rather than "[[Rome, Italy|Rome]], [[Italy]]", and...."

• The current guidelines at WP:CONTEXT say: "Go for the more specific reference. Instead of linking individual words, e.g. Latin phrases, consider linking the more detailed concept: Latin phrases."

--William Allen Simpson 03:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Bold font

Bolding by the writer is reserved for the title of the article when it is repeated in the first sentence of the article. Bolding should not be used for emphasis. Italics should be used for emphasis.

This was added without discussion. It is third person. It is incorrect.

Italics are not used for emphasis, they are used for publication citations, and to indicate words as words, or words in other languages. These uses are already detailed in this MoS.

Bold is frequently used for emphasis — in journalism, legal briefs and opinions, and technical publications.

I don't believe this should be added without a thorough citation from multiple manual of style sources.

--William Allen Simpson 05:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Above says: "Italics are not used for emphasis, they are used for publication citations, and to indicate words as words, or words in other languages. These uses are already detailed in this MoS." (emphasis added)

So does this mean I am misinterpreting this rule from MoS under italics: "Editors mainly use italics to emphasize certain words. They also use them in these other cases." (emphasis added) Can someone knowledgeable explain? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 11:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Italics are used for emphasis and should be used sparingly.

Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed., 7.49: Italics for emphasis. Good writers use italics for emphasis only as an occasional adjunct to efficient sentence structure. Overused, italics quickly lose their force. Seldom should as much as a sentence be italicized for emphasis, and never a whole passage. In the first example below, the last three words, though clearly emphatic, do not require italics because of their commanding position in the sentence.

The damaging evidence was offered not by the arresting officer, not by the injured plaintiff, but by the boy's own mother.

In the following examples, the emphasis would be lost without the italics.

Let us dwell for a moment on the idea of conscious participation.

How do we learn to think in terms if wholes? —Wayward ^Talk 20:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Do people think this version of this page Autobiographical comics is abusing bolding?--Larrybob 21:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes very. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Not anymore. Be bold (no pun intended). PizzaMargherita 22:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks for doing that... --Larrybob 23:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggested rules

• Bold is reserved for the article title when repeated in the first sentence
• Bold is reserved for the variations on the person's name (see E.E. Cummings)
• Bold is reserved for headings and subheadings
• Bold is not to be used for emphasis, italics are to be used sparingly for emphasis

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds about right. Personally, I would rephrase as

Emboldening words and phrases should be avoided wherever possible, except for the first use of the article title or its synonyms. Emboldening should not be used for emphasis within a sentence; instead italics can be used sparingly.

I can see some complications to this, such as where bold type is used within an exact quotation. Bourne-Again_shell has two other cases to consider , and Command line interface has one. --Cedders 09:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization of unusual proper names

There are recently many new proper names being introduced into the language that are "officially" spelled with an inital lowercase letter. Of course, Wikipedia does not permit initial capitals in the titles of articles, so the titles of these articles are contrary to the "official" spelling, but anything goes in the body of articles. There is a very old rule of written English that sentences have to being with a capital letter. Many style guides even require that sentence-initial numbers must be written out in words, even if they would elsewhere be written using numerals. The reason for this is clear—finding sentence boundaries is important to scanning, which is an essential part of reading, and if sentences don't begin with capital letters, they are harder to find. I can't seem to find any style guides that rule specifically on this topic—these kinds of names are so new—but I have seen in the Wall Street Journal e.g. sentences begin with "IPod" rather than "iPod". To my mind, we would be best off respecting the norms of written English rather than the trendy typographical whims of the modern marketer. Can anyone cite a style guide that rules on this issue either way? Nohat 09:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Its a tough one. I have been going through conservative business publications to see how they handle odd company names. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

IMHO we should avoid starting sentences with these words altogether, since either way it looks odd. Use 'Sales of the iPod...' rather than 'IPod/iPod sales...'. Incidentally, the Economist style guide section on the fairly analogous 'e-expressions' says they are lower case except when beginning a sentence.[3] Mark^{your words} 20:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, clever rewording can eliminate almost every violation. We still have to decide about usage such as all capitals: NUCOR (where it is not a true acronym); and other variations such as: BioPharma. Who wants first swing at this tough one? Should we eliminate mid-capitalization? We have the Hoovers vs the Economist style. Fill in your opinions below. Maybe we can settle this in just a few days. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I remember reading an extensive discussion of this issue somewhere on Wikipedia. Can't remember if it was here or elsewhere though. But then again, virtually every topic that gets discussed here has already been discussed 10 times before in the archives. Oh well. I can't wait for MediaWiki 2.0! Kaldari 21:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

ALL CAPITALS (but not a true acronym)

Reduce to title case. I think they look best this way, and business publications have a mixed record on which to use.

MidCapitals

Keep I don't think they look bad, and most business publications keep them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, neither of these are quite what I was looking for: I have now been reverted on both iPod and iTunes on this matter, and I think we need to make a project-wide decision on whether to allow this. (I think we strictly should only allow sentences to begin with capital letters). However, on these two issues, I agree with all-caps names being reduced to title case except where the capitals are actually an acronym, and with keeping InterCaps. There was a long discussion on Talk:Lego about this. I think a balance between respecting the official spellings and obeying the norms of written English warranted. I would suggest wording in the MoS of the following sort:

For business and other names that have an "official" spelling which is not normal title case, use the following treatment:

• ALL CAPITALS: If a name is "officially" represented in all capitals, and the name is not an acronym—that is, each letter doesn't officialy stand for a separate word—then the names should be reduced to title case—only the first letter should be capitalized. Other letters should be lowercase. Exception: in the article concerning the name, there should be a mention and example of the "official" spelling. Examples: Lego, Beer Nuts, but IBM, NATO, AIDS.
• InterCaps: Where a name is a formed by compounding other words or morphemes, and where the "official" representation has capitalized the compound parts, even though there is no preceding space, the internal capitals should be maintained. Examples: WordPerfect, TiVo, GameCube.
• lowercase initials: Where a name is "officially" spelled with an initial lowercase letter, the initial lowercase should be maintained. However, as with all words that are not normally spelled with an initial capital letter, they should be capitalized when they begin a sentence. Examples: iPod, eBay, craigslist, but "IPod is a brand name owned by Apple Computer", "EBay is a online auction site", "Craigslist is a network of online urban communities".

Do not use the trademark ™ and registered trademark ® symbols, except when quoting.

Nohat 21:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Aha! There is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). This discussion should be continued at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks). Nohat 22:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Remove sections here that have been made final

Can we remove sections that are listed here when we have come to agreement on a set of rules? That way instead of blanking the page when it fills, only active discussions remain on the active talk page. What do you think? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Erm, I think that's called archiving... Mikker ^... 01:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats great, but I am not asking for it to be defined, I am asking for it to be implemented. The individual topics should be removed from the active page at the time each is added to the actual MoS article. It has not been done since I have been contributing. This way only open discussions appear on the talk page. Does anyone agree or disagree?

I think it's pretty standard practice. If you see anythng here that needs archiving, why not go ahead and move it? There's a link to the archives at the top of the page. Jimp 15:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Italics

The italics section has become pretty big. Anyone else think it should become its own topic? It should be Wikipedia:Manual of Style (italics). I am going to move it and leave a summary at main MoS page. It can always be reverted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Emphasis

Suggested rules:

• ALL CAPS should not be used for emphasis
• Bold should not be used for emphasis
• "Quotation marks" should not be used for emphasis but to show that the exact word used is correct
• Italics should be used sparingly for emphasis

Should we standardize on bold or italics for emphasis or have a laissez-faire attitude? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Emphasis -> italics. PizzaMargherita 18:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I vote for italics. Ground Zero | t 18:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Your proposed rules are unnecessary, except perhaps for "use italics, not bold, for emphasis." We have to assume a certain baseline level of common ground here among editors; certainly a working knowledge of the English language is one such assumption—we don't specify the rules of English grammar in the Manual of Style, exhorting editors, for instance, to "make verbs agree with their subjects". A working knowledge of the basic rules of typesetting should also be assumed. Italics are used for emphasis. Boldface is used only for specialized purposes, such as for marking a topic or for providing for an additional binary dimension of data in a table. The only case of boldface ever being used for emphasis is when the writer wants to essentially scream at the reader, laying on an additional layer of emphasis for which italics is insufficient: "I will not be ignored!" In an encyclopedia, we never have a use case for the writer screaming at the reader (since the "writer" should be fading into the background as much as possible), so boldface is never to be used for emphasis.

Your other rules are just exhorting editors to not be ignorant of typesetting rules they are apparently already ignorant of. Edit their errors, and if they persist, leave a note on their talk pages explaining their errors. If they continue, adding a rule to the MoS will be no more helpful than adding a rule on subject-verb agreement will be for editors who don't speak English well. --TreyHarris 01:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• You are confusing a styleguide with a grammarguide. Lets please stay on topic and discuss style. The point of a style guide is to set the rules out ahead of time, so we don't have to have endless debate each time the question comes up again. If we don't select a standard style then the look and feel of the completed work is not consistant. The Manual of Style does not have to be difficult to navigate anymore than a 1M entry encyclopedia called Wikipedia would be difficult. When a page gets too big and takes to much time to load, split it into its own entry and leave a link on the main page. It works for every other long entry. And I have no problem searching the Chicago manual of style to see how they do it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Disposition of the Wikipedia Manual of Style

From recent commentary here and at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), it seems that there may not be consensus on two points which are pretty vital to the purpose and disposition of the Manual of Style (both this page and all the related MoS pages):

1. Should the Wikipedia Manual of Style be enforceable in article editing disputes?
2. Should the Wikipedia Manual of Style strive to be a complete manual of style, to rival published manuals of style?

Perhaps we should have a straw poll soon about these questions. My take is that the answer to #1, enforceability, should be "yes", but the current state of the MoS, with its contradictions and great differentials in amount of detail and relevance from section to section, makes it the rational course for many editors to ignore the MoS in some cases. I think we should strive to fix these shortcomings, so that the MoS can be enforceable as a guideline. (Remember the difference between guideline and policy: policies are more inviolate than guidelines, but both are actionable.)

I think the answer to #2, completeness, should be "no". Many editors have complained that the sprawl that is already the MoS is impossible to keep tabs on if you want to do anything else in the encyclopedia. I think this is getting to be true, and recent expansions of this page and associated MoS pages have only worsened the problem. I think this MoS should strive for minimalism, taking up matters of actual ongoing dispute and cases where Wikipedia has a need for special-purpose guidelines (for example, naming conventions, linking, formatting, etc.). It should not take up matters where other style guides are in agreement, or where the rules of English grammar and typesetting are undisputed. It should also allow for editor's choice in most matters that are more presentation than content.

I would like to start discussion on these points, perhaps moving to a straw poll in a few days to try to resolve them. I will create two sections below so that the two questions can be dealt with separately. If we can get different viewpoints, that will help to determine if there is already rough consensus, and if not, what the options in the poll should be. --TreyHarris 02:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that both of your points are valid ones, but I am not sure if it will be possible to achieve complete agreement on style issues unless the English Wikipedia is forked — one for American English and one for Commonwealth English. There are simply too many differences between the various English dialects to have one style guide that will be satisfactory for all. Standardizing on American English makes the English WP look too American (look at the perennial U.S. v. US debate), standardizing on British English makes it look too British (Americans like me find "honour," "cheque," "trade-mark" and "trading estate" to be so quaint), and standardizing on neither looks just weird (as in the massive ongoing mess with regard to the placement of punctuation and quotation marks). I think PizzaMargherita's proposal for dynamic dialect display a while back was a good idea but I am not sure if it can be implemented in an efficient fashion in the MediaWiki software. --Coolcaesar 04:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the concern is valid, but overstated, if the desire is to write a minimal MoS rather than a complete one. The number of places Wikipedia cares about standardizing where American versus Commonwealth English diverge is not really that large. The problem can look to be larger than it is, though. Since most of us work only with the English we're familiar with, it's tempting to ascribe any style guidance that we're not familiar with to being from "that other English."

For instance, there was a rather huge debate a couple years ago over whether headings should be written in title case or sentence case. Many people, I'm tempted to say most of those in the dispute, believed that this was an American/Commonwealth issue—even though there were people on both sides who were claiming that the other way was American. It was only after we documented dozens of cases of all four possibilities (American sentence case, American title case, Commonwealth sentence case, Commonwealth title case) did people realize that it wasn't a dialect issue at all (which by long-standing tradition should not be standardized) but a stylistic one (which we can standardize), which allowed us to settle on standardizing on sentence case.

But if the consensus is to write a complete style guide, you're probably correct—it would be easier just to fork everything into the American and Commonwealth Manuals of Style. I think that's another reason to avoid going in that direction. --TreyHarris 04:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think forking WP over varieties of English is overkill and out of the question. I'm pretty sure the proposal Coolcaesar refers to is not too difficult to implement and not a resource hog. By the way, Coolcaesar, your vote is missing! :-) Once enough editors register their interest, we can look deeper into the details of the implementation. Thanks. I'll be back with some comments on the other points. PizzaMargherita 07:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

With the database problems of the past few days, I have no idea how some 60 edits were applied to this talk. Generally, I don't bother responding again until folks have had at least a day to think about it. I agree with Trey that we have an over-specification problem here. Especially where the recent proposals for this MoS contradict other pages at Italic type and Bold (currently a redirect to Emphasis (typography), for those of you who think bold is not used for emphasis).

--William Allen Simpson 22:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Should the MoS be enforceable?

Support

1. weak support — note the use of bold — and italics — given that this MoS frequently describes differences between regional usage, and advises to leave them alone! --William Allen Simpson 22:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. oppose. Non-professional editors won't memorize and adhere to a style guide; only publishing professionals are aware of the intracacies and importance of a house style. Also, the U.K. contingent is particularly unyielding in insisting that their national conventions be the rule; I don't want to see a style guide that's grounds for solving disputes when I know it's going to wind up full of unfamilar (to U.S. readers) U.K. style and typographical conventions. I would support a very small core policy on coding or special characters that might interact very badly with MediaWiki software (not sure what those would be), but that's about it. DavidH 00:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose on the grounds of agreement with the intro to WP:MOS: The following rules do not claim to be the last word on Wikipedia style and supporting this would be a contradiction to the intro and not allow for variation of the MOS on a per article basis. It also doesn't make sense to enforce the MOS when the 2nd question of "Should the MoS be a complete style guide?" is posed indicating that it's not. Cburnett 00:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Should the MoS be a complete style guide?

Support

1. Support for only the reason that I don't see why it shouldn't. Just like WP won't ever be finished doesn't mean we shouldn't give it (WP & MoS) a go and see how complete it gets. I guess I support because I don't want the opposite to happen: stuff not added for fear of making it complete. Cburnett 00:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
2. If anyone wants to embark on that monolithic task, more power to them. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. strong oppose — when would such a thing ever be finished? --William Allen Simpson 22:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose — Such a product would belong in Wikibooks, not in Wikipedia. The Wikipedia Manual of Style should be a style guide for the special issues that come up here. --TreyHarris 07:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Use of imperatives

Does the Manual of Style say anything about the use of imperatives in articles? For example, the article earwax states:

Never irrigate the ear if the eardrum is not known to be intact, because irrigation with a ruptured eardrum may cause ear infection or acoustic trauma. Never irrigate if the ears have burning, bleeding, pus discharge, or pain, without calling a doctor first. Never irrigate the ear with a jet irrigator designed for cleaning teeth (such as a WaterPik) because the force of the irrigation may damage the eardrum.

All those "Never" statements seem to amount to medical advice and imply that Wikipedia is the authority telling the reader what not to do. I believe they should be restated in a non-imperative form, such as "It is advised never to irrigate the ear if the eardrum is not known to be intact." However it seems it would be difficult to read if all those statements were rephrased in that way.

I would like to hear your suggestions about this. Is it necessary to explicitly proscribe the use of imperatives in articles? In my opinion, they should be avoided in most cases. --Dforest 16:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there should probably be a cleanup template along the lines of "this article contains instructions or advice, and needs to be cleaned up to meet encyclopedia standards" or some such; I've also noticed many articles like this (often on technical subjects where they read like an instruction manual). I don't think the MoS needs to injuct against imperatives; they're a content issue, not a stylistic one. --TreyHarris 04:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This comes under the spirit, if not the letter, of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Avoid_the_second_person. Mark^{your words} 10:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

s after apostrophe in possessives of words ending in s

Should there be an s after the apostrophe in possessives ending in s?

Example:
The genome project would not be the same without Francis Collins' contributions. or
The genome project would not be the same without Francis Collins's contributions.

Please drop a note on my talk page if you reply, as I may forget to check back here.

Thanks,
Wulf 20:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The MOS (helpfully) says: "Possessives of singular nouns ending in s may be formed with or without an additional s. Either form is generally acceptable within Wikipedia. However, if either form is much more common for a particular word or phrase, follow that form, such as with "Achilles' heel"." Rmhermen 21:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Both styles are acceptable. Standard practice has been 's, since it conforms both to standard pronunciation and the rule for forming the possessive. Exceptions would be for words and names ending in unpronounced s and for a name of two or more syllables ending in an eez sound. —Wayward ^Talk 21:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

?? I thought standard English rules were any noun that ends in an 's' has its possessive formed by adding a "'" after the "s". Examples: Jones, Jones' blanket ; dogs, dogs' tails. Has standard English changed in some way? Thanks Hmains 20:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No, that's incorrect—the rule is actually quite complicated. The important thing to know is that this is not an orthographic rule—that is, the rule is not based on what letters are on the written page. You can't say something as simple as, "if the word ends in s, add an apostrophe, otherwise add an apostrophe plus s". Rather, the rule is a morphological one—based on word forms. You write based on what people say, not the other way around.

The plural possessive of regular singular verbs is sounded the same as the plural, and is written with a terminal apostrophe, so the dogs' tails is correct as you said. But the rule for writing the singular possessive of words ending in s or z sounds depends on how the possessive is pronounced. If the possessive is silent, then it should be written with just a terminal apostrophe, as in Jones' opinion. If the possessive is pronounced, then it should be written with 's, as in Harris's opinion or the bass's amplifier. (As someone with the last name of Harris, I can testify that the pronunciation Harris' opinion is definitely incorrect, and the writing should follow the pronunciation.)

Usually, you can deduce whether the possessive is pronounced or not by whether the singular form ends voiced (that is, with a z sound) or unvoiced (with an s sound). Jones ends voiced, so we get Jones' opinion. Harris is unvoiced, so we get Harris's opinion. Unfortunately, this rule is not inviolate: in Jesus' name is most common, even though Jesus ends unvoiced.

So basically, you just have to sound it out, and if there's an extra iz sound attached, then you write it apostrophe plus s, if there's not, you write it just with an apostrophe. This is complicated by the fact that not everyone says it the same in every case; some people would say Jones's opinion, not Jones' opinion. (I haven't done any statistical analysis to verify this, but my intuition is that you'll do better, not knowing whether the possessive of a given word is pronounced or not, to assume that it is, and write apostrophe plus s.)

As far as the Wikipedia is concerned, the most important thing is that within a single article that there be consistency with the use of the possessive form for a given word. For people, if there is evidence as to how the person pronounces the possessive of his or her own name, that form should be used. In any case, one shouldn't go around "fixing" apostrophe plus s to just apostrophe or vice versa without good reason to do so. (Apologies for the long-winded answer; linguists just can't shut up when talking about stuff like this. ;-) --TreyHarris 22:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)