Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 34

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents 1 National spelling 2 Why was my comment deleted from the National Spelling thread? 3 Superscript and other symbols 4 External Links 5 A date standard 6 [[Article|articles]] versus [[article]]s 7 "References" and "Sources" 8 Indented paragraphs 9 Left-aligned images 10 Paragraph Spacing Redux 11 Color on my personal page

National spelling

After some experience, I've come to the conclusion that the goal that the entire article be written in a single national variety of English is unrealistic, and not really compatible with the wiki philosophy.

Every editor will tend to compose text using the spelling conventions they are used to. It is unrealistic to expect an editor to how to spell in a different variety of English, or even to be able to know which variety of English the article is presently written in. Therefore, as an article grows, if many editors contribute, then the result will be a mixture of spellings. And we ought to be OK with that, because the present system merely encourages the nationalist pedants to look for articles with mixed spellings and regularize them to their preferred spelling on the pretext that they were mixed. If the goal is to discourage disputes about this sort of thing, then we ought to tolerate the mixture, because it is the natural result of wiki editing. Shimmin 12:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding the aim of that part of the MoS. Clearly we cannot require that all articles are written (initially) in one style - different editors will (as much as they may try to respect the existing structure and tone of it) change an article, at least in part, to a style more familiar with them. The question then is do we allow this mish-mash to remain, or do we allow things to change? The answer we have come up with is that we allow things to change so that anyone article has a consistent style. The reason for the answer is that from a reader's perspective, it is a better, easier read that way. (Otherwise the article might look as though it doesn't know if it's coming or going!)

In summary, the MoS gives authority for copyeditors to make articles read better for our readers - it is not a diktat for which you will be punished if you add text in a style familiar to you (although it would be appreciated that you adapt your additions to match the style of the article you are editing if you can), jguk 18:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not unrealistic in the least, however, to expect an editor to respect and discuss the contributions of others. Remember, "your contributions will be mercilessly edited", including to fit house style. If an editor is so sensitive as to be completely opposed to the changing of "labour" to "labor" in an article about an American, perhaps that editor needs to reconsider his or her priorities. There's nothing wrong with encouraging the "nationalist pedants" to standardise an article. Standard stylistic conventions are a good thing.--chris.lawson 17:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see the proposal above (National varieties of English (UK vs US spelling)). PizzaMargherita 18:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm against the template proposal above, but I agree with PizzaMargherita that achieving spelling consistency in neutral articles is very difficult. Articles like "Nature", "Love", "Mathematics" and so on are not related to any English-speaking country... in the long run, these kind of articles tend to drift towards American spelling and style. Nobbie 22:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you're against the template thing? Maybe we can work out a better solution... PizzaMargherita 22:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that any solution requireing an editor to routinely makeup ordinary words in article text in order to enable such spellign prefernces would make editing far harder and more cumbersome if implemetned at all widely, and that such a system would be very hard to apply to all the existing text, or even a large fraction of it, and would be worthless unless so applied. I therefore oppose any such proposal. DES ^(talk) 22:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Using such templates would be a guideline. As with many guidelines, some editors (most, I would say) will be unaware of it, and write "naturally". Note that this will make articles strictly no worse than the current situation. Then the anal guy comes around and spots the oh-my-god-horrible "misspelling". Being anal, he or she is aware of the guidelines, and therefore corrects it accordingly. No edit wars, no other anal guy coming around 1 month later and reverting (in good faith) the other oh-my-god-horrible "misspelling", and so on forever. Everybody happy, the end.

If we don't want to use a bot for this (it can be discussed, but as mentioned there would be some false positives that should be fixed manually as a one-off) I trust that there are enough anal guys around to draw the WP to a stable state relatively quickly. PizzaMargherita 10:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that any such tempalte would make editign so much herder that I would routinely remove it from any articel I was editing. So, I think, would a number of other editors. DES ^(talk) 21:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

You (and a number of other editors) would then be behaving like vandals, because if the mechanism were in place it would mean that a decision had been made to conform to it. Your argument thus falls flat on its face.

Note that if you forget to stick to the rules (intentionally or genuinely), it's not a problem, because most people won't notice or won't care, while the anal guys above will correct it immediately to the correct version. Everbody happy, the end.

You (and a number of other editors) also fail to illustrate how this

I have a poor sense of {{EN::humor}} because I'm a pizza.

is "so much harder" than this

I am an idiot—and a pizza.

PizzaMargherita 18:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of splitting the English Wikipedia into en-US and en-GB (even if it's just a viewing mode). By the way, what about en-CA? And who decides on cases that are not clear-cut, like -ise/-ize, -l-, -ll-, dialogue/dialog... ?

I think it is consensus that articles related to the UK should use UK spelling and style, and US spelling and style for US-related articles and so on. The question is: Is it possible to come up with a consistent style and spelling for the rest of the articles (the neutral articles)? Nobbie 23:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

"I don't like the idea of splitting [...]" What exactly do you not like and why? It will be like having two (or more) WP editions, that are always automatically in sync--unlike the ones for lanuages other than English.

"what about en-CA?" en-CA, en-AU, en-WHATEVER, all catered for. You may have missed this in the proposal.

"it is consensus that articles related to the UK should use UK spelling and style" Yes, and the proposal would not touch that part.

"Is it possible to come up with a consistent style and spelling for the rest of the articles (the neutral articles)?" More importantly: with a spelling that will please everyone and that nobody will try to correct, even with good intentions? The proposal addressees exactly this question. PizzaMargherita 08:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Or, for that matter, is it possible to determine to which spelling system people like T.S. Elliot or P.G. Wodehouse belong? Shimmin 00:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

What about Oxford spelling or liberal American spelling for neutral articles? Or how about creating a consistent system of spelling with American and British elements for neutral articles? Nobbie 23:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Creating yet another artificial convention will not address the problem: people will keep wasting resources (human and IT) "correcting" spelling errors and "correcting" them back. PizzaMargherita 08:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Is there a reason to change the current convention? —Michael Z. 2005-11-5 01:25 Z

Yes. People keep wasting resources (human and IT) "correcting" spelling errors and "correcting" them back. Plus, at the moment there are inconsistencies across related articles, or even in the same article. PizzaMargherita 08:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Why was my comment deleted from the National Spelling thread?

I think I was the first person to comment on the thread National Spelling. I basically said that people accept country-specific spelling on websites, but not inconsistency. I can't find any record of my post in the History section. I'm pretty sure I manually signed it "Barry" and used five squiggly things for a date stamp. Can someone tell me what happened to my post? Barry 23:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Have you actually seen your comment hit the server? Looks like it never reached it... PizzaMargherita 00:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure. I think I would have confirmed that it was posted because I'm new at this. I guess it's possible I changed my mind and didn't save it. At one point I thought I might have been hard on the British. I'm not sure. Barry 00:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, neither are we. Anyway, welcome. PizzaMargherita 01:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Superscript and other symbols

I know of three forms of superscript:

• ² (²)
• ² (²)
• ² (²)

The first one is easier to read in edit mode, but I can't write it without copying it from somewhere else. The last two are harder to read in edit mode but easier to type. Which one is best?

I know of two forms of degree temperature symbol

• ° (°)
• ° (°)

Again, the first one is easier to read in edit mode, but I can't write it without copying it from somewhere else. Which one is best? Bobblewik 23:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The two degree symbols are the same; one is the actual character for the degree symbol, and the other is the html entity code that represents that character. You are absolutely right that one is easier to see, the other easier to type, but they product the same character on the screen, and choosing between them ought to be personal preference.

The case of the superscript-2's is slightly different. The first two are interchangeable in the same way the degree symbols are, but the last is not a superscript-2 character, but a 2-character displayed as a superscript. I tend to favor the last, because it is more general. While everyone will have font support for the superscript 1, 2, and 3 characters, and these characters have html entity names, not everyone will have font support for the superscript 0 and 4-9 characters, and these do not have entity names like &sup5;, but rather must be entered numerically: ⁵ = ⁵ But everyone will be able to see the ordinary 0-9 characters displayed as superscripts, as in your last example. Shimmin 03:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

One place you could copy it from is the preview screen.

Many people can put their cursor in the edit box, move the mouse cursor down to the list of characters below the edit box and click to insert it at the edit cursor.

In Windows, you can make a degree sign by holding down Alt and typing 0176 on the numeric keypad, or a superscript 2 with Alt-0178 (or, you can do like some of us oldtimers and use the three-digit version we learned back in the DOS days). Other operating systems also have various ways of entering these characters. Gene Nygaard 07:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I occasionally use the preview screen. For the degree symbol, I usually just do a search for 'bipm celsius' and there is a degree symbol in the first result. I have been hoping that the BIPM uses the correct symbol on their website. I keep forgetting that there are characters below the edit box, I don't see them because my edit window takes up the full screen.

If it is purely a personal choice, then I prefer the symbolic form of degree rather than °. It would be fairly easy for a bot to convert all articles to that format. The issue of superscript 4 to 9 is interesting but I haven't got a clear preference yet.

Are you guys saying that all browsers (including text only) will support each of the 5 options that I mentioned? Bobblewik 11:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that ² is the best solution, because it simply shifts the number up off the baseline without shrinking it, which plays havoc with the line spacing. So to get the same effect you'd actually have to type something like <sup style="font-size:.6em;line-height:.6em;">2</sup> (it looks like this: ² ). In terms of choosing between the other two, using the HTML entity is probably better in terms of browser support, but it's harder to write and ugly to read. The very first option is the opposite: prettier but less reliable. I did a little digging, and it seems like °, ¹, ², and ³ are all pretty well-supported by Web browsers. Beyond that you're getting into shaky territory. I'm inclined to say the very first of Bobblewik's suggestions is best for the four symbols. As for superscripts greater than 3, the fourth dimension is rarely used so it's not an issue for units of measurement. If you're thinking in terms of footnotes, the best solution would be to have the CSS stylesheet apply the style I just mentioned to the <sup> tag. —Papayoung ☯ 02:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you are using, but on my browsers and my fonts it does shrink it; just look at 2² and you can see that they aren't the same size. The superscript (or subscript 2₂) is only about two-thirds the size of the number or less. Certainly shrunk considerably. It doesn't look like the old typewriter superscripts, made by rolling the platen back half a line. Yes, it does increase the spacing a little bit; it isn't any big problem.

It isn't just powers greater than three, but negative powers as well. They are used quite often in Wikipedia, for units such as "m·s^-2" The fourth power is used for such things as area moment of inertia, and for the temperature to the fourth power in the radiant flux of a blackbody (Stefan-Boltzmann constant).

We also have the anterior superscripts in things like ¹⁴C, and most any integer for a superscript for the powers of 10 in scientific notation; or for powers of 2 for that matter (kibibytes, etc.). Gene Nygaard 03:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

External Links

Why have the external links been made to look really bad? External links used to look good. They were professional looking and everything, but now I am seeing them being changed to show all the stupid www.etcetc.com garbage that only a true computer nerd would love! What's up with that. Wikipedia is moving backwards!!! Anyone who wanted to know all the details of the address could easily find out. It looks like crap! --Dwain 04:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Dwain, I think you are being a bit unfair to the editors; oftimes a link does not have a title, and it is difficult to think of a name or description that would do it justice. It is better to show all the "garbage" than leave it looking like [1]. --Maru (talk) Contribs 05:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like I made a mistake!!! I noticed that a Bluebot worked on the links of Saint Genesius of Rome and thought that it had changed it to what it currently is, but I was wrong! It was already looking like crap when the bot changed something!!! Can I remove my whole gripe or do I have to forever look like an idiot? Dwain 05:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Even if you remove it now, it will remain in the history... forever... Bwa ha ha ha! --Maru (talk) Contribs 06:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

A date standard

Browsing through countless articles, I've seen quite a few non-standard date forms. For example, sometimes, I've seen all of the following:

• (1 January 1999 – 1 January 2005)
• (1999–2005)
• (1999-2005)
• (1999 - 2005)
• (1999—2005)

I propose that we add a section on dates to the Manual of style, but what do you guys think? Has this been discussed before? - ElAmericano | talk 02:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It has indeed - it's at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). :-) Neonumbers 12:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[[Article|articles]] versus [[article]]s

Which is preferable? I'd always assumed that [[article]]s was 'wrong' as far as style goes and corrected it. However, I recently noticed an experienced editor 'correcting' such a 'mistake' here. Anyone care to shed light on the standard for me? Thanks. splintax ^(talk) 11:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

edit: Well, I only just noticed that the wiki seems to automatically convert it so that the 's' isn't out of the hyperlink. This wasn't the case in the past, as far as I can remember. Is this a new addition and does it render [[article|articles]] obsolete? splintax ^(talk) 11:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It's been around for as long as I've been here which is more than a year. And yep, it renders that obsolete, pretty much (with some exception where the word's a nuisance and it doesn't work so well.) Neonumbers 11:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Also [[Article (brackets)|Article]] can be written as [[Article (brackets)|]] -- Philip Baird Shearer 14:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep, the above note from Philip illustrates one aspect of the 'pipe trick'. In addition to dropping off anything in brackets, the pipe trick will also remove a leading namespace. Consequently, [[Data (Star Trek)|]] becomes Data and [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|]] becomes Manual of Style. Neat, huh?

As for adding things to article title stems, anything that follows an article title becomes part of the link, with the proviso that the effect stops as soon as you hit a space or punctuation mark. So [[Golf]]ing becomes Golfing, but [[John Doe]]'s ends up as John Doe's. (To get the latter to work, you have to use a piped link.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I note the above implies that there is something broken in John Doe's. Whether something needs fixing is open to interpretation, as there is a functional link in there. (SEWilco 17:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC))

"References" and "Sources"

The MoS, Wikipedia:Guide to layout and Wikipedia:Cite sources only refer to "Reference" sections, saying that sources should be in the "Reference" section. Is it ok if I use my bot (which is just about to finish fixing "External links" and "See also" discrepancies as mentioned above) to change ==Sources== sections into ==References==? I am fairly sure they are synonymous, but I just want to make sure. thanks Martin 20:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I have manually done this on some articles, and i think it is fine. But ther may be soem cases that have both, and those may need manual attention. Note that a "Further reading" or "Further information" section should not be merged. DES ^(talk) 21:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah sure, why not, go hard, I think. Neonumbers 05:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

No, it is the wrong thing to do. Please stop immediately until you have achieved concensus for this move. Noisy | Talk 09:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I know, hence I am not doing it yet. Martin 09:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Somewhat harsh there. violet/riga (t) 13:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead, I would say, unless somebody explains why "it is the wrong thing to do". PizzaMargherita 10:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about this, but "References" implies that the article has some sort of specific "reference" (e.g., footnote, etc) to one of the works listed. "Sources" is a more generalized description. For example, many articles include template:1911 to indicate that the 1911 encyclopedia was the initial basis for some portion of the article (though it may have since been heavily edited). It may become difficult or impossible to trace any specific assertion in the article back to the 1911 article or to some other source. Similarly, many articles on U.S. politicians include template:bioguide to indicate that the initial source for some information in the article came from the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, though it is often extensively reworked. In neither case is there a specific fact or detail "referenced". However, I'm not sure that that most readers would care about or recognize such a subtle distinction--so I really don't care all that much whatever happens. older≠wiser 12:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The 1911 template is a slightly different issue, but see Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. I think the MoS needs to specify when to use "Sources" instead of "References" or else they should all be changed to "References". Martin 12:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree with older: an article may have certain sources which are used so often that it is inappropriate to have numbered references at each point of use, and other references which are used for only a single piece of information and hence numbered. Running a bot would create two "References" sections for these articles. Physchim62 (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It's clever enough not to make one if one already exists, but maybe we do still need to specify a "Sources" section in the MoS. Martin 12:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree. Physchim62 (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I also agree with older on the distinctions that shouldn't be blurred. I often add Further reading to distinguish titles that one really ought to have already consulted for an article, but hasn't (because it's all a work-in-progress). --Wetman 07:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Indented paragraphs

My apologies if this has been covered earlier, but have we ever considered indenting all new paragraphs as the default in Wikipedia's articles? Or, is there a general reason why this sort of thing isn't / wasn't done? I personally think it would be a winner, but I'm no expert. --Brendanfox 13:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Why should new paragraphs be indented in articles? And does your definition of "new paragraph" include alterations to existing paragraphs? This might be a useful idea in Talk pages where indentation has become a common threading style. (SEWilco 17:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC))

I think Brendanfox means indenting the first line as is used in prose books, instead of having a line space between paragraphs as is done in a lot of business correspondence.

Single indents work great in running text, but readers are much more used to seeing a line space between paragraphs in web pages. It helps space out articles with lists in point form, equations, or many short paragraphs.

Indentation also requires a bit more attention by editors, or more sophisticated formatting. To do it right, the first paragraph of a page or section should not be indented. This can be done automatically using Cascading Style Sheets, but it may be difficult to make it work perfectly in every browser, particularly in MSIE/Windows which doesn't recognize many CSS contextual selectors. —Michael Z. 2005-11-13 17:49 Z

Yes, sorry I should've been clearer, I do indeed mean indenting the FIRST LINE ONLY of each paragraph, which is common in print media (magazines, newspapers, books, etc.). I can now see the technical challenges it would present, however I do believe it would be better for readability, particularly in those articles with longer paragraphs. --Brendanfox 03:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Most article paragraphs are not replies to previous paragraphs, so indenting in articles would be a bad idea- threading is accomplished there with headers and such. Now, on talk pages, this would be a good idea I think. Although implementation might be tricky (ie. how would it work? Would the software automatically add an appropriate number of colons one newline after the last paragraph? But what if the editor is simply doing spellchecks, or is replying further up? If so, would they be expected to delete the colons? Or would the software delete any run of colons not followed by any indentable text?) --Maru (talk) Contribs 17:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Left-aligned images

In my printed World Book encyclopedia, there is not a single image that is left aligned. It is printed in 2 columns & the only ones in left column take up entire column. Left aligned images in text that is read left to right change the left margin point to which the reader must return to find the next line - making reading more difficult. Sometimes this results in

text text text text text

<<<<image>>>> text text

<<<<image>>>> text text

text text text text text

<image> text text text

<image> text text text

text text text text

This effect can vary depending upon screen resolution & window size. I advocate a preference for right-aligned images whenever possible - and definitely never 2 consecutive left-aligned ones. Wandering left margins look ragged and make reading more difficult --JimWae 23:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd call attention to Hudson River, which I recently edited to alternate right and left images for much of the article. While it might work in a printed book, I think all right aligned can be visually boring on Wikipedia. --agr 00:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I concur with JimWae. Yes, left-aligning pictures can sometimes break up visual monotony, but it is difficult to alternate left- and right-aligned pictures in a way that works well on most Web browsers and screens. Keep in mind that people nowadays are browsing the Web with screens ranging in size from 10 to 21 inches, and resolutions ranging from 800x600 all the way up to 1600x1200. --Coolcaesar 03:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and as a result, it is often necessary to alternate left-right to avoid an image stackup on the right-hand side. As the screen gets wider, the text takes up less vertical space, but the images do not. A heavily illustrated article will not lay out well on a large screen if everything wants to be on the right.

One solution might be to alter the default stylesheets to give the main flow of text a maximum width of 30–40 em. Shimmin 03:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally I think all right-hand indents should be avoided. Many pages end up looking monotonous and visually unappealing. Where there are a lot of images, the occasional left indent image can substantially improve a page and reduce its dreary regularity. I use a number of different browers and screens and have never found any problem whatsoever with left indents. A line of right intents cause regular problems however, with images in effect colliding on some browsers while looking perfect on others.

Some time ago one page had a three way edit war on page locations. The problem was, and this was only realised when screen shots of each viewer's view of the page were provided, that some of the browsers were having images clashing and indenting each other. But when that user on their browser 'fixed' it, the previously perfect page on someone else's screen had the same problem. They'd revert, the other person would revert and they each accused the other of reverting to a version that had images indenting each other. In the end, the solution was to move every second image to the left of the page, meaning that all browsers showed all images in a very image-intense page (that needed the images) far enough apart not to interfere with the image above or below. All problems were solved and no-one had any problems anymore. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 03:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)}

There are several ways to avoid image collisions on right side, such as <br clear=all> and using tables (with each image the same width). What I think we might all agree on is that 2 consecutive lefties is a recipe for a mess. --JimWae 04:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I must say this sounds encouraging: I'd given up spending effort to lay out pages after several disagreeable encounters with administrators claiming to enforce "rules." Might a good rule-of-thumb allow sufficient text that staggered images never faced one another across a rivulet of text? How much should that be? Left-aligned images seem incompatible with bulleted lists in some browsers. There may be other situations where left-aligned images are discommended. --Wetman 06:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Left-aligned images also encroach on bullet points and obliterate "blockquote" indents --JimWae 04:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Paragraph Spacing Redux

Is there any dictum on how paragraphs should be spaced within wikipedia? While there seems to be a broad consensus that one line between paragraphs is the standard, I can find nothing in the style guidelines which indicates that it's more than a de facto standard.

This question is prompted by Pekiti Tirsia Kali, which has been reverted to two lines between paragraphs numerous times by the same editor after I (and others) have gone in and reduced the lines to one line between paragraphs. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 13:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, one line between paragraphs is built into the style sheet. In rare cases, I've found it useful to add a second line to prevent a table or navbox from feeling too crowded up against text (and those stub tags always need it), but otherwise additional line spaces just look out of place. Indeed the double paragraph spacing in Pekiti Tirsia Kali looks very ugly and distracts the reader. —Michael Z. 2005-11-18 15:50 Z

Color on my personal page

Hi,

I think people lurking here would know about color handling in Wikipedia, even though this is more a technical question than a stylistic one.

I would like to insert a colorized bulleted list on my page (actually, the list will only consist of links, so I would like to style these links. No problem for a table, but for a list, I can't.

In HTML, no problem

<ul>

           <li style="color:#964500"><a href="#">bla</a></li>
        <li style="color:#964500"><a href="#">ble</a></li>

</ul>

But it simply won't work here. I can't find how to make it. Any idea? Reply to David Latapie 22:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

You might try something like this:

<ul style="list-style: none;">
  <li><span style="color:#964500; padding-right: .5em;">&diams;</span>Foo</li>
  <li><span style="color:#004596; padding-right: .5em;">&diams;</span>Bar</li>
</ul>

It's clunky but it seems like it works! —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-10-21 04:09:11Z