Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 37

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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

Wikilinks when quoting

This article Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#2005_.22World_Without_Zionism.22_speech caught my attention (...adding that "Westerners are free...), should there be (or is there) an policy on whether to provide wikilinks in a quote? In the example mentioned I suppose the wikilink point to a relevant article, but perhaps usage of wikilinks in quotes might be misleading (intentionally or unintentionally) especially when dealing with political statements that might be controversional and open for interpretation. Non-controversial quotes that refer to objects and the like such as "a bottle may contain liquids" might be another issue. Comments? Scoo 15:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

(Commenting here because Scoo asked me to) We should not treat quotes any differently than we treat other text - specific topics should be linked where relavant. Raul654 17:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that links should not be added to quotes, because they can (whether intended to or not) color the quote. Generally, there should be enough context that links inside quotes aren't necessary anyway. —Slicing (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion, links from direct quotes are poor style. The source didn't have a link; the source should be tampered with as little as possible. Links introduce visual emphasis to the linked terms, and have the potential to point to ambiguous destinations. Plus, they just look wrong to my eye. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I would agree with that. Lines in quotes should not be fiddled with (or then would require an "emphasis added" caveat). So links would be very inappropriate in such places in the text. - Marshman 05:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Sometimes— keeping the reader always in mind— links within quotes discreetly identify and clarify an obscure reference, without resorting to clumsy footnotes. The tasteless linking of words irrelevant to the immediate context, simply to make Jesus et al. jump out at you from the text, are a vulgarism, I agree. The hyperlink within a text however does not make any change to the text, and its use is too familiar a convention to require an owlish emphasis added, the visual equivalent of a stage whisper from the wings. --Wetman 06:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Wetman. Wiki lets us avoid the replacing "As I explained to Jones, Be sucks" with "As I explained to [Time reporter Winston] Jones, [the operating system] Be sucks". Instead we can just do "As I explained to [[Winston Jones|Jones]], [[BeOS|Be]] sucks". Of course that can be abused, but for that kind of situation it's very succinct, and less ugly than the alternatives. Stevage 23:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I suggest a guideline to avoid linking within quotes unless the object of the link is not referenced in the vicinity, within the article (vicinity being maybe 20 or so lines, or one paragraph). SailorfromNH 02:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I think there already is a guideline that the same link appear but once in an article. It should generally not be a problem to find a place to put a link that is not within a quote and avoid that altogether - Marshman 02:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Examples in the poem "To Anacreon in Heaven" demonstrate the kind of linking within quoted text that aids the reader without intruding the presence of the Wikipedian. --Wetman 08:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm generally a hard-liner about the importance of quoting an original source exactly. I don't think that even spelling errors should be corrected. In the case of a wikilink, though, the reader will know that we added it. Therefore, it's not a misrepresentation of the original quotation. In a few exceptional circumstances, it would be relevant to note whether a hyperlink was or was not in the original (e.g., a website might mention Stormfront and be criticized for making the word a hyperlink to the Stormfront site).

Because wikilinking and external hyperlinking are so common, I don't think they convey a false emphasis. We can trust our readers to understand that, when a term is linked, it looks different than it did in the original, and that it's not a matter of emphasis. JamesMLane 06:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

See also sections

I think we should start making "external links" sections subsections of "see also" sections, agreed? (unsigned comment from anon)

There was a good suggestion somewhere to change "References" to "Sources" and "External links" to "Further reading". At the moment, no one really seems to know what to put in External Links, and they often end up being used for advertising etc. I don't see a big problem with putting URLs directly in see also sections, or as separate subsections as you suggest. Stevage 23:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I like the initial suggestion: "Sources" and "Further Reading", but "External Links" could be a sub under the latter. I disagree these are usually commercial ads; they are more often great sources of further reading. - Marshman 02:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Should we try to adopt section headers (in addition to suggestions above) that hark of those in scholarly journals, like Endnotes? If not, a catch-all like "Sources" is my preference (though can swing either way), but "External links" for clarity (anything outside of Wp, not limited to mere reading like audio and video). And note that only the initial word in the second instance is capitalised (e.g., not "External Links"); as per Wp guidelines, we should only do so for proper nouns (e.g., "Alcoholic consumption in Canada") (hiccough) :) E Pluribus Anthony 09:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Emboldening other phrases in 1st sentence

Hello! I recently reverted a change that I thought was major:

... Also, try not to include other bold phrases in the first sentence.

only to realise (if I'm (re)reading it correctly) that this does not include words other than the bolded title (which is ubiquitous in Wp). I support the general notion. But if I misunderstood, others might too; I've massaged it for clarity, but I'm neither here nor there with it. In any event, it should be discussed to ensure clarity. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 09:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The current edition works for me! :) E Pluribus Anthony 18:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice, thanks. One question though. Do terms like "bolding" and "emboldening" actually exist or are we making them up? Can we not simply use "making it bold"?

He he; yes: embolden is a word and means "to make bold" ... much as we should be when editing pages! :) E Pluribus Anthony 11:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Uhm... according to dictionary.cambridge.org

embolden  
verb [T] FORMAL
to make someone brave:
Emboldened by drink, he walked over to speak to her.

As for www.m-w.com

Main Entry: em·bold·en
Pronunciation: im-'bOl-d&n
Function: transitive verb
to instill with boldness or courage

Don't you think it's a bit of a stretch to use it speaking of bold typeface? Also IMHO it sounds unnecessarily pompous. "To make bold" is more standard, more direct, simpler and more readable. 81.211.228.151 23:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Nah (i.e., "to instill with boldness..."), but others may disagree; I'm really neither here nor there regarding it. I misunderstood the prior phrasing (perhaps the result of faulty attention), so I thought the mild rework would do in this respect. Whatever works. E Pluribus Anthony 23:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Format for displayed text of A#B links

Is there a guideline for the displayed text of A#B links? I've seen "A#B", and "A (B section)", and could imagine others such as "A:B". Thx, "alyosha" 04:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Good question, none that I'm aware of, except of course that in the middle of a paragraph (of prose), it should be piped so that the paragraph is readable. Though of course you'd be referring to links in a list or something like that. Maybe it's worth discussing? Correct me if I'm wrong. Neonumbers 05:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Gendered/sexist language -- but *not* pronouns!

Another newbie question: i've found lots of discussion of pronouns, but not of other gendered/sexist language, such as "chairman" for a chair/chairperson of unknown gender. If i correct language like that, will it be accepted as a valid correction appropriate to an encyclopedia, or will it waste energy (re-)starting a debate that won't be helpful or come to consensus? I know that'll vary with the readers of the page, but i'm looking for the current sense of wikipedia. (And btw, i've found a little about racism, but is there no guideline about avoiding even more extreme forms of sexism, and similar offensive language?) Thx, "alyosha" 04:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

If you ask me, realistically, you've probably already started a debate by posting this question here! :-P jokes, jokes... you're right though, it'll probably just waste energy in another debate — though feel free to try and see if you get reverted. Nothing wrong with trying once or twice! (Just be prepared for some potential comments on your talk page, lol.) Hope this helps, Neonumbers 05:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I proposed a policy on nonsexist language a few months ago. It didn't go over well, as most other people seemed to think it was not needed. -- Mwalcoff 05:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

While I use non-gender-specific language wherever possible, I think that some caution should be exercised here. It would be wrong to state that Frank Sinatra was nicknamed "the Chairperson of the Board". Would anyone ever have called Mao Zedong "Chair Mao"? No, I don't think so. We have to be careful about applying non-gender-specific language in circumstances where it has not been used. An encyclopaedia should be descriptive, not prescriptive. If the article is about an organization that uses "chair", then use it. If the article is about the strucutre of organizations in general, then "chair" or "chairperson" should work. But don't apply to that term to an organization or person that doesn't use it. Ground Zero | t 12:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Is "actress" appropriate?

I've noticed that nearly every article refers to females as an actress, although for an encyclopedia "actor" would probably be more appropriate for use.--Fallout boy 06:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hawaiian English in Hawaiʻi articles

I propose that it is acceptable and preferred, as mandated by the Hawaiian English standard (solely co-official with Hawaiian in the State of Hawaiʻi), to use full proper Hawaiian language spellings (including ʻokina and kahakō) in every instance of a word of Hawaiian origin in Wikipedia articles, except specifically in situations where a proper name (e.g. Hawaii Five-O) omits the detail. This includes the State of Hawaiʻi's official names for itself and its political terms and units (which differ from the United States national records—a note of this can be made where relevant). Article titles should also be appropriately rendered this way, with the flexible exception that (until Wikipedia either uses {{unicode|template}}-style Unicode character resolution for the display of article titles in HTML, or until the ʻokina becomes displayable for most computer users) article names can use a simple apostrophe (') for ʻokina, with existing redirects for (`) and the absence of the ʻokina altogether (where there is no confusion among minimal pairs), and additional redirects (also without confusion of minimal pairs) for article names without ʻokina nor kahakō. The {{okina}} template can be used for each instance of the ʻokina—this template also internally uses the {{unicode|template}}, which forces even obselete browsers such as Internet Explorer to scour each system's installed fonts for any font that includes the ʻokina character. Browsers such as Firefox do not have this problem, but the user must still have a font such as Arial Unicode MS or Code2000 that contains this character. In practice, Hawaiʻi-related articles and Hawaiian names and terms in other articles are already steadily integrating these conventions into article texts, as per Hawaiian English. For those who may dispute the appropriateness of using Hawaiian English and not American English in these contexts, it should be noted that:

  1. The United States has no federal official language, and American English is a standard adopted individually by states.
  2. Hawaiian English together with Hawaiian is the official language of the State of Hawaiʻi.
  3. Though Hawaiian English is partially reliant on American English, plain American English itself is not an official language of Hawaiʻi.

- Gilgamesh 07:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I copied the above from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) as I think it is something which needs to be discussed here and not specifically on the "Naming conventions (use English)" page. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Follow exisitng guidelines in cases of conflict between varieties of English? Rich Farmbrough. 18:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Format for personal names

Wikipedia badly needs a standard for personal name formats. In particular, name order. Outside of Western Europe and its offshoots, most cultures use surname-first order. Most Wikipedia articles in which Chinese names appear follow this practice. Many articles also follow this practice in naming Japanese, but many others don't.

There are pitfalls, no matter what you do. I know from experience that Japanese and Chinese can feel resentful if names of their countrymen are presented in the "wrong" order. Yet what do you do about a person of Japanese or Chinese origin who lives in a western nation and has adopted the name order prevailing there? For that matter, what about westerners who have gone the other way? And what about Hungarians, who use surname-first too, except when they don't? How can we be sure that readers will always know which is the surname?

It seems to me that the only truly practical solution in a one-size-fits-all source such as Wikipedia is to use the same name order for everyone, except where there is some compelling reason not to -- and to flag any such cases very clearly. In any event, a standard is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will O'Neil (talk • contribs) 04:24, 19 December 2005

I do not think a standard is needed other than "use common name". Zedong Mao is not common, nor will it ever be. It would be quite artificial to prefer this over Mao Zedong. On the other hand, the article Shiing-shen Chern is not at Chen Xingshen, since it is standard practice in mathematics to always use Personal name-Surname order in all languages. Consistency among all names, languages and fields of usage will most likely decrease readability quite a bit. I don't think consistency is worth that. Actually noting the name order somewhere on each article about a Chinese person might be a good thing, though -- I've fixed enough category links with wrong alphabetization. Kusma (討論) 05:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, perhaps, but what about the majority of users who will not know what is common. No one ever speaks of Zedong Mao, of course, but you might be surprised at the number of Americans who imagine that Zedong was his surname. Actually, Chinese are the easy issue -- aside from special cases like Wellington Koo and Eugene Chen, the western media have most usually used the correct (surname-first) order all along. But Japanese are another matter. Look at the entries for Yosuke Matsuoka and Tanaka Giichi, for instance. Nor can we say that the order used for Matsuoka is clearly wrong -- for significant portions of his life he referred to himself as Yosuke Matsuoka (or even Frank Matsuoka) rather than Matsuoka Yosuke. Often, Japanese publications with romanji renderings of Japanese names will set the surname in all caps, to avoid confusion among westerners. Perhaps we should do that for our readers. --Will O'Neil 16:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

A comment probably not very relevant here, but I had *great* difficulty finding the article on Hiuen Tsang, because I had no clue that the Chinese spelling is Xuanzang. I've read about him in umpteen number of books, but they all use Hiuen Tsang. Shouldn't the "use common name" policy be applied in names such as these? Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Any time that happens you should probably consider setting up a redirect to save the next person the same pain! Incidentally, France has a good system for all this in daily life: The surname is always written in capitals. Stevage 21:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Didn't realize it wasn't the most common name (atleast on google) deeptrivia (talk) 05:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I recommend you use Google search, which will save you frustration in finding stuff. This doesn't address the concern for a standard name format, however. Gflores Talk 05:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I just made Hiuen Tsang a redirect (Hiun Tsang already existed and even had some links). Kusma (討論) 05:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:style-guideline

I've asked a similar question before to yield no response. So, once and for all, should this template be applied to all the supplementary manuals of style? They are, after all, style guides, so it makes sense. Neonumbers 09:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Answer? Anyone?
If there are no objections before 00:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC), I will add this template to every supplementary manual of style. Neonumbers 02:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Are the supplementary manuals really as important as the main guides? I thought they were sorta like guidelines (as opposed to policies). --Maru (talk) Contribs 03:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
All manuals of style, including this one, is a guideline. We have very few policies, in order to avoid overwhelming editors with rules — the manual of style is a guideline for articles, not editors. I would consider all manuals of equal status. (Historically, I believe (but am not sure for I wasn't here at the time) that this main manual was split because of length issues.) Neonumbers 03:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Without objection on or before Christmas Day (25 December UTC), I will add this template to every supplementary manual of style. Neonumbers 03:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I see someone's just done that. Problem solved. Neonumbers 00:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Currency units should start with a capital letter.

Currency units should start with a capital letter. Examples of these are Rhodesian Dollar & Rand. The only time that a lower case is used in quoting from conversations. An example of this is,"I paid 5 dollars". - (Aidan Work 06:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

I'm not clear on what you mean. If you're talking about article titles, I agree, but if you're talking about article content, that makes no sense. Most currency units are in lower case in American English when they don't start a sentence.--Coolcaesar 07:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm. For clarity, I would support using the system used by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Wp. For example:
In 2004, overall revenues for Canada Post were C$6.7 billion (US$5.6 billion).
I feel the ISO standard – e.g., CAD 6.7 billion, USD 5.6 billion – is too ... lengthy and somewhat obscure to be pragmatic in Wp, but would support it's use if a consensus did.
Of course, if we were discussing a unit currency in a specific country's article (e.g., Canadian dollar in the Canada article), it might be prudent to indicate this in a proviso upfront only, not to repeat it (C$), and to have the mere symbol ($) appear throughout the article.
And in any other instance, a wikilink to the currency should obviate any ambiguity (e.g., Rhodesian dollar (now the Zimbabwean dollar), South African rand), in which case I'd discourage the use of initial caps in titles or diallogue except for the country (as is now the usual case). Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony 13:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Gender Pronouns

I was recently working on a page of a video game where the player could pick their gender. In the artcle, it mentions this, and goes on to use masculine pronouns for the rest of the article (which I thought was typical). However, some anon keeps changing every one to "he/she" and such. I didn't see this in the manual, can I get a ruling? --InShaneee 05:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I was taught at school (1955-68) that "he" (etc.), while primarily masculine, can also be a neuter pronoun. This quite useful convention has gone by the wayside, though, and the clumsier "he or she", "(s)he", etc., have supplanted it, much like "they" used as a singular pronoun. Feminist objection is the cause. Better to have a clunky usage than to give offence. But wouldn't it be great if someone came up with a new set of neuter pronouns? Puffball 14:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
lol. My English textbook says "they" is the neuter singular pronoun. I disagree, when I write in places outside Wikipedia I always use "he" unless I'm referring to a specific unknown person (as opposed to a generic unknown person). Ideally, we'd have a guideline, but this is going to be one of those debates that goes on for three decades and is split 50-50 down the middle and well, it isn't really worth the fuss, really.
Here's my (proper) advice: Try and re-word it so that the issue is avoided altogether. It might not be able to be done, but if it can, do so. Neonumbers 00:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
They're putting "they" in textbooks as a neutral singular pronoun now? Oh, dear. All you have to do is make the whole sentence plural -- "Players should watch their language." -- Mwalcoff 01:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, agreed, but it's not always possible to recast the sentence that way. {Sigh} from an old f*rt. Puffball 20:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Not being offensive is all well and good but, as a female myself and NOT a feminist by any means, I think they take the pronoun thing too seriously. People need to lighten up! :P /sigh --Naha|(talk) 20:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more! Puffball 20:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Same here! Neonumbers 09:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I am following this debate too well, but, if I am, I don't believe in "lightening up." I would much prefer a singular pronoun, whether "he" or "she" to the muddled "he or she." And, please give me the reference to the English textbook that says "they" is singular, neuter. I am also an old f*rt, but using "they" as a singular pronoun is just plain wrong. JJ 00:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I never said "he or she" was good, nor did I say "they" was good. I'm just sick of people getting so worked up over things that don't matter in the grand scheme of life. Pick your battles I say. P.S. - if you are still confused, I'm referring to the extremist feminist movement, not to what gender pronoun usage on wikipedia should be or not be. --Naha|(talk) 04:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Article titles bold stuff exceptions (again)

Since we have already reached a consensus that "as a general rule" implies "there are reasonable exceptions", and that we should not list all such exceptions for clarity and maintenance purposes, I zapped the following.

"An exception may be allowed if a link to the second bolded phrase redirects to this article, and if the second bolded phrase is not a spelling, grammatical, or abbreviated variation of the article name. (Example: Samuel Langhorne Clemens (November 30, 1835 – April 21, 1910), better known by his pen name Mark Twain. . . )" PizzaMargherita 08:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Split Infinitives

I don't like split infinitives, but I see them all over the place. Is there a policy yet?

If there is it should be removed, because the question is debatable. I don't think the MoS should have guidelines at this level of detail. PizzaMargherita 08:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
A policy against split infinitives would be absurd, so I suppose you'll have to live with them. - furrykef (Talk at me) 01:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Dates - Days, Months, Years

I'm having trouble finding the section of the style guide or other reference that says when or when not to link dates in articles. Dates such as November, November 22, or November 22, 1999. In some articles, I have had someone come and remove all or most of the wikilinks that refer to dates as described above and in their edit note say "as per the style guide." And then in other articles I have and someone come and ADD links to most or all the dates and say "as per the style guide." Soo.... what gives? :) Someone please point me in the right direction, I want to know when to properly link dates and when to not. Thanks! --Naha|(talk) 19:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You can find the information at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting; the link to this supplementary manual is available at the top right of the main Manual of Style page, under the title "Dates and numbers." In brief, full date/month/year dates as well as month/dates should be linked (such as November 22, 1999 or November 22), because this allows logged-in users to set their preferences for how they would like their date displayed. Linking individual months, dates, or years is generally frowned upon unless there is a special reason (for the same reason that most words aren't linked). Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
You should check this permanent link. There is a revert war at that supplementary manual that is basically the repeated removal and addition of that very section. Hope that helps. Neonumbers 23:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you both for the information! Its a lot to take in, but now I have a clue and a place to reference :) --Naha|(talk) 01:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Neonumbers; I wasn't aware of the controversy. In any case, Naha, you should definitely link month/date/year and month/date combinations; the rest is obviously controversial—don't let it get too stressful. Link it if you want; don't link it if you don't want. If it's wrong, someone else will change it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks again :) --Naha|(talk) 20:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Implication that Muhammad is a deity.

Wow, the style guide is really offensive—to everyone— in implying Muhammad is a deity. It's sort of appalling it's survived in this form for a month, and it really needs to be fixed. At present, it reads

Deities begin with a capital letter: God, Allah, Freya, the Lord, the Supreme Being, the Messiah. The same is true when referring to Muhammad as the Prophet.

. The justification for capitalizing Prophet is not that Muhammad is a diety. No one believes that Muhammad is a deity! I'm going to be bold and rephrase. - Nunh-huh 03:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The cited text doesn't claim that Messiah is a deity. To the contrary, it seems to be saying "Do this for deities, and also do it for the Prophet (who is not a diety)". It's rather specific though - maybe it should say something more like "and capitalize nouns when they are being used as a conventional name of a specific being or thing, such as the Prophet or the Sword in the Stone." Deco 03:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course it implies the deity of Muhammad, and it has been changed. - Nunh-huh 04:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, some people can be offended very easily... By the way I don't think the cited text implies that Mohammed is a deity. On the other hand, it is my understanding that both the Messiah and the Lord refer to Jesus Christ. Now, I don't know anything about religion, but I thought Jesus was not really a deity... much like Mohammed he was the prophet of a religion. Is that not so? PizzaMargherita 09:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is not so. - Nunh-huh 09:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Umm? In standard Christianity, Jesus is definitely considered a deity. However, the Messiah is not necessarily a deity. For instance, rabinnical Judaism doesn't think that is the case.--Samuel J. Howard 10:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Are there any other major religious non-deity figures like Mohammed who need this special capitalisation treatment? Rich Farmbrough. 18:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
The Arwchive reveals "the Buddha, John the Baptist" as candidates. Rich Farmbrough. 19:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)