Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Manual of Style. 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 10

←

Archive 14

→

First sentence of common nouns

I've noticed a great variance in the style used for the first sentence of articles describing a common noun. (see http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=common%20noun). I think a guideline would be beneficial in this area, and I just wanted to open discussion on the topic (If it has already been discussed, please point me to the discussion.)

Compare anteater, giraffe, and bear. These three articles exemplify the three styles commonly used:

Plural: "Bears are large mammals..."
Definite article: "The bear is a large mammal..."
Indefinite article": "A bear is a large mammal..."

I believe a standard first sentence would be desirable, but I have found no reference to this topic in the MoS or Guide to Better Articles.CaseInPoint July 5, 2005 03:14 (UTC)

Probably do need a simple guideline. I think indefinite article, singular form (with plural in parenthesis if it's unusual) is most common and effective.

Examples:

A clarinet is a musical instrument in the woodwind family...
A bear is an animal in the mammal family (class mammalia)...
An I-beam is a building component that supports part of a structure...

Also, like to see common terms (animal or musical instrument) before technical ones (mammal or woodwind).

DavidH July 5, 2005 21:54 (UTC)

What an excellent topic. I'm in favor of the indefinite article - if the first sentence is to start in the manner described here. However, most encyclopaedias use a short definition in which the article (indefinite or definite) is redundant because the sentence omits the subject, and is "hanging". The following are examples from the Britannica [1]:

bear large carnivore of the family Ursidae, closely related to the dog (family Canidae) and raccoon (Procyonidae). The bear is the most recently evolved of carnivores. Its ancestral line appears to have diverged from canid stock during the Miocene and to have developed, through such forms as the Pliocene Hyaenarctos (of Europe, Asia, and North America), into modern types such...

black bear also called American Bear (Ursus americanus), forest-dwelling bear (family Ursidae) that has been reduced in population and range but is still the most common North American bear. The cinnamon bear and the blue-gray or blue-black glacier bear represent colour phases of this species. The American black bear probably constitutes only one species, rather than the more than 80 described...

polar bear also called White Bear, Water Bear, Sea Bear, or Ice Bear (Ursus maritimus, formerly Thalarctos maritimus), semiaquatic northern bear, family Ursidae, found throughout Arctic regions, generally on drifting oceanic ice floes. The polar bear is sought for its trophy value and (especially by Eskimo) for its hide, tendons, fat, and flesh; the liver, however, is inedible and often poisonous because of its high vitamin...

~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 6, 2005 02:12 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, don't like the example above. In a printed book, formatted as a dictionary, maybe. But for this, the simplest thing (and easiest to keep consistent) is to start with regular ole sentences. Especially if you're suggesting the headline start the sentence, like this:

==Bear==

large carnivore of the family Ursidae, closely related to the dog (family Canidae) and raccoon (Procyonidae).

Anyway, the original post was about singular/plural and definite/indefinite article. I think the question of starting with complete sentences is pretty well settled by the number of articles already written in that form, and by the type of headline formatting used on Wikipedia articles. -- DavidH July 6, 2005 02:33 (UTC)

There is no need to apologize, DavidH. I wasn't advocating using that form on Wikipedia, I said it's the form used in most other encyclopaedias. My intention was to show that the type of sentences in CaseInPoint's post are not the only options. I quite agree that the Wikipedia house style has, in practice, been defined. If there was a choice, I'd prefer the form noted in my original post. Since there really isn't, I'd go with the indefinite article opening - as I said earlier.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 6, 2005 04:48 (UTC)

After giving it some thought I think I should add my own opinion. I disagree with an indefinite article opener. It sounds okay at first, but think about the literal meaning of such an opening. "A bear is a large mammal of the carnivore family." What this sentence is really saying is "There exists a bear that is a large mammal of the carnivore family." That is not what we are trying to say. I also don't think a plural opening is the best, beause it is somewhat unnatural and could also be considered logically insufficient. This is why I support a definite article approach. "The bear is a large mammal..." This approach ensures that the subject includes all instances of the common noun. For more info see Entry 2 in [2] CaseInPoint July 6, 2005 12:49 (UTC)

The problem with "The bear is a large mammal..." is that it implies that there is only one bear, or only one tyupe of bear. More subtly, the formulation "the bear", "the fish", "the horse" tends to imply a greater degree of sameness than there really is about living beings, particluly in such phrases as "the evolution of the bear shows...". I would favor "Bears are large mammals" or perhaps better "The word Bear is used for any of a group of large mammals" DES 6 July 2005 14:50 (UTC)

The plural does sound natural, but it doesn't parallel the singular heading, which seems not elegant. Simple is best too. It's more obvious that the indefinite article is called for if we consider non-living things:

"A baseball bat is a cylindrical club made of wood used in the game of baseball..."

"The Baseball Bat is a metal sculpture located at the Social Security building in Chicago..."

DavidH July 6, 2005 15:52 (UTC)

I don't agree with the second option given by DES. That seems more unnatural than any of the other options too me. Actually, I think the indefinite article option is the best, because it sounds natural, isn't as reductive as the definite article, and I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that it is the most widely used style in Wikipedia. Jotomicron | talk 7 July 2005 23:40 (UTC)

Preamble to proposal

I noticed that today's Featured Article, the Island Fox, uses the definite article in its first sentence:

"The Island Fox (Urocyon littoralis) is a small fox..."

However, DavidH mentioned "baseball bat" which sounded inarguably natural with the indefinite article a. I thought I'd do some additional research.

1. I googled the topic.

All relevant resources I found endorse the use of the definite article when referring to species of animal or plant ([3] [4] [5])
Other generic nouns, such as musical instruments or inventions, are also endorsed in some but not all of these resources.
The use of the definite article sounds very formal to native speakers. [6] IMO, formal style is desirable when writing encylopedic entries.

2. I surveyed all instances of animals and plants in Wikipedia:Featured Articles

No species of plants have gained Featured Article status.
The following Featured Articles about animals used the definite article "The"
The following Featured Article about animals used the indefinite article "A"
- Mixed-breed dog. Please note that this page is not about a species of animal. It merely differentiates a subset of the dogs from the rest.

3. I thought up a few random species of animals and plants and took a look at their pages.

Each of the three possible openings (plural, definite, indefinite) are widely used.

After surveying the Featured Articles, I believe that you will agree that the definite article "The" is the most appropriate opener for pages about species of animals or plants. On that note, allow me to propose an addition to the Manual of Style, if only to enhance discussion on the topic. I'm not precisely sure where it would be inserted, but here goes.

Proposed addition

If the subject of the article is a species of animal or plant, the opening sentence should begin with the definite article "the".

The Blue Whale is a [[marine mammal]] belonging to the suborder of [[baleen whales]] .

"Avoid unnecessary interference" is a useful rule-of-thumb. Perhaps the first step is to ask the proposer to go through Wikipedia and ensure that every current article on a species of animal or plant (but not any species of protist or fungus) does begin with the definite article "the". --Wetman 08:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Comments on the proposed addition are sought. CaseInPoint 04:18, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a need for it. As long as the first sentence reads well, I really don't care whether it starts with the definite article, the indefinite article or neither, jguk 07:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah ha! Sounds good to me. Thanks for all the work. I agree that definite article sounds right for species, indefinite for other stuff. Great that you found all those examples. I can see the point "As long as the first sentence reads well..." most forms are OK. Personally I support the proposed guideline, it would help me as a relatively new user/editor. DavidH 20:40, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

It is a good idea to put something about that in it, I think. Personally, not fussy about which - whatever seems to be used most. Neonumbers 10:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:guideline

Is the {{guideline}} template intended only to be on this page, or is it meant to be on every other manual of style that's been around for a decent while (or for every other manual of style)? It's not on many (if any, I haven't checked all) of the other style guideline pages - should it be there? Neonumbers 06:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Summary_style#templates_to_make_summary_style_explicit

Please take a look --MarSch 08:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Lists of works

I've just created Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) for discussion about the layout of discographies, filmographies, bibliographies and the like. It is an attempt to standardise these lists, as their styles currently vary greatly (order, content, layout). violet/riga (t) 16:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

"Arab" etc.

I found the following in an HTML comment:

Can someone who understands the following concept re-word the sentence for clarity? I'm not sure what it means. Thanks.

Then there was this text:

The adjectives Arab and Arabic refer to Arab things in general and specifically the language Arabic, respectively.

I think this is similar to the distinction between people-adjectives (like "Chinese") and thing-adjectives (like "Oriental"). Though I think "Arab" can non-offensively refer to both people and things. But yes, Arabic should refer only to the language, not all things or people of Arab origin. -- Please correct me if I am wrong; I am changing the text as noted. Beland 03:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd be curious if you have a reference for that. Certainly the dictionary doesn't agree. —HorsePunchKid→龜 03:54, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Roman numerals, Arabic numerals, one example. DavidH 04:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I wasn't clear. I was hoping to see something (at least vaguely) authoritative that indicates that "Arabic" can't (or shouldn't) be applied to people (or anything other than the language, for that matter). This seems patently false to me, and the dictionary definition seems to corrobote my feeling. Compare: "I know an Arab / Arab man" and "I know an Arabic man". —HorsePunchKid→龜 07:37, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think you were clear, and that David was agreeing with you that there's no such restriction. Mark ¹ 08:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

To clarify for the discussion a little bit:

'Arab' is, strictly speeking, a noun that refers to the person or the breed of horse. (However, in English speech nouns are sometimes used informally as adjectives.)
'Arabian', the adjective form of 'Arab', refers to anything of or concerning Arabia or an Arab. But it is also a noun that refers to either a native of Arabia, or a horse of that breed.
'Arabic' is used primarily as an adjective and refers to anything of or pertaining to the land, its people, their language, or their culture. Used as a noun, it refers only to the Semitic language.

So many different ways to say the same thing. Isn't English fun? —Mike 03:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Plot summaries

I posted this to the village pump, but only got one response. I hope to get some more discussion. The original post was: I'm having a hard time finding any guidance on extremely lengthy summaries of books and movies. An overblown example is Harry Potter (plot). Obviously this page needs to be split into individual articles for each book, but assuming that is done, would those articles be encyclopedic? In other words, is a summary so large that it cannot be on the book or movie's own page worth having in the encyclopedia? James 22:38, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

See Check_your_fiction where it says Articles about fictional topics should not be simple book-reports, rather the topic should be explained through its significance on the work. There is nothing about length per se, but an extensive plot summery without more seems to violate at least the spirit of this injunction. Maybe this needs to be added to WP:NOT. It is my feeling that to high a ratio of plot summary to comment, or too extensive a summary, should be discourged in the MOS or some similar place. WP:FICT is another palce where this might be discussed, as is Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional series. Also relevant might be Wikipedia:Fancruft. DES 19:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

There is also the argument that a very long and detailed plot summary constitutes a derivitave work and may not be covered under fair use. There is no clear case law on that that I know of, but IANAL. DES 19:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe that fairly short overviews of the plots are fine in articles. Longer plots can be put in Wikibooks. — Olathe 02:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Quotation Mark Rule - A Hopeless Muddle?

I'm of the opinion that the Wikirule on quotation marks is a hopeless muddle. Does anyone else share this opinion? In sum, it starts out by saying "we'll generally follow the American rule, but then we'll really follow something more of the English rule but with some American bits thrown in." So the rule is no rule. I can understand either: 1) entirely following the British rule or 2) entirely following the American rule. But this messy hybrid means it's not right to anyone. I've read quite a few articles here on Wiki that are not following any rule -- Brit, Amer, or Wiki -- and it's just a muddle. Some parts are following one, and then other parts follow the other, while still others follow nothing or are a jumble of everything. What think ye others? David Hoag 03:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I think our style on quotation marks is OK. Any muddling in articles is not necessarily because of the style guide. Maurreen 03:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Maureen, what are your thoughts about making usage consistent within a single article itself, e.g. either "all English" or "all American"? I see this done somewhat in articles with the consistency of spelling, e.g. "color" and "colour" are not used within the same article. David Hoag 04:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I think consistency within an article is both more important and more achievable than consistency throughout the entirety of Wikipedia. I believe the debate about UK versus American spellings reached the same conclusion. —HorsePunchKid→龜 04:46, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Making text more consistent within an article is usually a good idea and supported by the style guide. But just in case you haven't run into this yet, some people are very sensitive, for lack of better words, about their national version of English ... or maybe just whatever they are used to, even in the same country. Maurreen 04:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

It's more the fact that many seem to have had "correct" English drummed into them by their teachers, and don't realise that English really has many, many different forms and usages throughout the world, or even that English is a dynamic changing language. We are the victims of dogmatic and misguided teachers:( jguk 07:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the current guideline's fine. I can see your concern, but in my opinion this kind of middle point will work fine for an encyclopedia that is neither British nor American.

Though having said that, the style on the manual now is (for the msot part) the one I always use in all my writing (before I came to Wikipedia). Neonumbers 11:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)