Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 61

Archive 55

←

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

→

Archive 65

The discussion "Quotation marks using Cquote tag" continues from Archive 60.

Quotation marks using Cquote tag

continued from Archive 60

Yet another quote template

Look what I found: {{cquotetxt}} And this one looks different too. This is exactly why I don't like these. Is there a way to actually do something about it, instead of discussing this on WP talk:MOS till the end of time? Shinobu 04:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

These are designed to be used as pull quotes, but they are being used for block quotes. A pull quote is a quote that is pulled out of the text of the article, meaning it is duplicated. A pull quote can either be a quotation from a source outside the article, or it can be a quotation of the article text itself. Block quotes are part of the text of the article. Using this kind of formatting for anything that is part of the flow of the text of the article is just bad typesetting. Personally, I don't feel pull quotes have a place in Wikipedia because of the layout of the pages, either. Anyway, I've come to realize that changing anything style-wise like this will basically never happen (see the next heading down for issues I've been trying to get consensus on for two years). If consensus is never reached, inconsistency will remain. It's a caveat of the consensus thing, and it's why traditional publications have style guides, art directors, and copy editors.

“ Que sera, sera. ” — Doris Day

– flamurai (t) 04:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, we do seem to have consensus on this. Look at the discussion above. And I think no one thinks having several different looking quote templates with same purpose are a good idea. Also, those of us who want curly braces will have to agree that this has to be done through CSS (and/or JS), seperating style from content.

And it's really easy to fix too. Just change the wikitext of the templates to contain normal blockquotes. Then just go by the instances of the templates, marking the pull quotes separately, say using {{pullquote}}, and substing the rest.

We can have a discussion about whether we want curly quotes yes or no, and whether we want pullquotes yes or no.

The main thing we have to streamline is keeping these three issues separate. A good solution would perhaps be to have a poll "do we want pullout quotes, yes/no, do we want large quotation marks, yes/no/only on pull quotes". Then we have something to point to when we are doing the actual work. Also, if it would turn out that the majority wants curly quote marks, then we can just change the CSS and JS.

PS: "will basically never happen" - that's pessimistic. Can't we try to make stuff happen? Shinobu 17:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

PPS: Actually, the MoS already has an excellent recommendation: use <blockquote>. Nothing prevents us from replacing the quote templates to blockquotes. However, in the name of tact and consideration, I would advise people doing so to give an explanation. For instance, don't rightout delete a quote template, but change the wikitext to use a blockquote, tag it for substing, and include a noinclude section pointing to the MoS and informing people that if they want curly graphical quotationmarks, they can have them, through css and js. Shinobu 06:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I just stumbled across an article that uses cquote for an actual pullquote: Risks of classical ballet – flamurai (t) 06:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

A solution?

The site-wide CSS should be updated so <blockquote> receives some sort of special formatting... possibly italics or smaller type. Most users probably don't think the indent sets the quote off enough. – flamurai (t) 06:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it already gets some special treatment; it looks noticably smaller:

Normal text pa's wijze lynx bezag vroom het fikse aquaduct.

Blockquote lorem ipsum, quia dolor sit, amet, consectetur, adipisci uelit.

More normal text the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Italics have been ruled out in previous discussion, because that looks unprofessional, is harder to read, …

Note that even though at least {{rquote}} is used to format a pull quote, even pull quotes (if we want them at all, but that's a different debate) should be formatted through CSS and, if necessary, script, for example by defining a CSS class "pullquote" to be used on blockquotes.

… even pull quotes … should be formatted through CSS …

If we want to "easify" this using a template, I propose we call it {{pullquote}} thereby making it absolutely clear what its intended use is. Shinobu 01:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Since no more comments are flowing in, I take it this is decided. Since the MoS already tells us to use blockquote tags, I don't think the MoS needs changing. Perhaps the wording could be tweaked a bit, or be made more specific, but no actual change is necessary. Shinobu 02:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I basically see this discussion as ignoring the thousands of editors who have chosen to use cquote. The wagons are circling to delete it based on the style preference of a few people for the good of everyone else if they like it or not. Instead you should be looking at situations where it actually looks very good (Pinocchio for example) and situations where it looks bad, put into words why this is so, then come up with a style guideline on when not to use the template and add it to the template instructions. Trying to delete this template en-masse will never work, or lead to a lot of fighting at best. Creating a guideline on why this special template should be considered, and why it should probably not be considered, is the right track. -- Stbalbach 14:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I must agree with Stbalbach; the use of cquote vs. any other quotation style is a purely aesthetic matter and, as we all should know, de gustibus non est disputandum. It is entirely pointless to argue over whether one arbitrary aesthetic preference is better than another arbitrary aesthetic preference, therefore, we ought to allow article-level consensus to govern the use of cquote. As I pointed out here there are cases where cquote serves a function no other template does: in some articles one wants (a) the quotes to be set apart from the body of the text but (b) the flow to be preserved. A simple blockquote doesn't do the former, Template:Quotation, Template:Quote box, and Template:Epigraph fail to do the latter. And Template:Rquote makes the quote too elongated for the purpose. (Contrast Mount Tambora). Furthermore, cquote allows the use of footnote refs - check out how it's used in Richard Dawkins. Mikker ^(...) 16:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The CQuote looks cartoonish. It looks like something you'd see on an amateur poetry site. Tragic romance 07:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a small comment on this matter. In our great aesthetic debate, we seem to have forgotten that this is ultimately an encyclopedia, and therefore should follow formal stylistic expectations. Formal writing does use giant quotation marks with indentations — it only uses indentations. Indents for quotations have long been the common standard; giant quotation mark thingies have never been. Therefore, in the vast majority of cases, the indentations are more appropriate. The aesthetics are largely irrelevant.

I do agree with Stbalback, however, in that Stbalbach's approach is very reasonable. Within the Pinocchio article both styles are used, and both are used very appropriately. Though in my opinion, the inclusion of the first quote is not appropriate for a formal encyclopedia, as it sounds like more of a review than an encyclopedic article (which is entirely another issue, so let's not go into that, and for the purposes of this, we'll say it is appropriate). Deletion of the template may not be wise, but advice against its use except in exceptional circumstances, and explaining where it might be appropriate, is a decent option. Neonumbers 09:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Outside opinion requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks)

There are currently three interrelated debates, and I think we could use some new voices:

1. Symbols as words e.g. I ♥ NY, Toys "Я" Us
2. All capitalized trademarks e.g. WWE RAW, TIME
3. Trademarks with Question Marks (?) and Exclamation Points (!) e.g. Yahoo!, Guess?

If you have even a slight opinion, please chime in under the relevant discussion. I personally have been involved in this debate for almost two years. I think it's time we came to a global consensus... the straw polls on specific articles' talk pages just lead to more revert wars. – flamurai (t) 03:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Fetocide vs. feticide spelling policy (3rd opinion needed)

At feticide, an editor has changed "(sometimes referred to as fetocide)" to "(sometimes mistakenly spelt fetocide)". I pointed out that we had cited sources of medical professionals using that spelling, and for us to call it a mistake, would not only be POV pushing, but also be spitting in the face of Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. So I am here to ask for a third opinion at Talk:Feticide to weigh in on these matters. Is it ok to call common variant spellings used by professionals in the field of study in question a spelling mistake?--Andrew c 15:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am the other party in this, and it is clear to me that fetocide is a misspelling for reasons given at Talk:feticide. It is certainly not a matter of national varieties of English. It is an exaggeration to say there are "cited instances of medical professionals" using this spelling, and it does not appear in any dictionary.. at very best it is a recent and uncommon neologism. It is much more likely to be a mistake. Zargulon 16:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Of the medical journals available in the index at my university, I find one citation using fetocide, from May 2002 in the Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. A Google search on fetocide yields about 11,000 hits. I suspect many are from people who genuinely had no idea how to spell the word, and more from people whose fingers slipped, since the I and O keys are next to each other. Some of the hits come from pages about the German heavy-metal band. Therefore, I don't think fetocide is a variant spelling. But I also don't think it's a misspelling worth mentioing in an encyclopedia article. Any time I see Wikipedia call something a mistake, it feels condescending. We don't need to point out the mistakes of others unless we're going to write about why the mistakes are notable. Otherwise, who cares? --Rob Kennedy 21:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rob Kennedy. My own comments are at Talk:Feticide. What I would do is create a redirect, "Fetocide" -> "Feticide", if what hasn't been created already. I say this just to round out the discussion for what should happen in similar cases. (Despite the fact that I am sure this suggestion is already in the MOS somewhere.) --Charles Gaudette 23:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The most common spelling, by a fair way, is foeticide - which isn't even mentioned in the article, jguk 21:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

??? Foeticide or feticide as a legal term refers ... – flamurai (t) 01:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

flamurai, I think your question — if I can call it that — is vauge, and if it is what I think it is, this belongs on the Talk:Feticide page, not here. It is not helpful to divide (and hide) the feticide dicussion on this talk page. --Charles Gaudette 17:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What question? I was just pointing out the foeticide is mentioned in the article. – flamurai (t) 23:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

User Boxes without 'mandatory' categories

I tend to find user boxes useful in the sense that one small box can convey more than one will typically be able to convey in a small sentense. But I have seen that most of them come with a 'Category' which the user may not wish to add. e.g. my page belongs to 15 categories whereas I wish to retain only three of them but at the same time want keep all the user boxes there on my page (would have added more boxes but the categories...). Vjdchauhan 12:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really a stylebook issue. Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes is a more appropriate venue. Anyway, you could use subst to copy the user-box code into your page, and then edit the result to remove the category link. --Rob Kennedy 17:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I moved When all else fails section upward

The content of this section is far from a "miscellaneous note" (that's the supersection it had been in).

We need to tell readers early and prominently, not late and obscurely, what to do when MoS doesn't tell them what they want to know.

And in general we need to point them to well known manuals of style early, rather than let them read through large amounts of "here's what we think" before they finally read "here are the recongnized worldwide authorities on style".

TH 19:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Specifying locations

Is there a guideline that requires the first mention of a location in an article (especially in the introduction) to specify the country concerned? Just for clarity?

When I'm browsing articles, I'm very regularly bugged by the fact that most editors writing about a location in their home country omit the country's name. I do know that in 99% percent of the time, the location's name is linked to an article specifying the country. Yet, especially in an article's introduction, I guess it'd be convenient not to have to click away to a second article just to know whether Troy is in the US, the UK, or even in Turkey. Moreover, lots of American editors seem to think that mentioning a state is enough, but honestly, as a Dutchman, I cannot always see the difference between US, Canadian, Australian, Indian, British etc. area names.

If there already is a policy/guideline on this, please tell me. If there is none, I hereby propose one. -- Bakabaka 11:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd avoid instruction creep here. "Troy", because very ambiguous, almost always deserves clarification (except in the context of ancient history). And I'd always clarify anything that is not worldwide common knowledge ("Rosario, Argentina" or even "Sibiu, in the Transylvanian region of Romania"). But we don't really need always to say "Paris, France" or "Amsterdam, Netherlands", or "Beijing, China". - Jmabel | Talk 23:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This is bugging me too, and I can't find a policy that's relevant. What I'd particularly like is a policy which states the level of detail to be used, and how we handle the difference between a country (i.e., technically, a state) and major subdivisions of it (e.g. a US State, or a component nation of the UK). The example that seems most common – and results in frequent mild edit wars – is the question of whether to say [[British city]], [[England]] or [[British city]], [[United Kingdom]]. Whilst both may be correct, the danger with saying "England" seems to me to be that it contributes to some people then taking "England" to mean "United Kingdom", which is a common mistake. I know this isn't Wikipedia's problem, as such, but if we can avoid ambiguity, we should. The trouble is, English nationalists start to take offence and revert to "England", arguing (quite correctly) that the British city in question is indeed in England... see what I mean? – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Guideline proposal: Avoid purely decorative images

I propose the following guideline be added to the images section here:

Avoid using images in a purely decorative fashion. Images should either identify or add information directly relevant to the subject of the article.

My rationale:

1. The primary purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information.
2. Decoration is subjective. There are many editors on Wikipedia with many ideas of design. Allowing decorative use of images will create inconsistencies in style.
3. Using copyrighted images not release under a free license in a purely decorative fashion is not fair use.

This was inspired by WP:FLAGCRUFT. Thoughts?

– flamurai (t) 23:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

1. There's nothing wrong with having a good presentation. Wikipedia could just as well be distributed in ASCII text files. 3. So don't let people use fair use copyright images when they're nonessential. I don't understand what problem you're trying to describe in 2. Strad 04:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I can tell you haven't been near any quote templates recently. Shinobu 04:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• It's a good start but I think it comes off too strong. I wouldn't want to completely forbid using decorative images like flags, I think there just should be a fair balance. Maybe this would sound better as "Maintain a fair balance when using images for decorative purposes. Images should not distract the reader but add or illustrate the context of the article." What you guys think? - Tutmosis 14:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's an example of "purely decorative" use of flags: With flags; without flags. What does the addition of flags in #1 accomplish that the presentation in #2 doesn't? I will try to find some non-flag examples. I know I have run across them but can't think of anything off-hand. – flamurai (t) 17:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "purely decorative", but I think that if an image directly relates to the text and can be justfied then it should be fine. Articles (especially long ones) need pictures to make them better and, I believe, more reader friendly. Plus, on your thrid note, I think this section of the fair use article clears up when copyrghted images should be used. If you were to give an example of what you mean in an existing article then I'm sure it would make more sense to me (and perhaps others). Tartan 15:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think he means images that don't add anything to the article and are used purely for layout/eye candy reasons. The example he gave above is a good one. Adding the flag icons doens't add anything to the article, they're purely there for decoration. Another example would be the curly quote images that seem to have begun to adorne quotation templates recently. (Note that I'm not saying every use of flag icons is bad: in infoboxes where there's not enough room for full country names they can be kind of practical.) Shinobu 18:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. I think the use of icons in infoboxes and tables acceptable, but there shouldn't be an icon with the text describing it right next to it. That's what effective use of alt descriptions if for. e.g. this icon may not be self-evident, but if you roll over it you'll get a description: Stops all times except late nights and rush hours in peak direction I'm all for the effective use of images and technology, but completely against excess use. – flamurai (t) 18:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:FLAGCRUFT is a good essay, and clicking through the links in it provides some excellent contrasts and examples. Flags seem to be not so bad in tabular data where the countries' identities are a key value, like the Olympic gymnast listings. But they are certainly terrible in page subheadings, awful in most other places, and they make the Einstein infobox look like a pair of jeans from Benetton. —Michael Z. 2006-11-06 22:15 Z

Query: What about something like Utopia, Limited or Onion dome - more pictures than strictly needed, but all relevant. We'd need to be careful not to make things sound too restrictive. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether this proposed guideline, which I support by the way, is not an attempt on our part to codify good judgment or taste. We don't write guidelines saying not to use any unnecessary or decorative words, letters, or punctuation, after all. Can we not leave it up to consensus to make good articles good, and comprised of what is necessary and avoiding what is not? —Michael Z. 2006-11-07 04:37 Z

That's a good point. Part of writing a style guide is codifying good taste... it just depends on how far we want to go. For example we have a point:

If there are too many images in a given article, consider using a gallery.

Obviously "too many" is up to the author.

I think this guideline is better, because "purely decorative" is much easier to recognize. In fact, it really wouldn't rule out most image use, because almost any image added here is relevant to the article. But let's say someone comes in and starts adding clip art that really doesn't illustrate anything specific. e.g. I make a music article and I decide, "hey this is really cute, let's add it next to the headings:

History of the tuba

This is really what the guideline is trying to prevent. Wikipedia is not a company newsletter. It's not a place for you to express your artistic side.

– flamurai (t) 21:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, while such a guide would not affect most articles per se, there are a few templates, mostly quoteboxes, infoboxes and infobox templates that are affected. I've seen infobox templates that explicitely provide a parameter for an otherwise purely decorative image. There is often a reluctance to change templates, perhaps for fear of treading on too many toes... See the quotebox discussion above for another instance of "template fossilisation". Shinobu 22:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course there are the stub templates too. These images are purely decorative, but I don't necessarily think they should go. Shinobu 22:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The stub is part of "wikipedia project space", this guideline is really meant for the article proper. Actually in that case the image is helpful to set the stub template off from the article body. I would like to consider infoboxes separately, as images in that case may help disinguish them from the article proper. Can you point me to an example? – flamurai (t) 22:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:NavigationBox(edit talk links history)

Navigationbox with image on the right; no v-d-e nor hide/show.

Template:Dynamic navigation box with image(edit talk links history)

Navigationbox with image on the left and hide/show, but no v-d-e.

Here are two. Shinobu 05:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

1. ”Jabberwocky” is a nonsense poem by Lewis Carroll.
   • Shouldn't that be “Jabberwocky”?
2. Quotation marks affect searching
   • Isn't that a bug (not a style guide rule)? — Omegatron 19:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree, but as long as it isn't fixed, we'll have to make do. Shinobu 21:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The first example you give is certainly a poor choice. "Jabberwocky" or “Jabberwocky” should both be fine. We tend mostly toward the former. - Jmabel | Talk 23:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

@there is no consensus in Wikipedia on which should be preferred, either is acceptable: I think this is mostly because Wikipedians think the curly ones are a pain to enter. Keep in mind that the English wiki originally had no Unicode support, making “ (&ldquo;) etc. necessary. I think the curly ones are safe to use now. Question: is it permissable to change typewriter quotes to real quotes? Shinobu 13:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with curly vs straight quotes. The title used the same quote mark at the beginning and end of the word. — Omegatron 05:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

On page creation, creator should search and wikilink that word

On page creation, creator should search and wikilink that word. New page may enable some red links but what about the ones where the corresponding word was not put put in internal link tag. Can this be made a guideline that can be put on discussion page of new page just after it gets created. Vjdchauhan 06:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't really a style issue. Try Help:Starting a new page. (There's a little bit, but it could stand to be more explicit.) – flamurai (t) 09:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I was not sure where to put this so chose this discussion page. Primarily I want to bring it to notice of Wikipedians does initial review (notability/copyright review etc) of new page and do you think Help:Starting a new page is proper page to notify 'new page watchers' wikipedians. Thanks. Vjdchauhan 10:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Title character

I'm proposing a policy to either use "title character" or "eponymous" character, instead of "titular" character seen on some pages. The reason being, not all dictionary define titular as a title character, but eponymous is specifically, a "title character". I raised the question at the Reference desk/Language, and people seem to agree that it should be "eponymous" and not "titular". --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need a policy saying to choose words based on what they mean? I figured that was a given. Where is this a problem? Have you encountered resistance when you changed articles to use the right word? --Rob Kennedy 03:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I did, at Naruto, as well as another page which I have currently forgotten. And if you search for titular character, you get 1120 matches, which is grounds for proposing it as a policy, IMO. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Greece and similar

Can we have an official policy on these divisions which are considered proper titles, like Rennaisance Europe, Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, etc, to prevent stupidities like the recent move of Music of Ancient Greece to Music of ancient Greece? Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The article renaming above isn't exclusive to Greece, since the word 'ancient' is an adjective and not part of the actual name, so there is no reason to have it capitalized unless it starts a sentence. I'm sure there was a discussion about that somewhere. Do you have any other naming conventions you want people to follow that explicitly apply to Ancient Greece? - Tutmosis 19:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Time periods are capitalised when attached to a country or region: Neolithic Europe, Ancient Rome, Rennaisance Italy. They form part of the things' designation and are capitalised. Same with Ancient Egypt, Roman Britain, Pre-Modern America. All are capitalised. It's a standard convention. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Espoo has posted twice about this on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters), which I think is the more appropriate venue for the discussion. I think Espoo is proposing the opposite policy from yours. The relevant sections of the Chicago Manual of Style are 8.78 and 8.79. They call for lowercase descriptive designations in most cases: ancient Greece, the colonial period, imperial Rome, the Hellenistic period. They make exceptions for tradition: the Age of Reason, the Common Era, the Old Kingdom (ancient Egypt). --Rob Kennedy 17:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll comment here - as the points I make have a more general application.

A key problem with the Chicago Manual of Style is that it is as hated outside America as it is loved inside America (at least amongst those with an interest in style issues). It is also just plain inaccurate at places - by all means capitalise the C and E of the Common Era, but don't lets pretend this term has much of a tradition behind it (or pretend that most people will know what you mean, but then that point's also true of the Age of Reason :) ).

I often see Ancient rather than ancient Greece, and Imperial rather than imperial Rome. However, I'm not convinced we need to dictate one particular rule. Let the authors of each article address style issues based on what is most suitable for the audience they are targetting the article at. Different articles will be targetted at different audience. We shouldn't presume that a one-size-fits-all style is desirable here, jguk 18:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Are There Any Wikipedia Manual Of Style Rules On {{see also}}?

? Thanks.100110100 06:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Guide to layout has a clear to the point explanation regarding this section. For future reference, it be best to ask such questions at the Reference desk. Thanks. - Tutmosis 16:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the place to ask is the Help Desk. Rmhermen 04:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Misc queries

Why is the section "Memes as memes" so called? NBeale 19:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I did that, though I never liked it, and I just changed it -- any other suggestions?

TH 19:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Disc and disk

I've noticed that there is inconsistancy in the usage of the words disk and disc. I was wondering what everyone thinks on this matter. Here's what OED has to say:

"The earlier and better spelling is disk, but disc is now the more usual form in British English, except in sense 2g, where disk is commoner as a result of US influence."—Oxford English Dictionary (Second Edition, 1989)

"Sense 2g" involves computer-related terms, which is particularly where I've noticed the inconsistancy (hard disk, optical disc). Do you think this issue should just be treated on a per-article basis as American vs British English is? Is it even necessary to worry about it, or can we use disc and disk interchangably in the same articles without a second thought? Or should we perhaps be preferring one variant over the other. It's a minor issue for sure, but I couldn't find any previous discussion on it. -- mattb @ 2006-11-11T17:58Z

I would prefer disk, since it seems to be at least acceptable in both AE and BE, and using just one of the two makes searching easier. Anyway "optical disk" should fall in the 2g category, and therefore should commonly be spelt disk, even in BE. Shinobu 02:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. FWIW, the company for which I am currently contracting made the interesting decision in their documentation that a "disc" is a phyisical piece of removable media; anything else is a "disk". Thus, you "place the disc labeled 'Install 1' in the disk drive". Not suggesting that we adopt that, but I've noticed that it decreases ambiguity in some parts of their documentation. - Jmabel | Talk 23:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Using disk in the same sentence with the same meaning but different spelling? I wouldn't suggest to adopt that either. Shinobu 13:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a very subtle difference between disc and disk that has nothing to do with British and American English. For an optical storage medium, it's always disc: for example Compact Disc. For a magnetic storage medium, it's always disk, like in the case of Hard disk. SpNeo 19:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Surely you're joking. Why would we suddenly spell "disc" just because the storage medium is optical? It's the same word. Shinobu 15:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's the way I've always spelled it (and seen it spelled). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)