Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

See also
Wikipedia talk:Writing better articles
Wikipedia talk:Article titles
Wikipedia talk:Quotations
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/quotation and punctuation

Bulleted and numbered lists

See also: Help:List and Wikipedia:Lists

• Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs.
• Do not place blanks spaces in between list entries since it is interpreted as multiple lists by the wiki software.
• Use numbers rather than bullets only if:
  • there is a need to refer to the elements by number;
  • the sequence of the items is critical; or
  • the numbering has value of its own, for example in a track listing.
• All elements in a list should use the same grammatical form and should be consistently either complete sentences or sentence fragments.
  • When the elements are complete sentences, they are formatted using sentence case and a final period.
  • When the elements are sentence fragments, they are typically introduced by a lead fragment ending with a colon, are formatted using consistently either sentence or lower case, and finish with a final semicolon or no punctuation, except that the last element typically finishes with a final period.

I hope this helps. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• I believe we all understand that. The objections to Sandy's proposal remain, however:
  • There are some times when you want to break up a list into sublists; we should not prohibit the possibility.
  • There is no particular reason to include encoding problems here rather than WP:LIST, which already warns of the effects of spaces. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

How Wikicode converts into XHTML is essential, if it is needed to add spaces in the code window, simply add a comment. Otherwise, I am having difficultly understanding by what you mean about sublist, since this appears to be of an entirely different concern. I also cannot find the section warning of the effects of blank spaces in WP:LIST. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Anderson, we can do without your continual bleating against MOS ("this indiscriminate mass of information"); it's becoming plain rude. We got the message a long time ago, and by harping on about your pet peeves, you make yourself look unpleasant and, in interpersonal terms, incompetent. We don't harp on about the indiscriminate mass of words you sometimes insert into styleguides. Add this to your dirt-file of what you like to call "personal attacks", please.

Sandy is proposing nothing to which these "objections" you're cooking up could be relevant. But you may be satisfied with this: "Leave blank lines between items in a bulleted or numbered list only where is a reason to do so". This will cover the problem in which some editors think they have to do so by default, and avoids going into messy details. Tony (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, it actually does solve the problem. All your rudeness only declares your ownership of this indiscriminate mass of information. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Tony, I understand that we have not in the past been on good terms, I'd prefer that to change; so I won't go there. Pmanderson, please state whether or not you are against the draft or similar, if not then please implement. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added "Blank lines should not be place in between list entries.", with a brief trickle down in Wikipedia:Lists#List styles. If I'm going to quickly, feel free to revert. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Chyran, yes, I'd like that to change, too. I was, for the record, aghast at a set of sudden, unannounced changes in article titles that were made and proposed, and the inability of Chyran and me to engage in a way that would solve the issue. Tony (talk) 08:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hyphens in values and units, and the shortcut WP:UNITS

WP:HYPHEN: "Values and units used as compound adjectives are hyphenated only where the unit is given as a whole word." Aside from the fact that the sentence isn't written well enough for the average reader who doesn't understand what a compound adjective is, is there a limit on the size of the unit when this is no longer used? It says both "9-millimetre gap" and "12-hour shift" are correct. Are the following correct at such large sizes and units?

• "6,000,000-foot gap"
• "8,611-metre gap"
• "5,543,235-mile gap"
• "40,075.02-kilometre circumference"
• "54-century shift"

Further down the MOS, at WP:MOS#Conversions it says "a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 16 kilometres (10 mi) long or a pipe 4 inches (100 mm) in diameter and 10 miles (16 km) long." Shouldn't this be "a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 16-kilometres (10 mi) long or a pipe 4 inches (100 mm) in diameter and 10-miles (16 km) long."?

Slightly related to this is that the shortcut WP:UNITS points to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of measurement. So why is the shortcut also at WP:MOS#Units of measurement when it doesn't point there and the contents are different. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Matthew, yes, the five bulleted examples are all correctly hyphenated; the size of unit and value are irrelevant to the use of hyphenation. We happen to follow ISO in not hyphenating where a symbol (incl. abbreviation) is used, so "40,075.02 km circumference"—but it's not the easiest construction whether hyphenated or not, so you have the option of recasting thus: "a circumference of 40,075.02 kilometres/km". Much easier on the eyes. Tony (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Your issue with the examples at CONVERSIONS is to do with that "compound adjectives" issue. In the phrase pipe of 4-inch diameter, there is a compound adjective (4-inch), describing the noun, diameter. However, when we speak of a pipe with a diameter of 4 inches, then the simple, numerical adjective 4 qualifies the noun inch(es). Kevin McE (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Is MoS committed to observing WP:VERIFY?

Please take a look at Talk:The_Beatles/Archive_19#reliable_sources_using_"the_Beatles"_or_"The_Beatles". Thank you, Espoo (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This issue was decided on that talk page on the basis of an opinion poll, not use in reliable sources. Is MoS committed to following most common usage in reliable sources or does WP:VERIFY (WP:RS) only apply to the content of Wikipedia articles? It's quite amazing that MoS doesn't say anything about this WP policy or, in fact, anything about how MoS has been or is supposed to be compiled.

Most WP editors consider decisions about capitalisation, spelling, punctuation, etc. to be trivial, and the professional copyeditors trying to make WP articles follow basic standards used in encyclopedias and all professionally edited material are regularly discouraged by being called nitpickers when they try to make Wikipedia look at least a bit less amateurish. --Espoo (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The Manual of Style is silent about content standards such as WP:V because it is about, well, style, not content. There are other portions of the site that deal with content issues. At the core of the issue is a content dispute (is the proper name of the group "Beatles" or "The Beatles"?) and not a style dispute (should "the" be capitalized?). If you are unable to reach consensus among the existing participants, may I suggest dispute resolution, perhaps starting with a request for comment, as a more appropriate way to resolve the issue? --Clubjuggle ^T/C 18:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The use of reliable sources only applies to articles (and to derogatory information about living persons anywhere). Trying to decide style issues on the basis of reliable sources can get tricky, because you have to decide which reliable sources? The ones cited in the article? Sources in the same general field in the article? Sources aimed a at a general readership? Style manuals? Dictionaries? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Animals, plants, and other organisms

I often contribute to articles that incorporate references to both flora and different animal taxa. Consistent presentation of the species names with respect to capitalisation is a challenge. I therefore propose the following change to be added at the end of this section:

"For articles incorporating a variety of taxa:

• piped links shall be used to create a consistency of appearance using title case per WP:BIRDS for species names.
• lower case shall be used for entries that are either very common (dog, cat) or are not species such as eagle or bilberry."

This has been used in various FA's and GA's (St Kilda, Scotland, Fauna of Scotland, Black Moshannon State Park, Geography of Newfoundland and Labrador, River Torrens, Fauna of Australia) without any complaint. A short essay on the reasoning behind the proposal is available here. Ben MacDui 11:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The place to get consensus on this is WP:TOL, not here. I'm implacably opposed to adding this or anything like it here, unless it has the backing of the TOL people. Hesperian 12:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Title case for animal names is just ridiculous in an encyclopedia. If the BIRDS people want to make Bird-opedia, by all means they can then break whatever capitalization rules they want. In a general encyclopedia animals should all be lowercase, all the time (unless the name itself legitimately has a reason for being capitalized, such as a proper noun within the name). DreamGuy (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You'd be right if the birds people had confabulated their capitalisation convention. But in fact they are adhering to a long-established real-world convention within their field. Do you think it is appropriate to prescribe a "rule" that prevents them from writing articles that conform with the conventions of their field? Hesperian 23:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we assume you are in favour of the principle, but would prefer lower case? Ben MacDui 16:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hesperian.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to raise the subject at WP:TOL, but history suggests that such support might be difficult to achieve. In any case, I am principally, although not exclusively, interested in geography articles. If birds, mammals and fish are at liberty to have their own solutions, then presumably the same is true of WP:Geography or indeed any of its related projects. Indeed so far as I can see there is no reason why national based projects should not simply agree their own policies creating further confusion. It is a solution I am trying to avoid, hence my posting this here first. My intention is therefore to direct WP:TOL here (as I did already at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna)), not have the discussion there. The scope is much wider than is covered by that Project. Ben MacDui 16:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt that this is an important topic, nor do I doubt that it will be controversial. I'd like to provide some context that some other editors might not have considered: In many groups of organisms, and in many countries, there is no necessary connection between a common name and a species. The American Robin is Turdus migratorius, and no other, but although "brittlebush" can be applied to Encelia farinosa, there are other plants to which it is also applied. Ornithologists (and evidently lepidoperologists) worldwide, and most -ologists in a number of countries, have found value in designating a more-or-less one-to-one correspondence between species and certain names in the local language, but this practice is not universal. For plants in the US, it generally only applies to those species given formal governmental protection.

Thus, of the following statements,

1. The American Robin perched on the Brittlebush.
2. The American robin perched on the brittlebush.
3. The American robin perched on the Brittlebush.
4. The American Robin perched on the brittlebush.

only number 4 would be correct according to the proposal (brittlebush not being precisely a species), but it would require some amount of additional knowledge of the organisms to make this determination. And it seems that one of the purposes of this proposal would be to make the extra work of such careful determinations unnecessary.

A quick look at Black Moshannon State Park suggests that the careful determination may not have always been made; some uncapitalized names may refer in that specific area to only a single species.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As one of the main authors of Black Moshannon State Park, I can say that we went by the available reliable sources specific to the park that we could find (as we also did in Worlds End State Park, another recent FA that uses this convention). I also would appreciate specific examples of errors to fix them (with refs, if they are not in the article already, please). I agree with MacDui wholeheartedly - as another person who mostly writes geography articles, it is hard to know what to do about plant and animal names, and some sort of consistent policy would be greatly appreciated. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Are there more than one species of sphagnum, viburnum, cranberry, blueberry, pitcher plant, sundew, opossum, porcupine, and gypsy moth? Some of those are generally understood to refer to only a single species in the US (opossum, porcupine). Others are more generic (literally and figuratively), but may refer to only a single species in the park. I have no argument with the article; I think it certainly deserves its FA status. But I think that the capitalization of organism names doesn't quite work; if it follows the suggestions above, it creates "unreferenced expectations" about the diversity in the park.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing these out. I will be the first to point out that I am not an expert on flora or fauna. The sources I use are typically only descriptions or lists of plants and animals present and usually do not say what species of sphagnum, viburnum, cranberry, blueberry, pitcher plant, sundew, opossum, or porcupine are present, nor do they give binomial names in most cases. I will confess that I typically link the name given and look at the Wikipedia article - for all of the examples given, the article says it is a genus or a group of animals or plants, so without a reliable source that said otherwise, I treated these names as refering to a genus and not a species. The articles here also generally just give lists of species in the genus and do not always say which species is present in a specific area. So the opossum article lists many opossums, but only the Virginia opossum article says it is the only one found in North America. I also note the article for Gypsy moth lists a binomial name so I assume it is a species. I am not tied to this system being discussed, but I do think that some way of distinguishing between species and genera would be helpful and useful. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, you shouldn't have to be an expert, because the references would give you the information you need. But alas. I think Hesperian's suggestion below could simplify this, but would you consider your article a bird, a plant, or something else? :-) --Curtis Clark (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

PS When I look at the article for Brittlebush, it appears to list it as one species. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The name could well apply to the genus as well; other species are called "California brittlebush", "button brittlebush", "sticky brittlebush", and "Virgin River brittlebush". These are constructed names; none are in use except by land managers, writers of checklists and floras, and the occasional scientist who doesn't know the scientific name.

I understand that you think the article has shortcomings (which can easily be fixed) and that the specific system as proposed has flaws (although I am not sure I understand what you think they are). Am I correct in thinking that if we don't know whether a given Park has a porcupine population or only North American Porcupines that use of the former creates an impression of biodiversity where none exists? Possibly, but if they system were introduced and understood it would potentially flag up the need for further research. I understand the issue, although it does not seem to me as big a problem as the current guddle, which simply creates confusion and inconsistency and makes it easy to hide a lack of understanding. However, and perhaps more importantly, it is not clear to me what you are in favour of. Ben MacDui 08:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

1. I have seen no shortcomings in the article, and as I said, it is impressive, as warrants a FA. Application of your suggested rules adds a layer of meta-interpretation, which potentially introduces confusion: names that could have been taken at face value, with nothing read into their capitalization, are now to be interpreted as either species or not-species. I assume that is not your intended goal.
2. Your proposed system (and, sadly, any alternative that I can think of), if done correctly, requires a level of research that is not necessarily directly reflected in the article or its references. If not done right, the errors may not be apparent to the casual reader (of course always an issue in any Wikipedia article). An ideal system would be of simple application (e.g., title-case everything), but also not jarring to experts (I find "Arctic Cotton Grass" as jarring as an ornithologist might find "great blue heron"). So AFAICT an ideal system is precluded, and we'll have to agree to something less.
3. My preference is perhaps extremist, and not likely to gain broad support: Species of birds, lepidoptera, and possibly mammals, herps, and fishes should be in the standardized common name used most broadly in the region (it is my understanding that all of these are title case by convention); if such name doesn't exist, the scientific name should be used instead. All other species should use the scientific name. Higher taxonomic groups can use either a name established by a code of nomenclature (e.g. Peromyscus, Asteraceae, Phaeophyta) or a lower-case common name equivalent (deer mice, composites, brown algae). This has the advantage of being easy to apply (once the mammal, herp, and fish folks have weighed in with their preferences), and of explicit precision (Didelphis virginiana makes it quite clear which opossum). It has always irritated me that Robert Mohlenbrock's articles in Natural History have only common names of plants; I often don't know which plants he's talking about.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this is destined to be discussed here. Personally, I support the MoS recommending consistent presentation of taxa within an article; but I think you are overspecifying how such consistency should be achieved. The correct way to achieve consistency depends on the context and should be an editorial decision.

There is also a related issue which has been overlooked: the order of presentation of common and scientific names. In flora articles, names are generally presented as "Eucalyptus diversicolor (Karri)". In fauna articles, they are presented as Quokka (Setonix brachyurus). In articles that make use of both, there should be consistency, but whether this should be achieved as

Eucalyptus diversicolor (Karri), Setonix brachyurus (Quokka)

or

Eucalyptus diversicolor (Karri), Setonix brachyurus (Quokka)

or

Karri (Eucalyptus diversicolor), Quokka (Setonix brachyurus)

or

Karri (Eucalyptus diversicolor), Quokka (Setonix brachyurus)

should be an editorial decision per article, not a MoS rule.

Therefore I propose the insertion of something like:

The order of presentation of scientific and common names depends on the context: plant articles usually use "Scientific name (Common Name)", whereas animal articles usually use "Common name (Scientific name)".

and then, to get to the nub of the matter:

The format used should be consistent within each article. For example, an article about a bird should apply the bird conventions on capitalisation and presentation order, to any other animals, and any plants, that it refers to.

Hesperian 00:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is fine as far as it goes, but what about geography articles, which is what evidently started this? They neither quack like a duck or clamber like a kudzu.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Who cares, as long as it is consistent? If we make a rule that people have to follow the flora convention, someone will (rightly) complain that they want to follow the bird convention for their article on a bird sanctuary. If we make a rule that people have to follow the bird convention, someone will (rightly) complain that they shouldn't have to follow it for their article on a protected seagrass bank.

If you want an explicit statement, maybe add

Articles on geographic areas and other non-organisms are at liberty to adopt any convention, so long as it is applied consistently. Note, however, that the context will sometimes suggest a convention; for example, an article on a bird sanctuary should follow the bird convention.

Hesperian 03:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, some of these geography articles may list dozens of plants and animals. I also note that the system of capitalizing species and leaving genus and groups lower case is not explicitly explained in the article itself (it is a comment at top if one edits Black Moshannon State Park). One concern I had not thought of until now is that in some cases a genus or group is linked, where a species should be (Opossum vs Virginia opossum). So my guess is the casual reader may not even notice the capitalization or understand it if they do notice it, but anyone who clicks the link gets the less specific article in some cases. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Responses to the above:

• An ideal system is only precluded if members of WP:TOL and its sub-braches put the interests of their specialisations before those of the encyclopaedia as a whole.
• The use of common names in geographical etc. articles is, by convention, always preferred. The issue may need to be addressed explicitly if this is not the case already.
• Geographical and other general articles quack like a duck and clamber like a kudzu. That is the issue at hand.
• In my view it is ludicrous to imagine that a convention can be agreed on an article-by-article basis. There are for example about 200 Scottish island articles about which natural history is an issue of import. There must be tens of thousands across Wikipedia. A Project-by-Project basis might work. Far from ideal but at least consistent with the WP:TOL debacle.
• The bird sanctuary issue is an interesting variant. I (reluctantly) agree that articles that fall broadly within the scope of a WP:TOL project should use the relevant convention for that project.

Several questions seem to be emerging:

1) Is it appropriate to have a system for articles that cover two or more taxonomic groups to have a consistent style of capitalisation for species?

2) Should such articles, if they are of a non-specialist nature, use common names (appropriate to the location they describe) in preference to scientific names where possible?

3) Should articles that cover two or more taxonomic groups but that fall broadly within the scope of a WP:TOL project use the relevant convention for that project e.g. bird sanctuaries use WP:BIRDS?

4) Should consistency for general articles that cover two or more taxonomic groups be applied on the basis of:

a) A Wikipedia-wide agreement

b) A Project-by-Project basis

c) An article-by-article basis?

It may be too early for formal expressions of support, but at this stage mine would be: Yes, Yes, Yes and (in order of decreasing preference) 4a and 4b. (3) may need a little more definition – River Torrens for example may be a body of mostly fresh water, but that does not make it an article about freshwater fish.

Once these general questions are dealt with, the issue of which system to use and how it should be agreed upon, becomes germane. Ben MacDui 15:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I am also a yes, yes, yes, and 4a then 4b person. Just to point out a potential problem with the Bird Sanctuary argument though (3, above), I am currently working on Leonard Harrison State Park (LHSP) Pennsylvania (and to give more scale to the issues faced here, in this one of the 50 United States, there are 120 state parks, 20 state forests, and over 60 State Natural Areas, plus various federal areas). Anyway, LHSP is part of a National Natural Landmark, a State Natural Area (technically it is in two of them), the creek that flows through it is protected as a state scenic and wild river, and the good people at the Pennsylvania Audubon Society have included it in an Important Bird Area (IBA). So would the convention for birds apply as an IBA, or that for fish as a wild river, or what? There are also Important Mammal Areas in Pennsylvania, which can overlap too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

An ideal system is only precluded if members of WP:TOL and its sub-braches put the interests of their specialisations before those of the encyclopaedia as a whole. Who gets to be the judge of what is in the best interests of the encyclopedia as a whole? If every ornithologist in the world capitalises their common names, then WP:BIRDS are entitled to argue that following that convention for birds is in the interests of the encyclopedia as a whole, since not following would make us look silly to ornithologists.

And the silliness issue is important: many academics are willing to discount Wikipedia even for such simple things as non-standard capitalization. Stupid and short-sighted, perhaps, but there you have it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The use of common names in geographical etc. articles is, by convention, always preferred. I dispute this. I have written a number of articles on geographic regions, e.g. Houtman Abrolhos, Warren (biogeographic region); and I certainly haven't encountered or followed any such convention. By 2), I hope you're talking about putting common name first, not using common name only. If you are advocating the use of common name only, then I'm afraid my response would be "absolutely no fucking way".

Although I would not have put it as eloquently as Hesperian, I agree.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

But more generally, I come back to the view that there is no broadly accepted convention in the real world, so any attempt to impose such a convention here is pointless, artificial, and doomed to fail. I've tried to offer you something something less ambitious, that you might have some hope of getting past the TOL people; why you would persist with something that you have zero chance of getting approved is beyond me.

Hesperian 23:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I must say I find it slightly amusing that this proposal would see me put common names first at Houtman Abrolhos#Flora, but scientific names first at Flora of the Houtman Abrolhos. And all in the name of imposing consistency!

I've been thinking about Hesperian's proposal, and it is very similar to WP:ENGVAR, which actually seems to work well in most cases, especially compared to the alternative of specifying a single variety of English.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at the above in more detail when time permits, but my initial reaction is that whilst these additional challenges are interesting and ultimately more detail will be needed in ensuring that unusual situations can be addressed, what is most interesting is your lack of willingness to address the question at hand - namely, how to deal not with the embarrassment of zoologists writing zoological articles, but of geographers faced with the inconsistency of WP:TOL's 'free-for-all' solution. I will re-read some of the above asap- I don't understand the ENGVAR analogy - unless what you are saying is that the answer to question 1 should be 'No' - consistency of approach shall not be required in such articles. "Who gets to be the judge of what is in the best interests of the encyclopedia as a whole?" Apparently, we do, frightening tho' the thought is. Ben MacDui 08:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting me. I support each individual article being consistent in the way it refers to taxa; in fact, immediately after you showed the way with this discussion, I went of and imposed consistency on my FAs, e.g. [1]. If you want to be consistent across all the articles that you write, I support that; and if the contributors to U.S. state and national park articles want to put their heads together and agree on writing in a consistent way, I support that. What I don't support is the imposition of a set of thou shalts, that forces people to write in a way that they think is silly, that their readers think is silly, and that experts in their field think is silly. Hesperian 23:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Would if then be fair to add your name to the below list as being 1) Yes; 4) First choice (b), Second choice (c)? I am honestly surprised you think it is "silly" for a publication to have a consistent and across-the-board approach to style, but if we are moving towards some kind of compromise whereby projects may determine that within their area of remit that may be something. A problem is that unlike the TOL, our projects don't have an hierarchical structure. Is "Fauna of Scotland" primarily an article about zoology, or an article about Scotland - and who is to decide? Geographers are kindly souls not pre-disposed to edit wars and it may be that there would be few problems in practice. Ben MacDui 07:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've had my quota of having my words twisted around to mean something different. See you round. Hesperian 23:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me be more explicit about the analogies to WP:ENGVAR. I've listed its subheadings below and discussed how a capitalization scheme similar to Hesperian's would equate.

Consistency within articles

It's either "American Robin" and "Brittlebush" or "American robin" and "brittlebush".

Strong national ties to a topic

A "taxonomic tie" could dictate capitalization (the bird sanctuary example given above), as could a national tie (it is my impression that in the UK plants have "official" capitalized common names, something that does not prevail in the US). This would inform the start of an article, and the items above and below would control subsequent edits.

Retaining the existing variety

Once a capitalization scheme is chosen, subsequent editors will adhere to it.

Like WP:ENGVAR, this has the advantage of easy application. Also like WP:ENGVAR, it will result in some readers being surprised by the article, but at least there's a reason. Frankly, I find it an ugly solution, but an effective one.--Curtis Clark (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

A few more replies. "any attempt to impose such a convention here is pointless, artificial, and doomed to fail." Why? This seems to me to be a quite ordinary idea that simply requires a little compromise for the sake of a better encyclopedia and to avoid endless quibbling. I am not implacably opposed to the use of scientific names, but there use seems to me to be unnecessary in geography articles as it is both hard to read, especially for general readers, and the suggested use is not consistent either. Currently there is clearly a lack of consensus here at least. I am not unduly concerned - I honestly doubt there are many such articles, but I really don't know. Thirdly, I notice the tendency to continually leap to alternate solutions without discussing the principles. Using the above questions I think we currently have.

1) Is it appropriate to have a system for articles that cover two or more taxonomic groups to have a consistent style of capitalisation for species?

• • • Yes
      • Ben MacDui
      • Ruhrfisch
      • Curtis Clark (qualified yes, depending on larger context)--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

2) Should such articles, if they are of a non-specialist nature, use common names (appropriate to the location they describe) in preference to scientific names where possible?

• • • Yes
      • Ben MacDui
      • Ruhrfisch
    • No
      • Curtis Clark
      • Hesperian

3) Should articles that cover two or more taxonomic groups but that fall broadly within the scope of a WP:TOL project use the relevant convention for that project e.g. bird sanctuaries use WP:BIRDS?

• • • Yes (with some qualifications)
      • Ben MacDui
      • Ruhrfisch
      • Curtis Clark
      • Hesperian

4) Should consistency for general articles that cover two or more taxonomic groups be applied on the basis of:

a) A Wikipedia-wide agreement

• • • First Choice
      • Ben MacDui
      • Ruhrfisch

b) A Project-by-Project basis

• • • Second Choice
      • Ben MacDui
      • Ruhrfisch

c) An article-by-article basis?

My apologies if I am either omitting or misrepresenting anyone's views. Just trying to make a start and see where there is and isn't agreement. It seems pointless discussing the details if we are at odds over the principles.

Finally, I don't grok the ENGVAR analogy or how it fits into these questions. I will have to re-read the above. Ben MacDui 16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope - I don't get it. It is quite usual to see species names capitalised in the UK, but lower case is also used extensively. Different publications seem to create their own systems. It sounds like a vote for 4(b) or possibly 4(c) as I know of no obvious external system to draw upon, which is what ENGVAR is based on. Ben MacDui 16:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

First, I strongly disagree that scientific names are "hard to read, especially for general readers"—nine-year-old boys don't have much issue with dinosaur names.

Second, my whole point in reframing was to show that there were disagreements over the principles. Ben MacDui and Hesperian have both presented proposals (I discount mine as unworkable), and the evident situation that they are not being directly compared suggests that we are all at some level still trying to solve different issues.

Third, I'll try again with ENGVAR: This was an intractable problem at a global level. No one (save perhaps Jimbo) was ever going to be able to dictate a single variety of English for all of Wikipedia. The solution was to let it be decided on an article-by-article basis. Hesperian has suggested much the same for common name capitalization. (Btw, User:MPF might disagree about UK capitalization)--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a few thoughts on scientific names. First, while I agree with it, the dinosaur example is a bit of an exception because there are no common names for most dinosaurs (i.e. no one says "Really Long Long-neck" for Diplodocus). Second, while I know that a Quercus is an oak and Acer is a maple and Tsuga is a hemlock, that is near the limit of my knowledge - if I see Prosopocoilus biplagiatus I have no idea it is a beetle (I looked up a stag beetle up to get a name). My guess is that I am the exception rather than the rule and most readers know fewer Latin / scientific names than I do. Third, since this discussion started about parks and geography articles, many of the sources for such places use only common names. For example, I just finished working on a state park article where the gorge the park is in has "foxes". Which of the nine genera listed at fox do I put in the article, probably Vulpes as it is in Pennsylvania, and perhaps the red fox? In other words, there will be articles for which no scientific name is known or can be found from reliable sources (at least without doing lots of other work that is not needed otherwise). Just trying to show the other point of view, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The species Prosopocoilus biplagiatus evidently has no common name (most insect species don't), and I don't think any of us disagree that stag beetle, as a name for a group of species, should be lower case. But if one wanted to refer to Prosopocoilus biplagiatus in an article, that's the only way to do it.

But there is a deeper issue than capitalization, what I think of as the evil underbelly of WP:NOR. Let's say I'm writing an article about a park, and my reference on the animals says that opossums live there. A quick check in a general book on mammals tells me that the only "opossum" in that area is Didelphis virginiana. If I substitute Virginia opossum it would seem extreme to call that original research. But what if it also says "foxes" live there. My mammal reference says that both Vulpes vulpes and Urocyon cinereoargenteus are to be expected. I've seen both in the park, and so I include both in the article. But there is no reference that is more specific than "foxes" for the park. Is it original research?

It seems to me that the bulk of organism names in such an article will be either common names of groups of species ("sedges") or common names of species of birds, mammals, and perhaps herps. There will be an occasional plant or insect species, but most of the plant and insect references will be to larger groups. If you were to capitalize when you know it's a species, and lower-case everything else, you'd end up following the rules of most of the projects most of the time, pretty much by default.

The more I think about this, the more I don't see a need for an MoS rule. I think a guideline of "capitalize when you know it's a species, and lower-case everything else" suffices, and leaves latitude for editors to do it other ways if they have a reason.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, and reading "fox" makes it clear the author is unsure of the species, whilst "Fox" suggests they have not done thier research.

I still don't get the ENGVAR analogy. I understand how it applies to the use of common names for species e.g. you can call a Great Skua a "Bonxie" in Scotland, and an "Elk" in the US is Cervus canadensis, Alces alces in Europe and Cervus unicolor in India etc. What I don't understand is how this applies to capitalisation, which individual publishers, rather than national varieties of English, will usually determine. Ben MacDui 18:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty much in agreement with Curtis Clark's comments above (17:44, 16 August 2008). How about adding the following guidance at the end of the section:

"In articles that cover two or more taxonomic groups a consistent style of capitalisation should be used for species names. This could involve:

• using scientific names throughout - often appropriate for articles of a specialist nature.
• using title case for common names of species throughout (per WP:BIRDS) and lower case for non-specific names such as eagle or bilberry, which may work well for articles with a broad coverage of natural history.
• using lower case for common names, which may work well for non-specialist articles that happen to refer to various different taxonomic groups."

You'll note that it attempts to make suggestions (which I think are broadly in line with chunks of the discussion above), but is not proscriptive. Ben MacDui 19:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Capital after colon

We need to say that after a colon there must be lower case letters, not capitals, as the Chicago manual says. NerdyNSK (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems kind of obvious. Is it really necessary? SDY (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is obvious, or indeed true, except, perhaps, exactly as stated by Chicago: The following word is not capitalized when the colon is used within a sentence.

When followed by a paraphrase, as in this paragraph, it should be followed by a capital.

As the Oxford Guide to Style puts it: "Use a colon to introduce direct or paraphrased speech or quoted material more formally or emphatically than a comma would. A capital letter follows: [. . . ] He asked a simple question: Who was first? [. . .]"--Boson (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

We need to explain in the MOS what Wikipedia editors should prefer to use after a colon and in what situations. NerdyNSK (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't. We can usefully quote what OGS and CMOS say; but it's a matter of judgment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Let us provide a better summary of what other style guides say about this, then. NerdyNSK (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Except that I find it useful to format inline titles with a colon, then a proper sentence. This is good where you want to make less fuss over a structural boundary than a whole-line title would.

• Step 1: Pour the flour into the bowl and mix it with ... Tony (talk) 06:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"Placename dropping" in captions without saying where the place is

I hate teasers like

[[Image:Water Flash.JPG|thumb|right|Water reflecting light in [[Crissy Field]]]]

in an article like Water, causing people to have to click to find out where in the world "Crissy Field" is.

There ought to be a law/policy/encouragement saying that no fair "place name dropping" like that without also mentioning more of an anchoring location, e.g., Crissy Field, England, etc. Jidanni (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem, provided the name is linked. It's not unreasonable to expect the reader to use the link.

Many people read Wikipedia offline on various devices, or print articles for others to read.

The feeling is the same as when one reads a newspaper article with such "teasers"... one is left outside the "in(the knowledge) club". The problem could easily be avoided with a few more bytes, many less than the image or ALT="" description string. Jidanni (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it turns out that the idea of "Foo, England" is common in American English but less common elsewhere. Some people object to usage like London, England. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it's better than nothing. As to a hard rule of what "tier", and what "first tier" geographical units constitutes them, U.S. states + other leading brand countries, I'll leave that up to the experts. Jidanni (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the common-sense method goes something like this:

• For non-region-specific articles, any mention of locations needs to be specified from a global perspective. So if, for example, the article Climate mentions Fargo, it needs to say Fargo, North Dakota, USA, or perhaps just Fargo, USA.
• For region-specific articles, the location only needs to be specified up to the level of the region. So Climate of the United States would mention Fargo, North Dakota, and Climate of North Dakota need only mention Fargo.

In this specific case, I don't see how it improves the article to mention Crissy Field at all, since the image is being used as a generic illustration of water in nature. Notice that the images of high/low tide, an oasis, irrigation, and a coral reef do not mention any location. Anyone wanting to know where the pictures were taken can click through to their respective documentation pages. Strad (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that mentioning Cryssy Field in this caption is an unnecessary distraction. Most other captions don't mention the place. We have "Water fountain" and not "Water fountain in Kennett Square", "Ice used for cooling", not "Ice used for cooling a bottle of XYZ sparkling wine on a kitchen counter in Delft", and "Water can be used to cook foods such as noodles" and not "Water can be used to cook foods such as noodles in a kitchen in Mulhouse" (place names in two of the examples made up for dramatic effect). --Itub (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Too much drama... (faints) Waltham, The Duke of 15:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

When this is not the famous person of the same name

I hate it when we are not allowed to directly mention that e.g., the Gene Wilder mentioned is not Gene Wilder, see Exhibit A. Why is there a stigma against saying it explicitly?

This avoidance of mentioning A != B assumes one has heard of B. If not, then later when you do there is a danger of thinking they are the same.

Please set a clear best policy ruling for cases like these, and fix the page accordingly. Thank you. Jidanni (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Diacritics with words imported from other languages

I see we have a guideline that says:

• Foreign words originally written in a Latin alphabet with diacritics (accent marks) are normally written with those diacritics in Wikipedia, unless a form without diacritics has become generally accepted in English. (my bolding)

My question is, have the diacritic-free versions of words like cafe, role, and premiere (both noun and verb) become generally accepted in English? My answer would be: Yes, definitely. The versions with diacritics are rapidly dying out, although they still put in an occasional appearance. Others seem to disagree. I’m having a conversation with an editor at the moment about this: he prefers to use the diacritics, on the basis that that’s the way it’s always (and he stressed always) done in his part of the world (USA). Yet, that’s not my experience at all. Look at any published report of an American movie, play or musical work and they’ll almost always talk about "It premiered in … on …", not "it premièred in …". And a quick google search supports this. That’s American sources. The experience is similar for the UK, Australia and most other parts of the anglophone world (although I could understand if English-speaking eastern Canada keeps the accent). Given the general American propensity for changing the spellings of existing English words (let alone foreign ones) to more ... user-friendly versions, my friend's insistence on using the grave in the case of "première" seems to be running somewhat counter to his own national trend.

My friend also claims the OED does not record the unaccented word "premiere" at all – about which claim I am profoundly dubious, but I don't have access to it to check that out.

My take on all this is that premiere, cafe and role (and many others) have all become fully-fledged English words and deserve a diacritic-free existence. Premiere, in particular, isn’t even the same part of speech as the French original; that was an adjective, meaning “first” (f.), but we use this group of letters as a noun meaning “the first performance” or a verb meaning “to introduce” (trans.) or "to be performed for the first time" (intrans.) - which afaik is not a meaning a French person could get from the single word première; to my mind this is even more reason to not use the diacritics in an English-language context.

I don't want to make this a question of right/wrong, but I would like some guidance on how to counter my friend's argument. Apologies if this has been thrashed out previously, but navigating the archives is ... well, let's just say life is too short. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Is your friend an editor of The New Yorker, by any chance? I've heard they like diacritics. I checked the OED; it is true that it lists the word as première, but includes premiere in the list of variant spellings. Merriam-Webster does the opposite, and I would imagine it is more representative of common American practice than OED. --Itub (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

But the Second Edition did not list premiere, only premier, preemeer. I would not be surprised if they regarded omission of accents as a trivial variation; one of their quotations uses premiere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The best way to check the strength of your friend's argument is to look up the word in four or five dictionaries. Iutb - I also thought of the New Yorker when I saw the section title. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those replies. Merriam-Webster is rather telling. But even in the UK, I think that première would be very much the exception rather than the rule these days. I have a Paul Hamlyn Encyclopedic World Dictionary, published in 1972, which lists only premiere, and has première as a variant. If the grave had become non-standard as far ago as that, I really can't imagine it's been resurrected some time later. No idea about the New Yorker thing, but it would make no difference either way as far as I'm concerned. Is there no more specific guidance for editors of WP pages about these sorts of questions - or do we have to come to a separate consensus with every article? That could mean that some articles have premiere(d) throughout, and others have première(d) throughout. Consistency within an article is essential, but there's also the question of consistency between articles on related topics. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

My view is that we must learn to live with this; we are a collaboration, and should not pretend otherwise. Articles will differ in many ways, even if linked; an accent grave or two will be among the least important. (Although I find your friend's view very odd; the usual tendency of American, in my experience, is to aggressively omit diacritics: façade is an Anglicism. Perhaps the schoolroom correctitude which afflicts much American is having a resurgence?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those thoughts. I'll pass them on to my collaborator. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Dashes in tables?

What type of dash, if any, should be used in a table cell to indicate the absence of corresponding information? Or would it be preferable to leave the cell empty or write "N/A"? See e.g. the table at Judo_at_the_2008_Summer_Olympics#Qualification. Cheers, Oliphaunt (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the relevant discussion, held not two months ago; consensus suggests that you use either an en dash or an em dash (your choice), but in any case only one character (and not something like –– or ——). Also, make sure to be consistent within the article. Writing "N/A" or a hyphen is discouraged; leaving a cell empty might suggest that data is unavailable. Waltham, The Duke of 14:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Like His Grace, I prefer en dashes; em dashes are just a little intrusive. Tony (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for digging that up for me—I suppose I could've looked through the archives myself. I think it'd make sense to add this to the MOS, don't you? Oliphaunt (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the size of the table and its spaces. This is the sort of thing editorial judgment exists for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

But at least it should never be a hyphen, should it? This at least should be mentioned. Oliphaunt (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a couple of people around here who hate hyphens. Use them anyway if they look best, and ignore this page; we'll never know. But I would use N/A to avoid the chance of confusion with a blank space, unless the table entries were extraordinarily small. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, never use a hyphen. WP:HYPHEN says where hyphens are okay. By not mentioning their use in tables, it is implied that they shouldn't be. And in contrast to Tony and The Duke I prefer emdashes, especially in wide cells where an endash leaves too much white space. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:HYPHEN is not complete, not sourced, not supported, and not English. The argument from silence is even sillier there than elsewhere; and it's a fallacy at the best of times. The section really ought to be removed entirely; the least we can do is ignore it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• More of Anderson' war against dashes, and, indeed, our commonsense guide to the usage of hyphens? Um ... where else is MoS "sourced"? And "not supported" means, I fear, not supported by Anderson, who is also the sole judge of what is "English". ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Tony (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I know that polls are evil, but would a straw poll give some guidance as to what we could add to the MOS? Better to mention something (even if it is that the point is utterly undecided, and any type of dash and/or hyphens can be used at will) than not mention it at all; otherwise, this question will be raised time and again. Oliphaunt (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hyphens should never be used in tables, and I agree that emdashes are unsightly, prefer endashes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:SG

WP:SG redirects here, so there should be a hatnote to Wikipedia:WikiProject Singapore, and the Singaporean notice board. 70.55.86.69 (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

SG as in Style Guide? I'm not sure we need that redirect; statistics here indicate that last June it was used 41 times, as opposed to 6750 times for WP:MOS, 3990 times for WP:STYLE, and... 6 times for WP:MS. The numbers are all higher for May, but there is no significant difference except for the case of WP:STYLE, which is already known to be used. Now, although practical reasons dictate that we shouldn't delete any of our shortcuts, even if pretty much useless—coughMScough—we could "donate" a little-used one to a project with which it might have a greater relevance.

So. Would the Singaporeans' noticeboard want the WP:SG redirect, and would the Manual of Style people want to give it? I think the redirect would be more useful there than here. Waltham, The Duke of 15:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, there's a hatnote here about WP:MS; we could certainly hand that over to Wikipedia:Music samples. Waltham, The Duke of 16:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Magazine titles italicized?

Not specified here. Wikipedia:PUNCT#Italics I know I've seen it both ways in various articles (or both in same article!) but don't see a specific policy here. Would help!! Thanks. Carol Moore 12:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Customary but not essential for magazines; normal for academic journals; but that's really WP:CITE. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Stated clearly at WP:ITALICS

Periodicals (newspapers, journals, and magazines) such as Newsweek and The New York Times

Why is this page at odds, and why does this page repeat text from that page? We should work on reducing text repeated on more than one MoS page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy for a recommendation that the titles of newspapers and magazines be in italics; the titles of academic journals, conferences, and conference proceedings, IMO, must be in italics; I'm used to their insistence on title case, too, even though I hate it. Tony (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Possessives

There seems to be some disagreement as to what proportion of possessive take an extra <s> after /s/ or /z/ and how frequently they do so. Swamilive called for reliable references to prove the claim that most forms take the extra <s>. Dominus gives us The Chicago Manual of Style. I'd be interested to see exactly what the CMOS says but as far as I'm aware, being a manual of style, it prescribes not describes. WP:MOS is not based on any external manual of style but on consensus. So what do we want? JIMp _talk·cont 08:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that statements about proportions are much use – "some" is most neutral and clearly not wrong. My impression is that modern names tend to take the 's; ancient ones tend not to - I don't know if there would be any grounds for a "rule" along those lines.--Kotniski (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Partly an ENGVAR question; American English tends as often to be more regular. In my experience, the possessive of Socrates is pronounced with one terminal sibilant, and it is probably most often spelled Socrates'. The present wording is what MOS should be doing more often; we cannot decide this case-by-case; we don't have room. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The Chicago Manual of Style's was being cited for description, not for prescription. Section 7.17 is titled "Possessives: Most nouns" and says "The possessive of most singular nouns is formed by adding an apostrophe and an s, and the possessive of plural nouns (except for a few irregular plurals that do not end in s) by adding an apostrophe only." This is a simple and accurate statement of the facts. I did not think this would be a contentious point, and cited CMOS as only one of a million sources that would have said the same thing. -- Dominus (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

This might sound stupid, but do level 2 headers have three "===" or two "=="? D.M.N. (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I read that the page title is the level one header, so headers (headings? I can never remember which is which either) with two equal signs are level 2.--Kotniski (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The confusion somes from a statement in the "Images" section, which states, "Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes." This seems to indicate that second-level headings have three equals signs. Is the guideline supposed to say third-level then? GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's kill the ambiguity and say "below subsection-level (=== or greater) headers". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If this is not a technical problem, let's take it out. There are enough prescriptions in the section already. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it is a problem - I checked and it does look bad. But I support Chris's rewording (though I think it should be headings not headers after all).--Kotniski (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

So, does my original question have a clear answer or not? Does a level 2 header have two or three equal signs? D.M.N. (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Two. Hence the name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

MOS:IMAGES also says "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text." So if a picture is at the beginning of a === section, whether or not the eyes are looking into the text is irrelevant, and it should be on the right anyway? For an example see Degrassi: The Next Generation#Concept Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If the suggestions conflict, decide which is more important under the circumstances and act accordingly - or find a compromise, like moving the image down a sentence; this is one use for editorial judgment. We should say this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The original question wasn't dumb at all; I think there's too much risk that "level two heading" will be misunderstood, so I generally resort to something clumsy like "== heading" (with quotation marks) or "two-equal-sign heading" (without). - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

One, the word is heading. Two, the level is defined by the number of equal signs. Three, I don't know how the guideline came to request right-aligned images for level-three headings and below, but I imagine it was done because level-two headings have a page-wide line which helps define the start of a section. Four, I agree that it should be decided on a case-by-case basis whether an image facing right should follow the rule, but I find that good layout generally has precedence over what at least I consider a minor distraction. I don't think it is a tenable solution to move an image a sentence down, however; perhaps Mr Anderson meant to say "paragraph". Waltham, The Duke of 08:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the image and the text. A paragraph would produce overhang in the Degrassi article linked to above, but is generally a good idea. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I moved the image down by one paragraph. On my monitor size and resolution there is no overhang.. I don't know about others though. Moving an image down a sentence is difficult. Does the image coding go in the middle of the paragraph? Even saying to move it the end of a line is hard.. where does a line end on different resolutions? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Dashes in article titles?

A participant in the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRHP renaming proposals says that using dashes in titles would be contrary to the WP:MOS. Some of the suggested titles are:

• National Register of Historic Places – properties in colleges and universities
• Category:National Register of Historic Places – properties in Alabama
• Category:National Register of Historic Places – properties related to navigation
• Category:National Register of Historic Places – properties related to transportation
• Category:National Register of Historic Places – bridges and tunnels
• Category:National Register of Historic Places – properties related to railroads
• Category:National Register of Historic Places – properties related to infrastructure
• Category:National Register of Historic Places – properties of religious function

After reading the MOS, I'm not completely convinced that these would be in violation. (Background:We are convinced that the phrase "Registered Historic Places" is incorrect and many article titles and categories need to be renamed.) Opinions about dashes in titles?--Appraiser (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I would always use a dash, which is what WP:DASH says, but I would also create a redirect using a hyphen for ease-of-use – a keyboard has a hyphen button but not a dash button. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Several of the possibilities being considered recast to use no dash or hyphen; for example National Register of Historic Places listings at colleges and universities This avoids the problem, which may be preferable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes; alternatives have been suggested. I really dislike the ones that follow "Places" with a plural noun.--Appraiser (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind that; but there's also College and university related entries on the National Register of Historic Places for those who do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That would need to be Category:College- and university-related entries on the National Register of Historic Places. I'm not sure how good this would be for a category name. Waltham, The Duke of 08:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been involved in discussion about this same subject, involving Olympics articles such as the ones in Category:Archery events at the 2008 Summer Olympics (and there are lots and lots more: for each event type and each installment of the Olympics). Instead of dashes, colons could be used, but I felt that hyphens were inacceptable (and up until now, everyone has agreed). We decided to move them all to using spaced en dashes instead of hyphens, which seems to be endorsed by the MOS, after the Olympics have ended, to avoid any inconvenience. Oliphaunt (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Notifications of status changes?

There is a bot leaving notices in the policy Village Pump whenever a {{guideline}} or {{policy}} tag is added to, or removed from, a page. On the opportunity of the bot's updating (there were issues with the categorisation of guidelines), there are thoughts of doing the same thing for MoS pages here. The thread is this—nothing has happened yet, but I thought an early notice was in order. Waltham, The Duke of 08:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Duke. I don't have much of a preference regarding categorization. Notification (somewhere) sounds like a good thing. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of nobel icons

It has been determined at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 6#Template:Nobel icon and at Template talk:Nobel icon (currently viewable only by admins) that these type of small icons representing that the subject won the award, are not appropriate for use in infoboxes. Take a look at those pages for the rationale behind that assertion.

I propose that the Manual of Style adopt a guideline stating that these icons, including but not limited to: nobel prizes, grammy awards, and pulitzer prizes, are not appropriate. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 20:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Last discussion was Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_97#Nobel_prize_image, if that helps. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There's been extensive discussion since then on this, including the deletion of the template. I believe that since the template was deleted, the MOS should adopt a guideline that follows the consensus. Otherwise, we'll just see the addition of the icon used outside of the template, meaning the addition of the image manually, which will mean there was no point to the TfD discussion. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 21:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's an example of what the icon looks like and how it can be used manually: [2]. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 21:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A regrettable decision. No consensus was evident, and a better admin would have so ruled. If I cared, I would go to WP:DRV. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

i concur with the proposal for explicit exclusion of this and similar iconography particularly when used as decoration. it appears to me to be the consensus, and can be considered as an adjunct to wp:flag. --emerson7 22:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that such a policy would be a logical extension of similar policies, including WP:FLAG. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 22:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Little icons like this may be appropriate for a children's encyclopedia, or maybe for the simple English Wiki, but here we primarily use words. --John (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. Let's keep our infoboxes clean and free of clutter; for awards like the Nobel Prize, there should normally be an appropriate section. In {{Infobox Scientist}}, for example, there is a field entitled Notable awards, produced by the parameter "awards".

PS: I've just had an edit conflict (and silently thanked Firefox once more). I wonder what makes it easier to edit the last section for a new one rather than click on the appropriate tab at the top. Waltham, The Duke of 20:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)I agree also. Such icons etc clutter up infoboxes and are too POV.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 21:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The only thing worse than infoboxes are cluttered infoboxes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

An experiment.

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Lead section TT text and post any comments on its talk page. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I support more transclusion than we do now, but the devil is in the details. G-guy did some related work on templates; see WT:Summary style. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree (support Butwahtdoiknow's efforts in principle, we need to reduce the amount of text repeated across different pages, but working it out may be tricky). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Quotation marks

I could not disagree more with the current MOS policy on punctuation inside/outside quote marks and directed/non-directed (curly/straight) quote marks, and would like to vote that the policy be changed.

Commas and periods should always go inside quote marks, regardless of whether they are part of the material being quoted or not. While doing it the other way may seem more “logical,” it is nevertheless typographically incorrect, and looks messy.

Messy/incorrect: Arthur felt that periods outside quote marks were more “logical”.

Neat/correct: Arthur felt that periods outside quote marks were more “logical.”

Also, directed (curly) quotes should at least be allowed, if not recommended. Again, they look neater, and they’re the professional typographical standard. We want Wikipedia to look clean and professional. Felicity4711 (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Curly quotes are intollerable because they are too hard to edit. They are not present on typical keyboards, nor are they availabie among the special characters in the edit window. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

See WT:COPYEDIT#Logical quotation for more information. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Felicity, if we were slaves to CMOS, we'd agree with you. But WP has particular requirements, conditions, and readership profile; CMOS and most other guides are primarily intended for hard-copy text. In particular, WP places high value on the sanctity of original quotations; thus, if there is no period or comma at the end of "the original quotation," we should not deceive our readers into thinking there was, or "might have been." The typographical correctness that Felicity refers to was a preference long ago by manual typesetters for the quotation marks rather than a dot or comma to lie at the end of a segment. That this is retained in a modern guide (incidentally, one that often doesn't take its own advice) is a reflection on its utter conservatism in the modern era.

Anderson will take this opportunity to peddle his "do as you please" policy, but that has been argued and rebutted countless times, so spare us please, just once? Tony (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Tony, Dan and Gerry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

We've been down this road quite a few times. You can search the Talk:MOS namespace for the previous protracted cycles of discussion. Strad (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• By now, more people have objected than supported; unfortunately, like yourself, they come one at a time, and are shouted down by the usual handful. Ignore this page, if you like; it may well mean that you won't get FA, but FA is a dubious process for this reason among others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"While doing it the other way may seem more “logical,” it is nevertheless typographically incorrect, and looks messy". To you, because that's the style you've always used. There's nothing inherently "correct" about either of them. Ilkali (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The same can be said for personal preferences, induced by education, between AD and CE. Nevertheless, we have agreed to live and let live on these. Except in the rare cases where the terminal punctuation is significant, we should do so here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

While I won't take sides on where to put the period, I'd like to point out that every usage of quotation marks here has been incorrect. There's no reason to put them around logical or correct at all. Reywas92^Talk 21:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)