Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 55

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

→

New Section On Article Content Policy

I propose a new section, maybe on Village Pump, somthing like the Signpost, but wherever it's relevent, where this section lists word choice for article content. This section, would list, for example: 'Instead of using 'craftsman' or 'craftsmen' in articles, use 'craft worker' or 'craftsperson.'. Another example: 'Do not use the word: 'Indian' to refer to indigenious peoples of the Americas, because 'Indian' most appropriatly refers to a person from or of India.'. This new section would also say help and say that people who come across this section, & people who find errors like listed in said section would correct them. It also has the power to be cited, in discussions, for example: in talk pages, where people blue link, for example 'WP:NPOV' or 'WP:MOS'.100110100 11:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with using "craftsman" or "American Indian"? Is there a styleguide that discourages this somewhere? —Centrx→talk • 15:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue of gender-neutral language is a minefield not currently covered by our style guidelines. Referring to indigenous Americans as American Indians should be okay. But I think what you're looking for is Wikipedia:Words to avoid. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

How is it a minefield?100110100 02:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Political correctness is tremendously controversial. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's job is to reflect actual usage, not to discourage the use of the most common terms nor to invent or promote other terms for the purpose of pushing an agenda. If "craftsman" and "American Indian" are the most commonly used and understood terms, those should be the preferred terms in Wikipedia. Puppy Mill 01:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

More precisely: our job is to write an encyclopedia in English, presumably making it as readable as possible to English speakers (and especially native English speakers) and as respectable-sounding as possible, while all else is equal. This doesn't preclude the use of PC or otherwise less common terms, provided they don't sound outright silly to an English speaker, but neither does it mandate it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if it sounds silly at first, it won't after.100110100 01:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree with such a list.

For instance, "craftsman" has at least a connoative meaning that is not indicated by either "craft worker" or "craftsperson." Maurreen 03:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean, it won't sound silly after Wikipedia sets out to enact linguistic change? Sorry, not our goal; please see Wikipedia is not a soapbox. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Heads Up

I've read articles, but I don't remeber which ones, which refered to Galicia, but didn't state Iberian Galicia or East European Galicia. Just to let you guys know. Hhhmmmm, maybe it would have been more appropriate to list this in a section, like which that I proposed...............................100110100 11:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If there is not already a sentence, paragraph or section about it, I think it would be better to have something simple saying "Use clear non-ambiguous terms that will not be confused", rather than having a never-ending list. When someone uses an ambiguous term, they likely don't know they are using it, and aren't going to check every word they use with the list. If you encounter this problem in articles, just change them, perhaps with a good edit summary pointing to the section, but I don't think a list would work well. —Centrx→talk • 15:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that people use WP:MOS for arguements; if we use this list then we could use it to standardize Wikipedia; this list would also be official documentation, for like when people use WP:MOS to cite for an arguement, this list would give legitimency for an arguement.100110100 02:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It could also just move the arguments here, expanding them, where before some article editors amicably reach a decision. More likely, people will just ignore it, if they know about it at all. Even where the styleguide is clear, people edit war over what they want. Imposing a multitude of minor things top-down doesn't work on a wiki. Big things like WP:NPOV work better because there are only a few such foundational issues and their principles are simple, and because it is so essential to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia that any editor in good standing recognizes it as binding. A long reference list of "proper" spellings is not at all similar. The styleguide is mostly just to help people, and the biggest problems with it arise when people try to impose their interpretation of it on various articles against the people who actually wrote and frequently edit the articles. The MOS needs to be used less for arguments, not more. —Centrx→talk • 02:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Gauging consensus

Hi folks, other Filipino editors and I are trying to gauge consensus on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Philippine-related articles) so that we can make it into an official style guide. Could any of you give it a look-see and leave any constructive comments on the talk pages? We would really appreciate it. This was my first time writing a Manual of Style, so I'm sure it could use some work. Thanks. --Chris S. 04:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Pulling the Plugs

I have been going around wikipedia and I have seen many articles about middle aged weapons, bronze aged buildings and modern systems reference games, saying it is featured in games like Civilization. I think these references is cruft and the game's own article should reference these weapons, buildings and systems instead. I propose we remove game references that are not highly relevant to an article. This will stop game developers plugging games all over wikipedia, which is spam, and help cut down on article size keeping the most notable parts, thus raising the quality of articles. --Orbit One ^[Talk|Babel] 15:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The question of whether "X in popular culture" sections should be kept is one of constant debate. There appears to be no consensus on it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that for historical things, most of the modern cultural references are largely irrelevant and should be purged. However, with regard to present concepts, there are some borderline issues like 187 (murder), though. Clearly the 187 meme has become a significant cultural phenomenon in itself, considering its frequent use in rap music, TV, and movies. --Coolcaesar 04:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Some small number of things genuinely feature prominently enough in popular culture to merit mention; and some small number of fictional references (though rarely popular culture references) actually do help illuminate their topic (e.g. I can see mentioning Gore Vidal's novel Burr in at Aaron Burr or Dickens's Tale of Two Cities at Reign of Terror). But mostly? Cruft. I'd be glad to see it gone. - Jmabel | Talk 22:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Formatting of referrals to other articles

"See Article for more information" seems to be the convention at the moment for referring to another article: initial letter of the title capitalized, no other markings except the link. A few points:

Should it be in quotation marks? This is the usual convention for referring to articles generally, but most reference works refer to their own articles differently in cross-references, for instance using small caps or full caps.
Should the first letter be capitalized, in general? What about for articles like eBay?
What about when referring to a section? Article#Section is the techy way to do it, but is confusing to those who don't know what a fragment identifier is; Article (section) is probably not a good idea since many of our actual articles do have parentheses after them; likewise Article section can be confusing. Any other ideas?

—Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thing to consider are the {{further}} and {{see also}} templates.

I don’t think the article title needs to be in quotation marks. As you said, some other publications use other styles; let Wikipedia’s style be the wikilink.

I agree we should avoid the parenthetical style for section links. I think a colon is a good separator, as in Article: Section. It’s what’s used to separate a book’s title from its subtitle, which I think is an analogous situation. Colons might already occur in article titles, meaning some link text might have multiple colons, but that’s not a problem. This isn’t something that needs to be absolutely perfect; if a link or two look a little awkward, that’s OK. The link isn’t going to be broken because something reads oddly, and any confusion in the reader should be cleared up well enough after following the link and reading the section heading at the top of the viewport.

For choosing how to capitalize the name of the article, I tentatively suggest using the formal name of the article after any redirect or {{wrongtitle}} message, although I’m of the opinion that article titles, like sentences, should always start with a capital letter, so in addition to See Article for more information, I’d also go with See C#, but See EBay.

--Rob Kennedy 04:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Location of stub tags

There needs to be a consistent style for where stub tags are to be placed, as there appears to be none at the moment and as a result I've seen them all over the place - top, middle, and at varying places at the end. A bot (I'm sorry I don't know which one) is currently placing stub tags AFTER categories which, while it doesn't affect the page layout, is extremely awkward for editing especially when (and I've had to fix this a number of times) the stub tage is mistaken for a category and ends up in the middle of the category list or language tags. Same bot (and others) have also been placing stub tags below template lists which looks rather awkward, too. In my opinion, stub tags both on the edit page and in the final layout need to be between "External links" -- or, rather, the last major piece of text in an article -- and either the template(s) or categories, whichever is present first. Thoughts? 23skidoo 21:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

(23Skidoo mentioned this to me on my talk page, so I'll post my thoughts here as well) Putting stubs at the very end has a number of advantages; It means the stub category is listed last (least important categories should go last), it means the stub tag is less likely to become adjoined to the preceding text (as stubs need a double space before them, not sure why), it is a good idea to put maintenance tags either at the very beginning or very end of an article (i.e. out of the permanent text/meta data), and stub tags are meant to be unobtrusive, after all, they are on over half of all articles, I think they are most unobtrusive at the very end of an article. Martin 21:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Subsection heading contradicts WP:MOS

The subsection heading, "Use of punctuation in presence of brackets/parentheses" repeats the word "punctuation", which is the section heading. I propose changing this subsection heading to "Presentation with brackets and parentheses". --Charles Gaudette 18:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to ask to make a change that minor. I've changed the section heading; if you prefer yours, change it, I don't mind. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Headings in popular documents can be references in other documents. I like your wording, but slashes are ambiguous — so I did that edit. And, yes, I didn't have to ask, I wanted to. ;-) --Charles Gaudette 23:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Terminology Implementation Question

I am not familiar with editting the Manual Of Style and how it should be done, thus I am putting this on the discussion page for a person more familiar with wikipedia to comment on.

Recently, a discussion and poll regarding usage of the word "Allah" vs. "God" in Islam-related articles took place. The results are to be found here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)/God vs Allah. Since the poll has evidently passed, how does one go about implementing this in the Manual of Style itself? Thanks in advance for your help.Starwarp2k2 03:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't strictly have to be written anywhere to be binding. Since Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles) isn't yet marked as generally accepted, you could add it to Wikipedia:Words to avoid for now, or just add it to MOS-Islam and note that that part has a stronger status than the rest of the page (compare to Wikipedia:Fair use, with a policy section embedded in a guideline). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Contractions

I recall reading a U.S. Dept of Defense manual of style, which recommended using contractions only for negated verbs such as "won't", "didn't", "isn't" etc. The reason given is that a reader who skims a document will often skip over the word "not" and misinterpret the sentence. Using a contraction instead guarantees that the verb negation reaches the reader's brain. The fragment "it isn't" (contracting the verb) is preferable to "it is not" (no contraction) or "it's not" (using possessive "it"). In rushed emergency situations where missing a simple "not" may have life-or-death consequences, the verb contraction serves an important clarifying purpose, although I admit it isn't as meaningful in an encyclopedic reference.

I would add a recommendation to avoid sentence structure that demands a contraction; for example instead of using don't for did not in The experiment did not produce the expected result, one can avoid the possibility for a contraction altogether with The experiment failed to produce the expected result, which is a more compelling sentence as active voice. -Amatulic 00:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your first paragraph, I need to point out that it’s is not a possessive it. Both isn’t and it’s are contractions involving the verb is.

You're right, and this serves as a perfect demonstration not to write anything in a hurry, as I did (spouse had called me away as I was editing, so I just hit "save")! Amatulic 06:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see why the DoD might recommend against contractions when writing military instruction manuals, especially in the case of won’t, which doesn’t look much like will at all. But an encyclopedia isn’t an instruction manual. It’s a formal piece of writing, and that doesn’t use contractions.

In your second paragraph, both sentences use active voice. The second version makes the additional suggestion that the experiment failed, a notion that is not present in the first version of the sentence. An experiment that doesn’t perform as expected isn’t necessarily a failed experiment. If you want to re-cast a sentence to avoid a place where a contraction could be used, go ahead, but make sure you still retain the same meaning. I don’t think it’s worth the effort, though, since we wouldn’t be using contractions there anyway. --Rob Kennedy 01:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Saying an experiment failed to do something isn't the same thing as saying the experiment failed. It's a fine point though, and you are correct about retaining the same meaning. Amatulic 06:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization in Headings

Can anybody explain why the Wikipedia style guide encourages the use of sentence case in headings? Every where else, headings are set in title case, meaning you always capitalize the first word, and you capitalize anything else except articles, prepositions, and conjunctions. That's the way I've been trained to do it every where else. Once again, it makes no sense to create a style rule will be violated by any literate person who hasn't read WP's Manual of Style, as somebody said elsewhere on this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MiguelMunoz (talk • contribs) 12:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC).

There was a similar discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Capitalization in Bullets. You’re exaggerating when you say headings use title case “everywhere else.” Many newspapers use sentence case for their headlines and section titles. Many journals use sentence case for their article titles, too. Sentence case is not an uncommon style, and as I mentioned in the other discussion, it’s a style that promotes consistency. --Rob Kennedy 18:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. --Coolcaesar 18:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I barely ever see title case used anywhere else than in the United States and it does not seem to follow consistent rules as far as capitalisation of articles, prepositions and conjunctions are concerned; I do not know about others' opinions, but title case in headings featuring many nouns seems clumsy to me. Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 19:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC).

I like sentence case better, too. Title Case is Too Inconsistent to be Used Without Fighting over which Words will get Capitalized. — Omegatron 20:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "Every where else, headings are set in title case": sampling my bookcase reveals that my American books used not only title case, but also fully capitalized headings as well as a single books which used sentence case headings. The single British book in my sample used sentence case. My Dutch books overwhelmingly used sentence case as well a few which used fully capitalized headings. Your universal quantification does not hold. I admit that I intuitivly used title case when I started to contribute here, this is not really an issue, as new contributers will make worse style-offenses and there are enough people here to correct those violations. I personally find sentence case headings to be easier on the eye. —Ruud 22:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find a title casing pattern in my bookshelf. I personally kind of like Sentence case, but I like Title Case as well. But more than that I like consistency. Currently all articles use use Sentence case, and if change policy, we'll need to change everything. Let's stick to what we have; people who really, really want Title Case can always use some user script that changes the headings only for them. Shinobu 22:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to make a plug for sentence case. Andrew73 23:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I see more use of sentence case outside the US than inside. So it may be a regional preference. Compare The New York Times (complicated and inconsistent capitalisation "Shuttle Is Delayed", "Capote is Dead") with The Times (UK) (sentence case).

Sentence case is simple to explain and implement. The capital indicates:

a proper noun
beginning of a phrase and/or end of a previous phrase

In sentence case, the capital has meaning and is an aid to reader comprehension. In title case, proper nouns and phrase boundaries cannot be distinguished from other words.

Title case may also be a legacy issue. It may have had value when copy was written on typewriters with limited font variation. bobblewik 23:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, some organisations deliberately use *all lower case*. For example: Orange (although some copy writers don't follow the house style). Compare Nokia phone key labels ('abc') with those on Motorola ('ABC'). bobblewik 23:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You've slightly mischaracterized one newspaper's usage. In actuality, The Times (UK) uses sentence case for headlines (e.g. Fourth blast in Turkey), title case for department headings (e.g. Men's Style), and ALL CAPS for other feature titles (e.g. ECONOMIC VIEW). People who say they don't see title case used outside the U.S. may not have looked closely.

Wikipedia has promoted sentence case in titles, headings, and categories for so long that it's probably too much effort to change now. But the person who asked the original question is right: many will always find sentence case unusual and counter-intuitive, as well as too informal for what is supposedly a reference work. I find that new Wikipedians usually use title case until they learn otherwise, and that some users never adapt to (or don't care about) what they regard as Wikipedia's unusual usage of sentence case. Hit "random article" a number of times, and, aside from stubs, you'll find a good mix of title case and sentence case. If anything, Wikipedia's sentence case style creates plenty of busy work for editors who have to "correct" title case usage. • Kevin (complaints?) 22:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The example of The Times (UK) was not intentionally used as a 'slight mischaracterisation'. It was merely intended to disprove the hypothesis that title case is used 'every where else'. Your other points are well made. bobblewik 19:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, and that's probably not a lot, the Canadian Press Style Guide, which is standard for Canadian newspapers, recommends sentence case. Ground Zero | t 12:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

People's names within articles

Can anyone point me to a specific Wikipedia policy about how to reference specific people within articles? Journalism style is to use the full name "John Smith" in the first reference but then to use just the last name "Smith" in all other references. (This has some flexibility if there are two people with the last name of Smith in the article.)

I'm also interested in finding out if there is any specific policy about the use of "social titles" within articles, such as referring to someone as "Mr. Smith" throughout an article instead of just "Smith".

Thanks! --Sue Anne 20:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names. In general, it’s the same journalism style you’re probably familiar with. It wouldn’t be Wikipedia if it didn’t note a couple of exceptions, of course. Drop the social titles — it’s so much easier that way, rather than have to figure out what someone’s title should be. --Rob Kennedy 00:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Gender neutrality

Proposal:

Bad: When the criminal is caught he should be punished (emphasis added)

Good: When the criminal is caught they should be punished (emphasis added)

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, but plenty of people wouldn't, see our article on Singular they. Martin 21:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Even better: When criminals are caught, they should be punished. Avoiding the singular they really isn’t all that hard to do.

If you’re proposing that the style manual contain a section an gender-neutral language, you’re going to need to cover a lot more than just the controversial topic of the singular they. What are you proposing, anyway? Your post was rather light in the full-sentence department. --Rob Kennedy 00:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This usually seems to resolve itself given the shortcomings of the other options. He is not gender-neutral, alternating he and she is infelicitous (at the very least), and the other contrived solutions (xe/ze/ey/sie) are just ridiculous. On Wikipedia I've found that gender-neutrality is usually handled by either he or she (which becomes rather grating if used too often) or singular they. A far greater number of sentences which would require a gender-neutral solution are probably recast as plural. Strad 01:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The examples on that webpage ("Either the husband or the wife has perjured himself") are rather contrived and are using words that already have gender built in (i.e., we would never have "The wife has perjured himself", but "No one has perjured himself" or "No judge has perjured himself" are appropriate as the subject is gender-neutral to begin with), the Canadian Supreme Court part is irrelevant, and I am not convinced by his suggestion to throw out Strunk and White. Regardless, it is not the place of this styleguide to impose politically correct language on the encyclopedia. With the exception of the invented words like ze and alternating he and she to refer to the same context, any of these are acceptable. —Centrx→talk • 04:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Psychological studies have shown that people are much more likely to assume that a generic he refers to a man than a woman, if asked to make a scenario based on a sentence or the like. (My recollection is that if he or she was used, two-thirds wrote about a man; if just he was used, almost all wrote about men. I can get citations if you want them, provided it's before I sell my psychology textbook from last term.) Basically, today it's not interpreted as being gender-neutral. I suspect it's still more likely to be interpreted as such than she used in the same context, of course.

Surrender to the singular they. We will take away your hes and shes and its just as we took away your thous and thees. Mwahaha! ;) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 17:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This issue is covered in the British Psychological Society Style Guide (pdf). Stating the principle is easy and most editors can do it. It is merely difficult to explain how.

As an example, see this edit. bobblewik 06:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of gender and pronouns, is it passé to refer to countries and ships as "she"? Since I read so much older writing, I find it perfectly natural to write something like "Great Britain and her colonies", whereas I suppose "its" rather than "her" would sound better to modern readers. True? And are ships still "she"? • Kevin (complaints?) 13:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I should say the great body of English literature outweighs what popular soon-forgotten writers may or may not be doing today. —Centrx→talk • 14:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What our readers will be most comfortable reading outweighs anything. IMO, countries and ships should pretty much always be referred to as "it". —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 17:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Chicago (§ 8.126) says this: “When a pronoun is used to refer to a vessel, the neuter it or its (rather than she or her) is generally preferred.” Furthermore, § 8.83 says, “Use the pronoun it, not he or she, when referring to named storms, hurricanes, and the like.” --Rob Kennedy 17:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I love singular they myself and use it, but there is very little agreement about its use in written English. I think the position that the use of "he/him/his" for gender-neutral subjects is purely grammatical and not intended to convey a sexist attitude is defendable. The only usage I object strongly to is the use of female pronouns for gender-neutral subjects, even in alternation - this is both sexist and non-traditional, and only jars the reader (what she?) In any case the MoS isn't going to settle the issue and I'd prefer the route of recommending only consistency within articles. Deco 10:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't find the use of "he"/"him"/"his" for gender-neutral subjects to be sexist, yes, it is purely grammatical. Nor do I find fault with "she/her" for ships or countries though "it"/"its" does just fine too. Others, however, do think differently. Singular "they"/"them"/"their" is pretty widely accepted especially in informal English. Would it be pedantic of us to proscribe it? Of course, you could use "he or she"/"him or her"/"his or her" but this will become tedious if used frequently enough. Recasting as plural is often a good solution but might not always work so well. I also object strongly to the use of "she"/"her" for gender-neutral subjects (whether in alternation or not) it is sexist, non-traditional and jarring. Jimp 04:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)