Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 68

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 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

→

RE: Flag Icons- New Table

I would like to start a debate regarding the use of a new template on various UK settlement pages, to include the union flag at the bottom, unlike the English version (Template:Infobox England place) in the hope that it will increase public awareness of the difference between England and Britain. In order to do this a concensus is necessary and I would therefore appreciate any possible support. A copy of this template can be seen on the Market Deeping page or here is the actual template Template:Infobox England place with UK flag for UK map. The current use of the England flag at the bottom of such tables lacks continuity between the map of the UK and the English flag, creating confusion. Many thanks for any support. --Ash online 18:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't use any flag icons, but if I had to use flag icons and that map I'd either use only the union flag, or both the union flag and the St George cross. DanBeale 16:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, use both. Scots and Welsh would get cranky if you removed their flags, and enormous edit wars would ensue, so for consistency you'd still need an English flag here. I think using both would illustrate ven better the difference between England and the UK as a whole. Cop 633

16:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahem! There is only one "C" in "consensus". Mentorsmentor 09:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahem! Grammar and spelling nitpicks are considered potentially disruptive violations of Wiki-etiquette. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Left-aligned image placement

Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. Instead, place the image directly above the heading.

How long has this been the rule? It looks really bad to do it this way, as it forces the following section heading over to the right to allow for the picture. Placing the image below the section heading does not, as the MoS currently claims, separate the heading from the text; the text begins immediately below the heading as usual, only moved over by the image. It looks much better to have all left-aligned section headings than to do what the MoS is currently advocating. -- — Brian 02:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, never mind. I was confusing first-level headings (==) and second-level headings (===). The MoS is discussing second-level. — — Brian (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Where to go for help?

This probably isn't the place to come, except for an onward reference. Is there an expert who can help with all types of end matter (references, books written, books about, scholarly perspectives, journalism written, journalism about, speeches, interviews, see also and external links)?

The specific case is George Soros and the article has all of the above, plus remnants of an edit war from the last election. I'm overwhelmed and need some help. Smallbones 16:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That quote in the lead

Am I the only one? I find this quote in the lead, from The Chicago Manual of Style, repellent:

Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity.

Some background. Here is the way Chicago (current edition) presents the matter, with my underlining for emphasis:

As always, most Chicago rules are guidelines, not imperatives; where options are offered, the first is normally our preference. Users should break or bend rules that don’t fit their needs, as we often do ourselves. Some advice from the first edition (1906), quoted in the twelfth and thirteenth editions and invoked in the fourteenth, bears repeating: “Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity.”

Here are my objections to our perpetuating this formulation:

While it is part of Chicago's tradition, and is therefore quite apt to be cited in edition after edition of that guide, it is not a part of our emerging tradition, and does not automatically deserve such prominence in the lead of this crucial Wikipedia page.
The wording is quirky and old-fashioned. "Rock-ribbed" reads like the alliterating whim of some lackey on a slow afternoon – not a lapidary turn of phrase that commands our admiration a century later!
Chicago is American, and while that in itself is no problem (and the guide is universally useful), it may be taken as presuming American supremacy if it alone is cited as an eminent authority in the lead. Nor is it a solution to add selected apophthegms from the rest of the world, since the lead would then get too cluttered.
Wikipedia is its own authority on its own style, and while it should respect long-established precedent, it should not fawn before precedent.

I propose the following adjustments:

If the quote must be retained, let it be relegated to note at the end, along with any similar quotes that people feel are necessary.
Let the lead be re-worked slightly without any such quotes, along its present lines but with improved wording.

I'll wait for comments before acting – except that I will now take out one occurrence of the word require (since there is another in the same sentence), and replace it with demand. It's about style, folks! – Noetica 21:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never liked quoting something when original prose will do just as well (or better). You have my approval, at least. Strad 03:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't think its being quoted from the Chicago Manual is any problem. I don't think its being American is an issue at all — it's just a nice idea taken from somewhere, where it's from is irrelevant. The English, to me, is perfectly understandable.

The most important thing, though, is whether or not we agree with what the quote says. Wikipedia does not fawn before that as a precedent. It does not consider it a tradition. It agrees with the idea the quote expresses: that style guidelines aren't set in concrete, and have to be applied on a case-by-case basis. The quote expresses that very well (much better than how I just expressed it.)

It's there because it neatly sums up the nature of the manual, not because it's from Chicago. Neonumbers 10:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

So you'd be quite happy to see the same thought expressed in some other way, Neonumbers? That's good, because the thought could be expressed far more naturally than Chicago manages it. Some hack-work from 1906 has no place here, when we are perfectly able to say what we mean in our own well-chosen words. What is the positive advantage of citing Chicago, if not to appeal to authority (American authority, as it happens)? No need for such a thing! Wikipedia's style can be determined quite independently, and it needs no such cheap prefabricated rhetoric to justify its practices or its preferences. Any other opinions? – Noetica 14:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

There is neither advantage nor disadvantage of citing Chicago. You're quite right—the only thing about it is that I like the quote. If you really want to express it another way, I don't mind, I just think the quote expresses it very nicely. It is not cheap, it does not imply dependance on another manual, and it's certainly not about bowing down to Chicago. We don't use it because Chicago said so (I really don't understand why people think that). It neatly expresses a principle that Wikipedians should follow. The quote could have come from anywhere.

If we want to have it reworded, please try to make sure it says the same thing. It's a brittle concept and it'll be very easy for the quote to be slightly different in its first rewording, and then be a bit different after its next revision, and so on, until it either says, "If you don't like one of these guidelines, then break rules", or it says, "These guidelines are not binding and editors are free to choose whichever style they want" or "These guidelines should always be followed" (exaggeration).

I'm very reluctant to see the quote go. The advantage of its presence is simply that it expresses a fundamental principle in beautifully chosen words (the "beautiful" part being a point of opinion). The quote gave me, as a newcomer (a while back now), an understanding of this manual really was. Who cares where it came from? If you have an alternative, then post the wording here. Neonumbers 10:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it's a shoddy and pretentious attempt at elevated prose that deserves to be treated as purely ephemeral. The idea is quite easy to express well, in fact. We don't need someone from a century ago to give us the words to say it. I'll wait a little longer for opinions; if there is no weight of opinion in favour of quoting this ugly thing, I'll delete it and put forward an alternative expression of the thought – such as we had before. I will then consider it necessary that anyone wanting to restore it justify doing so. (Rock-ribbed, indeed! Superannuated sludge.) – Noetica 13:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's pretentious, and I don't think it's particulary better as a quote than as an inline exhortation. In fact, it's so ugly, I pre-empted this discussion and made a first stab at a new version myself. Sorry for stepping on toes. If you can improve on my hasty re-wording, go ahead.--Slashme 14:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That edit changes the meaning of the sentence. A small change, perhaps, but an important one. We are not trying to say people should be prepared to break rules. While we are trying to say that the rules aren't inflexible ("rock-ribbed law"), we also want to stress that the guidelines will work in most situations (the "average case"), and sometimes, judgement will need to be exercised ("applied with elasticity"). I don't want editors to think they're "breaking rules" or that that's an okay thing to do, plainly because one thing will lead to another and onto another until, eventually, the rules are no longer rules. "Applying rules with flexibility" is a better descriptor. I've made some changes to Slashme's version of the sentence. Even my changes don't quite weigh up.

Last time it was removed, the replacement didn't even nearly say the same thing. The most important thing is that there is something in the manual that expresses how the manual is to be applied, without saying that it's not to be applied. Incidentlly, you meant "no more weight of opinion", not "no weight of opinion", right? I'd hate to think I didn't count... Neonumbers 01:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, since people have gone in and altered the lead, I have felt free to do the same. It seemed to me that the text was too repetitious, and still retained vestiges of an antique mode of expression that doesn't fit here. So I have smoothed and shortened the lead to this:

This Manual of Style has the simple purpose of making the encyclopedia easy to read, by establishing agreed principles for its format. It is a style guide. The following rules do not claim to be the last word on Wikipedia style. One way is often as good as another, but if everyone does things the same way, Wikipedia will be easier to read and use, and easier to write and edit. These rules are not rigid: they are principles that many editors have found to work well in most circumstances, but which may be applied with flexibility. In this vein, editors of new and existing articles are asked to respect these guidelines.

Others will do what they will! Neonumbers, I certainly didn't mean to suggest that you don't count, or that your opinion doesn't count! Perhaps we have different understandings of what weight of opinion means. To me it suggests a resultant (on the analogy of forces in mechanics), or a consensus (that fleeting desideratum). As such it is something I had waited for the emergence of, disregarding what turns things might take along the way. – Noetica 01:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I made two minor changes and a major one. The first was to change "These rules are not rigid" to "These are not rigid laws" (same number of words), so that it doesn't look like a contradiction with "they are principles that...". The second was to change "may be applied with flexibility" to "should be applied with flexibility" — a very important aspect, because flexibility isn't about doing what you want to do, it's about doing what's appropriate for the situation.

The major change was to change (or revert) the last sentence to: "In this vein, editors should strive to have their articles follow these guidelines." The change to "editors [...] are asked to respect these guidelines" is fundamentally different to the old version. The focus of the Manual of Style is (or at least should be) articles, not editors. We don't reprimand editors for not following the Manual because a) it's unreasonable to expect them to be familiar with all of it and b) because many edits are the addition of information, which we want to keep but stylify (excuse the neologism). However, we certainly want all articles to follow the Manual, because that's what it's for, and that's part of being a professional encyclopedia. There's no reason why stylification and information have to be done by the same editor.

Noetica, I now understand what you meant by "weight of opinion" — apologies for the misunderstanding (I hoped it would be something like that). Neonumbers 08:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy enough with all of that, Neonumbers. What would be good is a consensus version that a large number of us would be happy to defend against petty or arbitrary change. It seems that you and I, at least, think that the lead now meets this standard. Am I right? Of course it would be possible to quibble, no matter what text we have. For example, I could take issue with the wording editors should strive to have their articles follow these guidelines, on the ground that the articles do not belong to their editors! And I could defend my alternative (editors of new and existing articles are asked to respect these guidelines) as superior because it avoids such a suggestion, and on other grounds as well. But I am not inclined to do that. I think we should compromise, and defend the result of our compromise. Good idea? What do others think? – Noetica 09:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with it as it is now. I won't say "happy", but very satisfied indeed — and I will happily defend the current version, the result of our compromise, with you. Neonumbers 23:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Whenever reasonable"

I'd have left this in the edit summary, but there wasn't enough room!

I've just changed "By default" back to "Whenever reasonable" on the quotations paragraph, because I don't think the altered version is nearly strong enough - if something is only the 'default', then almost any reason (for example, consistency with other quotes, or a different style being usual in the national variety of English being employed) would be good enough to change it. I think that the MoS needs to be much stronger than this on quotations - to alter a direct quotation in any way should be vastly the exception, and require a really pressing reason. The grammatical concerns of the editor may be valid (though I think that "whenever reasonable" is perfectly clear, by analogy with "whenever possible"), but I don't think that they're a good enough reason for such a dramatic change in meaning. TSP 23:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, TSP. While I don't agree that "by default" weakens or even significantly changes the message, I also don't need to contest the matter. I have applied a compromise that I think ought to satisfy all needs. The only objection I can foresee is that it is too wordy; and to that I would say that we ought to make the grammar unimpeachable, especially if the cost is so slight. – Noetica 05:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces: Help!

With the best of intentions, I have added something here and there about non-breaking spaces. But I seem to have got things wrong. From the article non-breaking space, and from the way things work in MSWord, it would seem that   prevents a break at its location. But it doesn't seem to do so between double quotes. I'll leave my alterations in place for now: but I do hope that someone else will advise how " " can be kept intact, if   won't do the trick. This is important, because such a break is always to be avoided, and because it certainly is a widely respected norm to have a space between adjacent quote marks. Any ideas? – Noetica 05:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Does it help to nowikify the " "?--JoergenB 00:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, JoergenB. It does seem to work. I have therefore applied it in the case of " ". But I wonder what implication this has for wider usage within Wikipedia? What are we to do in practice, if we want to separate quote marks in articles? We'd need <nowiki>' ''</nowiki> to put a hard space between a single quote and a double quote, each time! – Noetica 02:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Numbered lists

Hi, there's a question at Wikipedia talk:Cheatsheet#Numbered lists not showing correctly that I'm not sure how to answer. The user is wondering why the 2nd level of numbered lists don't indicate their parent number. E.g.

# one
## one point one

displays as

1. one
   1. one point one

instead of

1. one
   1.1 one point one

(which is how our ToC lists are styled)

Possibly these should be standardized to one or the other style? --Quiddity 20:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The table of contents shows multiple levels of numbering for each item because that’s what the Wikipedia software generates when it text to your browser. Normal numbered lists don’t show multiple levels of numbers because neither the Wikipedia stylesheet nor the browser’s stylesheet are set up to display LI elements that way.

It’s one thing to apply the multiple-number style to headings, where such a style is common in other publications. It’s another thing to wish to apply that style to all numbered lists. I think the numbering styles are fine the way the are. --Rob Kennedy 01:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Then this page and this page are correct? It looks like they show multiple-number style lists but maybe not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.12.150.20 (talk • contribs).

In what way do they appear as multiple-number lists? The cheatsheet section has code like this:

# one
# two
## two point one
# three

To me, it renders like this:

1. one
2. two
   1. two point one
3. three

That’s how my browser interprets the HTML that Wikipedia generates:

<ol>
<li>one</li>
<li>two
<ol>
<li>two point one</li>
</ol>
</li>
<li>three</li>
</ol>

Does it appear differently to you? --Rob Kennedy 23:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, Thanks Rob. It really is my interpretation of the line "1. two point one" that looks odd out of context. Yes, both IE7 and Firefox 2 render it as shown. (should I remove these comments now that it is resolved or will they be removed as they age?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.12.150.20 (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Military Ranks

How does one treat capitalization of a phrasing of the sort "XYZ was promoted to C/captain"? Would it be any different if it was phrased "XYZ was promoted to the rank of C/captain"? The former connotes a change in formal title (to "Captain XYZ"), while the latter states the grade to which the person was elevated. TIA, Askari Mark (Talk) 03:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep them lowercase unless they’re being used as part of the person’s name, just like any other titles. “Joe Bloggs was promoted to captain. After Joe’s promotion, everyone called him Captain Bloggs.” --Rob Kennedy 18:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Foreign language titles

WP:CAPS does not currently address the issue of foreign language titles adequately, and there are many pages that use naming conventions for English or for the native language. I've made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Proposal for foreign language titles to address the issue. ShadowHalo 21:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Spelling variable?

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (spelling)#Spelling variable.

Multiple identical Wikilinks for non-consecutive terms in templates or no?

A template I made was recently changed to eliminate multiple Wikilinks to the same coach when they coached non-consecutive terms. See [before] and [after]. I was wondering if there is consensus for this. When I look at Template:IDGovernors, it is made in the way I originally had the coach template, with the governor linked multiple times if they served non-consecutive terms. Allowing this for governors but not for coaches would be a double standard, so consensus needs to decide which we should go with and change all the related templates accordingly. Personally, I prefer the way I originally had it since I think it is helpful to show if someone served two non-consecutive terms in the template. But, I will accept if consensus determines otherwise. VegaDark 19:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no harm to include multiple links in this manner. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[sic] and Quotes?

Please could someone advise me about using [sic] and quotes in Wikipedia articles. I see some discussion at the DHMO talk page and I'd like to make sure that I use [sic] appropriately, and that I don't fix things that don't need fixing. Thanks. DanBeale 15:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It’s fine to use sic when using quoted material. Don’t overuse it, though. Use it inappropriately, and it’s akin to Wikipedia saying, “Nyah, nyah, we know better than the guy we’re quoting. Look at the mistake he made.” That doesn’t help anything. (I have similar feelings when I see an article call something “incorrect.”)

Anyway, back to the topic at hand: In the case at Dihydrogen monoxide hoax, I don’t think it’s necessary. How can anyone verify what the original Web page said? The article itself tells us the original source is not available. I think it would be better to simply say the original isn’t available, and then quote the version that is available. That source spells despite correctly, and thus we postpone the issue of whether to use sic. --Rob Kennedy 18:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[Sic] should be used only sparingly. It should never be used to refer to more than one word, and especially not to an idea. It is only used respectfully when there is simply a typographical error in the cited text, to make it clear that the citing author has been diligent. Even the correction of a spelling error should sometimes just be quietly corrected. Repeated use of [sic] is only to be used when the citing author means to cause offense. Most importantly, [sic] should only be used to refer to one word {or perhaps, rarely, to a phrase: eg., if the author has mangled a turn of phrase, as in saying that "the early bird catches no flies.") But an idea or assertion can't just be followed by a [sic]; it's a misuse for good reason. Reason being, if the assertion is wrong, just explain why. Cain47 06:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Cain47

I sometimes put an HTML comment in a quote to tell other editors why that spelling is being used, such as in a quote from an old document where the original spelling is important. Such as if the original spelling of a river is related to the current spelling of a city. (SEWilco 07:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

First/last name

Maybe I'm missing it in here, but shouldn't it be listed to never refer to a person by their first name? Such as for Michael Jordan, "Mike then scored..." but to always use the last name or occasionally full name? It's probably in there and if so I apologize, I just can't find it. Quadzilla99 03:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Never? No. Surely there are occasions to refer to people by their first names. I can’t think of any good examples off-hand, though. “Never” is a strong word. Anyway, please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names. --Rob Kennedy 04:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Kings and queens ... there's a good example of such an occasion. J i m p 00:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

People from Iceland are invariably known by their first name - indeed the Icelandic phone book is ordered by first name. This is because most don't have a family name, they are -son or -dóttir, but that's just their father's name. -- Arwel (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's sometimes necessary to use a subject's first name in the first part of his or her biography, when references to the subject's family members (all of whom have the same last name) can easily confuse the reader. --Tysto 23:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I Refer to Dead People

Is it appropriate to refer to dead people as "the late so-and-so"? If not, what is a better format?Arcayne 02:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid. There is already an active discussion about the term. --Farix (Talk) 03:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comma inside or outside quotation marks: can we clarify at WP:MoS?

Could we add an explicit statement at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation specifically stating whether commas should go inside or outside quotation marks? Or is there not enough consensus to do so? (I don't want to restart the debate over which way is better; I merely want to know whether a consensus has been reached at the English Wikipedia on this point.) --Lph 04:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

For some time it's been (more or less) stable as "put the punctuation mark inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation". That's not quite the same as "always outside", but no style guide actually uses "always outside". Does that help? Alai 01:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There are always the descenters but general consensus has for some time been in favour of logical quotation. Alai gives a good summary what this means. The Punctuation section on this page goes into more detail. Do you feel that it's either not clear or not explicite enough? J i m p 00:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. Looking at it a second time, it is pretty clear. I guess I was unsure because the examples used a period and a question mark, i.e. sentence-ending punctuation marks, and not a comma. --Lph 17:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)