Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 77

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 70

←

Archive 75

"Further reading"?

I've been working on American Goldfinch, and there is an extensive section at the end called "Further reading", which consists of a list of books, articles, and thesis papers concerning the bird. None of them are links, it's just a list of articles. I've cut it down to just the ones that directly concern only the American Goldfinch, but it's still huge, and I'm not sure what to do with it. Nothing in the Manual of Style really addresses it. Any advice would be appreciated. Hey jude, don't let me down 00:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Further_reading defines Further Reading sections as "generally for resources on the topic that are not specifically cited in the article" (see also Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Further_reading.2FExternal_links). Cutting it to ones that directly address the topic and that are not already referenced in the article itself, as you've done, appears to be the correct approach. FemmeBrulee 18:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Redlinks in disambiguation pages

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages).

Possible MoS Issues

Posted at VP

Non evident risk in articles lacking critical references

Terms: Non Evident Risk – a risk that that has an established reality, but which within a given context is not apparent.

Current Position: Wikipedia has well established practice in how it approaches ‘risk’ and this is addressed through the use of the Disclaimer statements.

Need for Change: The matter of risk applies predominantly to articles dealing with some form of human activity and in most of those articles the risk that attaches to the activity discussed is entirely self evident, for example Rock Climbing will be understood by an reasonable person as an inherently risky activity. However there are some articles where the tone of the article and/or the absence of critical references, coupled with a received wisdom regarding the activity which endorses it as risk free, effectively disguising the risk even where medical, scientific or reasoned observational evidence suggests that risk exists.

Scope for Change: Any change would necessarily be limited to matters of established physical and psychological risk, as would be understood by as such by any reasonable person.

It seems unlikely that there would be any appetite amongst editors to change the way that Disclaimers are currently used, although it would not be overly problematic to introduce a more prominent display of the Risk Disclaimer for articles where critical references are lacking.

The obvious response is to say that relevant articles be improved by the inclusion of critical references, however without policy change this may not always be achievable as editors may be reluctant to include references which do not precisely link to the subject of the article. (see example)

A further and unequivocally desirable improvement also depends upon an improvement in reference discipline – that is to ensure references and links to organisations which are active in risk reduction in an appropriate field. Here we can return to the example of Rock Climbing where numerous sport bodies actively promote and discuss the reduction of risk in an inherently risky pursuit.

Example of a number of associated problem articles: [[1]] [[2]]

The core article is a Biography of a Living Person and although a number of critical references are included, none address an activity which is presented in positive terms within the core article and six associated articles – that is the practice of meditation, an activity which the subject of the Biography has a long history of promoting. Neither the core article, nor the associated articles use a wikilink to the Wikipedia article [[3]], which itself does include an Adverse Effects section which clearly demonstrates potential risks in meditational practice. Clearly there are editors who have decided that there is some constraint upon linking to the Meditation article, demonstrating either that there is a need to challenge the thinking behind that execise of constraint, or otherwise if wikipedia rules require such constraint, then to re-examine the how the Risk Disclaimer is displayed within certain articles.

Nik Wright2 14:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Who vs whom?

Does MoS have a view? - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the manual stating that the word whom should be replaced by who, but I do see the word whom in the text of the manual. — The Storm Surfer 05:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It is, however, an increasingly archaic usage - especially in standalone form without a preposition - that only hangs on because prescriptivists won't let it die. The Guardian manual of style says Use of "whom" has all but disappeared from spoken English, and seems to be going the same way in most forms of written English too. This is also the view of Geoff Pullum, the linguistics professor who's the co-author of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. We're talking about Malcolm Arbuthnot:

following her adultery with the poet John Gould Fletcher, whom she later married.
following her adultery with the poet John Gould Fletcher, who she later married.

Tearlach 14:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not considered "archaic" by British English dictionaries (or at least, Chambers and Oxford), although I see that it is considered so by dictionary.com. In some languages they have several of these cases; it doesn't seem too unreasonable to expect people to know how to interpret two... ;) – Kieran T ^(talk) 14:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's a prescriptivism vs descriptivism thing. The Oxford, as dictionaries go, is quite prescriptive (as in its stance of supporting "-ize" endings against the general trend of UK usage). Tearlach 15:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, let's not fall to the level of the Grauniad. This is formal writing; when whom is correct (as in the sample sentence), use whom. --Trovatore 08:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The joke's on Tearlach. The sentence containing "... only hangs on because prescriptivists won't let it die" is one of the most prescriptivist things I've seen in many a long day. It's probably best if descriptivists stick to describing the language and grammar that people actually use. "Whom" is very healthy in my world. I could not possibly do without it. JackofOz 13:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's stop inventing linguistic –isms and focus on formulating a sensible solution using both descriptive and prescriptive frameworks. Anyone who labels themselves as a "prescriptivist" or a "descriptivist" as if there are two opposing poles should probably not be editing here. Strad 01:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not considered archaic in American English circles. I forget her full list of citations, but a Grammar Girl podcast stated that whom is alive and well as a pronoun when used as an object. —C.Fred (talk) 01:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis v marijuana

There is a debate going on at Talk:Legal history of marijuana in the United States over whther the article should eb called cannabis or marijuana. One editor is claiming that as the article relates to the US it must be marijuana whereas another editor (me) argues that it should be cannabis as all the cannabis articles (eg Cannabis (drug) are callaed cannabis. The other editor has gone so far as to say that MoS insists that because the article relates to the US MoS demands it must be callaed marijuana whereas I think allt he articles should be callaed cannabis for consistency. I cant see that MoS comments on this particular tyope of issue and absolutely should do so, SqueakBox 20:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a good case could be made that marijuana is the American version of cannabis. — The Storm Surfer 05:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sort of sure that a good case could be made that it isn't. J i m p 05:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

As stated on Talk:Legal history of marijuana in the United States:

In 1937 Marihuana Tax Act Section 1. B "The term 'marihuana' means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds, or resin- but shall not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination."

Marijuana is the term that has been used in most all scientific reports in the United States (see Decriminalization of marijuana in the United States#References for examples) and in United States Government titles such as, the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, most every publication from the DEA regarding marijuana.

Wikipedia:Search engine test

On Google, which also searches non-American web sites, marijuana returns 2,900,000 more articles than cannabis (as of May 16)
On Google news, 'marijuana' returns 18,528 articles, but 'cannabis' only reterns 2,879 articles (as of May 16).

Marijuana is listed in multiple dictionaries (WordNet, American Heritage, Random House Unabridged Dictionary) and there is no reference to it being slang, because is the most common word for cannabis in the United States. —User:Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 07:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is necessarily subjective but: Yes, I agree that "marijuana" is not slang. However "cannabis" sounds more formal, dispassionate, "scientific", "clinical". Therefore, to my ear, "cannabis" is preferable in an encyclopedia. I am American. --Trovatore 07:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I’m not sure I agree that “'cannabis' sounds more formal, dispassionate, 'scientific', 'clinical'” – at least in America. Rather, “marijuana” is the name by which it is most commonly known, and “cannabis” the second most well-known name for it in America. It’s just another case of words of different language origins both coming to be used popularly and alternatively in English. If we go by the term that the average person seeking information on the subject in Wikipedia is most likely to search on, then 'marijuana' would seem to be the better choice – at least as far as American users are concerned. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Original spelling

We've just had the semi-annual WP:LAME debate at Talk:Yoghurt, in which some editors claimed that the usage of the original conmtributor was a reason to overturn the established spelling. I propose to add a few words to "If all else fails", denying this; if anyone disagrees, revert. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Making the MOS into a guiding hand usable by human editors

Our Manual of Style is lengthy, comprehensive and really sucks to read. Compare to something really readable, like Fowler's or Strunk & White. Or even Chicago. Have you ever picked up those books and thought "this is really good, I can use this stuff"? I'd hope you had.

But, rather than being a guideline for thoughtful application by editors seeking guidance in writing effective encyclopedia entries, it's become a sequence of programming instructions for bots.

Our MOS should be something that editors will want to read.

Here's my attempt to make the intro readable.

Anyone want to help recast the rest of the megabytes of MOS as thoughtful guidance in English, rather than programming instructions for bots? - David Gerard 15:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been noted on wikien-l that the structure is apparently good for looking stuff up. So it's mostly a matter of tone - David Gerard 00:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I do want to help; micro-trimming and copy-editing is required throughout. The shorter the better, particularly for non-expert readers. Tony 01:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that, bit by bit, the language of the MOS be changed from imperative (orders such as "Do this", "... should be ...", etc.) to indicative (descriptions of practice, such as "This is done", etc). It's friendlier, is more likely to engender the kind of attitudes that the Manual is striving for, and matches changes over the past year to all of the featured criteria. If people agree to this change, gradually altering the tone thus has the advantage that it probably won't jar when only part of the Manual is indicative. See my changes to "Article names" at the top for an example. Tony 22:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just been gung-ho in editing the "Sections and headings" section. The "Compare edits" is all red, and thus useless for this purpose. I've set out the previous and the new versions here, subsection by subsection, to make it easier for you to check. Tony 06:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Quadzilla ponts out that the bit about initial a, an and the is now inflexible:

articles (a, an, and the) are typically avoided, and never occur first;

It might have something like this added:

articles (a, an, and the) are typically avoided, and never occur first, unless they begin an italicized title;

Does that do the trick? 06:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea, it would even remind editors to italicize novel and movie titles in section headers. Sometimes they forget like in Philip K. Dick. Quadzilla99 11:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

== Lots of ugly, messy bolding at openings ==

Under "Article titles", we have:

"Use boldface for the first (and only the first) appearance of the title and any important synonyms (including acronyms)."

This appears to encourage openings like this:

"The Great Lakes Storm of 1913, historically referred to as the "Big Blow," the "Freshwater Fury," or the "White Hurricane," was a ...

which serves no purpose but to make the all-important top harder to read smoothly and of unattractive appearance. This is better:

The Great Lakes Storm of 1913, historically referred to as the Big Blow, the Freshwater Fury or the White Hurricane, was a ...

Lots of bold also interferes with the formatting of titles.

Does anyone object if I remove "and any important synonyms"? I they do, can we know what the purpose is? Tony 01:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

One purpose is for naming controversies, like Gdanzig, in which the first paragraph is:

Gdańsk (Audio file "Gdansk.ogg" not found; IPA: [ɡdaɲsk]), also known by its German name Danzig (listen) and several other names, is the sixth-largest city in Poland and is Poland's principal seaport and the capital of the Pomeranian Voivodeship.

I would put nicknames, like Tony's example, in italics, but the difference between a nickname and an alternate name gets controversial; see for example Democratic-Republican Party (United States). Regards, Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Democratic–Republican Party (note my en dash) is a good example of how speckled bolding ruins the appearance at the top. Just removing the item from the rule won't prevent people from doing it; it will just remove the compulsion. I don't think anyone would mind the "Danzig" example, with only two items bolded, short ones at that. It's a matter of good judgement, so shouldn't be overleaf, I think. Tony 22:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC) And whether in quotes or italic, who cares if it's consistent within the article? Anything but bolding, which stands out like polkadots. Tony 22:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I don't agree with this change; the bolding of important synonyms provides consistency in formatting in the lead; introducing italics or quotes (besides necessitating changes to almost every single article on Wikipedia) is much messier and uglier. Rather than one fontface in the lead, we'll have a mixture of bold, italic and quotes. I don't like it at all, don't see it as an improvement, and don't want to have to change every article I come across for what doesn't appear to be an improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Then what about a compromise that doesn't require the dehighlighting of equivalent names, but just doesn't force it? Thus:

If possible, the article’s topic is the subject of the first sentence of the article, for example, “This Manual of Style is a style guide” instead of “This style guide is known as …”. If the article title is an important term, it appears as early as possible. The first (and only the first) appearance of the title is in boldface, including its abbreviation in parentheses, if given. Equivalent names may follow, and may or may not be boldface. Highlighted items are not linked, and boldface is not used subsequently in the first paragraph. Tony 14:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good; I just don't want to introduce a whole series of fonts and types and punctuation in the lead, as I think that will look worse than several bolded terms, which are at least confined to one font style/face/type. I really don't think synonyms should be in italics or quotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy, and Noetica will provide feedback on this, too. Anyone else? Sorry to have implemented changes before seeking consensus. Mea culpa. Tony 10:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

How about just rendering popular nicknames and colloquialisms in quotes rather than italics:

The Great Lakes Storm of 1913, also historically referred to as the "Big Blow", the "Freshwater Fury" or the "White Hurricane", was a ...

In that way, you eliminate the Rorschach test, but without them quite disappearing into the pale sea of Arial plainness (or whatever) altogether? Askari Mark (Talk) 03:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Prematrue archiving

Spebi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have archived this discussion, while it was still on-going. I;ve asked him to fix that. Andy Mabbett 15:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed it. He archived more than just that. I came here yesterday to find only two sections: Making the MOS into a guiding hand usable by human editors & Lots of ugly, messy bolding at openings. I unarchived a number of sections. J i m p 00:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Draft copy-edit of "Capital letters", plus two queries

Feedback is requested on a copy-edited redraft of this section.

Working through the MOS bit by bit shows that it has become bloated, inconsistent, and otherwise poorly written and organised. I'm placing a copy-edit tag at the top.

(1) At present, under "Animals, plants and other organisms", we have:

Capitalize the name of a genus, but not the name of a species (and italicize both names): for example, the tulip tree is Liriodendron tulipifera.

Editors have hotly debated whether the common names of species should start with a capital letter, and this remains unresolved. As a matter of truce, both styles are acceptable (except for proper names), but create a redirect from the alternative form.

I don't know enough to tell whether this is a logical conundrum (you don't capitalise species names, but then you can if you disagree), or whether the first statement refers only to proper names of species. Is "tulip tree" a common name for a species (or genus?), and Liriodendron tulipifera the proper-name equivalent? All very unclear and messy.

In my redraft of this section, it's thus:

The name of a genus is capitalized and italicized.
The name of a species is italicized and not capitalized; for example, the tulip tree is Liriodendron tulipifera. Editors have hotly debated whether the common names of species start with a capital, and this is unresolved. As a matter of truce, both styles are acceptable (except for proper names). Where used in an article title, a redirect from the alternative form is created.

But I have no idea whether I've guessed it correctly and structured it logically. Can someone help?

(2) The use of italics and quotes is messily inconsistent throughout. We have, for example:

Titles such as president, king, or emperor start with a capital letter when ...

and

In the case of “prime minister”, either both words begin with ...

Which is it to be? The MOS is supposed to set an example WRT consistency. Tony 08:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well Tony, I'll have a go:

(1) I had thought the facts were these (using the example given):

The word Liriodendron is a genus name, and should always be capitalised and italicised. It may occur alone, to refer to the whole genus.
The word tulipifera is a specific epithet, and is properly only ever seen along with the genus name. In zoology as opposed to botany, the term used is not specific epithet but specific name. Also, in botany the form of the second element agrees in grammatic gender with the genus name, but in zoology it need not.
In both zoology and biology, the second term is seldom capitalised.
The combination Liriodendron tulipifera is called a binomial, and it is always italicised.
If name of a species means anything at all, it means the same as binomial. It does not mean the same as specific epithet.

Now, I take it that the common name for a species is just the ordinary non-technical name corresponding to the whole binomial. (It takes a whole binomial to name a species, after all.) So the common name tulip tree corresponds to Liriodendron tulipifera, yes? And wolf, as normally used in standard English, is the common name corresponding to Canis lupus. So I cannot see why anything needs to be said about capitalising the common name. We simply do not capitalise tulip tree or wolf, right?

I'll wait to see if I've got anything wrong here.

(2) As for italics versus quotes for mention of words and phrases (as opposed to use of words and phrases), I'm all for italics. It doesn't matter that italics are also used for emphasis (as in the preceding sentence), or some third purpose: the context nearly always makes it clear how they are being used. But quotes for mentioned words and phrases are so damn messy and cluttering, and well-nigh unworkable when we're trying to explain punctuation.

Tony, as for use of bold and italics near the lead of an article, I'm still thinking about that. I'll get back to you.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 09:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Noetica, thank you so much for that. I glazed over with the technicality. With your knowledge, can you advise what degree of technical detail should appear in the MOS? Is the current explication of the unresolved debate clear and correct? Would you like to have a go at improving the wording of this subsection in the draft?

I think I agree about making the use of italics (rather than quotes) consistent for the mention of words, but await input from others on this matter. Tony 10:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The bit about species names is easily solved by making the distinction between scientific and vernacular names clear. Maybe thus:

Scientific names - Scientific names for genera and species are italicized, with a capital initial letter for the genus but no capital for the species. For example, the tulip tree is Liriodendron tulipifera, and humans are Homo sapiens. Taxonomic groups higher than genus are generally roman, with an initial capital; for example, gulls are in the family Laridae, and we are in the family Hominidae.
Common (vernacular) names - Editors have hotly debated whether the common names of species start with a capital, and this is unresolved. As a matter of truce, both styles are acceptable (except for proper names within species names). But for groups above species, capitals are never used. So Blue Whale and blue whale are both acceptable, but it is always whales when referring to whales in general. Where a species name is used in an article title, a redirect from the alternative form is created.

The reason for allowing flexibility in common names is that this is a reflection of the way it is out there in real life. Some people maintain that there is no logic behind the capitalized style, but it is very often done, both in scientific and more popular literature (so the Herring Gull is a member of the gull family), and it is argued that this helps to distinguish between (e.g.) a Large White butterfly and a large white butterfly. So it is sensible for WP to reflect this, and allow either style. The bit about roman for taxa above genus level is true in zoology, but in botany families are often italicized. Snalwibma 14:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony you changed "Dates normally should be followed by commas:" to "Dates are often followed by a comma:" The first wording reads like an instruction, while the second reads as though its just describing something that happens. It is my understanding that dates are generally supposed to be followed by a comma, of course you almost definitely know more about this than I do. Quadzilla99 01:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: Tony changed "Dates" to bold lettering when he copy-edited the section. I wanted to note that in case someone thought I bolded that word for some reason. Quadzilla99 01:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I did weaken it, and I'll change it back to "normally" from the new "often", pending further discussion. (The change from instruction to the indicative is another issue that I flagged above; now I see that the indicative is already used inconsistently in the manual. Better throughout, as I'm doing.) Tony 02:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Acro's & abrev's

I've got to say that I'm not quite sure what you mean here, Tony.

“

An item is not spelled out with initial capitals solely because it will subsequently be abbreviated with capitals; for example, digital light processing (DLP) technology.

”

I assume you're saying that there will be other reasons for including the acronym, and I agree that there will be but these really need spelling out, however, I'm then thrown by your example. There doesn't seem to exist any connexion between the meaning I'm reading here and the example given. J ɪ m p 15:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this better, Jimp?

Initial capitals are not used in a spelled out item just because capitals are used in the abbreviation.

Incorrect: Our new Digital Light Processing (DLP) technology
Correct: Our new digital light processing (DLP) technology
Correct (title): produced by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) Tony 16:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, that makes sense ... actually rereading the original now I see that that's what you had said. Perhaps, though, we could have something like the second version on the page (it is clearer). Also, as I'd noted above, we might add a word on when to include acronyms & when not to. I have come across instances of acronyms in articles for things which were neither important to the topic at hand nor ever used again on the page. We don't need this (generally speaking, of course). J ɪ m p 17:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The use of acronyms/initialism once only in a text is one of my pet hates. It forces the reader to code the abbreviation for no reason at all. If no one objects, I'd like to include this point. Tony 02:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Something like:

"Abbreviations are not given unless they are used again in the article, preferably more than once. (Abbreviations with a high degree of recognition among readers are occasionally given for a single usage.) After an abbreviation appears, it normally represents the spelled-out item in subsequent appearances."

How would this substantive addition be? Tony 02:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Having run across this before I'd say that it would probably be worth adding. The wording seems fine, though, I would add a small point. If the abbreviation in itself is relevant to the topic at hand, it would be worth including. The article United States, for example, includes the abbreviations the U.S.A. and the U.S. of A., and rightly so, of course, though it uses the U.S. instead. J ɪ m p 15:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not discuss changes to MOS:Capital letters at Wikipedia_Talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)?--Chrisbak 23:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)