Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Alpha Archive 5

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style--Archive Directory

Section on specialised vocabulary

I added a section on specialised vocabulary. Feel free to edit as required, but certainly for rail transport, a warning is needed. The US and UK evolved entirely separate terminology or "jargon". So I first said that most situations people need to explain jargon anyways, or avoid its use, but pointed out that this was especially necessary as some places use an entirely different set of jargon.

For topics that have unique vocabularies, for example rail transport, effort should be made to adequately explain jargon or avoid its use where possible. This has another purpose, as in the case given, disparate terminology has evolved in different locations around the world (see rail terminology as an example). In other words, even experts in another location may not be familiar with jargon used in your location.

Should I add the section to this current page? zoney ♣ talk 11:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How about this?

For topics with unique vocabularies, such as rail transport, try to avoid or explain jargon. This has another purpose, as in the case given, disparate terminology has evolved in different places around the world (see rail terminology as an example). In other words, even experts in another location may not be familiar with jargon used in your location.

Maurreen 18:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We already have a policy on Wikipedia:Explain jargon. Any proposal to change this policy should (i) bear the existing policy in mind; (ii) appear on Wikipedia talk:Explain jargon. Easy to miss this policy, it was right at the bottom. jguk 20:38, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"See also" vs "Related topics", and Category Project

The Wikipedia Guide to Layout recommends that "Related topics" be a heading for a collection of internal links to related topics. Custom and practice in the Wikipedia appears to be to use "See also". Google:"See also" = 56,100 hits, Google:"Related topics" = 1,900 hits. Should we wait for a thunderbolt from on high before we change the recommendation in the Guide to Layout? --Tagishsimon

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Sections gives a better explanation. Ideally there should only be one place that explains a rule or policy so as to avoid problems like this. Bensaccount 01:36, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't go according to the MoS on this one. I think it's not useful to have "Related topics" and "See also", since they're basically the same thing... Dysprosia 01:44, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I think they're not the same thing. I went back through the various see also/related topics discussions & I see more people with my dilemma--in certain cases, you want to include links in the "related articles" list that also appear in the body text. See Wedding, for example. It would be confusing, I believe, to leave off the 3 or 4 links that appear in the text. In this case, Related articles would be more correct, whereas the See also presumably would not include links already in the text. Elf | Talk 15:52, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Maybe then there needs to be a relaxation of the requirement forbidding inline links appearing in See alsos, because while they may not functionally be the same thing, they most definately read as the same thing (to me, that is ;) We should be striving for some sort of uniformity, however. But reading that categories are soon to be implemented, I hope this makes this matter moot, and we can all stick with "See also" Dysprosia 12:07, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

With categories this will no longer be a problem. Related articles will be in the same category, so there won't be a need for a section. There will always be a need for a See also section though, and that is what we have standardized on for a long while now. Dori | Talk 16:26, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

I've just this week heard about the famed mythical categories project--meanwhile, until it's finalized and someday implemented, I don't think we can say unequivocably that one can't put links into the list that also appear in the article. Elf | Talk 16:44, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

It's not mythical, you can try it out on http://test.wikipedia.org and I think it's redundant to link things more than once on each page. If readers were interested in the link, they would have followed it. If we go by this, then we could end up listing every link on the Related section becayse how could you decide? Dori | Talk 16:48, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

Re: categories: Cool! Now that I've tried it, I want it *now*! And I will hold my breath and turn blue until I get it! Wahhhhh! Re: how could you decide? Same way we'll have to decide what categories things go into & same way we decide what to link already--roll a 10-sided die--er, I mean, common sense. I'll admit that mine isn't always in smooth running order, but I like to think that it mostly is and so are most folkses' who edit wp. Elf | Talk 18:00, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

(ident from above)Yes, you do have a point that my "how could you decide?" concern would still stand. However, I still think that they're needlessly redundant. Dori | Talk 22:18, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

See main article

I don't think we have a convention for "see main article" yet (let me know if I'm wrong). If we do not, then we should have one. This situation occurs when there is a subject heading within a large article for which all the information under that subject heading has been moved to another article. For example should, should it look like:

France

See main article France

or like:

France

Main article: France

--Lowellian 04:13, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

Sept. 11 attacks

You're invited to a poll at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks over whether that should remain the article's title or it should be changed to "Attacks of September 11, 2001".

I favor the latter, because using two commas to set the year off is widely supported by U.S. English reference books, and Wikipedia style says: "If a word or phrase is generally regarded as correct, then prefer it to an alternative that is often regarded as incorrect." Maurreen 07:38, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This poll has now ended. jguk 04:30, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Should we cite serial comma opposition?

Tired of the incessant omission of serial commas in many Wikipedia articles, bolstered no doubt by the odious standards set by nearly all print and online news sources that I've recently read, I finally went to my local library and reviewed every major work on writing style that they had in the Reference section. The only one that disagreed with the consensus described in this article under Commas was The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, 1st edition, 1999. Yet everyone seems to be following it! Are we so lazy that we can't be troubled to add a single comma, just because some upstart authority (compared to the Oxford, Harvard, and even Chicago University Presses) decided it needed the fractional character space taken by a punctuation mark that sometimes isn't necessary for clarity? (Excuse me while I take a few deep breaths. ☺) Anyway, since omitting the serial comma is so prevalent in popular writing, I wonder if we should cite in the main article the solitary exception to this consensus, pointing out that its motives are likely not based on clarity but rather ink and paper conservation. Comments? — Jeff Q 23:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From Comma before "and":

Although grammar gurus abandoned that comma rule for a while in the twentieth century, we have since realized that using the serial comma (as it is called) is a good idea ...

For years omission of the serial comma was the recommendation of many prestigeous style sheets and was taught in many schools. It is not unsensible. If we write "Tom and Jerry", should we not write "Bob, Tom and Jerry" rather than "Bob, Tom, and Jerry"? If you don't need a blob of punctuation then why not get rid of it except when it is really necessary for sense. That being said, though style guides have moved back to supporting serial commas for other reasons, it does take time for people to catch up, to learn that what they were taught in school as correct (that is what the supposed experts recommended) and which was common enough in many books is suddenly wrong (that what supposed experts recommend against). And even if they realize that rules have changed, there are old habits to unlearn. I'm not sure of when the swing one way started and when the swing back occurred, a swing obviously still not complete or people would not so often omit the serial comma here. What one would like to read is the whole story: where the omission started, and how it spread, and when the pendulum began swinging the other way. I don't know the story. And in another twenty years many style sheets may be again recommending that one not use serial comma except when needed for sense. Who knows?

Jallan 00:26, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, my problem with "Bob, Tom and Jerry" is that it makes Tom and Jerry seem more closely associated with one another than either is with Bob... john k 01:40, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just an observation. The serial comma is not normally used in Ireland, or, I believe in Britain or Australia. Filiocht 12:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The "serial" comma is not, no; here (UK) it's called the "Oxford" comma, and is both very widely used and supported.

James F. (talk) 12:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's also known as the "Harvard" comma, in case anyone is wondering. I suspect "serial" comma is used to avoid implications of primarily British or American usage. — Jeff Q 07:26, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This has no weight really, but I just think the serial comma looks messy; why add unnecessary punctuation? If its an ambiguous case, then use I use it, if not, I don't. I was tought in grade school to use it, but I always hated that (: —siroχo

I don't buy the "unnecessary punctuation" argument. One doesn't lose any sense by omitting commas before quotations, as in:

She said "I don't believe it."

but that doesn't give one license to omit such punctuation willy-nilly. Sense itself is usually clear when citing the list in isolation, out of context, although I agree with john that omission can imply greater association between the last two items. But context makes all the difference. There are cases where a serial comma introduces ambiguity, just as there are cases where omitting it does. There is no simple way to avoid this, because the comma has many distinct uses which may overlap in a single sentence or even phrase.

HOWEVER, this is beside my original point. I'm not looking to challenge the existing policy. I'm just asking for opinions on whether we should cite the New York Times exception, and, if so, whether any explanation can or should be given, since many people may wonder why we (and every modern authority except NYT) don't follow a common practice. — Jeff Q 07:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would rather see a listing of style guides that do support it. I suspect a number of newspapers besides the New York Times have similar style rules about not using serial comma. Not using serial comma is a common practice and has been a common practice as my first post here indicated. The problem is not the New York Times guidelines especially, which most people don't know, but that stylistic conventions and practice of a number of publication style sheets have changed during the past thirty years (and people don't know that either). They do know, often, that some print sources use serial comma and some don't, and therefore, in a general way, either is an acceptable practice and so choose to follow whichever practice they want in their own writing, if not under compulsion to follow a particular style. They may not realize that Wikipedia does request editors to use serial comma style or they may forget to do so out of habit. Anyone who does know the the standards laid down here and who is purposely going against them, making more work for otthers, should be told, politely to stop. If the editor doesn't, then, I suppose there is nothing for it but harsher measures. It sounds stupid to make a fuss over something so trivial. But why should others have to clean up after someone who is purposely making a mess. Jallan 17:33, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oooh, yes, let's punish them horribly! Make them change all "--" to "—" and vice versa in all articles! I don't think we need to justify the use of serial commas or even necessarily point out that some people use it only sometimes. Most style guides don't justify it; they just say do it. So do we. It's nice to feel authoritative. Karen Elizabeth Gordon, in The New Well-Tempered Sentence, says, "When the last two elements in a series are joined by a conjunction, a comma comes before the conjunction—unless you're a journalist." So maybe we should just punish all journalists ahead of time on general principle?

Just for entertainment: Lyn Dupre in Bugs in Writing says, "In Great Britain, writers use open punctation, in which ...for example, the series comma is omitted. In the United states, it is correct to use closed punctuation, in which such commas are included. Certain magazines and various informal arenas choose to use open punctuation; in formal writing in the U.S., however, it is correct to use closed punctuation." Maybe we should just punish all Brits in advance just in case they're thinking about leaving off the series/serial/Oxford/Harvard comma? And then add insult to injury by making rude comments about their spelling? Elf | Talk 18:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

I don't feel strongly either way, but the Associated Press stylebook, which most U.S. newspapers go by, is generally against serial commas. Maurreen 17:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, from my assortment of style guides:

• Always use series comma: Chicago, Microsoft Manual of Style for Technical Publications (I'm not a microsoft fan, but this is a nice book), The New Well-Tempered Sentence (see above), Bugs in Writing (see above), Strunk and White, The Elements of Grammar (although notes "some writers prefer to omit this comma")
• Usually use except sometimes maybe you don't have to: REA's Handbook of English Grammar, Style, and Writing; The Merriam-Webster Concise Guide for Writers (which also observes, "Most reference books, and most other book-length works of nonfiction use the serial comma. In all other categories of publishing, according to our evidence, usage is evenly or nearly evenly divided on the use or omission of this comma."); Woe is I (notes that it's optional but recommends using it)
• Optional except when required to make meaning clear: The Holt Guide to English

Elf | Talk 18:26, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and near as I can tell, Encyclopaedia Britannica uses the serial comma. Elf | Talk 18:33, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Somewhat of a..."

Moved from Village pump. Reuben 18:30, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have always learned that constructions like "somewhat of a bore" are incorrect - in this case, "something of a bore" or "somewhat boring" would be correct. See for instance "Common Errors in English". I haven't found any sources supporting the "somewhat of a..." form, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it might be correct in the UK. Any comments? In the U.S. at least, "somewhat of a..." is often used but is considered incorrect.
Reuben 08:26, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Considered incorrect by who? And why should be listen to them? I would avoid these constructions not because they're wrong, but because they're a little bit informal, colloquial, and awkward. Also, they're a little too wishy-washy. But wrong? I think not. Nohat 08:43, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

One example is the New York Times, which puts considerable effort into its formal and traditional style. As I understand it, that's an important component of the encyclopedic style that Wikipedia aims for. Whether to talk about things being incorrect or just informal, colloquial, and awkward is more a question of philosophy than style. Careful U.S. sources seem to avoid using "somewhat" as a pronoun. What I'm wondering is whether this carries over to other parts of the English-speaking world. I have changed "somewhat" to "something" in a few articles, but will revert those edits if they are not appropriate. If the point of style I was applying is U.S.-only, then I certainly would not want to impose it on somebody else's text when copy editing. Reuben 09:27, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Nohat. "Somewhat" is wishy-washy, but not wrong. Nor is it a U.S. taste. The New York Times style guide has no entry for it. And the "something of" construction is not familiar to me. Maurreen 16:56, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Really? I don't have access to the NYT style guide, but I have always known them to avoid "somewhat of a." A quick check on their usage, from Google: "somewhat of a" (a few hits, mostly in direct quotes), "something of a" (very many hits). Thanks for looking it up in their style guide. Also, is there a better place in the Wikipedia to ask for comments on style? Thanks. Reuben 17:20, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Maurreen 17:39, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure that we should be using 'somewhat' or 'something of a...' at all in these contexts in an encyclopaedia. Surely Wikipedia should say exactly how much or how far a fact is correct or incorrect. It's one thing for a newspaper to use this kind of style, because they often want to introduce an attitude or a comment on previously discussed items whereas we but it's another thing in an encyclopaedia. In Wikipedia we should be discussing items pared down to facts. Dieter Simon 22:29, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Spectacles/glasses

Under Usage and Spelling,

if possible and reasonable, a neutral word might be chosen as with Glasses.

Problem: there seems to have been (as far as an historian can tell, looking in on the discussion) a fairly major conflagration on just that point, a few months back. So unless the point of the section was to demonstrate how not to choose a neutral term...? I suspect that whichever article is highlighted, problems will arise; but at the moment, it's a bit disconcerting to arrive at Spectacles, redirected from Glasses. Anyone able to think of another example? Wooster 22:12, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I prefer "eyeglasses". [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 23:23, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not really trying to make a debate over the specific spectacles/eyeglasses/glasses thing, but it would probably be more use to the MoS if it linked to a good example of neutral phrasing, rather than one where there was a major punch-up followed by the exact opposite of the example given. Wooster 12:34, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Stylish irony

The most entertaining thing about those who reject careful style markup in favor of "crafting away in the throes of creativity" (or whatever that guy said) is that carefully marked up articles are much less likely to be edited by us perfectionists than poorly marked up articles.

If we find a song title in italics instead of quotes, or an article title not bolded, we just pop in there and change it. And, once there, we may decide to rearrange and rewrite elsewhere in the article. After all, copy editing is by definition one of our things.

So, if you want to avoid being edited by a style maniac, your best bet is to follow the styles correctly. Ortolan88 17:36 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)

Syntax highlighting for source code

I just did a search and could find no information on syntax highlighting for source code on wikipedia. It's the strangest thing that I don't seem to have found a clear guideline on it, perhaps I missed it someplace.

There's 3 ways of looking at syn highlighting (if it hasn't been mentioned yet):

• Syntax highlighting is evil, and should be avoided. (about 10% of the world population of programmers feels this way I estimate)
• Syntax highlighting drastically improves code readability, and should be done by default (the other 90% ;-) )

To avoid a holy war here, perhaps a middle road anyway:

• Syntax highlighting would be very useful in articles about syntax and syntax highlighting in any case. In other cases limited highlighting might be used to make much clearer which parts of the code are more important or most relevant to the discussion.

Right now sometimes people have made painstaking efforts to syntax highlight stuff in the clearest possible way, only to have it reverted out a little later.

Kim Bruning 22:27, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• What sort of articles have enough source code to warrant syntax highlighting? --Ardonik 22:33, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • 2 articles that might use syntax highlighting (whether you think it's a good idea or not) are Hello_world_program and Command_(computing). Many hello world programs are rather short, but syn highlighting might be used for some of the longer ones. In the case of command, syn highlighting might be used to clarify syntax issues. For more programs, see also for instance: List_of_articles_with_Python_programs. Kim Bruning 23:08, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, that answered my question. The problem is that if we syntax highlight C/C++, we'll have to get all the rest, too. That will be tedious; Emacs colors more languages than any other program, but it only understands so many. I'm not opposed to the idea of syntax highlighting, but consistency is king, and "no highlighting" is consistent. --Ardonik 23:13, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
      • I think oppertunistic highlighting would be quite ok. There's limited situations (namely : syntax clarification) where it's something you could really use. Think of it as an extention to using emphasis or bold Kim Bruning 23:22, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Still, I worry. Inconsistent color schemes, colorblind people being unable to read source code, and the whole thing being independent of CSS. If the devs could control the colors with CSS classes, then I'd be fine with it (it's consistent.) In the end, I think that entails making a Wikitext markup for colors. --Ardonik 23:44, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Title style

The article gives these examples:

• "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge", Rodin's "The Thinker", "Goober and Gomer Change a Tire", "Do's and Don'ts of Dating", "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening"
• "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" and "She's Leaving Home" appear on Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

- but does not (I think) make it explicit that Titles Of Songs And Things Should Have Lots Of Capitals. Should they? I'm told they should: I think it looks terrible, like a Victorian Concert Programme, but I'm Quite Happy To Go Along With It if it's what is agreed. Is an explicit line needed in the style guide to Deal With This? Thanks, Nevilley 07:39 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

Put in some examples that make your point. "Sgt. Pepper's lonely hearts club band" is not the name of the song. Ortolan88

Ortolan was just pointing out that the name of the song is always capitalized. I would further add that since it is a proper name it always should. --mav

OK, and thanks. Now, if the rule is that song (etc) titles should be in capitals, is there a line in the manual to say this? And if not, should there be one? All I am saying is that if I did not know there was such a rule, perhaps others did not too, and it might help to mention it. If this is already documented somewhere I'm sorry I missed it. Nevilley 08:35 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

Even though most albums will just be mentioned and not have their own articles, I think this is more of a naming convention issue than a style one. As such, this topic is already covered in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). --mav

Ummm. Thanks. I have to be honest and say that I am now so confused about this issue that I have no idea where to discuss it. The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) article does not cover it: it seems to me that it merely contains, in passing, what seems to be an assumption that all book title are capitalized.

Let me try and restate my problem. It seems to me that:

• Somewhere, maybe not here if you say so, the question of what gets capitalized in titles should made explicit.
• The current situation is unclear and that different approaches are being used in different users' own efforts to achieve consistency. I'd like to cite evidence of this, but not in here if it's the wrong place.
• It does sort of vaguely matter that we try to get things like this right, even though as you point out it is not akin to curing cancer or ending starvation worldwide.
• It may not just be a naming convention issue but also a use of sources issue, but I am not sure and need to discuss it with someone!
• If this is not the right place to discuss this then what is? I am quite happy to take the whole debate off somewhere else, try to explain my concern in more depth, and hope that people will join in, but I'd like to know where.
• Finally maybe this whole thing has already been discussed to death somewhere and a concensus reached. But where? By writing here I am demonstrating that at least one user - me - couldn't find the advice they needed.

Thanks, Nevilley 10:18 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

U+0027 versus U+2019 for apostrophe?

Did I miss the the statement on this? For quotation marks, I've found the recommendation toward straight ones. What about the apostrophe? Pjacobi 20:13, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Underlining

A section should be added discouraging underlining. It is a holdover from the typewriter days, and in the Internet days, underlining implies links. — [[User:Flamurai|flamurai^TM]] 03:55, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

agreed. BACbKA 06:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are people using underlining? Maurreen 06:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Occasionally guilty; APA is somewhat hardwired (but I no longer use two spaces after a full stop.) Mea culpa, and I will repent. - Amgine 07:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've seen it a few times, and in some WikiProject templates. I once saw a book title underlined, italicized, and in quotes. — [[User:Flamurai|flamurai^TM]] 09:29, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

At least it wasn't also "bolded" :-) BACbKA 11:13, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree entirely with the above -- Tarquin 09:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now, the tough question: Where should this section be added? Seems like a good place might be under the italics section, as italicization is almost always the proper replacement for underlining. — [[User:Flamurai|flamurai^TM]] 12:48, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)s

Maybe call the section "Titles." Maurreen 16:40, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I somehow feel like this should be treated at Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page. Someone who didn't know HTML would have to look up the special syntax there. We should add a note that says underlining is being phased out of formatting online, and should never be used. --Sean Kelly 23:43, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is a Titles section. But a personal question, which I think is addressed at the Ships Wikiproject: What is the correct format for a ship's name? Most usage is to italicize (which I dislike but would use if it were suggested style), but professional usage is to treat as a formal name (HMS Bounty as opposed to HMS Bounty or "HMS Bounty"), and of course linked where possible. - Amgine 23:15, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Current standard is 'HMS Bounty' (without quotes). See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Ship_names and the associated links and discussion. I like it and don't see any reason to change it. —Mike 01:23, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

<face> Don't like it, but don't wish to change it either. (The reasons for not liking it are two-fold: it's not the standard I used while serving in the Navy, and a ship/boat is considered a person by people who work/sail it; you wouldn't call your co-worker 'Mr. Amgine.) - Amgine 05:00, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)