Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 73

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

→

Archive 80

Choice of vocabulary

I have removed the following.

“ Where possible, prefer words with fewer syllables, and words of Anglosaxon origin over Latinate words, as the former are more readable. ”

It had been recently added by Samsara with the following comment.

“ please move this section as appropriate; it seems that this has not been mentioned anywhere in the forest of MOS documents ”

Samsara, happy to oblige. I've moved it to the appropriate place: here on the talk page where it is normal practice to discuss such changes first. There is, of course, a reason that it had not been mentioned anywhere in the aforementioned forest: the reason being that it is not policy. If you want it adopted as policy: here's the place to put your case.

Samsara, to your credit, you do cite When Legibility, Readability & Usability Intersect, Then We Reach Our Target Audience by Suzanne Webb. An interesting article to be sure but no substitute for consensus.

If you like, persue the issue, but be aware that it might appear to many to be an example of instruction creep and even xenophobic or patriotic linguistic purism. Jimp 00:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This is silly. Notice how Samsara has to use Latin-derived words just to communicate these two points:

• Where possible, prefer words with fewer syllables, and words of Anglosaxon origin over Latinate words, as the former are more readable.
• Please move this section as appropriate; it seems that this has not been mentioned anywhere in the forest of MOS documents. [Manual and style are both Latin-derived.]

This is the sort of blanket advice that produces tortured, unreadable prose, and it should never be included in the MoS. Strad 02:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Acceptabe to de-promote sub-headings to boldface?

What do people think about the technique of changing sub-headings to simple boldface as a way of reducing an overburdened TOC? (For examples, see here and here). I don't see anything against this in the MOS, but nothing for it, either. If this won't pass GA/FA review, then what is an acceptable technique for organizing information within a sub-section that won't clutter up the TOC? - Merzbow 00:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Multilingualism or bilingualism

I could find no specific mention of multilingualism or bilingualism on the MoS project page, but given the above discussion of American/British English usage, accents, english words originating from other languages, and the MoS guideline on using region/nation specific language, I thought this might be a good place to bring it up? What is the guidance regarding the use of bilingual Canadian language where appropriate to best convey a topic in an article (eg. about Québec)? What about the guidance on the spelling for page titles? (Is there a preference regarding if Quebec redirects to Québec, or the reverse?) Should links to Québec be replaced with links to Quebec, or visa versa, when reducing redirects? Although informative and in the case of the Quebec page it is very appropriate, are the lines like la belle province ("the beautiful province"), 'required' to be translated or is it just an optional courtesy? I think I understand Foreign Terms (Wikipedia prefers italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have common use in the English language) and it makes sense for the majority of articles (Montreal and Quebec in most articles, not Montréal et Quebéc). I am asking in relation to the guidance on National varieties of English, with respect to articles about typically bilingual or French-Canadian relevance (For example, Le Carnaval de Québec or just Carnaval is much more recognizable, even to many anglophones and allophones, than is the official English translation Quebec Winter Carnival, for example. Given that French-English 'bilingual' is an officially recognized mother tongue and cultural identity in at least the most recent Canadian census, and that people often use partial and full French and English phrases on English and French popular media, what is the guidance for using more than 'isolated' French words on English articles on a topic of particular relevance to a bilingual region (with, of course, the understanding that the audience of en.wikipedia reads in English)? Jethero^Talk 01:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:ENGLISH for relevant guidelines. I think it's clear that in cases where the French name is more commonly used by anglophones than the English one, the French name should be retained. It is a relatively rare occurrence that an official English name exists but is not often used, as with the Quebec Winter Carnival, and in these cases a balancing would be performed between local custom and the advantage for English-speakers elsewhere of understanding the name more easily. It is much more common that an unofficial one exists (as for the former Montreal Urban Community) but is not recognized officially (the MUC was officially the CUM). In these cases there are various sources we can look at, especially the English-language press, academic writing, and government publications. Since "Montreal Urban Community" was well-attested in the press, this is an area where diverging from official use might be acceptable. As for Montreal and Quebec, these are the names generally used by English-speakers, going back to the 1774 Quebec Act, and to periods in which Montreal was majority-anglophone, and are virtually universal in English-language publications which are not required to follow official government nomenclature. Additionally, although provincial authorities prefer the accented forms, some federal sources prefer the non-accented forms. Joeldl 07:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Should we add a disambiguation link to WP:SG!?

Please participate in the following discussion. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Past-by Typo?

Hi, I was reading the article and came across "When a player moves past “Go”, that player collects $200." As an example of "Good" style. Isn't it "passed" rather than "past"? I think the last is only used "in the past sense" (sorry poor joke). Victuallers 10:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No — surely in passing go he "passed 'Go'" but "moved past 'Go'". I'm sure somebody will chip in with the proper names for these parts of speech. – Kieran T ^(talk) 10:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think I leant something... I have always used passed. I didn't relaise past was an adverd, but dictionary.com says it is. Thanks for your time Victuallers 13:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to contradict myself ... I typed "A car went past" into Word. Its grammar checker says that it is not a sentence as there is no verb. Is there an English expert out there? (I'm not as its my 1st language!). Obviosly if you change it to "passed" then its OK. Is this a UK/US thing? What does an american version of Word say? Victuallers 19:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That sentence does have a verb: went. The adverb past tells how the car went. If you change it to passed, then it's a sentence with two verbs and it makes no sense. Recast the sentence in present tense and use passing to see it more clearly. I don't know what Word says, but it doesn't matter; Word is not the arbiter of English grammar and usage. The Monopoly example in the stylebook is correct, too. In that case, past is a preposition telling where the player is moving in relation to Go. The word past can be in many parts of speech. --Rob Kennedy 20:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)