Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20


MediaWiki 1.5: time to drop straight quotation mark requirement?

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Quotation marks and apostrophes)

commas

Someone sent me a link to this manual of style. It had a whole section about commas, what other style manuals say, when you should use them, and a memorable example using Sinead O'Connor. Now I can't find it. What happened? CDThieme

It was never as comprehensive as that. Please see above for the recent related discussions. Kind regards, jguk 12:55, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

What we have is one or two editors dedicated to making the style manual completely "nonproscriptive" - to the point of deleting references to other manuals, deleting longstanding language about avoiding ambiguity, deleting examples of clear and unclear uses. It is unfortunate. Jonathunder 20:41, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

Here is a source I encourage you to consider: http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm "Use a comma to separate the elements in a series (three or more things), including the last two." This is preferred in academic work such as an encyclopedia. CDThieme 00:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

There is not universal agreement that such commas are mandatory; therefore Wikipedia policy makes no assertions about requiring editors to include them. Nohat 01:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Nohat is quite right - there are plenty of style guides that mandate using Oxford commas at every opportunity, and plenty of style guides that say only to use it where necessary to avoid ambiguity (although, in practice, where the latter style is adopted, sometimes they are used stylistically too). On the whole (and please bear in mind that there are many exceptions to this), the main American style guides support mandatory use of the Oxford comma, the non-Americans mandate against it (with the most notable exceptions being OUP and Fowler's Modern English Usage, but they are very much in a minority). Kind regards, jguk 07:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I restored the original text. I understand the objections, but there clearly is not a consensus to for this modification. Proposed changes to the Manual of Style must have considerable agreement to be implemented; the scope of the discussion should be wider and more should support such a change before it is made. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I restored the original wording again. It is not my intention to "force" anyone to do anything. I understand arguments both for and against use of the serial comma, and indeed I might support modifying the Manual of Style to not favor one so strongly. However, this is longstanding text that was based on significant discussion in the past. Old polls are not binding, of course, and one may wish to be bold and try a new change. However, the amount of opposition to this change clearly shows that there is not consensus to modify the Manual in this manner. In fact, I believe that there should be considerable support for a modification to be incorporated into the Manual—certainly nothing as contentious as this. Perhaps the Manual is due for this change—but I cannot agree with a handful of editors making a change when another handful are actively opposing it. There needs to be more discussion, and more agreement before a change of this nature is warranted, in my opinion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I would think that the amount of controversy over the issue is a good reason for being nonprescriptive over it. Mark1 08:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Surely it should be obvious that there isn't consensus support for the old version either. Sitting around on the talk page arguing about it isn't enough. If we waited until there was consensus here for every change nothing would get done. Why don't we try to come to a compromise on the wording? Nohat 08:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The whole style manual is already nonprescriptive in that contributors are not expected to follow any or all of the rules. What the manual does is provide guidance for those who like to copyedit. I think what we most need to keep in mind is "what will most aid the reader?" When a reader sees a list of countries and there is not a comma before the conjunction separating the last two, the reader may well wonder if this a country like Serbia and Montenegro. In a list of islands, are the last two intended to be grouped, like the Turks and Caicos? Or in a list of ancient weapons, are the unfamiliar last two used together, like bow and arrow earlier in the list? (All of these are taken from lists I've seen in articles lately, not contrived examples.) If the reader has to re-read the sentence, or has to puzzle over that for even a bit, we have not communicated as clearly as we might have. That is precisely why so many style manuals recommend the Oxford comma. If this style manual drops the recommendation, it still needs something addressing how to avoid ambiguity. What will be the clearest to the most readers? Jonathunder 16:58, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

What will be clearest to readers? is indeed the right question to ask. Unfortunately there is no one answer here. Many many people (a heavy majority of non-North Americans and a minority of North American) do not use a mandatory Oxford comma and get by in life quite easily. And suddenly using them where they are not necessary will only confuse or inhibit the flow of the text for readers so used.
The examples usually given for where Oxford commas help are usually pretty poor sentences anyway. Try reading them out, when you have the full flexibility of tone and gesticulation, and think whether you truly can distinguish what you want to distinguish. Essentially, often such sentences can be reordered to give a better formulation.
I'm not convinced by your examples. Compare the following:
Yugoslavia broke up into Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro
Yugoslavia broke up into Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Serbia and Montenegro
Yugoslavia broke up into Slovenia, Serbia and Montenegro, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina

If you list the new countries from south to north without an Oxford comma:

The former Yugoslav republics of Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and Slovenia...

would that tell the reader there are in fact five countries, not four? Would it be clear? CDThieme

There are also two other points:
(1) There's no point making subtle distinctions - they will pass many readers by (in particular those not used to the mandatory Oxford comma)
(2) The alternative to having a mandatory Oxford comma is not to never have an Oxford comma, it is to have it only where it helps resolve ambiguity or improves the flow of the text.
WPians already use both styles - in practice this has been accepted for a long while. All we're suggesting here is stating what practice is. And can we please make the text shorter. It's gotten far too long! Kind regards, jguk 18:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please just set up a vote on this issue? —Sean κ. ⇔ 19:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Having read the archives now, I see there already was a vote on this. A majority decided to keep the Oxford comma recommendation. CDThieme

They could, yes, but keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a democracy. —Simetrical (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

If there is not a consensus about what this style manual should say, indicating what most other style manuals say will be helpful. I know I found it helpful, so added that back. CDThieme

It's probably quite easy to find 100 style guides pointing in each direction though! jguk 21:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Probably, by why is that a consideration? This guideline is a "Manual of Style", not a guide to which styles there's a rough consensus (much less unanimity) for among other style manuals. Doubtless reporting different views without recommending one has a place, but is it really here? Alai 23:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Agreed - we should make a recommendation if we can reach consensus Trodel 00:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
It seems the only consensus that we'll ever reach on a recommendation would be something to effect of "Use serial commas when necessary to avoid ambiguity. You can use also final serial commas if they are not necessary to avoid ambiguity, but such commas are not obligatory." Final serial commas have such an incredibly tiny impact on the stylistic feel of articles, that recommending one style over another seems needlessly prescriptive, especially considering that we already have plenty of stylistic policies that are left to the editor's discretion. Nohat 00:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

As others have said above, it is helpful to outline what other style manuals say. The ones listed demonstrate this is not a "side of the pond" issue. Jonathunder 16:46, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

I'd be keener on this were this not supposed to be a "Guidelines" page. Putting non-guidance commentary on such a page surely increases the perceived complexity of such, without actually adding anything material to it. As previously suggested, I'd be more in favour of explicitly splitting up the MoS into different documents (or at least clearly demarcated sections) according to whether it's actual "guidelines", related commentary, or perhaps even actual policy, should consensus for that latter ever arise. Alai 18:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Pink box

I'm removing the pink box from the top of this page. It's obvious that the alternative proposal isn't going to generate a consensus for adoption, and since this is a page frequented by WP newbies, it seems particuarly irritating to have the most glaring thing on the page be non-content. Besides, talk pages, not project pages, are the place to call attention to proposed changes. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense, but why did you comment out the request that people take extra consideration before editing the MoS? TreyHarris 21:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

For the same reason. It's a message to editors, not readers; this usage is recommended on Wikipedia:How to edit a page. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Diaeresis in English

I've noticed that a handful of pages use the diaeresis in certain words (e.g. 'coöperation' and 'reëstablished'). I'm inclined to believe that unless this form of these words are used exclusively across Wikipedia, that particular usage should be eliminated. Wikipedia's own page on the subject states that particular usage has become rare. Surprisingly, I have seen no mention of it on the style guide. I'm inclined to be bold and remove them myself, but I don't want to get flamed for some obscure reason. Opinions? --Bletch 02:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I've never personally seen those two in common use, but I do like seeing 'naïve', for some reason. —Sean κ. ⇔ 03:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Actually you are right; naïve (and names like Chloë) seem to be in regular use. --Bletch 12:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd remove the diaereses where they are no longer commonly used in English (although if you are quoting someone who used the form "coöperation" you may choose to leave it as is. Only a few words, such as naïve, naïveté, and the names Zoë and Chloë still on occasion retain their diaereses. Kind regards, jguk 19:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation page style survey

A proposal for a supplementary Manual of Style for disambiguation pages. Please register your votes and comments on that article's talk page. Wikipedia:Disambiguation/Style. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Survey closed. Motion passed. Added to list of Supplementary Manuals of Style. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How do I set the background color of a page to something other than white?

I know it can be done because a long time ago I remember seeing it. Its actually for the Wikibooks site, I have a kid's book, http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Gramma's_Grammar , and I'd like to color the pages up a bit. Can anyone help me? Thanks!! --karlwick 01:57, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Response put onto user's talk page —Sean κ. ⇔ 03:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Titles of scientific theories?

Does the Manual of Style have any suggestion on capitalization of theories? I ask because the articles on relativity are inconsistently capitalized; for instance, using both "Special Relativity" and "special relativity". I think it would be better to have a consistent usage (at least within an article, although it's still silly if different articles use different capitalizations for the same theory). Chicago (8.157, 15th ed.) suggests: "Laws and theories. Names of laws, theories, and the like are lowercased, except for proper names attached to them." Examples given include "Avogadro's hypothesis", "the big bang theory", "Boyle's law", "(Einsten's) general theory of relativity", and "Newton's first law". Any suggestions? — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

University of Minnesota agrees. "Do not capitalize the names of laws, theorems, or principles except for proper nouns that are part of the names" Examples given are "theory of relativity", "Kepler’s laws", "Newton’s laws of motion". -Satori 00:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Bolding within articles

The Manual of Style states: "The first time the title is mentioned in the article, put it in bold using three apostrophes.". Should this be interpreted to mean that only the first time the title is mentioned is the appropriate place to use bold, or could there be other places to use bold within the article? EvilPhoenix 17:30, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

What's an example? —Sean κ. ⇔ 18:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
I've found some editors using bold for all proper nouns (that might be a local cultural – non-English – thing), others use bold for emphasis (instead of italics). Neither is correct. Bold is very little used in most publishing contexts, its main use being to mark cross-references, for which we use links. It can be used to distinguish a certain sub-set in a list or table, and some people like to use it to mark a volume number in a bibliographic reference. The answer to EvilPhoenix's question though, is generally "no", with one major exception: when the title of the article is supplemented by variants of the title. For example:
Santa Claus (also known as Father Christmas, Saint Nicholas, Saint Nick, Kris Kringle or simply Santa) is...
Does anyone disagree with any of that? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
An exception I employ is to make bold sometimes the term that the reader might have used searching the article, but which is a redirect. I'm a lumper not a splitter (context gives meaning), and I use bold sometimes for a subset of the main subject, which would be diminished, however, by being set off in its own isolated mini-article. --Wetman 00:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Wetman. For some stubby articles about places or roads that are unlikely to be expanded, I often attempt to merge the info under the next larger entity. IMO, any redirects that are not obviously variants of the article title should be also be bolded, preferably as near to the opening of the article as practical. older≠wiser 00:54, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
Where an article includes a glossery of terms, I have used bold to indicate that a term is an entry in the glossery. for a recent example, see The Dark is Rising Sequence. DES 00:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think that's probably a logical extension of the subsidiary definition principle articulated above, and seems fine to me. Perhaps some of this is worth distilling into a short elucidation in the MoS itself. Alai 02:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i.e. and e.g.

Scholarly abbreviations of Latin terms like i.e., e.g., or n.b. should be avoided and English terms such as that is, for example, or note used instead.

I think we should begin enforcing this idea more often. Particularly "i.e." and "e.g." are often confused for one another, and there are all sorts of inconsistent ways to "spell" them ("ie." "ie", and "IE" are common variants, not to mention the issue of whether or not a comma should follow; it seems nine times out of ten the comma is forgotten). Who else wishes to wage war against these two traitors who go by the names of "i.e." and "e.g."? - furrykef (Talk at me) 04:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that would be a mistake. ie and eg are common enough - and whilst some people erroneously think ie is synonymous with eg that's really not a big problem as long as the articles actually use the terms correctly. I've always been surprised that ie and eg are described as "scholarly" - it seems a quite inappropriate adjective to me. We really ought to revise the advice so that we avoid less well understood Latin - viz, vide, qv (and I was going to add etc but that would be ambiguous!), jguk 05:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I really see no problem with i.e. and e.g. The fact that people confuse them shouldn't affect anything. I think that the biggest issue with all of these latin-derived abbreviations is that they often make your writing look lazy (e.g., putting quippy examples in parentheses makes your sentence look sloppy). —Sean κ. + 06:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
If people don't know how to use them, that's because they're ignorant apes; it's not a reason for those of us who do know how to use them not to. N.b., however, is patronising: we shouldn't be telling readers what they should and shouldn't note. Mark1 06:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I on the other hand am sick of correcting typos, incorrect usage, etc. on Wikipedia and think we should do everything we can to prevent other people from shooting themselves in the foot with it. Besides, what exactly do these abbreviations give us? So we save a couple letters... so what? I think it's better to have a consistent rule that favors clarity and plain English. The point of a style guide, especially for a collaborative work such as this, is consistency and minimizing the possibility of needless errors. Besides, remember we write as a whole community. If you think not being able to use these abbreviations crimps your style, you may want to think about why your style is so important here in the first place. ;) - furrykef (Talk at me) 14:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Mark, your attitude is snobbish. If i.e. and e.g. can be substituted with plain English, then why use the less-understood acronyms? One of Wikipedia's goals is accessibility, and the use of Latin terms to sound slightly more high-brow goes against that. --Poiuyt Man talk 07:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Yours is patronising. I like to assume that the readers of an encyclopedia can read without moving their lips and don't drag their knuckles on the floor.  ;) We have a separate simple version for the likes of them. The abbreviations are more concise and can be useful to prevent repetition. Mark1 07:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to avoid calling attitudes names, please. ;) Anyway, I consider being concise by eliminating letters, rather than needless words or phrases, not to be an issue worth worrying about. Neither is the prevention of repetition at the expense of clarity, in my opinion. - furrykef (Talk at me) 14:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Poiuyt Man is right that we should not use terms to sound slightly more high-brow, and sometimes it would be better if "ie" is replaced by "that is" and "eg" by "for example", but sometimes the style flows better if we keep "ie" and "eg", so we shouldn't rule their usage out (and similarly with contractions). I think the Latin abbreviations "ie", "eg" and "etc" are well-known enough to treat them as assimilated with English, but we should shy away from others, jguk 07:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to note that jguk's post above also "misspells" i.e., e.g., and even etc. by omitting their periods. Not ragging on you or anything, jguk, just noting further how often these abbreviations are spelled "incorrectly" even by people who otherwise speak perfectly fine English. - furrykef (Talk at me) 14:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Misspell? I think you need a lesson in punctuation!!! :) Seriously though - N American punctuation, which I take it you are used to, is pretty much the same as what almost everyone worldwide was using in the English-speaking world in the 19th century. Since then, N America has remained static, whilst the rest of the world has veered towards less punctuation. I have seen it in my short (31-y-o) lifetime: outside N America, punctuation is on the wane. I'm sure it will reach an apogee before weloseallpunctuationaltogether! But certainly nowadays, outside N America, there is a trend towards writing them ie and eg, though admittedly many still do use i.e. and e.g.. Not sure really what all this means, but thought you might be interested to know:) jguk 19:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
That's why I put "misspells" and "incorrect" in quotes, you see. I was taught, and I understand that it isn't necessarily "correct" to the point that everybody else is wrong, especially as people often disagree on how to capitalize and punctuate certain abbreviations, that it's always "i.e." and "e.g.", with a comma after them when used in a sentence. But for consistency it would certainly be good to settle on a single style, in which case this style would probably prevail. - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Most manuals of style suggest that the common abbreviations i.e., e.g. and etc. (id est, exampli gratia and et cetera) should be replaced by plain English. I have even heard the abbreviations used in speech. Even though most people do understand what these letters mean, their use is considered a point of bad style. The argument is not about anything else but style. Most editors I have worked with demand that I use that is, for example and and so on instead. --Gareth Hughes 20:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
You are joking??? What sort of illiterate dunces don't know what eg, ie, etc mean? As to writing and so on, my publisher would shoot me if I tried to write such garbage. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia and it isn't our job to dumb down to lowest common denominator illiteracy. If people don't know what they mean, they should sue their teachers for incompetence! FearÉIREANN(talk) 20:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't think some foreigners would appreciate being lumped into the "illiterate dunce" category. (By the way, I'm not going to discuss "etc." here because it isn't confused with anything except, rarely, "et al.", and the phrase "et cetera" occurs far more often than "i.e." or "e.g." do in vernacular speech. I don't have any problem with this abbreviation, myself.) Yes, it's true that we don't need to dumb down our text to the lowest common denominator, but it's also true that we don't need to use abbreviations for seemingly no reason other than to save a couple of letters when this is of no concern to us in the first place. Given that "i.e." and "e.g." are often confused, one does lose clarity when using these abbreviations. I don't think it's a good trade. - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I actually said that these abbreviations are commonly understood, and I do not believe that removing them is dumbing down: there is nothing clever about them, smug but not clever. Fowler and Chicago both consider them to be bad form in formal writing. It is a choice of style that we are talking about here, not one of correctness. --Gareth Hughes 22:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
If Fowler and Chicago agree, I find that persuasive, since each is a leading authority on its side of the Atlantic. CDThieme 23:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Now that is funny. Fowler is known in academia and in English teaching as Howler for the amount of nonsense it contains. And many students in third level institutions in Europe, if they use Chicago, have their written work returned unmarked, with the comment - "under no circumstances are students to submit text based on the Chicago Manual of Style." My own academic colleagues will not touch it with a barge pole and on their first day starting undergraduate or postgraduate level they receive a handout instructing them that the C MoS is not acceptable. Theses have been returned, with students told to rewrite them completely if they use C MoS. One lecturer last year famously told a class of third years that the Chicago MoS was unfit even to be used as toilet paper. Much of what is controversial on wikipedia is stuff based on the C MoS, with some Europeans saying bluntly that they will not use it under any circumstances. FearÉIREANN(talk) 23:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
What MoS are undergraduate students told to use? —Sean κ. + 00:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Do you have perhaps anything to say on this matter that does not involve insulting people or manuals of style? You know, like actually defending your point of view instead of attacking everybody else's? - furrykef (Talk at me) 01:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
This isn't the first time Jtdirl has contributed to such discussions with "anecdote and attitude", rather than, say, a citing a style guide he himself would consider acceptable (much less, authoritative), or some other such verifiable piece of compelling evidence. Personally I'm entirely in favour of using i.e. and e.g. (with punctuation, and used the right way 'round...), but I can't see that the above is in any way a useful way of arguing for their inclusion. Alai 19:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree entirely with Jtdirl. I also agree with Gareth that It is a choice of style that we are talking about here, not one of correctness; what I don't understand is why some people want to impose their own style on others. Mark1 01:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
This idea seems to center around the idea of "style" as a personal thing, as in, "that's my style". Well, we're working on an encyclopedia. Having a "my style" doesn't really work when you're editing an encyclopedia. You must act in the interests not only in the interests of yourself, but also of your peers and your readers. And I think it is certainly in the best interests of Wikipedia as a whole to avoid these abbreviations. - furrykef (Talk at me) 03:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
The purpose of the manual is not to specify one acceptable style: it is to define the range of acceptable styles. A little tolerance would not go amiss. Mark1 03:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
And this includes all the millions of variations of ways to abbreviate (and confuse the abbreviations of) expressions that are easy enough to spell in full, does it? :P - furrykef (Talk at me) 05:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Certainly it's possible to specify a range of acceptable styles, but that does not mean to say that it's within the purpose of the MoS, or necessarily a good idea, for it to allow a set of alternatives in every case. The purpose of a manual style is typically to establish a certain degree of internal consistency, over and above simple "generally agreed correctness". If we simply include a range a popular styles, drawn from a variety of incompatible style manuals (or otherwise, based on existing practice, or practices there's a demand to allow), then this ceases to itself be a manual of style in any useful sense. Alai 19:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree that abbreviations should be avoided. Wikipedia is not paper. Exploding Boy 02:01, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I will now, in an unabashedly biased way, summarize what I perceive to be the current arguments for and against.

Arguments against using i.e. and e.g.

  1. Capitalization and punctuation is almost always inconsistent even throughout a single dialect within Wikipedia, leading to mundane copyediting for consistency (it is incorrect in American English to use "ie", "IE", or "ie.", for instance)
  2. They are often confused for one another
  3. Almost all style guides advise against them
  4. We have perfectly good English expressions for what these mean in the first place and they're really not that hard to type
  5. I'm just going to go about replacing them most of the time I come across them anyway
  6. Allowing them lowers the quality of Wikipedia as a whole because of people misusing these abbreviations as addressed in points 1 and 2. It may be that you know how to use them correctly, but please keep in mind that you're not the only editor here.
  7. Using them sacrifices clarity (see #2) in favor of saving a few letters. Is that really a good trade?

Arguments for using i.e. and e.g.

  1. I like them, dammit!

I know I've conveniently ignored a few counterpoints to my arguments against, but that isn't the point. So far there aren't really any good arguments for it in the first place even if you attack my arguments with counterpoints. I think people on the opposing side had better get to working on that. :) - furrykef (Talk at me) 18:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The case in favour of using them is that they are now fully assimilated into the English language. We might as well pick any other English word and take a dislike to that for all you're saying, jguk 19:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
That doesn't necessarily mean that they're good expressions to use. I think we can agree that, for instance, the word fuck doesn't really belong anywhere in article space except as part of a quotation, title, or whatever -- albeit for entirely different reasons, but the point is just because a word is fully assimilated into the English language doesn't mean we should use it. I do concede that your point isn't entirely invalid, though... I did say I was unabashedly biased when I put that list together. ;) - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree completely with jguk on this one. You make a good argument for why one should avoid "i.e." and "e.g." in general, but they're still grammatically correct in formal writing, and we have no reason to suggest they shouldn't be used. There are scores of other words and phrases that are often confused and have clearer substitutes. For example, "it's" and "its" are confused a million times over, and it's almost always better to avoid the pronoun. Should we tell people not to use them? I think not: stylistic choices like these should be made on a case-by-case basis. —Sean κ. + 21:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
You say I make a good argument, yet see no reason they shouldn't be used? I'm confused here. ;) As for a "case by case basis", I don't see why they should be necessary at all, ever. As for your counterexample, certainly "its" and "it's" are both necessary words. They're also far more common than "i.e." and "e.g." and are actually commonly used in speech as well as in writing, whereas, although it has been noted above that these abbreviations have been used in speech, it's exceedingly rare. More to the point, the encyclopedia would suffer more much more from the prohibition of "its" and "it's" than if they weren't prohibited. I don't think that's true of "i.e." and "e.g." - furrykef (Talk at me) 23:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I know people who, when they were taught to write formally, were told not to use the pronoun "it", and graded down if they did. In my field of study, mathematics, we are taught to eliminate "it" from our vocabulary when writing proofs, since "it" is unnecessarily ambiguous. Personally, I wouldn't mind at all to see "it" eliminated from the encyclopedia ;). I guess what I'm saying is that, though your reasons are all good, in the end it's all a matter of taste. I would rather tell people to write in a clear, succinct manner than to tell them which words they should avoid. —Sean κ. + 00:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I think the part about "e.g." and "i.e." in the MoS should be removed. We don't need it. If an editor wants to use "e.g." and "i.e.", why not? The current MoS is too long, it should stick closer to the KISS priciple. Dumbledore 17:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
By the way, Oxford and Cambridge both give e.g. and i.e. with full stops [1] [2]. I like Mr and Dr without punctuation (because it's logical), but I don't really like eg and ie. The Times likes eg and ie though... Dumbledore 17:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Dumbledore - we should allow eg and ie (also WPians are already using them in practice anyway). I do think foreign words and abbreviations that are not assimilated into English shouldn't be used without explanation though, jguk 07:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with them if, but only if, they are used correctly. If my students use i.e. and e.g. interchangeably or write them without dots, it is a clear sign they don't know what they stand for, and I have them resubmit the work in English. No Account 01:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, it is becoming increasingly common to see them without dots in standard British English, with an increasing number of publications eschewing them, jguk 07:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
For example, the Guardian style guide is with jguk on this one. But this is a style guide, not an exercise in the documentation of what's becoming increasingly common. Every MoS I've checked mandates a particular punctuation, and so should this one. (Or ban 'em, as at present.) Alai 02:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This style guide is different, however. Publications enforce one style for consistency. We don't do this - instead allowing editors to use whatever style they are used to (subject to internal consistency within any one article). This helps encourage more people to submit articles and has helped WP grow (after all - whilst most editors positively welcome constructive improvements to their text, and for typos to be corrected, my guess is they also get pissed off if arbitrary changes are made.
Of course, in this instance there is a difference. We can just permit them (as permitting them would hardly require them to be used). I do prefer a ban on abbreviations or foreign terms that have not been assimilated into general English usage though, jguk 07:08, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Your characterisation isn't really accurate. The MoS does that in some instances (pointlessly, in my view; better just to shorten the page, than discuss something without saying anything one way or the other); and you may think it should do so in more (or in all), but in fact it does mandate some stylistic considerations, as a glance at the page will reveal. In so far as it mandates anything, at least. Editting to the MoS is surely by definition not making "arbitrary changes" (even if the content of the MoS itself might arguably be somewhat arbitrary is some instances). It's clear that some people can get very touchy about having their text tampered with, but to deploy this as an argument against guidelines as to which style is the more desirable seems to me to be mistaken on several grounds. Firstly, it's pretty unwiki, philosophically speaking; we're otherwise pretty explicit that one should expect to have one's text editted mercilessly. Secondly, it's inconsistent: why worry about people getting pissed off about only such changes? My guess is that for most people, MoS type issues are the least of their worries. But lastly, because it's entirely counterproductive: "anything goes" doesn't prevent disgruntlements and edit wars, it facilitates them, as we can them simply endlessly flip-flop between two different "equally good" versions, that each set of editors prefers for one reason or another, without policy/guidelines assistance in terminating the process. Alai 07:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Scratch from MoS!

I'd like the

Scholarly abbreviations of Latin terms like i.e., e.g., or n.b. should be avoided and English terms such as that is, for example, or note used instead.

scratched from the MoS. I've traced the addition to that by User:Ortolan88 at Sep 21, 2004 @ 21:36 with an edit summary of "prevent measles" (made it *that* much harder to find). However, I find no discussion in the archives (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style--Archive Directory) pertaining to this addition. So it would seem that this was unilaterally added 8 months ago (by an admin no less..if he was an admin 8 months ago...).

I see no benefit of having this in the MoS especially since it's not required to be followed. I call bollucks on the entire list presented by Furrykef: they are perfectly acceptable and used and I'm sure I could find a list of complaints about...anything...really. And considering it was unilaterally added it doesn't belong here. Cburnett 03:42, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose scratch. Even the Toronto Globe and Mail Style Book says to use i.e. only in direct quotes. I think the Latin tags are stuffy and opaque. Somewhere in the Wiki help guides I've read that the model reader is supposedly a bright 12-year-old - certainly these dusty crusty relics would only confuse that model reader, especially if the reader's first language isn't English. We'd be better off fixing spelling throughout Wikipedia. --Wtshymanski 13:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did you say a bright twelve-year-old! Why not add from an isolated bluecollar community in the Idaho panhandle! --Wetman 05:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  1. Neither "i.e." nor "e,g," is a Latin tag.
  2. If we're going to assume that readers are too ignorant to understand commonly used abbreviations like these, why not just translate everying into Simple English and have done with it?
  3. I know of no bright twelve-year-olds who wouldn't recognise "i.e." and "e.g."; yes, they might confuse them, but then they might confuse "alternate" and "alternative", "uninterested" and "disinterested", "infer" and "imply", "ingenious" and "ingenuous", etc. — should we avoid all those too? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh scratch, bin, burn, do what ever you want with that ridiculous sentence but please keep it out of the MoS. We have got to presume that readers did more in their English class than sleep. What exactly is so difficult about ie and eg anyhow: how exactly is so difficult to understand the different meaning attached to two letters, depending on whether it is ie or eg? Most people on Wikipedia are well beyond an age where they should know exactly what they mean. If they don't by the time they leave high school, then they should sue their teachers for incompetence. FearÉIREANN(talk) 13:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"What exactly is so difficult about ie and eg anyhow:" Well apparently the fact that they are initals and should be i.e. and e.g. if they are used. Personaly i like them, and might use them, and wikipedia writing is supposed to be a bit formal, hence the sugestion not to use contrations. On the other hand, these add little, I'm not sure they are aver bettter than that is and for example. Still I think that thre should be discussion before this sentance is allowed to stay in the MOS. DES 5 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)

I oppose the scratch.

  1. We're writing Wikipedia for a large reader community and many members of that community can probably understand "for example" far better than they can understand "e.g.".
  2. One need only look at the writing community on Wikipedia to quickly conclude that even among people who claim to understand what i.e. and e.g. mean, they don't.

Atlant 17:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Whatever the advantages or disadvantages of i.e. and e.g., n.b. (and note, for that matter) is particularly insidiuous and almost always used in a POV way to call attention to facts that the author thinks are important. I don't ever remember a time when n.b. or note was used in a way that wasn't both condescending and biased. Nohat 19:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's already been scratched by User:Markalexander100 (I would have but I've been involved in reverts over it) because it was unilaterally added (i.e., no consensus) and, now, there's no consensus to keep. So it's now the burden of the supporters to draw consensus to put it on the MoS — the way it should have been done when it was originally put on. So, if there's anyone that desires to have it put onto the MoS the correct way, then by all means start it. My vote is still against it and not just because I don't find the arguments for it compelling, but it's strictly a personal style issue. If editor A wants to use it, then fine use it. If editor B doesn't want to use it, then fine don't use it. If editor A and B get into a revert war over it, then it should be settled just like any other style conflict. Be it over "e.g." or contractions (some styles do say to not use contractions because it's less formal) they can be settled the same. If you're worried about it causing more conflicts because it's *not* in the MoS then I'll be quick to point out the conflict arisen here because it *was* in the MoS and articles (e.g., Electrical wiring (UK)).

I hope my usage of latin phrases (e.g., "i.e." and "e.g.") didn't confuse the 12-and-under crowd arguing this... :) Cburnett 19:18, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

BC/BCE

does wikipedia have a guideline for the BC versus BCE debate? -Lethe | Talk 00:46, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

(An excellent argument for KISS). Mark1 02:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have created a compromise proposal. Please discuss the proposal on its talk page (not here). Kaldari 19:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Italics -- Wikipedia and encyclopedias in general

There is currently a dispute on Talk:Wikipedia#Italics, concerning the italicization of "Wikipedia" in the article namespace. The Manual of Style currently has no specifics regarding the italicization of encyclopedias (although they most likely fall under "books"), and whether media being in paper or online form matters for italics. --Poiuyt Man talk 09:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Paintings?

I came here to look for the consensus on names of paintings because every article seems to use a different style. Since names of paintings are often quite long, using no marker at all (quotation marks or italics) makes their use in text often fairly confusing. I notice that this page mentions for italics books, court cases, movies, albums, TV series, magazines, ships, computer/video games, and major orchestral works and for quotation marks "short stories, articles, statues, short films, songs, individual episodes of TV shows", and "poems". I'd prefer italics for paintings, but I could live with quotation marks as well. If the consensus is mentioned elsewhere, I think we should mention it here, too. Rl 08:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oxford GtS would suggest italics, don't have other references immediately to hand. Seems logical to me, as aside from collections and exhibitions which are somewhat transitory, there's not the same concept of longer composite works as in other media. Strongly agree we should mention it either way, once we have a general inkling as to which is preferrable. Alai 01:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agree, italics makes sense for paintings. — Catherine\talk 04:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Same as ever. The iconic genre is not capialized. All titles are capitalized. Thus:
A Madonna and Child by Pontormo.
Madonna and Child, by Pontormo.
A portrait of Louis XIV by Rigaud.
Louis XIV, by Rigaud.
Makes perfect sense. Thanks everyone, you have been most helpful. If this is a consensus, we should work it into the main article and the manual on titles. Rl 07:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oops—pardon me. It seems I've just duplicated this question over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (titles). It's worth noting that there is actually a partially conflicting policy on that page; most visual art isn't mentioned, but for some reasons statues are named...and quotation marks instead of italics are called for.

I concur with the above uniform style suggestion (italics), however. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_14&oldid=1144308634"