User:Jwinius/Style

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My style was controversial from the beginning because I've always believed in using scientific names for article titles for biological organisms instead of the "most popular" common names. This eventually got me into trouble regarding the Introduction. Take a look at the way it's done in this article, which is still our "official" guideline as far as style is concerned:

Of course, when I started writing my articles I did things a little differently, following an existing style used for many snake articles at the time:

I was soon concerned with a problem, however: by only using bold type face for that first common name and not for the others, we were inadvertently making it look as though that name was "more official" than the other common names. So, for a while, we did this:

However, this still did nothing to counter a more standard criticism: that when visitors click on a common name in some other article and end up on a page with a scientific name, they won't recognize the name and will be confused -- the experience will be "jarring." Apparently, those common names just don't stand out enough in Example 0 or Example 0a. My feeling is that there may be a grain of truth to this criticism. (Plus, now there's bold all over the place, making things look messy).

The problem is that the "original" White's Tree Frog intro style, and thus our subsequent variations, were not developed with scientific names in mind. Rather, they were developed for articles that use a common name in the title. Therefore, if we ever want to see a change in policy to favor the use of scientific names, I figure that a different intro style will necessary -- a break with tradition: but one that better emphasizes any common name(s). I came up with these formats:

  • Example 1 - Common names list above intro.
  • Example 1a - Idem, with horizontal line beneath it.

If the common names are up top and always in the same place, everyone will have the best chance of finding them in the shortest time possible. And because you can list several common names together, you don't have to choose one over any others in cases like this were several common names are popular. Also, this is a way to place several common names on a relative equal footing (yes, one is always first, but they're all up top).

I'm not sure I like Example 1b as much, because it seems to weaken the bold emphasis on "Common names" (in my opinion, bold type face should be used very sparingly).

If the list of common names becomes too long, you can let it wrap around like this:

But, some people, including myself, may not think that looks as elegant. Here are some solutions:

  • Example 1d - Short list above intro. Complete list in separate Common names section.
  • Example 1e - The horizontal line.
  • Example 1f - A combination of 1d and 1e, with bold typeface for the species name.
  • Example 1g - Same as 1f, but with two blank lines.

I could live with any of these, but I think that Example 1g is the best choice. It's elegant and efficient, and it makes a clear separation between the list of common names at the top and the article introduction below it.

On the other hand, there are people who have argued that a common names list has no place being above the intro (it being too much of a break from tradition, I guess), and that the better place for it is only in a separate Common names section below. I guess they mean like this:

I don't like either of these, firstly because Example 2a still elevates one common name too much over the others, and secondly because neither does anything to address the "jarring experience" problem that readers may experience when they are unfamiliar with the scientific name in the title and unable to find any common names fast enough.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/w/i/User%7EJwinius_Style_a5f2.html"