Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Draft trim (November 2004)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Maurreen's response

It appears that you have reorganized some things also. I disagree with considering reorganizing under the scope of a trim. I'm not sure what you mean by tabulating the Capital letters section. I disagree with deleting the "Further information" section and the following: ca:Viquipèdia:Llibre d'estil da:Wikipedia:Stilmanual es:Wikipedia:Manual de Estilo ga:Lámhleabhar Stíle he:ויקיפדיה:המדריך לעיצוב דפים ja:Wikipedia:スタイルマニュアル zh-min-nan:Wikipedia:Siá-chok ê kui-hoān ro:Wikipedia:Manual de stil sl:Wikipedija:Slogovni priročnik fi:Wikipedia:Tyyliopas sv:Wikipedia:Rekommendationer zh-cn:Wikipedia:格式指南/简 zh-tw:Wikipedia:格式指南/繁

Maurreen 18:15, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Taking your points in reverse order. I don't mean to get rid of all the interwiki links, I just haven't copied them across yet as I don't know whether they work like category links and appear somewhere or not. On the further information section, I intended only to delete the two bits I've now deleted on the MOS proper. I'll readd the other links.
I've just rechecked. The further information is sitting there under See also. In compliance with MOS policy it should be called either See also or Related topics. Hence the renaming:) jguk 18:29, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
By tabulating I mean having three columns. The first column will have the subheadings pretty much as they are now. The second column would be 'Start with a capital letter', the third column 'Do not start with a capital letter'. If this is not clear, maybe I should just try it out - see what you think (and see if I think it works too:) ).
I think a reorganisation very much is necessary as part of a draft trim, though on reflection perhaps draft redraft may be a more accurate description. I reorganised as some stuff was duplicated. The trim removed the duplication, and a reorganisation was needed to tidy this up. And anyway, I don't think the reorganisation is too extreme (eg one of the things I've done is move a one sentence section called 'Contractions' into 'Punctuation'. Is that objectionable?). That said, if there are particular elements you think should be put back in their current order, let me know and I'll change the draft. jguk 18:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It is hard to compare both deletions and reorganizations. One thing is, I think the stuff in the draft's "article name" section" should be put back wherever it came from. I think a table for capitalization just makes more complication. Maurreen 18:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have now put the stuff removed from Section to Article Name back to Section. I may try constructing a table. I have a feeling that once constructed we'll either both agree it should be kept, or both agree it shouldn't be put into the article. jguk 18:57, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Jallan's response

Not bad at all, but some points that I think need looking at:

The original lead paragraph I have always found to be very good writing. A somewhat informal ice-breaker paragraph works psychologically on the reader. This is one reason why books have introductions and forewards. Please return all that material.

The only thing removed from the paragraph are the words introducing the quotation from the Chicago Manual of Style.

More than that was omitted:

:In this regard the following quote from The Chicago Manual of Style deserves notice:
: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.

Clear, informative and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules: the joy of wiki editing is that perfection is not required.

I have replaced it all. The quotation from The Chicago Manual of Style and the following paragraph indicate how these rules are are to be interpreted. I take them to indicate policy. If you wish to remove the flexibility indicated in the omitted material, then that should be discussed separately. It is also good that the introduction the manual emphasizes that writers should not get overly uptight up about following these rules, while also making clear that later editors may and probably will apply them, but hopefully not with complete rigidity. This material which has substantive value, and excellently conveys the manner in which this policy should be interpreted. Jallan 06:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Have slightly shortened the message so that it is concise and to the point. 16:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Have reverted to the current MoS version, as the version I saw lacked the the quotation from The Chicago Manual of Style and had some reordering that didn't make sense to me. I suspect an error in editing here. Presumably the slight shortening can be done beginning again on this. 00:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Follow the normal rules for italics: that is, put them in bold only if you would use italics if the title would normally be shown in italics.

Confusing, and even wrong. Suggest: Follow the normal rules for italics in choosing whether to put part or all of the title in italics.

Amended to what you suggest

For dates like 25 March 2004 wikify every time so that the date preference of the reader will be used.

This is stronger than the original, which informs rather than directs. Perhaps that was an error in the wording in the original. But, personally, I've no wish to bothered by wikifying all dates for the benefit not of the reader as this sentence claimed in the original also, but for the benefit of a few editors who care about this. Unless a reader is logged in, a reader has no way of setting preferences. So this is useless to most readers as well as breaking the previous rule of only wikifying important dates. It should not be changed, of course, but please do not strengthen it. My own belief is that editors should see articles as the casual reader sees them, not in a mode inaccessible to the casual reader.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) states "Dates should be wikified so that each reader sees the dates formatted according to their own preference." So my "strengthening" is only a restatement of existing policy. If you disagree strongly with it, please discuss it there.

Perhaps the differences between the two sections should be hashed out separately. But this change will do for now. But it is a substantive change, even though only to this page, and so breaks your rules. Jallan 06:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I note your comment, but have left the text as is.jguk 16:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For example, the text [http://en.wikipedia.org an open-content encyclopaedia] produces: an open-content encyclopaedia (http://en.wikipedia.org).

A sentence fragment is within the parentheses and formatting has been omitted. Change perhaps to: "For example, the text [http://en.wikipedia.org an open-content encyclopedia]</code> produces: an open-content encyclopedia.

Amended along the lines you suggest.

Where to place external links.

This heading has an incorrect heirarchy level.

So it does. Amended.

Use the == style markup for headings. Example:

Put back words phrase ", not ''' (bold)" after headings. This is a common mistake of new editors. It should be specified here.

Done

Do not use contractions — such as don't, can't, won't, and so on, except when quoting directly.

This wrongly strengthens the original, which made clear that this usage was discouraged, not forbidden, and gave as a reason that in general formal writing is preferred in Wikipedia. Contractions have never been absolutely forbidden nor has all informal writing.

This is a policy document, not guidance. If it is policy it should require, not merely discourage. If, on the other hand, this section is not policy but only non-binding guidance, it should leave this page and find its home elsewhere.

I disagree. You removed a quotation taken from the Chicago Manual of Style indicating the flexibility of its rules, though it certainly represents the policy of the University of Chicago Press. Take it up with them. By extension, some flexibility is understood to apply to the rules in the Wikipedia Manula of Style. The words "strongly discouraged" might be better chosen. But they do not mean "absolutely forbidden". Perhaps the words could be changed to "normally avoided" or something of that kind. But I think that ought to be discussed separately. Completely gone in this draft trim was the sentence: "In general, we prefer formal writing." And again and again one reads in policy statements wording such as "Our policy is to encourage ...." or "Our policy is to discourage ....". The section Identity inroduces explicit "guidelines". The section Pictures uses the word "encouraged", both in the original and the draft trim. Such wording is quite normal in policies. I have restored Jallan 06:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I will accept your amendment. Personally I don't like this policy anyway - far better to require readers to adopt a style suitable for the subject being discussed. But this is not the place to argue the point, and I will accept the restoration of the original wording.

With quotation marks, we split the difference between American and British usage.

I don't mind this strengthening, but it may be controversial.

Noted. Draft text left unchanged.jguk 16:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have replaced the `oginek paragraph with my substantive change in the main style sheet, in order to keep the versions in synchronization. If people want to change it or revert it back in the main sheet, or drop the section altogether, the same should be done here. Jallan 00:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And please put back in all the material removed in this section. Hard as it may be to those who prefer logical quotation, some who are not used to it find it confusing. They need the extra help. And although I think the idea of using double quotation marks within double quotation marks is ludicrous, it was in the original.

Personally I'm confused by this policy - both as stated in the original and in my version. I'm not totally sure what you wish to be reinserted. May I ask you to reinsert what you think is necessary in the draft yourself?

I have reinserted almost all of it and done some rephrasing which I hope makes it clearer. The single quotation problem comes about, I believe, because normally spaces and punctuation such as quotation marks are considered to be word delimiters. But an apostrophe is not a word delimiter but part of a word. That is, if we were searching for O'Reilly, and the apostophe were taken as a word delimiter, we would never find the name, as the search engine would only see the two separate words O and Reilly. So the apostrophe must treated as though it were a letter. But if the apostrophe is treated as a letter, then 'O'Reilly' will not be found by a search string of O'Reilly, since the beginning and ending letter is missing. Another example: a search for Tom Jones would not locate the name in He asked: "Did you say, 'I hate Tom Jones'?" Jallan 06:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Noted. I do not propose amending your amendments.jguk 16:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I added a word "quote" here that I had missed inserting. Jallan 00:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For uniformity and to avoid complications use straight quotation marks and apostrophes (' ") not curved (smart) ones, grave accents or backticks ( ‘ ’ “ ” `)

I made these marks bigger in the previous revision as the curly quotation marks in the Arial font don't appear curly at standard sizes on many browsers. However, the look hideous when on the same line with normal text. ( ' " ) and ( ‘ ’ “ ” ` ) improve it slightly. But it may be necessary to go back to putting these on single lines to the sake of the appearance.

I'm not convinced. The spacing out of this point is not aesthetically good on my browser. Though, if others raise similar comments, I will restore the original formatting.

In Sections, please do not drop the examples and the mention that bolded titles can in italics as well. Examples are often more helpful than rules.

The heading Related topics may be used instead of See also.

For consistancy with usage just a few lines earlier, bold the words that are italicized (or in my italicized quotation, unitalicized).

I'm slightly confused by these points, but please feel free to amend the draft for them.

I have done so. Examples have been returned and mentions of section names in text are now consistently in boldface rather than sometimes in boldface and sometimes in italics. Jallan 06:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Noted.

Use specific terminology: If Ethiopians should be described Ethiopian, not African.

Not grammatical.

I should have deleted the word "if". Now done.

a List of composers of African descent, in this case, is more useful.

Change back to "may be more useful". Articles split when they get too big, data is rearranged, and what is useful at one stage of Wikipedia may not be so at another.

I don't remember changing this back, but it appears to have been. Maybe I was sleep-Wikipedia'ing. Very worrying.

Please put back the following:

Where this page differs from the other sources, the usage on this page should be preferred, but please feel free to carry on a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style, especially for substantive changes.

This may seem obvious, but it is not so to many new editors.

This section starts with: "If this page does not specify which usage is preferred..." which makes the same point more succinctly.

Fair enough. In looking back and forth between versions I missed that. However I have restored the second part, as an open invitation to discuss such fine points, though perhaps obvious, should not be removed from explicit policy. Jallan 06:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Noted. I don't see a need for the bits you re-added to be there, but will not change your amendment.jguk 16:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The word need is a problem. Probably there is a lot of material not needed here, at least for some. I once had a C manual which gave detailed syntax for every command but no examples. Why should it? Examples are not needed are they? But in fact a user of a manual looking for a quick reminder often finds the examples more helpful than the formal explication of syntax. None of the examples in this sheet or any sheet are probably needed. Citations of sources are mostly not needed. Redunancy is not needed. But all these make a manual more useful, if not to one person than to another. What one person finds obvious and not worth saying another finds informative and enlightening, dpending on their different backgrounds and on the differents ways in which they understand things. That is why I am very dubious about chopping much of this material. If it's not broken, don't try to fix it. It is too easy to throw out the good with the bad because one person's bad is another person's good. Jallan 00:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alternatively simply look at an article that you like, open it for editing and see how the writers and editors have put it together and close the window without saving changes.

Wrong wording. This is not really an alternative. One can both look in the recommended books or similar books and also do this. And please return the final sentence on this paragraph.

I have reverted to the original paragraph with two differences. I jave changed "Even simpler is simply..." to "Even simpler is...". And I have not restored the final sentence. My reason is that this is a policy document, not guidance. It should stick to policy. The sentence removed is true, but it is not necessary to say this here.

I have put the sentence back. As I have already indicated, this policy document, even in this trimmed version, explicitly contains guidance. Guidance is normal for many policy documents and especially normal for style manuals. The minimalist approach of not necessary is often at loggerheads with helpful and friendly. I believe helpful and friendly should win out. Jallan 06:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Noted. I don't see a need for the bits you re-added to be there, but will not change your amendment.jguk 16:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On Make comments invisible, please return the removed material, which I have seen often cited. People do persist in making empty sections and empty tables.

I have reverted this (except for the first two words that have been deleted). Since the guidance in Wikipedia:Make omissions explicit contradicts this policy, presumably Wikipedia:Make omissions explicit should be removed.

Good point. I believe that Wikipedia:Make omissions explicit is little known and is not quite in contradiction to this rule if one makes these explicit omissions invisible except to editors, but it is certainly in very strong tension with it. I have seen the rule about making comments invisible cited a number of times, but never the rule to make omission explicit. But the existance of that other rule may be one of the reasons the first rule is commonly broken. This is something that needs to be discussed. Jallan 06:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think this point is closed as far as this page is concerned (though should be taken up elsewhere).jguk 16:21, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please return all references to sources like Fowler. Though somewhat arbitrary where they actually appear in some cases, they make it clearer throughout the page that this is not a complete manual, that for clear instructions one is often expected to look elsewhere.

I'm not sure I have removed a reference to Fowler. I think I have only removed references from two places. Your main point is already covered by the "When all else fails" section. It's not a point that needs to be made more than once.

The word needs should take second place to useful and explanatory. I referred to sources like Fowler. There are others. I have replaced those mentions from more than two places. In particular, the justification for serial comma depends in part on its being the choice of almost every style manual today other than newspaper style guides. The discussion on titles also points to further useful references. If the style guide is to be set up in future with be more prescriptive with the rationale for rules and more detailed discussion removed to associated talk pages, then indications of the source for particular rules can be moved to such sub-pages and special recommendations about further information on particular topics can be moved to such sub-pages. Jallan 06:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jallan 04:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Although I disagree with the re-insertions, I will not seek to get them removed at this time.jguk 16:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have responded to your comments in bold italics. (It's a crude but effective way.) I think we are near agreement, but there are still a small number of points outstanding. You will also note that there were a couple of places where I wasn't exactly sure what you meant. Please amend the draft for those points. Thank you for your comments. Hopefully we can wrap this one up soon. jguk 21:22, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I totally agree with the method used for comment in cases like this, taking each point separately. Jallan 06:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have added further comments above (and signed and dated them for ease of reference). I think all your points have now been dealt with, but look forward to your confirmation of this. jguk 16:21, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That seems about it. 00:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Maurreen's response

I support Jallan's comments. I'll take another look when Jallan is satisfied. Maurreen 09:27, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To try to clarify the comparison, I am going to temporarily replace the draft with the current style guide. Maurreen 08:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Restored draft. Maurreen 10:31, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I’m not done reviewing this draft, because of the extent of the changes.

  1. I’m not clear on why you deleted so much material from the “Links” section.
  2. I’m not clear on why you changed “grave accent” to “okina”.
  3. Please restore the section on “spaces after a period”. This is apparently important to a lot of people, as indicated by the archive.
  4. Please restore the link to the Economist style guide.

Maybe I misunderstood or something went wrong, but I thought you said you would restore the interwiki links at the bottom of the page, and I don't see them now. Maurreen 10:31, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Responding in turn:
1. I've shortened it, but with the intention of preserving the meaning of the original. Which bits do you think are substantively changed?
2. This was a correction. A grave accent modifies the sound of the letter it is placed over, it is not a glottal stop. Some languages (and the example given here is Hawaiian) use a symbol looking like a grave accent as a glottal stop, but where this is the case, it is not placed over a letter. When used in Hawaiian, the diacritic is called an okina.
3. I have inserted a slightly shortened version of the "Spaces after a period" advice.
4. On reflection, better to give a link to our own style guide page that contains even more links.
I meant I would restore the interwiki links, etc. when this page goes live. I'll do that as a quick copy and paste job. I'm doing it this way so that I pick up any recent additions of interwiki links on the original article. jguk 16:29, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
OK, we can agree on No. 4 and the interwiki links, etc. I'll look again at the "Spaces after a period" advice. Maurreen 02:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Okina

To change "grave accent" to "okina" is a substantive change that calls for consensus on the main style guide talk page. Can you at least back this up? Maurreen 02:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's not a case of gaining consensus, more that what is in the MOS at present is factually incorrect. See okina and grave accent. My version probably isn't quite correct either, but the sentence should be changed so it is accurate. jguk 12:07, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The original version:

The grave accent ( ` ) is also used as a diacritical mark to indicate a glottal stop; however, the straight quote should be used for this purpose instead (e.g., Hawai'i, not Hawai`i).

jguk's version:

The okina ( ` ) is also used as a diacritical mark to indicate a glottal stop. The straight quote should be used for this purpose instead (e.g., Hawai'i, not Hawai`i).

What was actually meant was something like the following:

When a proper left single quotation glyph is unavailable, the grave accent diacritical mark ( ` ) is often used to represent the 'okina, a glottal stop indicator in Hawaiian; however, in Wikipedia the alternate convention of using a straight quote should be used for this purpose instead (that is, Hawai'i, not Hawai`i).

But this rule is no longer observed in Wikipedia, hence my tentative replacement in the main MoS duplicated here as well.

Jallan 01:11, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Links section

Why don't we compromise by making the original links section a separate page and deleting the links information from the trim? If we agree to that, I will go along. Maurreen 06:09, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We can try it. But I am sceptical. I don't want this to lead to instruction creep. We need to put the more recent changes to the main article into this one, but are we ready for it to go live now? jguk 23:33, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think I was trying to suggest "going live" as long as the original links section gets its own page. In other words, go ahead. Maurreen 03:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)