Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 58

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60→Archive 65


Cultural depictions in core biographies

It's been suggested that I post here. I've opened a preliminary discussion in userspace about developing a consistent approach to cultural references lists. The featured list Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc is a proposed model for other core biographies. Preliminary discussion has begun at my userspace with User:Durova/Cultural depictions of core biography figures. Welcoming comments and participation. Durova 20:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Glosses -- not

Okay, I read about glosses as requested, in this Article and at gloss. I didn't see anything related to the example here, namely, deuce means two. Everything I read was about translations of foreign languages. And the examples -- for example chaika -- had italics in the predicate! Very much like two.

Besides, would we agree that this is correct? --

The words deuce and two are synonyms.

and this? --

The word deuce is synonymous with two.

and this? --

The meaning of the word deuce is identical to the meaning of the word two.

And then does it make sense to say "if we say anything else, we must draw the line and switch from two to 'two'"?

Also, I think the discussion of linguistics is too obscure for the general reader. If we say "you must put a definition in single-quotes because linguists call that a gloss and have adopted that convention", no one (I exaggerate) is going to buy that argument, and compliance across Wikipedia will be at 5% if you're lucky.

If anyone disagrees, let's see some non-obscure examples (meaning: not just linguists talking to linguists) or citations from outside Wikipedia. (Wikipedia requirement of verifiability.) Otherwise, let's stick with the two relevant simple Wikipedia rules: italicize a word-as-word (or phrase-as-phrase); and start with double-quotes not single-quotes.

TH 04:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, none of the three examples you provide is exactly equivalent to “deuce means ‘two’”. The subject is a word (as a word), the object is a definition: its meaning. You've reformulated your examples to avoid the question, by recasting it as an equivalence of two words rather than a word and its definition: “deuce and two both mean the same thing.” But the sentence as you've left it in the guideline still refers to the meaning of the word two, not to the word.
Consider an equivalent example: “sailor means ‘one who sails’.” The subject is a word as a word; the object is a gloss for it. One who sails is not a word as a word.
Secondly, there is no discussion of linguistics. What you removed helped explain what is a word used as a word, and what is not.
Please also read #Single quotation marks for a gloss, above. —Michael Z. 2006-10-19 16:22 Z
I repeat: none of the examples you point to in gloss comes anywhere close to the example we're discussing -- deuce means two. All those examples (thank you) use single-quotes to indicate a translation.
Your example one who sails is a phrase-as-phrase, equivalent to a word-as-word. (If you want to argue that we should not treat it as equivalent, then what are we going to do with dairy farm, set-point, gastroenteropancreatic, King of the Gypsies?) A sailor is one who sails or else one who sails, never 'one who sails'.
You say "there is no discussion of linguistics", but there is such a discussion, introduced by you, I believe, when you pointed to gloss and made it central to your argument. That article discusses only linguistics and other academic specialties.
You have provided no rationale for leaping from the examples in gloss that you point to, for example
A Cossack longboat is called a chaika ‘seagull’. (USES SINGLE-QUOTES FOR TRANSLATION)
to
Deuce means 'two'. (INCORRECT -- THERE IS NO TRANSLATION)
More for you to think about:
In Hawaii, Happy New Year is Hau`oli Makahiki Hou.
Speakers of Pidgin English refer to a piano as big box you hit him he sing out.
The tribe members all call an airplane a blah blah tribal defining phrase here blah blah.
Igri called the airplane a "blah blah Igri's personal multi-word description here blah blah".
The Cuyahoga Indians called the mayfly a ho-anan.
Americans call a mayfly a Canadian soldier, but Canadians call it an American soldier. (The point here is that chaika was in italics because it was a phrase-as-phrase, not necessarily because it was foreign.)
Also, along the lines of the example
  • The term panning is derived from panorama, a word coined in 1787.
(which I think you have not argued against):
The term smurming is derived from the phrase smorm ruba. (These phrases are abstract examples, not foreign words).
The term smurming originally meant morm ruba.
The term smurming now longer means morm ruba.
In East Anglia still, the word smurming means morm ruba.
The word smurming means morm ruba.
Smurming means morm ruba.
Can you tell me, according to your definitions, which of those are phrase-as-phrase and which are glosses?
MOST IMPORTANT, you have provided no examples from the real world in favor of your preferred format. You have shown no non-specialist who will buy your preferred “sailor means ‘one who sails’.”
TH 21:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
My take:
A Cossack longboat is called a chaika, ‘seagull’.
Deuce means ‘two’.
In Hawaii, ‘Happy New Year’ is Hau`oli Makahiki Hou.
Speakers of Pidgin English refer to a piano as big box you hit him he sing out.
The tribe members all call an airplane a blah blah tribal defining phrase here blah blah.
Igri called the airplane a "blah blah Igri's personal multi-word description here blah blah".
If this is a litteral quote, and not his term for airplane.
The Cuyahoga Indians called the mayfly a ho-anan.
Americans call a mayfly a Canadian soldier, but Canadians call it an American soldier.
The term panning is derived from panorama, a word coined in 1787.
The term smurming is derived from the phrase smorm ruba.
The term smurming originally meant ‘morm ruba’.
The term smurming no longer means ‘morm ruba’.
In East Anglia still, the word smurming means ‘morm ruba’.
The word smurming means ‘morm ruba’.
Smurming means ‘morm ruba’.
I know, this isn't my discussion, but I couldn't help wondering what the debate is about. If in doubt, translate the sentence to Chinese. Anything that's still readable should be in italics. Bye, Shinobu 18:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Foreign terms

I've rewritten this to recognize the distinction between foreign terms and loan words, at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Foreign terms and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Foreign terms. Please review.

Perhaps this should also mention that familiar Latin terms are not italicized in normal use: ad hoc, a priori, bona fide, de facto, et cetera, habeas corpus, in camera, in situ, post mortem, status quo, vice versa. Also French: avant-garde, bourgeois, café, communiqué, coup d'état, debacle, de rigueur, elite, émigré, en masse, en route, esprit de corps, façade, fête, fiancée, mêlée, nouveau riche, parvenu, pâté, protégé, raison d'être, vis-à-vis. Others: apartheid, machismo, pogrom, putsch, realpolitik.

References:

 —Michael Z. 2006-10-19 16:51 Z

It seems you have copyandpasted the sections.100110100 07:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I rewrote it in the one article, and later found that the section was duplicated here, so I copy-pasted it over. Is that what you are referring to? —Michael Z. 2006-10-23 02:19 Z
Ok, yes. I guess that's what you did, then.100110100 20:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

We need a consensus on Unicode symbols

Someone just moved Wal-Mart to Wal★Mart. (It's been reverted.) Now, a while ago a section was added to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) concerning this, however it's only been loosely followed. Other contentious pages include I Love New York/I ♥ NY, I ♥ Huckabees/I Heart Huckabees, We ♥ Katamari, I♥.... – flamurai (t) 02:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

These symbols are just marketing cruft. The common usage does not include a star, and for the others the common usage is the word "Heart" or "Love", which the proper name for Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 03:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Thing is, we need consensus to stop people from reverting. – flamurai (t) 06:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I would never allow non-standard symbols like hearts or stars (as in I ♥ NY or I ♥ Huckabees) in a title or standard usage. In cases like these, the non-standard symbols should be replaced by the proper (or most commonly used) spoken equivalent, such as "I Love New York" or "I Heart Huckabees." If a trademark has a symbol replacing standard punctuation (such as Wal★Mart or Macy*s, then the standard punctuation should be used instead (Wal-Mart or Macy's). I would, however, allow ampersands in AT&T and similar terms. BJ Nemeth 19:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Concur. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 19:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Concur. - PhilipR 03:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Concur, and note that Wal-Mart uses a hyphen, not a star, on its logo on its stores in Canada. This may be the case with all its stores outside the United States. Indefatigable 04:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I added it to Wikipedia:Naming conventions, [1]. Maybe should also be added to some of the subguidelines, like the ones referenced in there. —Centrx→talk • 05:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Multiple images in an article

'"When using multiple images in the same article, they can be staggered left-and-right (Example: Kremlings)."' Does anyone else find the staggering of images on the Kremlings page adversely affects readability? Coming from a noob, this observation probably isn't worth much, but as someone with a fair amount of graphic design experience, I find this example of style to be quite poor. I should clarify that I have no issues with the staggering of images. My complaint is that in the example of the Kremlings, each heading is defining a new entry in a list of what are essentially definitions and thus, from a graphic style standpoint, should have uniform image placement. I suggest finding a better article to illustrate this point.

I should also bring up a more general image-layout issue that I notice all the time on Wikipedia articles, and that is when an image is floated left and is immediately below a heading. This pushes the text under the heading far to the right and interrupts proper reading/visual flow. Examples of this are in abundance on the Kremlings page. As a newcomer I have to ask: is this just one designer being too picky about layout? (fyi, if you answer "yes," my reply will be the next question: "But effective layout means a more effective communication of information, and isn't an encyclopedia all about the dissemination of information?"). Crazynorvegian 21:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the article with many tiny sections, and oversized staggered images looks a mess. In this case, an approach like the one in M4 Sherman variants would probably be better.
In an article with longer sections of prose, the right-left-right staggering usually works pretty well. —Michael Z. 2006-10-23 02:23 Z
I agree with you. There should be a guideline that "float left" images should not come immediately after second-level (===) headings. Instead they should be immediately before. To pimp my own page, I think Timpani is a good example of image layout that doesn't interrupt flow.
To rant a little, I hate the "column of images" layout as well. I would love to see Wikimedia have a DHTML solution for pages like M4 Sherman variants and Kremlings where there are lists of things with images that correspond to them. – flamurai (t) 07:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the Glosses section

For simplicity, I deleted this section. Here's what the section said:


Glosses

A gloss, translating or defining an unfamiliar term, may be surrounded by single quotation marks, to distinguish it from a short quotation. This is a common convention in linguistics.

  • They are called Cossacks, from the Turkic quzzaq ‘freebooter’.
  • The moose gets its name from the Algonquian mus or mooz (‘twig eater’).


If you want to put this section back, first please

  1. remove the ambiguity -- should I put glosses in parentheses, or not?
  2. make it clear -- do American linguists use single-quotes or do UK linguists use single-quotes and Americans use double-quotes?
  3. convince us that this belongs in Manual of Style -- for the general reader -- and not in some page on linguistics. Explain why this page does not tell people how to format names of chemicals (e.g. iodine-131) but should tell people how to format these three-way linguistic details. (By three-way I refer to "Cossack" + "quzzaq" + "freebooter".) Explain why the general reader would not be content with: They are called Cossacks, from the Turkic quzzaq, meaning freebooter. (with no special rules)

TH 18:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  1. Comma, brackets, or neither, is an editor's style decision which depends on the specific situation, just as it does everywhere—the examples were meant to convey that. Using single quotation marks for glosses is not intended to be a hard-and-fast rule either, just a suggested method for avoiding readers' confusion, especially when there are several defined terms, foreign terms, and translations close together.
  2. It appears that most or all of them use single quotation marks for inline glosses, so it stands out more in American usage where direct quotations are usually in double quotes (some references above, in #Single quotation marks for a gloss).
  3. Perhaps this belongs in a more specific MOS page, but I don't know where. It may bear mentioning under quotation marks, since there's no reason to restrict it to a narrow domain. I have found this technique useful in many history and geography articles.
Any suggestions? —Michael Z. 2006-10-23 19:36 Z
If everyone agreed about your "editor's style decision which depends on the specific situation, just as it does everywhere", how would they respond to someone saying "let's throw away Chicago Manual of Style, MLA guidelines, APA guidelines, Newspaper Guild guidelines, because it's all just a editor's style decision which depends on the specific situation"? It's easy to believe that chemists don't leave it to the editor's style decision where to subscript or superscript the number of electrons in an ion! Are linguists sloppier or more anarchic than chemists?
Matters of punctuation (incl. italicization) are usually considered to be both (a) trivial enough and (b) annoying/confusing enough that they are left to style guides, not to editorial freedom. At best, editors get to choose the style guide they will then slavishly (and properly) follow.
TH 20:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you've thought this through very well. Which are we allowed to use for parenthetic statements in Wikipedia: commas, round brackets, or dashes? Letting an editor to choose is hardly tantamount to throwing the Chicago Manual of Style out the window. —Michael Z. 2006-10-23 23:59 Z
Look at Michael Z's item 1 a few paragraphs up from here. He used his freedom to choose an em-dash rather than parentheses or semicolon for "the examples ...", just like he chose to use the colloquial term "hard-and-fast". Good for him! Because "hard-and-fast" best suited his thinking. Because the em-dash best suited the relationship he wanted to make between the clauses of his sentence. But he should not have the freedom to start quotes with double-quotes if he writes for an audience in the UK, or to start them with single-quotes if he writes for an audience in the USA -- or for Wikipedia (because Wikipedia Guidelines say so). It's the combination of (a) triviality (deep down, no one should really care as long as there is consistency) and (b) potential annoyance (or danger) that puts quotation marks, italicization policies, chemical notation, footnote and reference formats into style guides (and hard-and-fast rules).

TH 00:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

1. I agree that it would be useful to provide more specific guidance, and I vote for parentheses, but:
2. I'll do some more research on standards for in-line glosses concerning parentheses, quotes, smallcaps, etc. later. I came across the LSA style sheet for submitting to Language and they only provided inter-line guidance, as (I believe) inter-line glosses are used much more often in linguistics.
3. This belongs in the MOS because it is used quite commonly in a broad variety of articles (not just linguistics articles) and can be distinguished by general readers. While editors are certainly free not to use the gloss convention, as in your example (They are called Cossacks, from the Turkic quzzaq, meaning freebooter.), I think they should be free to also choose to use the gloss convention, because for one thing, it is less verbose, and in which case, there should be guidance available them on how to standardize the styling of a gloss. I too cannot think of a more suitable sub-manual for this guidance to go into.
The other thing to keep in mind is glosses are distinct from translations or definitions, and using the separate style convention is useful in making these distinction clear. For example, in the case of moose, I'm not sure that mus actually "means" twig eater — mus probably means "moose" (the concept, not the word), or "large hairy ungulate", etc. (same for quzzaq and freebooter, which probably doesn't mean one who boots freely?); as in English, the word woodpecker does not mean pecker of wood. I hope this all comes across as somewhat coherent. Schi 22:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable, but I would still caution against over-specifying the style (editors should be allowed to apply their discretion) or the definitions (a translation can be a "language gloss"). My intention was only to offer editors one useful way to format a gloss, and to include it in the MOS so that editors don't have to edit-war over a trivial but useful bit of formatting.
Sometimes an editor will want to insert a unobtrusive gloss without interrupting the flow of running text, so just single quotes, or just commas, or just parentheses may be the best way, and the nature of the gloss may be obvious with any of these. In other situations, say where a series of words in a row, is repeated in Cyrillic and Latin transliteration and glossed, or when glosses are mixed with direct quotations, it may be very useful to have a distinctive formatting to help distinguish each. Also, while the relatively prominent double quotes help spot the start of direct quotations on the computer screen, where there are a number of glosses in a row, they can make the page look pock-marked, and the more streamlined single quotation marks are preferable.
Sorry I've been short on examples, but this is not something that comes up very often, so it's hard to hunt them down. This has come in handy: Ukrainian language#Language structure. Anyway, too much written here already. —Michael Z. 2006-10-26 00:03 Z
Doesn't have to be verbose -- could be:
They are called Cossacks, from the Turkic quzzaq, freebooter.
(at least after the first, slightly more verbose instance in an article).
Then we could comply with the Wikipediaish concept of "general (nonspecialized) formatting for the general (nonspecialized) reader".
And on WP pages on linguistics, writers can use specialized formatting, complying of course with the Franco-Sino-British-American Linguistics Association guidelines (which should be named someplace as the rule or recommendation) or, if no such guidelines exist, then the convention used in Joe's Textbook of Linguistics, 23rd edition, or Britannica, or whatever.
But sure, there is a valid counter-argument in favor of using a consistent linguistics convention on pages for the general readership. I wouldn't complain about that alternative.
Huh? When I hear that ratatatatat in my neighborhood, I know that a woodpecker is pecking holes in a tree (made of wood) in search of bugs to eat. But I will agree that hummingbirds click or buzz, they not hum.
TH 23:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


They are called Cossacks, from the Turkic quzzaq, freebooter.
This example is visually ambiguous: it can be interpreted as meaning Turkic quzzaq or freebooter, as if they were two equal parts of the sentence—at least momentarily, until the reader stops to decide whether the second is meant to be a translation of the first. Using a different format clearly visually identifies one as following from the other. Any of the following is better. —Michael Z. 2006-10-26 00:02 Z
They are called Cossacks, from the Turkic quzzaq, ‘freebooter’.
They are called Cossacks, from the Turkic quzzaq (freebooter).
They are called Cossacks, from the Turkic quzzaq, meaning freebooter.

?? period inside quotes if full sentence is quoted ??

I never heard of this rule, that the article advocates:

  • Arthur said, "The situation is deplorable." (The full sentence is quoted; the period is part of the quotation.)

Most American guidebooks say that the comma or period is always inside the quotation marks. I thought that British guidebooks say that the comma or period is always outside. Is that right?

The (contrary) rule in this article seems unworkable to me. What if I put the period outside the quotes --

  • Arthur said, "The situation is deplorable".

and then I tell you "sure, the sentence that Arthur spoke was the four-word sentence. But I chose to quote only the four words, I chose to terminate my quote just before Arthur's period. Then of course per British custom and Wikipedia rules, I put my period outside the quotes"?

Also, I have changed "the situation" to "The situation". If we're quoting the full sentence, then it must begin with a capital. But I really don't know the rules (US/UK) for capitalizing the initial letter of a quoted sentence --

She said, "Don't do that!"

or

She said, "don't do that!"

-- which is correct?

TH 05:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, British style guides prefer the "logical placement" of punctuation, where (a) a period inside the quotes indicates that there is a period there in the original, and (b) no period inside the quotes indicates that there isn't one there in the original. In other words,
  • Arthur said, "The situation is deplorable".
implies that Arthur did not end the sentence after "deplorable", while
  • Arthur said, "The situation is deplorable."
means that he did end it there. As far as the capitalization, I'm not entirely sure; I've seen the initil capital dropped when the sentence being quoted functions as a clause of the quoting one. For example:
  • According to Arthur, "the elephant population has tripled."
It may be something that varies depending on the exact style guide being followed. Kirill Lokshin 05:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Can you suggest a highly regarded online British style guide I could check?
TH 05:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The Oxford Style Manual, maybe? (I generally use the Chicago, so I'm not particularly familiar with British guides.) Kirill Lokshin 05:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The punctuation topic has been discussed to death already. House style is house style. Please see the dicussion titled #British punctuation in articles written in American English on this very page. --Rob Kennedy 17:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
It's been archived. Jimp 08:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

A good guide to British English is Fowler's Modern English Usage (3rd edition). If you want an online guide, try that of The Times, jguk 12:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it may have been discussed to death already, but I certainly never thought I should check and see if Wikipedia invented new grammar rules for me to use. I bet I'm not alone there. Are there other cases where I should be checking Wikipedia's Manual of Style and finding out how Wikipedia amalgamated to create something brand new? How could anyone possible keep track of this? KP Botany 01:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Correcting for font issues

In the Ultrahard fullerite article, and in several astronomy articles dealing with Supernovae, I came across Roman numerals which I did not recognize as such. The default sans serif font used by Wikipedia makes "l" and "I" indistingushable from each other, so I thought I was seeing "Type LA" or "Type LLA" or some such. I have edited the Ultrahard fullerite article to enclose the Roman numerals in <code>...</code> pairs, which not only makes it clear that the letter is an upper-case "I", but has the added advantage that they actually look the way that Roman numerals are normally represented, with the serif. I propose that this or a variant of it be standard for representing Roman numerals. --Scott McNay 04:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I won’t comment yet on whether it’s actually a good idea to implement what you’re asking about. Regardless, <code> isn’t the way to do it. That’s for marking up source code, not for acheiving any particular font. In the default style, code gets a gray background as well as a fixed-width font. Since what you’re looking for is a way to get serifs on the letters, try <span style="font-family: serif;"> instead.
Incidentally, the default sans-serif font used by Wikipedia is actually whatever sans-serif font you have your browser configured to use. I use Tahoma, which is mostly sans-serif. Its uppercase I, however, has serifs, so the original versions of the articles you cite look fine to me. --Rob Kennedy 05:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Please don't use <code> for this: it changes the typeface to a monospace font and gives the text a grey background, which looks terrible.
Choosing a different font is not good either: the way numerals and letters appear is part of the high-level design decisions made for Wikipedia, and picking out individual characters and styling them in an out-of-place font looks unprofessional. We don't change the font for every capital letter i either, even though it looks a lot like a lowercase l. Roman numerals are not "normally represented" with serifs: they either have serifs or don't, just like the surrounding text.
Anyway, I don't see a practical problem in your examples. I had a look at the Supernova article, and without thinking about it, I read Type Ib, Type Ic, Type II as "type 1-b, type 1-c, and type-2", as I believe is intended. —Michael Z. 2006-10-26 06:29 Z
I agree. Roman numerals are written down using letters, and typographically speaking, that's just what they are, letters. And they should be treated as such. Using <code> for this is very bad, it's only intended to be used for code snippets, shell commands, method names, et cetera. Shinobu 18:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge of sections on Headings and Sections

Currently, the Manual of Style has a section called "Headings" and another called "Sections" (which just contains 3 links). Does anyone object to me moving the links into the "Headings" section, and renaming the merged section as "Section headings"? This would keep related information together, and I think it would be more obvious what sort of headings are being discussed. JonH 16:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea to merge, and especially to put both words there, so searchers can find it regardless of which word they are searching for. You might consider calling it "Sections and headers". You might consider having a subsection therein called "Sections" and a subsection called "Headers". But I see there is very little discussion of Sections, it's almost all about the Header line. TH 16:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Done. Now called "Sections and headings" as suggested. JonH 16:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Is a scrollable navigation bar a reasonable idea?

There's a thread at Template talk:Navigation bar about the usability of this recently created template. I suspect at least some of the folks watching this page might have an opinion on this topic. Please comment there. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_58&oldid=1137419250"