Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 70

Archive 65

←

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

→

Archive 75

TV/Movie titles

There is a silly debate on the talk page of "TNA iMPACT!", with one editor saying that TV shows/movies/video games/etc. shouldn't have stuff like exclamation points and question marks in their titles (so he would want "Who Wants to Be a Millionare?" moved to "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" for example). Not only do I think he's wrong, but think it would affect a lot of articles. Thoughts? TJ Spyke 07:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Question marks shouldn't be used due to technical restrictions. And if the symbol is part of the article name, it should be fine, as long as it's not for emphasis. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have said before, although I believe I'm in the minority here, that the use of superfluous punctuation in names should be avoided. See also this excellent essay by Bill Walsh, copy editor for the Washington Post. In this case, it certainly seems that the exclamation point is used only for emphasis, and should go.--chris.lawson 07:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Grammatical usage of a colon

I think we should expand the section on he use of a colon beyond just "space usage." This would include when to use and when not to use a colon in lists, especially with verb complements. While reading through the various policies (which I'm sure have been proofread numerous times), I have come across several errors involving colon usage. I double-checked my corrections with my grammar textbook (yes, I own one) and I was correct. Then when I check WP:MoS, I noticed it mentions next to nothing regarding proper usage, so I am assuming this is the problem. Are there any comments or suggestions as to the way it should be worded?--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 15:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the Academie Francaise. Make corrections as appropriate. --Tysto 18:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Inline book references

Sorry if this the wrong place for this, but I couldn't find somewhere better.

If an article refers to an actual book (the book is not a reference), does ISBN information need to be included? From Download This Song:

The lyrics of the song are based on the book The Future of Music: Manifesto for the Digital Music Revolution (ISBN 0-87639-059-9), by Dave Kusek and Gerd Leonhard.

Is this the proper way to handle book references? I've got a reference for this statement that would go at the end of the sentence, but would the book get its own footnote with ISBN info, etc.? Please advise, thanks! —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 15:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure, but a better place to find this would be at Wikipedia:Citing sources. That page has a lot more information on how to reference various works, and you might be able to ind the answer there.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 16:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I'll take my question there. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

HTML markup

I would like if it said something about adding excessive HTML for style reasons. Like bolding text to make headings instead of using the correct sub-heading markup, putting <big> tags around math markup to make it look the right size in your own browser, etc. Idiosyncratic markups that aren't carried between articles. I just want it to say something like

"in general, stuff like this is frowned upon. If you'd like to see a difference in the way articles are formatted, pursue it at the software/site-wide CSS level instead, where it can benefit everyone at once".

Ideas? — Omegatron 16:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Illustrations

I've noticed a tendency among some wikipedians to add "general interest" illustrations to articles, that is to say images of objects not refered to in the text. This [[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gothic_Revival_architecture&oldid=113077320 version]] of the article on the Gothic Revival is a case in point. I would maintain that pictures without context don't have any explanatory value, and so there is a need for a policy on this subject. Namely: illustrations must illustrate the text and that generic images should be confined to commons categories or gallery setions. Twospoonfuls 15:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What is harmed by these images? — Omegatron 15:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Meaning is harmed: pictures without context have no meaning. They ought to be explained by the text of the article. Twospoonfuls 15:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Word "the" before university names

Should the word the precede a universities name like the university of Blah or should it be just university of blah? If the word the should be there should it be capitalized? (as in say... At The University of Blah). Some 3rd party input to this would be appreciated, as this question is currently being debated at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-11 Ohio State University. Feel free to give input here in this section or at the medcab page. Thanks. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• I am a party in the current mediation case and my position is straightforward. Wikipedia should follow the usage that the school itself considers accurate. Accuracy is the guiding value of any encyclopedia. To have a policy that runs counter to accuracy is dangerous. ChicJanowicz 22:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Precisely as ChicJanowicz says, the institution will have a official, registered name, and that's what we should use. If they use other versions as well, for the purposes of marketing (or making it fit on their logo, for example!) then we can mention that in the introduction as well. – Kieran T ^(talk) 22:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• As far as the issue of capitalization is concerned, I have no position. However, if Wikipedia does not capitalize the word for usages such as "the United States" or "the Rolling Stones," I see no reason why it necessarily should for university names. ChicJanowicz 22:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• In short, no. Unless it is in a sentence where it would not make sense not to use the University of X. Now if we're talking about official names, that's a whole different story. If the school's official name is "The University of X", it is always used in University press materials, AND it can be found in common publications such as textbooks and such, then it should be called "The University of X". An example would be "The Ohio State University". There are only a few institutions where the definite article should be used. Going back to the above example, as an official name "the Ohio State University" would never be correct. Some people might say the "Ohio State University" but notice the definite article is outside of the brackets. OSU is a case where the definite article should always be used and it should always be capitalized. --Analogue Kid 22:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In general, use your ear. Does it sound like it needs a the? When the name is of the form “University of X,” then it usually takes a the beforehand, much like names of newspapers. Do not use OSU as an example upon which to base a rule. OSU is the exception. Institutions of the form “X University” generally don’t use a the. Ohio State is the only exception I know of. The reason it draws so much attention is precisely because it doesn’t sound right when the is attached to the front. When it uses the definite article, state and university end up sounding like generic nouns, as though you’re talking about that state university that happens to be in Ohio. If Ohio State wants to sound weird, fine. That’s a fight I’m willing to surrender fairly easily. But let’s not apply Ohio State’s rule to all the other universities.

Even in OSU’s case, though, there are times when the wouldn’t be capitalized. You might write, “I met the Ohio State University student at the union.” In that sentence, Ohio State University is an adjective modifying student. The adjective could be removed and still have a normal sentence. If you attach the to Ohio State University by capitalizing it, then when you remove the adjective you get *“I met student at the union” when what you really wanted was “I met the student at the union.” See this link for more. --Rob Kennedy 04:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it's not just Ohio State; I remember running into some others when doing my last round of faculty job applications. Can't remember which ones they were though. --Trovatore 04:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. There are several others. You can find a list at [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name)#Universities. All of these universities consider "The" to be an official part of the name. Wikipedia should use the correct name and include "The" in front of these institutions. Johntex\^talk 06:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If we're deferring to the university's name, the word "The" should be capitalized, since proper nouns are capitalized. So we'd write "Susan Mernit attended The Ohio State University." I think a better style rule is to omit "the" the whenever the first word in the school's name isn't University or College. This rule is more natural in common speech and will thus be easier to practice here. Google searches demonstrate that most people omit the "the" before Ohio State University. Rcade 21:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion on the Talk:Ohio State University page about the subject. I do agree that in most instances, it is inappropriate to use the definite article. An example given was Ohio University. The official name is "The Ohio University", however there are nearly 0 instances of that in use, and the university itself does not use that title. Also another important caveat is departments. The definite article shouldn't be used when referring specifically to that department. For example, you should say "Ohio State University's Department of Geology", or "Department of Geology at The Ohio State University". The difference being you're making two references in the latter and one in the former. Common usage dictates that us people in Columbus refer to OSU as simply "Ohio State". But I know for one that it's too vague a title for wikipedia, and what I say carries no weight here, since I'm just some dude, not a reliable source.--Analogue Kid 18:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"The" is a grammatical word and gets treated like one everywhere except in titles of artistic works (and even there, if it twists up the grammar enough). You don't capitalize "the" in "Susan bought an album by the Beatles." And you don't capitalize "the" in "Susan went to the Ohio State University"—assuming you even care that OSU considers "the" to be a part of the name, which most sensible publishers do not. --Tysto 18:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you basing this on, Tysto? — The Storm Surfer 07:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Style of Dating (ancient)

The expressions B.C. and A.D. are biased, and should, in fairness to all world religions and to atheists, be replaced with:

B.C.E. (Before Current Era), and

C.E. (Current Era). -Prof.rick 06:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Try reading the Common Era article and its talk page. Your view is not without controversy and the Manual of Style's current approach steers a careful course to minimise the number of disputes. Note that BCE/CE is still centred on the nominal birth date of a particular person special to one religion, and therefore biased. A preferable, unbiased dating system is Julian Day Number, with appropriate software to translate the JDN into whichever format the reader prefers. WLD^talk|edits 09:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to point out a few other places where this has been debated. Current policy is here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Other relevant pages to read are:

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate
• Wikipedia:Eras
• Wikipedia:Eras/Compromise proposal
• Wikipedia:User preferences for BCE/CE notation
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-05-23/Dating system
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk

WLD^talk|edits 09:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your well-detailed help. Much appreciated. Prof.rick 03:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. Glad I could help. WLD^talk|edits 10:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well here's one atheist who has no problem with BC and AD. Face it: our dating system is centered around Jesus. Big deal. Strad 15:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I for one am concerned about the capital letter A, which is originally derived from an image of the head of an ox. I know that people don't think of it that way any more than people think of AD dates being "in the year of our Lord," but it represents an obvious cattle-enslavement bias that I'm sure all right-thinking Wikipedians will agree should result in total avoidance of the capital A. I apologize for using it here for illustration. --Tysto 17:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

More heads needed

There is a discussion going on over here on whether an article should be at YUI (singer) or Yui (singer). Any input from additional people would be helpful. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Summary: Fan Wikipedians: "Her press releases always call her 'YUI'." Publishing-oriented Wikipedians: "It doesn't stand for anythig, so it gets treated like any other name." --Tysto 18:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Seasons

Hi. As someone in the southern hemisphere, I was wondering if there was any style guide to the use of northern hemisphere seasons for upcoming movie, game, etc release dates. I don't find it offensive, as such, but it seems rather biased that just because a majority of the "civilized" world is northern hemisphere based, that those seasons will be widely recognized as the seasons in question. WookMuff 11:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There is. Jimp 00:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Good. Thank you :) WookMuff 00:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Focus of the MoS

What is the main focus of the Wikipedia Manual of Style, reading or writing?

If it is the reader I cannot understand most guidances that allow multiple options (e.g. of spelling or “UK”/“U.S.”), because consistency is king, and some other rules seem to be author-centred, too (e.g. typewriter quotes).

In my opinion any featured, good and probably A-Class article should fully conform to the preferred style described in the MoS as a prerequisite. Christoph Päper 14:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The MoS is for editors. Readers aren't expected to care about why something is done the way it was.

Regarding featured articles complying with the MoS, that's something that should be covered (or discussed) at Wikipedia:Featured article review and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. I'd assume that compliance with all guidelines in Wikipedia, including those in the MoS, is one of the goals of the review of candidates, but I've not looked. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is editors who should read the MoS. My question was for whose benefit? You didn’t really answer that. Christoph Päper 16:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

i guess, IMO, the focus should be on reading. because we editors, should edit with the readers in mind. --RebSkii 17:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Glyph variant of quotation marks and apostrophe

I’m a little sad this issue doesn’t raise more comments. Anyhow, let’s have a look at the introduction:

This Manual of Style has the simple purpose of making the encyclopedia easy to read, by establishing agreed principles for its format. (…) if everyone does things the same way, Wikipedia will be easier to read and use, and easier to write and edit. These are not rigid laws: they are principles that many editors have found to work well in most circumstances (…). In this vein, editors should strive to have their articles follow these guidelines.

— (Emphasis mine.)

The first sentence clearly prioritises the readership. (How could I have missed that before?) I think we would agree on this again anytime. The second one explains that standards are a benefit to readers and editors alike. The rest says that no single author is forced to comply, but articles should conform in the end.

In the light of this I contest once again the rules for quotation marks. (Other guidelines may follow.) The typographic glyphs (“…”, ‘…’ and ’) are more professional and look better in the eyes of many, probably most. They pose no technical problem anymore, except for input with traditional keyboard layouts. Therefore I think the MoS should clearly state that “…” are the standard (or preferred) quotation marks in the English Wikipedia, and ’ is the apostrophe. Bots should be run to update the characters accordingly, as has been done in other language editions of WP. Authors may safely rely on copyeditors. Christoph Päper 23:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems like the MediaWiki software should be able to convert the straight marks to the properly directed ones, in which case I would support it. But otherwise I do not support using the directed marks. Even if one person goes through an entire article and changes every quotation mark, subsequent editors will just add material with straight marks, and inconsistent use of directed marks is worse than just straight marks. Using bots to change quotation marks must be a nightmare, since every instance is logged in the edit history and obscures more significant edits. Strad 01:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Other Wikipedias can do it without a built-in conversion feature, why shouldn’t the English one? It might be nice to have, though, if it worked reliably.

Many articles have only very few instances of these characters, others none at all. So after one conversion they’ll usually be fine for a long time. You can hide bot edits in your Watchlist and probably elsewhere. Christoph Päper 10:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"They pose no technical problem anymore, except for input with traditional keyboard layouts." Right. So virtually no one will use them, and bots will run continuously, clogging up edit histories forever fixing something that is trivially decorative. All things being equal, I prefer typographer's quotes myself and wish they appeared on my computer keyboard, but since they don't, they are obviously not important to most people. Moreover, they do pose technical problems. I've often seen ‘94 to ‘96 instead of ’94 to ’96 on a document, thanks to Microsoft's "smart" quotes. Also, some spellcheckers choke on don’t and other uses of the typographer's apostrophe. Last, this sort of thing compounds the insider knowledge necessary to contribute to Wikipedia without being self-conscious (already a high bar), producing a kind of Wikisnobbery (real or perceived) that discourages readers from becoming contributors. --Tysto 19:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Tysto. Woblosch 13:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Exclamation points

There is no mention of the use of exclamation points in the punctuation section! My feeling is that their use is not scholarly and they have no place in formal writing! I would like to reference the relevant MoS section in my comments as justification to others when I remove them, but currently there is nothing to reference! (If my gratuitous use of exclamation points here hasn't motivated you to add them to the punctuation section, I don't know what will!) --67.188.0.96 09:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, as requested! –Noetica 09:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Great! --67.188.0.96 21:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Their use after exclamations is perfectly correct and scholarly ... but how often would you have exclamations in an encyclopædia? Also, of course, if you're quoting text which contains one (whether correct or not), then keep it. Otherwise, no, don't use them. Jimp 00:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there is ever a cause to place a space in front of a question mark or an exclamation point, is there? But I see that done in informal writing all the time, and it drives me nuts! I notice that there is an explicit policy against placing a space in front of a colon. I believe there should be a similar policy for question marks and exclamation points. Alas, I don't feel bold enough to insert that policy myself. Any takers? Joe 18:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Done! Also similar remark for brackets. −Woodstone 21:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Prices

Wikipedia has no guidelines on protocols for writing cost or prices. I ask because over at the PS3 article, someone mentioned that in the price chart US price is pre-tax but all the European prices are post-VAT. Except the US conversions have the VAT stripped out. The whole thing is highly inconsistent. And Wikipedia doesn't seem to have any policy for writing prices or converting cost. If I'm asking the wrong place or there is a policy, let me know. Thanks. Chevinki 20:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There is WP:$ but this doesn't really mention whether or not to include tax. Jimp 02:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually kinda surprised Wiki doesn't already have a policy in place or that it hasn't come up yet. It's a bit tricky because VAT inflates European prices but it's almost impossible to get around. Taxes in the US vary by state and there are certain workarounds (ordering online). I think all prices should be pre-tax for consistency but that's IMO. Chevinki 17:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Outside of trade catalogues, its virtually unheard of, to see prices quoted without tax, in the UK. Andy Mabbett 10:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I think it's actually unlawful in the UK to quote prices to the general public which do not include VAT. -- Arwel (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The United States is a mess with regard to pricing because some states don't have sales tax and in other states it varies county by county (some counties levy sales taxes on top of statewide sales taxes). That's why prices in the U.S. are traditionally quoted before tax and then shoppers are expected to do the math when comparing prices. Invoices and receipts in the U.S. always show the subtotal before tax, then the sales tax, and then the final total. If the merchant doesn't collect the sales tax, the merchant then becomes liable for the tax. Occasionally some retailers like Orchard Supply Hardware throw a sale by declaring a no sales tax day (in which the merchant voluntarily assumes the liability for the sales tax). --Coolcaesar 22:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Products - past/present tense?

When a product is discontinued by the manufacturer, like the Nikon D50 camera, should the opening paragraph be changed from "The D50 is an entry-level digital single-lens reflex camera..." to "The D50 was an entry-level digital single-lens reflex camera..."? There are probably hundreds of thousands of D50s that are still in existence and used daily. Other camera articles like the Nikon F3 and Nikon F5 say "was". I noticed automobiles like the Infiniti Q45 say "was", even though many are still on the road. I have seen this argument come up in aircraft articles; the Cessna 150 hasn't been built since 1977, but it says "is" rather than "was", as does the B-17 Flying Fortress which hasn't been built since 1945. However, the B-29 Superfortress (also last built in 1945) says "was". I think we need to have an MoS entry discussing this. I looked, but could not find anything related to this, but perhaps I missed it. --rogerd 04:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Was" makes it sound like it no longer exists. "The Dodo was a bird from..." vs "The bald eagle is ...". And if I have an 8 track player, although no longer made (to my knowledge) I can still say it is something. I would go with "is". -Indolences 20:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I would go with "is" as well, but it seems that some discontinued products are in the past tense, such as Power Mac G4 Cube. Strad 21:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What I am hoping for is a consensus to actually codify this in the Manual of Style as a preferred way of referring to products that still exist but are no longer on the (new) market. --rogerd 13:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends on use, and not production. The construction that seems most helpful to readers is: "The RPB 5000 was a rocket-powered bat suit manufactured by Acme from 1954 to 1957 for use in catching roadrunners and other fast-moving prey. It was discontinued in 1957 owing to a class-action lawsuit stemming from a number of high-speed mishaps." But alternatively, if it's still actively used: "The RPB 5000 is a rocket-powered bat suit manufactured by Acme from 1954 to 1957 and still in limited use today by the Royal Netherlands Air Force." --Tysto 20:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Seasons (bis)

It would be good if authors avoided the use of summer/spring/winter/fall to refer to periods of the year (as distinct from the climatic sense)

For example "In August 2006, there were widespread rumours of an election to be held in the fall..." (ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_general_election%2C_2007). There are two problems with this: 1. "Fall" is not used much outside North America - mostly people use "autumn" 2. More importantly, the seasons are reversed in the southern hemisphere - when it is winter in the northern hemisphere, it is summer in the southern hemisphere. Thus is someone says "The presidential election will be held in the fall of 2007..." I - as a southern hemisphere resident - think of the March-May period, not towards the end of the year. Using "late 2007" in this case would be much clearer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.170.90.2 (talk • contribs).

Well, the example is interesting in the sense that it is located in North America. When it's an election for Quebec, Quebec's common speech may be used, such as using the word fall. As for the northern/southern hemisphere part, the time is given for the place where it takes place, instead of, for example, GMT. However, I see your point that maybe seasons should be avoided if possible. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As for seasons, this is covered at WP:DATE. I agree that if the season is not relevant, it's best to use hemisphere-neutral words. I don't see any problem with fall, for the same reasons Wirbelwind gave. It would be an interesting question though in an article that wasn't country-related. In this case fall/autumn is probably 90/10 in Canada and 0/100 in Australia. Do we invoke the "Use words common to all" rule to eliminate what is, in practice, the Canadian word? Then the Canadian word would essentially disappear from non-country-related articles. Joeldl 04:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say no; I think the "universally acceptable language" proposal was pretty thoroughly shot down. "Autumn" sounds distinctly odd in the United States. People know what it means, but it sounds like you're trying to make some sort of point. I think we stick with the current rules about national varieties of English: In articles specific to one culture, use its word-choice/spelling; otherwise go with the first non-stub version of the article and make it consistent within the article. There are nuances, of course, but that's the essence of the current approach, which works pretty well. --Trovatore 16:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I said this exact same thing, just a few pages up, and was given this handy link. WookMuff 10:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)