Revision as of 03:41, 7 January 2008 editNoetica (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,370 edits →Preferred way to add endash← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:45, 7 January 2008 edit undoHoary (talk | contribs)Administrators77,789 edits →"Because" and "since": Let's have an auto-da-fé of these idiotic "usage manuals"Next edit → | ||
Line 342: | Line 342: | ||
::::Then all right, I'll concede that on occasion there are ambiguities. But most of the time there aren't, and ''as'' and ''since'' are then perfectly good choices. -- ] (]) 10:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | ::::Then all right, I'll concede that on occasion there are ambiguities. But most of the time there aren't, and ''as'' and ''since'' are then perfectly good choices. -- ] (]) 10:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
:::::My concern is that it is incorrect, the "because"/"since" fiasco. AP Style is that "since" can only be used when referring to time-related events, especially events in the past. "Because", the AP manual says, is used only for causation. It goes on to explain that "since" cannot act as substitute for "because". That is, of course, AP Style, though. I just wanted to shed some light on what another MoS had to say. Thanks for the responses, though. ] (]) 18:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | :::::My concern is that it is incorrect, the "because"/"since" fiasco. AP Style is that "since" can only be used when referring to time-related events, especially events in the past. "Because", the AP manual says, is used only for causation. It goes on to explain that "since" cannot act as substitute for "because". That is, of course, AP Style, though. I just wanted to shed some light on what another MoS had to say. Thanks for the responses, though. ] (]) 18:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
::::::Thank you for telling me this about the AP manual. I'd only been vaguely aware of its existence; now I know that, in common with many other "style manuals", its right place is the garbage can. ¶ Alternatively, you are of course free to disagree not only with me (hardly a good writer, let alone any kind of arbiter of usage) but also with the author of a novel that I surely do not need to name and from which I quote the following. ¶ ''For her the streets that lay around her had no squalor, since she paced them always in the gold nimbus of her fascinations. Her bedroom seemed not mean nor lonely to her, since the little square of glass, nailed above the wash-stand, was ever there to reflect her face.'' ¶ ''"You want to be rid of me?" asked Zuleika, when the girl was gone. / "I have no wish to be rude; but — since you force me to say it — yes."'' ¶ ''You think you can drive me out of your life. You cannot, darling — since you won't kill me.'' ¶ ''Since there was nothing to do but sit and think, he wished he could recapture that mood in which at luncheon he had been able to see Zuleika as an object for pity.'' ¶ ''Since he was not immortal, as he had supposed, it were as well he should die now as fifty years hence.'' -- ] (]) 03:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::I do not accept that ''since'' and ''because'' are interchangeable, or that fragments such as ''Since he broke it, he'll have to pay for it'' are for all practical purposes unambiguous. The choice of future tense in ''he'll have to pay for it '' suggests causality, but the choice of past tense as in ''Since he broke it, he's had to pay for it'' could be suggesting causality, a temporal relationship, or both. The context would perhaps help a reader to decide, but why pose the question in their mind by mixing the two ideas? We should probably leave the separate discussion about ''infer'' vs ''imply'' for another day. --] (]) 18:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | :::I do not accept that ''since'' and ''because'' are interchangeable, or that fragments such as ''Since he broke it, he'll have to pay for it'' are for all practical purposes unambiguous. The choice of future tense in ''he'll have to pay for it '' suggests causality, but the choice of past tense as in ''Since he broke it, he's had to pay for it'' could be suggesting causality, a temporal relationship, or both. The context would perhaps help a reader to decide, but why pose the question in their mind by mixing the two ideas? We should probably leave the separate discussion about ''infer'' vs ''imply'' for another day. --] (]) 18:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
:If an instance of ''since'' is ambiguous, change it. If an instance of ''since'' is unambiguous, don't change it. No need to lay down blanket prescriptions. ] (]) 00:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC) | :If an instance of ''since'' is ambiguous, change it. If an instance of ''since'' is unambiguous, don't change it. No need to lay down blanket prescriptions. ] (]) 00:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
Line 347: | Line 348: | ||
::What most people want from a manual of style ''is'' "blanket prescriptions". You don't have to look through many FACs to see what confusion the present discrepancies in the MOS are causing. And you don't have to look through many non-FACs to see how widely the MOS is ignored. Simple rules are simple to follow, and the simple rule is that ''since'' implies a temporal relationship, not a causal one. --] (]) 00:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC) | ::What most people want from a manual of style ''is'' "blanket prescriptions". You don't have to look through many FACs to see what confusion the present discrepancies in the MOS are causing. And you don't have to look through many non-FACs to see how widely the MOS is ignored. Simple rules are simple to follow, and the simple rule is that ''since'' implies a temporal relationship, not a causal one. --] (]) 00:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
:::That's a simplistic rule of the kind that simple-headed schoolmarms (of all sexes and ages) may wish to teach to people they consider simpletons. When en:WP's MoS strays from being en:WP's equivalent of the older Chicago ''Manual of Style'' to something even more schoolmarmish and ostrichy than , I say that the simple rule is to scrap all these musty myths about usage and instead to encourage people to use English words as they are defined in recent dictionaries, informed by systematic and open-minded lexicography. -- ] (]) 03:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
==Typeface for unit symbols in this guideline== | ==Typeface for unit symbols in this guideline== |
Revision as of 03:45, 7 January 2008
Non-breaking spaces
The MOS section on Non-breaking spaces make no preference between using
and the
{{nowrap|}}
template.
From the point of view of clarity, especially for novice editors, I would have thought that the nowrap template is much to be prefered - should the MOS say so? Gaius Cornelius (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- They strike me as better for different uses. The template is good for long strings, but a bit superfluous when only one nbsp is needed. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 05:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Even when there is only one space, isn't {{nowrap|22 km}} very much clearer than 22 km? The template says what it is for whereas the non-breaking space can look like a string of gibberish. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 08:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Given that there are orders of magnitude more people who understand HTML than MediaWiki's particular brand of wikimarkup, and given that HTML character entities are also part of that wikimarkup as well as of HTML, and given that the template name is run-together and just as easily interpreted as having something to do with rap music, then, obviously, "no". And really, who cares? MOS mentions both techniques, and is the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style, not the "Misplaced Pages Manual of Arbitrary Coding Standards That Make No Functional Difference At All". Heh. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 10:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, SMcCandlish. And of course once more I must point out these plain facts:
- Hard spaces are essential to sound markup.
- The options for markup of hard spaces at Misplaced Pages are inadequate.
- There is no provision for the hard space in the arrays under the edit box, despite its being orders of magnitude more useful than dozens of the recherché characters that currently do clutter the screen. (₥, ₦, ₰, ₪, ৳, ₮ ??? Give us a break!)
- Provision for the hard space was not foreseen by developers, but it is abundantly evident now. Therefore:
- A specific proposal (please respond!)
- I say there should be a push for reform, so that the hard space can be used efficiently in editing at Misplaced Pages. It seems that the appropriate forum for this is Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals): in the first instance, in any case. Anyone interested in a joint approach there? We'd need to work for reform as a group, and demonstrate consensus for change.
- My own idea is that we need custom markup for the hard space, a bit like the special markup we have for italics or bold. Use a pair of less-used standard qwerty-keyboard characters to stand for the hard space.
- Until we get such a change, advocating use of the hard space is futile. You won't get compliance, because the markup is a nuisance to input, difficult to read on the screen, and meaningless to most newcomers.
- Comments? Expressions of solidarity? Interest in doing something?
- – Noetica Talk 20:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- One problem with entering the NBSP character directly into a form field is an annoying bug/feature in Firefox that automatically converts any such NBSP character (U+00A0) into a normal space (U+0020). This bug in a very popular browser currently prevents us entering the no-break space as we do with any other UTF-8 character (remapping keyboard such that AltGr+Space inserts NBSP, JavaScript buttons, etc.). Markus Kuhn (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's interesting, Marcus. But it does not affect what we are currently considering at User:Noetica/ActionMOSVP, does it? (Don't forget to vote!)
- We are working out a proposal for markup that will be replaced by in the same way as '' is currently replaced by <i> or </i>.
- Please join the discussion at that other location! Your input would be useful.
- – Noetica Talk 21:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I support Noetica's push. Tony (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, sounds like an excellent idea to me. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I get pretty tired of typing
myself. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 22:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Aye. We discussed this before. Though the specifics still have to be worked out, let's do something. Phaunt (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. I was asking in IRC recently about this topic and most people weren't using them at all. I support everything said here. — Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support for all the foregoing reasons. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 03:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Would &; be suitable for markup? I just did a search in the current HTML spec and that doesn't appear to be used, it's in some sense the closest thing to what people use already, and HTML-savvy people probably have not carelessly thrown around &; characters in articles already written. — Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- (See suggestion below, Dank55. We'll get to the details soon enough.)– Noetica Talk 10:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
How to proceed?
- added heading Phaunt (talk) 10:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Motion carried, I think.
- As I write we have seven editors supporting a change in the editing system for the hard space:
- (Any more? Never too late to sign up.)
- This is very encouraging! No one has spoken against the idea. In fact, probably all that has held people back is this: we MOS editors are not used to thinking such changes possible. Arguably, though, we appreciate more than many others what the system really needs, to promote sound editing practices at the coal-face.
- How to proceed? Here's my plan, subject to your suggestions and amendments:
- 1. We meet at some designated location to thrash out the details of a joint proposal. We don't want to clutter this talk page. Following Tony's precedent, I could make a subpage at User:Noetica, and act as secretary for the group there. Anyone could join us to work on this. Shouldn't take too long; but there are matters of tactics and strategy to sort out, along with the technical details.
- 2. We make a strong submission at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals) (shortcut: WP:VPR).
- 3. We all alert other editors we know, who may be interested and have skills relevant to this push.
- 4. We work together to answer queries and objections at WP:VPR, and to maintain momentum, reporting back here as necessary.
- 5. We succeed!
- How's that? Your quick comments, please.
- If there are no objections or significant alterations, I'd like to take the next steps very soon.
- – Noetica Talk 10:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- What are we waiting for? Tony (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please carry on. This sounds very good. Phaunt (talk) 10:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
New page for discussion of the hard space: User:Noetica/ActionMOSVP
As proposed above, I have established a page for the hard-space campaign.
Please conduct discussion there, now. All interested editors are welcome, of course.
The page is User:Noetica/ActionMOSVP. I look forward to seeing you there!
– Noetica Talk 07:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
– Noetica Talk 05:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Hard order for bottom sections (see also, references, further reading, external links)
I've been noticing on pretty much every article that is at least GA is that the order of the bottom sections are always see also, references/notes/footnotes, further reading, and external links. However, whenever I see an article that does not follow that order, and run it through the automated peer reviewer, it always says to reorder those sections. In addition, this FAR also addresses the order of those sections. Should there be a hard order of those sections? 哦,是吗?(oxygen) 21:55, 22 December 2007 (GMT)
- I would say that there is no reason to add additional mandatory instructions on this - such changes would do nothing to improve the content or readability of articles, and would seem to be instructions for instructions sake. Just because the automatic peer reviewer has been set up with this in my mind un-necessary additional instruction, is not a reason why it should be made compulsoryNigel Ish (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think anything really needs to be added. The main MoS page states the External links to be "at the end". Except the Layout guide says Navboxes (succession boxes and navigational footers) "go at the very end of the article, following the last appendix section". Maybe get this clarified a bit. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Really a GTL issue, but anyway: The MoS currently specifically avoids prescribing any order here and I see no reason why it should. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- As the one who suggested this issue be taken to WP:MOS, my bad for not realizing it should go to WP:GTL. Oops! - BillCJ (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- No problem - GTL is part of the MoS, so your suggestion was just fine. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've just had a look at the automated peer reviewer. Is this where the rot stems from? Let me get this straight: an automatic script generates a warning to flag a "breach" of a non-existent rule, and you're suggesting that we create a rule to match what the script says? Surely the sane solution is to fix the script... --Rlandmann (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, WP:MOS specifies that external links should go last because we prefer Wikified content over external content, to keep readers within Wiki and to encourage wikified content. WP:GTL should be brought into line to clarify that External links should always be the last place we send readers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of my addition of "Roots, Shoots and Leaves," by Lynne Truss
Noetica, I am not enormously fussed either way, but I disagree with you that the book "gives almost no guidance for on-line work." Misplaced Pages suffers as much from misunderstandings due to absent or faulty punctuation as does any other form of writing, and Truss' book presents a lively, clear and engaging (if not always undebatable) view of this neglected topic. I think many editors would benefit from a read. Incidentally, the unusual, and I believe entirely correct, use of semi-colons in your edit summary alerts me to the fact that you value such tools yourself: why not share them? Rumiton (talk) 13:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- I must say that I was disappointed in Truss's book. I didn't learn much from it, and it's not set out in a way that allows the kind of focused reference that the other external sources do. Too discursive. Tony (talk) 13:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- I can see that, but would suggest that for the general reader the narrative style and quirkiness might be a plus. Editors who hang out here at the Manual of Style are probably already converted to linguistic pedantry, and might expect to learn little, but general editors might gain quite a lot. Rumiton (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- I hope that Truss's book contains more than pedantry. Tony (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- I believe it does. I was being gently ironic. Please try to catch my drift. Rumiton (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Rumiton, perhaps it is good that Truss's work attracted many readers. If a typical WP editor has heard of a book on punctuation, it is likely to be hers. While she gives some advice that might guide practice, though, the advice is not systematic; and she explicitly disavows any intention to provide it.
- But the worst is that she gives no guidance about computer-based (let alone HTML-based) practice, apart from reporting the revelation she underwent as she wrote the book: a "dash" could be got by some combination of keystrokes. Which dash she doesn't say; nor which combination of keystrokes.
- There's the rub. She is so very old-fashioned; and while that may in itself not be a bad thing, our editors need to know new things that she can't tell them. Good for some to feel the force of her authorial rage, and to share in it. But that indulgence distracts from what is important in any manual of style for the web, or for Misplaced Pages.
- As you gather, I do value such guides myself. I have dozens in my collection; but Truss is not the best of them. I am against promoting her work simply because she is already popular and well-promoted! (Note the absence of a comma after work in that sentence, which would have changed the meaning.)
- – Noetica Talk 21:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think the point emerging here is that this Talkpage is rather like some grammarian's Mount Olympus where the linguistic pantheon chat amongst themselves. Noetica, I will assume in you not only good faith but a sophisticated literary sense of humour when you use the sentence "There's the rub" whilst accusing someone else of being old fashioned. :-) And I did notice your carefully crafted sentence, which, had I not noticed the missing comma, I would have entirely misunderstood. But you are making my point for me. Truss' book is not for the likes of us, but good, honest editors may find good, honest advice in it. And it is entertaining enough to stay in the memory. Rumiton (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- There's nothing elitist or Olympian about it, Rumiton. No one wants more than I do to offer genuine and realistic help to editors through MOS, so that Misplaced Pages will be more consistently well-written.
- Truss is fine in her way, and she speaks to the common run of humanity, which includes you and me. It's just that there are much better guides to punctuation. Truss's book is a reflective and opinionated dilatation on certain selected aspects of punctuation; and as such it is occasionally entertaining, and occasionally informative. But it is not a resource for those wanting guidance, or rulings on tricky points. She doesn't set out to do that! Let us all be "good, honest editors". But those of us who contribute to MOS have a further responsibility: to give more acute and focused direction than just "read this best-seller". That's all putting Truss in our list would amount to. I don't mean to discourage you; I know you want the best for everyone. I just happen to disagree strongly that this is the best. We're trying to trim MOS down; that's going to be hard if we have a long list of extra resources, and if Truss is there then so should a dozen genuine punctuation guides be there also.
- – Noetica Talk 07:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I feel there should be at least one punctuation guide listed. Perhaps you would like to suggest one? Rumiton (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I understand that feeling, Rumiton. I could suggest several that are better than Truss's, but I am reluctant to add any of them. We don't want to open the floodgates. As I say, there is a push to make things trim, taut, readable, and useful at MOS. What we include in that section is a broad question which I (and other MOS I know) would like to discuss. Perhaps we can broach that general question, yes? It belongs with a whole suite of questions about the status of MOS and of its satellites like WP:MOSNUM, and the relations among all of these far-from-heavenly bodies.
- – Noetica Talk 12:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- How would you phrase that broad question, Noetica? And who are the "we" of whom you have now twice spoken? I sniff royalty again, if perhaps not deity. Rumiton (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Go sniff elsewhere, Rumiton, if you can't be civil. "We" refers to "you, me, and other editors". Got that? In particular, it refers to those of us who have diligently make hundreds of thoughtful edits at WP:MOS and here at WT:MOS, and who are interested in the big picture, not just the odd detail. The broad question concerns these matters: the content and scope of MOS; the content, scope, and number of subsidiary MOS-type pages; the nature of the relations among all of these pages; how consensus is to reached on matters of style; and where and how discussion towards consensus should be conducted.
- – Noetica Talk 12:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't believe I was being uncivil, or certainly not deliberately so, but thank you for including "me" in the "we". I think the more help we can give to people whose school classes failed and misled them, who believe correct spelling and punctuation have no uses, who cannot understand why their daily online lives are marked by misunderstandings and howling acrimony, the better it will be, and they will need material pitched to their needs. I believe Truss is a pretty good, if old-fashioned, incomplete and flawed, start. I would also like to become involved in the broad question. Thank you for responding. Rumiton (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Reasoning for unique section titles
In the Section headings section it is said that:
“
- Section names should preferably be unique within a page; this applies even for the names of subsections. The disadvantages of duplication are that:
- after editing, the display can arrive at the wrong section; see also below; and
- the automatic edit summary on editing a section with a non-unique name is ambiguous.
”
There is yet another problem with duplicate headings, and I should like to know whether it is admissable. It is this:
- all links to any one of a number of sections with the same name will lead to the first section, rendering the rest of them virtually unlinkable.
Opinions? Waltham, The Duke of 14:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds fine to include. Tony (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I thought it would be interesting (and accurate—I conducted a couple of relevant experiments some time ago). However, I shall wait for a couple of days before I make the edit, in case there are any objections. Waltham, The Duke of 15:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
You can link to them: an underscore and number are appended to duplicate section names. E.g. for three sections named "Example", the names (for section linking) will be "Example", "Example_2" and "Example_3".--Patrick (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is indeed a good reason not to include my idea. Although it ought to be said that, even with the impediment removed, the duplication of section titles does complicate matters. Quite unnecessarily so.
- So, lesson learned: I had better take some time off and read more of the documentation. The only problem is that there is so much of it. I suppose I shall require some sort of plan... Waltham, The Duke of 00:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Question about an article title
I'm reading the manual of style for the first time, and I'm working on an article at the same time. I noticed I'm going to have to change the name of NEE (which is Dutch for no, not an acronym but written in all caps, and is the name of a political party) to the translated English name without all capitals, "No", right?
A problem that will rise then is that the name of the party will be confusing if used in a sentence (confusion with the English word no). How do I make it clear that I'm using No as a name. Italics? Key to the city (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd retain the caps when NEE refers to the political group, and use our "words as words" italics when referring to nee and no as words in, respectively, Dutch and English. Tony (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. Personally, I'm fine with keeping the all caps, but I'm confused. This suggest to always avoid all caps, and this suggests the same even when the organisation, NEE in this case, has the habbit of writing its own name in all caps: Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official": avoid: REALTOR®, TIME, KISS; instead, use: Realtor, Time, Kiss. Key to the city (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Proposal: permit non-hyphen form with units in full form, to match guidance for symbolic form
Until recently, AKS Continental said: "ladder frames of 7 foot 6 inch wheelbase could be used". That is unambiguous and looks right to me, just as "40 mm gun" and "40 millimetre gun" do. I edited it using the convert template and found that hyphens had been added in order to comply with guidance here. It now says: "ladder frames of 7-foot-6-inch wheelbase could be used". I agree with the format used by the previous editor and think the hyphens make it look worse.
I do have the option of changing it to symbolic form: "ladder frames of 7 ft 6 in wheelbase could be used" because there is an inconsistency in the guidance i.e. hyphens are not mandatory for symbolic forms.
The hyphen it is not required for resolving an ambiguity. It is inconsistent to mandate a hyphen in the full form but not in the symbolic form. I would like to deregulate this guidance so that editors that write: "7 foot 6 inch wheelbase" and "40 millimetre gun" are not in conflict the the MOS.
My proposal is to change the guidance as follow:
- Current: Values and units used as compound adjectives are hyphenated only where the unit is given as a whole word.
- Proposed: A hyphen is not mandatory for values and units. If a hyphen is used, it must satisfy both of the following criteria:
- the unit is given as a whole word.
- the value and unit constitutes a compound adjective.
The examples would also have to be updated to match the guidance. Lightmouse (talk)
- I think that the hyphenated usage is more proper. I don't think the guideline should be changed. TomTheHand (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, that damned convert template: I'd support it if it could convert every instance logically and consistently with MOS: it can't, and it's just as much work, in other ways, as doing it manually. I agree that "7 foot 6 inch ladder" looks awful with three hyphens, and is sufficiently understandable without them as a multiple attributive. MOS might have this added as an example of where to go against the rule of hyphenating attributive values and units. Does anyone agree? However, I don't agree that the norm should change—of hyphenating attributive values and fully named units, and of not doing so where the units are expressed as symbols (include abbreviations). Tony (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Very much agree. 7-foot-six-inches just looks weird. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Please support the proposal, or offer an alternative proposal that will permit "7 foot 6 inch" without hyphens. Lightmouse (talk) 09:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Note that for SI units, there is an explicit international standard rule (e.g., NIST SP811 section 7.2, ISO 31-0, ...) not to use a hyphen between a number and a unit symbol, and there seems to be a tradition in Misplaced Pages to apply the same SI style rules also to the non-SI unit symbols listed in the appendices of ISO 31, including in, ft, yd, etc. In that sense, it should clearly be “a 7 ft 6 in wheelbase” and “a 9 mm gun”. The SI style rules only apply to numbers followed by unit symbols, so you can still write “a nine-millimeter gun” or “a 9-millimeter gun” if you prefer. In any case, it is important to remember that the purpose of the hyphen is to simplify reading/parsing and to avoid ambiguity, and there is usually no ambiguity when a singular noun is prefixed by a number and a unit symbol. That's because unit symbols are never used as nouns (you wouldn't write “He really fought for the last mm.”). Some people argue that a phrase like “the samples were placed in 22 mL vials” might be ambiguous, because it could be referring to 22 one-milliliter vials, but I think in that case the sentence should have been written as “the samples were placed in 22 vials of 1 mL each”. Markus Kuhn (talk) 10:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with the proposal. Here's a possible revised guideline to incorporate the concern (my addition in green):
Values and units used as compound adjectives are hyphenated only where the unit is given as a whole word, except where the effect would be ungainly ("a 7 foot 5 inch wooden plank" rather than "a 7-foot-5-inch wooden plank").
- But now I look at the example in the cold light of day, I think the hyphens do make this unfortunate construction easier to read. Much easier. So I'm now disagreeing with my own revision. Tony (talk) 10:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think Markus has said it very well. SI rules only apply to symbolic forms but are interesting and relevant. The form Oerlikon 20 mm cannon and the form "refitted with a 20 millimetre Phalanx CIWS" are consistent and unambiguous. If you prefer you can be consistent or inconsistent. There are plenty of things that the MoS should address but this stylistic preference should not be mandatory. We would then not have a problem with the editors that wrote: "7 foot 6 inch wheelbase" and "20 millimetre Phalanx". Lightmouse (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- A gift from the gods The crew debated for several hours whether they should deploy their enormous resources of 40 400 mm gun's, or simply deploy 40 400 millimetre gun's, but in the end the matter was settled by a communication from HQ which stated that they must deploy all 40,400-mm guns and 40 400-millimetre guns, thus hopelessly confusing the enemy's spies who all despised pedantry (and greengrocers). - Neparis (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Crossposted from Talk:Serial comma
Punctuation, particularly in the US, was standardized quite recently (i.e. the last 150 years) and mandatory use of the serial comma arose as a consquence of foolish consistency more than the accurate notation of spoken language, the Oxford style manual not withstanding.
As a reference work Misplaced Pages must evenhandedly put forth the opposing positions, but in its own recommnded usage may do as it (i.e. its Wikipedians) prefer, and the ultimate test is ambiguity and lack thereof.
Further, en.wikipedia.org is the English language Misplaced Pages, not Wiki USA, and should reflect worldwide use, which runs against the serial comma. Proposed, then, to use a serial comma when doing so eliminates ambiguity and not when it does not.
NB I am advocating not using the serial comma under most circumstances; in many cases it makes no difference whether it's there or not, and I say, "When in doubt, leave it out!" Robert Greer (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Some good points, and thank you - though perhaps you should take your suggestions to Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of style rather than here, which is meant to be a discussion about the article rather than about the serial comm as such. I hope you notice that our article on the serial comma does as you say, and uses a serial comma only where necessary to avoid ambiguity. Or at least I hope it does - I am forever deleting one from the list of languages that do not use a serial comma! Snalwibma (talk) 08:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, I'll do so! Robert Greer (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Robertgreer, this topic will come up again and again. An MOS consensus policy on the serial comma is not, however, feasible. I, for example, support New Hart's Rules (NHR) and the current Oxford Guide to Style (OGS) on which NHR is based. Both more or less say that the serial comma often helps the reader, even when by an effort of concentration the logical divisions can be worked out. OGS is more compelling on this than NHR (bold added for emphasis):
For a century it has been part of OUP style to retain consistently, but it is commonly used by many other publishers both here and abroad, and forms a routine part of style in US and Canadian English. Given that the final comma is sometimes necessary to prevent ambiguity, it is logical to impose it uniformly, so as to obviate the need to pause and gauge each enumeration on the likelihood of its being misunderstood – especially since that likelihood is often more obvious to the reader than the writer." (OGS, 5.3, "Comma")
- I put it to you that the portion I have emphasised in bold deserves a close and careful reading. It is not "foolish consistency" (as you say without support; and check your link, which doesn't take us anywhere useful). Nor does the serial comma conflict with "accurate notation of the spoken language" (again, no support). Those who say that we do not pause before the relevant conjunction need to listen, with scrupulous attention.
- So you see? A case can be made the other way. And trust me: it will be made the other way, it necessary.
- But experience here shows that such a clash would be a hand-wringing waste of time. I suggest we address other things instead, like markup for the hard space: an urgent matter which consistently escapes editors' attention because it is by its very nature elusive.
- – Noetica Talk 23:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree entirely with Robertgreer's proposal: there are already quite enough functional commas in formal written registers, and redundant Oxford commas are easy to dispense with on a number of grounds. If I had a magic wand, I'd write it in. But I think too many people will object. The way it's written now makes it optional: "There is no Misplaced Pages consensus on whether to use the serial comma (also known as the Oxford comma or Harvard comma), except where including or omitting such comma clarifies the meaning". (BTW, I've just slightly tweaked that text in MOS to remove the fluff and an unnecessary emphasis on the rarity of the need to clarify the meaning.) I remove them where they're idle in text I edit. Tony (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Quotation mark
A source said that period and commas should be written within the quotation marks. Only the exclamation and question mark do have exemptions. BritandBeyonce (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- An exclamation mark or question mark goes inside the quotes if and only if it is part of the quotation. Robert Greer (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Question marks and exclamation points are easy to understand whether they're included in the quoted material or not. What about comma and period? A lot of FAs are having problems with that. BritandBeyonce (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Stuff inside quote marks belongs to the quote. Stuff outside does not. Thus I would write:
- User BritandBeyonce asked the question "What about comma and period?" because there appeared to be some confusion.
- Similarly, the capital at the beginning and the period at the end of a sentence both belong to the quote. Thus I would write:
- He then added the sentence "A lot of FAs are having problems with that.".
- I do not know if that is what the guidelines require, but that is what I do. Lightmouse (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Do not add period at the end. Also, I am very much familiar with the usage of quotation marks with regards to question marks and exclamation points. What is my very concern is the period and comma.
..."Let Me Blow Ya Mind".
but
..."Let Me Blow Ya Mind."
These are some errors in FA articles. Confusing and inconsistent right?
Take a look at this:
Double quotation marks " "
1. Enclose direct quotations but not indirect quotation.
• She said, "I am leaving."
• She said that she was leaving.
2. Enclose words or phrases borrowed from others, words used in a special way, and words of marked informality when introduced into formal writing.
• Much of the population in the hellish future he envisions is addicted to "derms," patches that deliver potent drug doses instantaneously through the skin.
• He called himself "emperor," but he was really just a dictator.
• He was arrested for smuggling "smack."
3. Enclose titles of poems, short stories, articles, lectures, chapters of books, short musical compositions, and radio and TV programs.
• Robert Frost's "After Apple-Picking"
• Cynthia Ozick's "Rosa"
• The third chapter of Treasure Island is entitled "The Black Spot."
• "All the Things You Are"
• Debussy's "Clair de lune"
• NBC’s "Today Show"
4. Are used with other punctuation marks in the following way:
4a. The period and the comma fall within the quotation marks.
• "I am leaving," she said.
• It was unclear how she maintained such an estate on "a small annuity."
4b. The colon and semicolon fall outside the quotation marks.
• There was only one thing to do when he said, "I may not run": promise him a large campaign contribution.
• He spoke of his "little cottage in the country": he might better have called it a mansion.
4c. The dash, the quotation mark, and the exclamation point fall within the quotation marks when they refer to the quoted matter only; they fall outside when they refer to the whole sentence.
• "I can't see how—" he started to say.
• He asked, "When did she leave?"
• What is the meaning of "the open door"?
• The sergeant shouted "Halt!"
• Save us from his "mercy"!
5. Are not used with yes or no except in direct discourse.
• She said yes to all our requests.
6. Are not used with lengthy quotations set off from the text.
Source: The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 1998
Note that the period and comma should be written inside the quotation marks. BritandBeyonce (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's the opinion of Merriam-Webster. I think that this has been discussed many times before. Misplaced Pages, after much discussion, prefers "logical quotation" - that is, to include punctuation within the quotation marks only when it comes from the quotation; to put it another way, Misplaced Pages believes that nothing should be put in a quote that is not part of it. So I would say: 'BritandBeyonce said, "Note that the period and comma should be written inside the quotation marks."' But: '"Note that the period and comma should be written inside the quotation marks", said BritandBeyonce.' Because the original source has a full stop at the end, if I change this to a comma that needs to go outside the quotation marks, to show that it isn't part of the quote. This is also usual (though not universal) British style; most US sources, such as the one you have quoted, say otherwise, although logical quotation has a growing following in the US, particularly in technical writing (see, for example, Hacker Writing Style in the Jargon File). TSP (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I do believe that logical quotation looks proper but don't you know that FAs are having problems with that? Its confusing and articles tends to be inconsistent and incoherent with our guides. BritandBeyonce (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Which FAs in particular? Strad (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Gwen Stefani songs that have already gained FA statuses. BritandBeyonce (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
'Logical quotation'
I've been challenged when I put periods and commas inside quotation marks, based on Wikepedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks, that Misplaced Pages uses "logical quotation." I've never heard of this. I understand that putting periods and commas inside or outside of quotation marks is basically American vs. British usage. I would like to challenge this idea of "logical quotation": what is the source for it? It looks like it's either from technical writing or something made up. What outside source is Misplaced Pages basing its style on? InkQuill (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Action on markup for the hard space
This is an update for the discussion above concerning the hard space (or non-breaking space). We set up a page to consider some convenient markup for this essential but neglected character (currently the awkward and intrusive " ", with a couple of work-around alternatives). I urge interested editors to take a look at the options we have assembled, and to join the discussion. We'll be voting soon on which to choose, and how to proceed. Just click here.
– Noetica Talk 22:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
PS The shortlist and place for providing your feedback on it are here. Tony (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Opportunity to vote now
We have finalised a reasonable shortlist of options for the hard space. You can register your vote now! Just click HERE.
– Noetica Talk 03:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- May I point out to contributors that MOS requires hard spaces between all instances of "p." and page number, and "pp." and page range. This is onerous using the current html code. It is in all our interests to vote for a better code, and to support the subsequent process of having it implemented technically. Tony (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Correct name: "no-break space"
The character of interest here has been called in all the coded character-set standards for the last quarter century the "no-break space" and is commonly abbreviated as NBSP (refs: ISO 8859, ISO 10646, Unicode, all the ECMA character-set standards, and two decades of literature on the subject). Can we please stick exactly to this well-established well-defined unambiguous technical term, and not muddy the waters by introducing lots of new fantasy terminology, such as "non-breaking space" or "hard space"? Thanks! Markus Kuhn (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- "No-break" is better than "non-breaking". If you're referring to my recent edit to the section in MOS, in which I used the term "hard space" a few times, I'm quite willing to change it to "no-break", especially as it says exactly what it is, where "hard" has to be unpacked in the context. Tony (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Short answer to Marcus: no. Language changes. In fact, no precision is lost by using the very convenient term hard space, provided we define our terms early on. Nothing is gained by putting down those people who use a convenient term that is used in much style-guide literature, and well understood.
- Accurate naming is important, I agree! But Marcus: why not address the far more pressing matter of substance, here? Your contribution to reforming markup for the space in question would be most welcome!
- Not enough action at this page. Too much talk with too little outcome.
- – Noetica Talk 16:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- This does not surprise me much; it is one of the least busy periods of the year in Misplaced Pages. You should see how slowly business progresses in SBS; to be accurate, everything has stopped! Waltham, The Duke of 17:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, Waltham. I mean usually, not just now. :)
- – Noetica Talk 00:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
"Because" and "since"
What is Misplaced Pages's style on the usage of these words? I've seen "since" used interchangably with "because", but I do not think that usage is correct. Opinions, judgements, etc. are much anticipated.
Thanks Fdssdf (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- You might have included "as", too—apparently favoured in this role in North America. I discourage its use, since it's often ambiguous ("Can't do it as the machine stops"—as = while or because?). "Because" and "since" are interchangeable, I think, but I may be corrected by Hoary on this point. Where is he? Tony (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- You rang? -- Hoary (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh I see. Clearly since and because aren't interchangable: *I've been waiting for you because 8:30. But can since be used for causation (Since he broke it, he'll have to pay for it)? Well, why the hell not? Ah, somebody may say, the reason not is that it's potentially ambiguous: his obligation to pay for it may be read as having a merely temporal and not causal relationship to his having broken it. To which my reply would be that that person either (a) is overly worried about imagined comprehension problems of people for whom English is a second language, or (b) has been reading the wrong kind of writings on language. Same for as. Let's take Tony's example: Can't do it as the machine stops. Even without context, I'll venture that it's something like I can't do what you suggest, since/because/as the machine stops when somebody does it. There's no risk of the sense of while, because the simple present would then be unidiomatic at best; cf the idiomatic Can't do it as/while the machine is stopping. (Come to think of it, even the machine is stopping is a unlikely. But let's avoid that digression.) So: since and as are perfectly good and indeed shorter alternatives to because; they're unpretentious, idiomatic, and almost never ambiguous (or anyway almost never problematically so) as long as you're the careful writer that your interest in these matters suggests you are. But don't let your interest turn into an obsession; and if you've already acquired any books on the avoidance of alleged "errors" in English (infer for imply, etc.), toss them into the trash. -- Hoary (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hoary, I've numbered my responses. (1) I meant interchangeable in the causal context, anyway.
- (2) "Since he broke it, he'll have to pay for it" can't be anything but causal ("Since the day on which he broke it, he'll have to pay for it" just doesn't work in tense/mood terms).
- (3) I don't agree that "Can't do it as the machine stops" has no potential for ambiguity. The machine starts and stops continually, and you can't press the self-oiling button as it stops, only while it's operating. Or you can't press that button because it stops. Perhaps that wasn't an ideal example; I'm motivated to press this issue because I have had to change "as" into "since" or "because" to avoid serious ambiguity‚ by which I mean that I seriously couldn't work out which meaning was intended. Wish I'd recorded some as examples. Tony (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Then all right, I'll concede that on occasion there are ambiguities. But most of the time there aren't, and as and since are then perfectly good choices. -- Hoary (talk) 10:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- My concern is that it is incorrect, the "because"/"since" fiasco. AP Style is that "since" can only be used when referring to time-related events, especially events in the past. "Because", the AP manual says, is used only for causation. It goes on to explain that "since" cannot act as substitute for "because". That is, of course, AP Style, though. I just wanted to shed some light on what another MoS had to say. Thanks for the responses, though. Fdssdf (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for telling me this about the AP manual. I'd only been vaguely aware of its existence; now I know that, in common with many other "style manuals", its right place is the garbage can. ¶ Alternatively, you are of course free to disagree not only with me (hardly a good writer, let alone any kind of arbiter of usage) but also with the author of a novel that I surely do not need to name and from which I quote the following. ¶ For her the streets that lay around her had no squalor, since she paced them always in the gold nimbus of her fascinations. Her bedroom seemed not mean nor lonely to her, since the little square of glass, nailed above the wash-stand, was ever there to reflect her face. ¶ "You want to be rid of me?" asked Zuleika, when the girl was gone. / "I have no wish to be rude; but — since you force me to say it — yes." ¶ You think you can drive me out of your life. You cannot, darling — since you won't kill me. ¶ Since there was nothing to do but sit and think, he wished he could recapture that mood in which at luncheon he had been able to see Zuleika as an object for pity. ¶ Since he was not immortal, as he had supposed, it were as well he should die now as fifty years hence. -- Hoary (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I do not accept that since and because are interchangeable, or that fragments such as Since he broke it, he'll have to pay for it are for all practical purposes unambiguous. The choice of future tense in he'll have to pay for it suggests causality, but the choice of past tense as in Since he broke it, he's had to pay for it could be suggesting causality, a temporal relationship, or both. The context would perhaps help a reader to decide, but why pose the question in their mind by mixing the two ideas? We should probably leave the separate discussion about infer vs imply for another day. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- If an instance of since is ambiguous, change it. If an instance of since is unambiguous, don't change it. No need to lay down blanket prescriptions. Strad (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's a generally good rule, but I don't think it'll ever catch on. :-)
- What most people want from a manual of style is "blanket prescriptions". You don't have to look through many FACs to see what confusion the present discrepancies in the MOS are causing. And you don't have to look through many non-FACs to see how widely the MOS is ignored. Simple rules are simple to follow, and the simple rule is that since implies a temporal relationship, not a causal one. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's a simplistic rule of the kind that simple-headed schoolmarms (of all sexes and ages) may wish to teach to people they consider simpletons. When en:WP's MoS strays from being en:WP's equivalent of the older Chicago Manual of Style to something even more schoolmarmish and ostrichy than Chicago (15th ed), I say that the simple rule is to scrap all these musty myths about usage and instead to encourage people to use English words as they are defined in recent dictionaries, informed by systematic and open-minded lexicography. -- Hoary (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Typeface for unit symbols in this guideline
The WP:MOSNUM#Unit symbols and abbreviations states "In accordance with the rules of CGPM, NIST, National Physical Laboratory (UK), unit symbols are never italicized, but always in upright type." NIST Special Publication 811 states:
- The typeface in which a symbol appears helps to define what the symbol represents. For example, irrespective of the typeface used in the surrounding text, ‘‘A’’ would be typed or typeset in
- — italic type for the scalar quantity area: A;
- — roman type for the unit ampere: A;
- — italic boldface for the vector quantity vector potential: A .
I take "never" to mean "never" and "irrespective" to mean "irrespective", no mater what any style guide says. So I'm changing italicized units to roman type. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Gerry, everywhere at WP:MOSNUM#Unit symbols and abbreviations (which you cite), unit symbols are italicised when they are mentioned rather than used. This is standard practice, and is required by MOS: "Italics are used when mentioning a word or letter (see Use–mention distinction) or a string of words up to a full sentence...".
So unit symbols are also italicised when the text in which they are embedded is italicised, for whatever reason (like quotation, emphasis, or style applied for design reasons).
- We often see rulings like this: "The word biblical is never capitalised, though Bible usually is." But obviously biblical is capitalised if it starts a sentence. The ruling you invoke is clearly to be interpreted in the same practical way.
- Accordingly, I am again undoing your reversion of Tony's work. I call on other editors to monitor this situation also.
- – Noetica Talk 00:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- WP:MOSNUM#Unit symbols and abbreviations was in error in that respect, and I have corrected it. Note that NIST Special Publication 811 on page 34 contains this passage:
- The above rules also imply, for example, that μ, the symbol for the SI prefix micro (10), that Ω, the symbol for the SI derived unit ohm, and that F, the symbol for the SI derived unit farad, are in roman type...
- Notice that although these symbols are being mentioned, not used, they are nevertheless in roman type. I infer the reason NIST does this is because the danger of becoming confused about whether a character is a symbol or a variable is greater than the danger of becoming confused about whether a unit is being used or mentioned. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Gerry, I withdraw one part of what I wrote above, since NIST Special Publication 811's wording is this: "The typeface in which a symbol appears helps to define what the symbol represents. For example, irrespective of the typeface used in the surrounding text,..." (p. 33). This applies to distinctions in only a few cases. Does it affect anything at all, for MOS or MOSNUM? It certainly does not affect the practice we should use for clarity in the section on non-breaking spaces. I stand by the rest of what I have said.
- In any case, our explicit practice is different from that used in the document you cite. We explicitly call for italics in mentioning. Perhaps there should be exceptions for cases like this; but there are not. They would need to be discussed.
- – Noetica Talk 01:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm somewhat with User:Gerry Ashton in this case, although not for any of the reasons that he's given. I think that in this specific case it's misleading to see a template used, followed by what is claimed to be the output from that template, when it actually isn't, in the sense that the template would not have italicised the output as suggested. I don't think that removing the italics, or adding quotes solves the problem either, so I'd maybe suggest using some kind of code box, as one would when writing an article on programming for instance. Which is, after all, almost what's being discussed in that section. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Malleus, I agree that there are subtleties and difficulties in presenting such things at MOS. These exercise us a lot. They require discussion. Myself, I favour wholesale revision to put all examples in a distinct font; and set all longer examples off in separate lines. As with most matters here, the larger more general issue needs to be taken on, not just innumerable subordinate instances.
- – Noetica Talk 01:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I quite agree. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The underlying problem is that there are different reasons for putting something into italics. The SI brochure and its clones (ISO 31-0, NIST SP811, etc.) really mean to say that you should not put unit symbols into italics where italics is already used for quantity symbols or variables, as in “vmax = 12 m/s”, in order to avoid confusion between quantities and units. Unfortunately, discussions about style guides quickly become dogmatic rather than pragmatic, the original practical reason for a rule is forgotten, and the rule starts to become a fact on its own. There is surely nothing wrong with writing an SI unit in italics if – for example – the entire sentence is in italics, as in “He reached a top speed of 12 m/s.” Given that many readers of style manuals seem to have problems with carefully differentiating why something has been put into italics, bold, capitalization, etc., it might indeed be wise to highlight examples via quotation marks, which is far less confusing in the context of font-style related rules than using italics. So in this example of unit symbol font style, I would write “kg” rather than kg in the MOS. The same probably applies to other parts of the MOS that discuss font style. Markus Kuhn (talk) 10:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- The reason for a typographic choice should always be kept in mind, and the style manual should be ignored in cases where following it does more harm than good. In the case of using italics for quantity symbols and variables, and roman type for unit symbols, I think the context of the entire article should be considered, not just one sentence or one paragraph.
- Most writing discusses the quantities represented by variables, or the measurements that are labeled with units of measure, and in that context, variables should be in italics and unit symbols should be in roman type. To avoid confusion, the MOS should be written so that unit symbols can be presented in roman type, to reinforce the message that this is the normal way to write unit symbols, even if it is ultimately decided that unit symbols may be written in italics when discussing the symbols themselves rather than the units they represent. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- For what it’s worth I agree with Markus. I’d just prefer semantic markup over hardcoding either quotation marks or italics. Christoph Päper (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Another reason (besides the useful distinction between quantities and units) for stressing that units should not be in italics is that some mathematical typesetting software (most notably LaTeX, which Misplaced Pages uses for formula typesetting) unfortunately very much encourages inexperienced users to typeset every letter in a formula in italics (presumably because such software was written for mathematics, where units and subscript-qualifiers are rare, and not in the physical and biological sciences, where both are very common). That requires a bit of counter-pressure from style-guide authors. Markus Kuhn (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
RfC: Should unit symbols ever be italicized?
The preceeding section discusses whether unit symbols should be italicized when being discussed as a term, rather than actually used to specify a unit of measure. The quoted NIST publication seems to indicate that unit symbols are never italicized under any circumstances. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Very hasty, Gerry! We could simply work through a few issues collegially here, and see how that goes. Still, if you insist...
- – Noetica Talk 01:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is rather a waste of everyone's time. I thought Noetica's point about bible above was the end of the matter. If it really makes you tremble, why not propose that the units be specified as normally appearing in roman face. Tony (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is not my intent to be uncollegial; it is my intention to attract the attention of editors who have had experience discussing unit symbols as terms, rather than just using them to indicate units of measure. I have had countless occasions to use SI units of measure, and even discuss the introduction of them into a company that used to use inches for horizontal measurements, but angstroms for vertical measurements, but I have seldom had occasion to discuss unit symbols as terms. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
To me, SI unit symbols are just words (well, abbreviations of words) and I don't think they should be treated any differently from other words. Like ordinary words, they are not ordinarily italicized by themselves merely for being SI unit symbols, but if the context they are used in is italics, then they should be italicized too. This includes use/mention, book titles, etc.
- If you use the symbol m/s to mean medium or small you might confuse readers who expect it to mean meters per second.
- I did enjoy his latest book Life at 200 kg and other collected stories, but I liked the previous one more.
I think the current advice on Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (text formatting) that says "Some things remain in upright regardless of the surrounding text... Symbols for units of measure such as kg, ft/s", besides being an unnecessary exception to the normal rules of italicization, results in ugly text that unnecessarily hides or calls attention to units:
- If you use the symbol m/s to mean medium or small you might confuse readers who expect it to mean meters per second.
- I did enjoy his latest book Life at 200 kg and other collected stories, but I liked the previous one more.
- The scientific manuals that say units are never italicized are clearly talking about the use of such units, not their mention. Never, ever italicizing units leads to stylistic absurdities, as Nohat has demonstrated. Strad (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely right. This is just a storm in a teacup about how units are represented in the style guide when giving examples, not how they ought to be represented in articles. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nohat's first example is a good illustration of the problem of wanting to emphasize that one is discussing the symbol itself, rather than the unit of measure represented by the symbol. The second example is less useful, however. Both the Misplaced Pages MOS and the SP 811 from NIST cleary indicate that Life at 200 kg and other collected stories is the correct typography, because what is being discussed is life when one is massive, not the symbol "kg". Furthermore, it is quite unusual for a unit symbol to occur in a title; ordinarily units are spelled out in titles. More common uses of italics would be for emphasis, or for phrases from a foreign language. In both cases, it is often helpful to distinguish between quantities versus the unit symbol. For example,
- Take care that the output, V, never exceeds 100 V!
- If editors automatically follow the MOS, rather than deciding what to do on a case by case basis, Misplaced Pages may be less aesthetically pleasing, but I believe there will be cases where editors enhance clarity without even realizing it. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Spelling in articles
I've proposed a method for making the spelling adopted by a particular article clear at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (spelling), please comment. Richard001 (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Indians or Native Americans?
HI. Please, I am having a little "dispute" (not really a dispute, because the editor involved is very courteous) regarding the use of Native American or Indian in William Cooley. Native American has been used in the past and changed to Indian during article reviews, now the editor wants to use Native American. I do not have any preference for one or other, I just could not find what is the MOS recommendation.--Legionarius (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- In Canada, the term "First Nations people" is also used. In the US, "Indians" was unpopular for a long time, but now many Native Americans are working to reclaim the word, and refer to themselves as Indians. There is even a bit of folk etymology that says that "Indian" comes from en diós, meaning "with God", because the Spanish supposedly found the native inhabitants to be spiritual and blessed (but see this.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. So either way can be used in Misplaced Pages?--Legionarius (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I guess the point I was making is that there's little agreement, and it tends to be controversial.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Indian doesn't bother me, but I can't speak for the whole Cherokee Nation. —MJCdetroit (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I’m the other editor in this “dispute”. First let me say I’m not Native American. I’m of mixed Jewish and other descent. I feel sympathetic towards Native Americans because their ancestors suffered genocide as did people closely connected with me. I personally don’t oppose the use of the word “Indian” in historical articles as the term was in common usage during William Cooley’s time. I feel there should be short section explaining that “Indian” is a controversial term and a link to the Native American name controversy. The opinions of Native Americans should carry more weight than my opinion here.
I feel there is slight bias in the article. A massacre of white people by Native Americans is described in detail. There is no mention of worse massacres of Native Americans by whites. I feel there should be a short section explaining the context of the massacres.Barbara Shack (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, this has been discussed(look for "massacre")... it is called massacre in the article for historical purposes. Anyway, I think we are deviating from the point here. Looks like there is nothing against or pro "Indians" in the MOS. In this case, I think it can stay like it is; important as the question is, I do not think this article is the stage it should be discussed. This article is just a biography of the life of William Cooley, nothing else. --Legionarius (talk) 04:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- The latest APA style guideline on Unbiased language - Racial and Ethnic Identity, says "American Indian and Native American are both accepted terms for referring to indigenous peoples of North America, although Native Americans is a broader designation because the U.S. government includes Hawaiians and Samoans in this category. There are close to 450 Native groups, and authors are encouraged to name the participants' specific groups."(p.68) Which to me would mean specifying Seminoles or whatever specific group Cooley was interacting with, although either of the preferred terms would work in the broader sense.- Optigan13 (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hawaiians and Samoans, really? News to me. I would have thought the "American" in "Native American" referred to the Americas, not to the United States of America--the "native" part refers to ancestry rather than to the individual (otherwise I'm a native American), and in the era from which the ancestry is being considered, the United States didn't exist. And for the benefit of the geographically challenged, neither the Hawaiian Islands nor Samoa is in the Americas. Though I do admit I don't have an alternative suggestion for "peoples indigenous to lands currently making up the territory and possessions of the United States", which I suppose must be what the USG is getting at here. --Trovatore (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah really. When the census bureau refers to Native American they would be referring to territorial distinctions. I believe areas designated as Hawaiian and Samoan homelands have similar legal protections/restrictions as areas designated as American Indian reservations. So the US territory and possessions is in fact the distinction there. In terms of defining race the census bureau uses "American Indian and Alaska Native alone" and "Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone". I had always understood Native American to refer to the indigenous people of North America, and Samoans and Hawaiians would be part of what is sometimes referred to as the Asian and Pacific Islander (API) group. In the article being referred to here either of the broad terms would work. -Optigan13 (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that Yupik (Eskimos) and Aleuts are indigenous to the Americas, are also indigenous to areas now part of the US, and are not Indians.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sensible suggestion. In this particular article, a bit complicated, since it was a mix of different tribes (mostly Seminoles, though).--Legionarius (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Markup for hard space: voting ends soon!
There is discussion here about improved markup for the hard space (non-breaking space, non-break space, , etc.). Some of us are working towards an important proposal for this essential element in good editing, which escapes attention because spaces are invisible. See some of the earlier discussion above.
Editors still have the opportunity to vote HERE for their preferred markup for the hard space. But voting ends soon: about 24 hours from the time of this posting, at 00:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC).
Let's all work on this one together.
– Noetica Talk 00:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Voting has now ended, and I'll report here soon.
– Noetica Talk 02:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Do we use nbsp in an address?
I am having a minor edit skirmish, should an address have a non break space. For example, 23 Railway Cuttings. Should I do {{nowrap|23 Railway}} Cuttings? The MOS does not have an example of this type. MortimerCat (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- In careful work it is a good idea to use a hard space there, yes. Some style guides advocate it, though many do not because it is taken to be a matter of typesetting and therefore not even addressed. Arguably, our current guideline covers the present case:
In compound items in which numerical and non-numerical elements are separated by a space, a non-breaking space (or hard space) is recommended to avoid the displacement of those elements at the end of a line. A hard space can be produced with the HTML code
instead of the space bar: 19 kg
yields a non-breaking 19 kg.
- Why should we not think that 23 Railway Cuttings is such a "compound item"?
- Same for the non-numeric George Bush Sr, in which most guides do not want a break after Bush. Consider H. W. Smith Jr. Two hard spaces are needed:
H. W. Smith Jr
- The {{nowrap|}} template is also ugly here:
{{nowrap|H. W.}} {{nowrap|Smith Jr}}
- See the preceding section, which points to discussion of how to make things better.
- – Noetica Talk 22:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Is it not more common to have no spaces between initials? So it would simply become:
- {{nowrap|H.W. Smith Jr}}
- You would not want the initials or the Jr to break off from the name, making it effectively one block.−Woodstone (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to support hard-spaces only where abbreviations are involved. They are what is strange when broken by line's end. "Volume" seperated from "3" I can cope with; "Vol." and "3" are nicer together. Let's not forget that hard-spaces can lead to excessive spacing between words earlier in a line, since WP text is justified. It's not a big problem, but I suggest we not prescribe the use of hard-spaces too liberally. English is full of compound units. The Smith example does seem to require multiple hard-spaces, though.Tony (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Woodstone:
- The question of spaces between initials is a separate one, as is the use of stops with initials. There are four possibilities (even without considering the variant Jr., and perhaps jr, jnr., and so on):
1. HW Smith Jr
2. H.W. Smith Jr
3. H. W. Smith Jr
4. H W Smith Jr
- The first three of these have support from some or other style guide. Myself, I strongly prefer the first option.
- But about your coding:
{{nowrap|H.W. Smith Jr}}
- This would make the space before Smith non-breaking also, which is not prescribed by any style guide. That's part of the problem with such a template solution: you have to analyse too much, and often you do in fact have to apply the cumbersome template more than once. That said, in some cases it is a fine solution, where the editor can't or won't use special mathematical templates. I might want to present the following, in an article about possible worlds:
W1, 2, 4, 6–11, 17
- Yes, the subscript can break! And it's a mess if it does.
- So this is best:
{{nowrap|W<sub><small>1, 2, 4, 6–11, 17</small></sub>}}
- As opposed to this:
W<sub><small>1, 2, 4, 6–11, </small>17</sub>
- Tony:
- Fair enough about abbreviations, but in fact it is common enough practice (and commonly prescribed in more comprehensive style guides) to include full words: chapters 3–12, for example. Again, there are several interconnected issues here. Of course hard spaces can cause problems if used to excess. As things stand at Misplaced Pages, that is the least of our worries!
- Reform is needed on many fronts. But I favour not addressing all these issues fully, until we have solved the problem of suitable markup for the hard space.
- – Noetica Talk 03:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Preferred way to add endash
What is the preferred way to add an endash, as you can either type out &_n_d_a_s_h_; (without the underscores), or add it directly as a single character (–). The former helps distinguish it from a hyphen in the page source (which is fixed font), while the latter takes up less space. Thoughts? --Jameboy (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I know, Misplaced Pages has deprecated pretty much all HTML entities. If you enter it from the toolbox it shows up as a single character. Strad (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- First, Jameboy, a good way to show the code – is to type &ndash;. That's how it's done in MOS itself.
- As things stand there is no guidance in MOS about how to enter the en dash or the em dash. There is advice about the hard space: "A hard space can be produced with the HTML code
instead of the space bar: 19 kg
yields a non-breaking 19 kg." (See just above for current action concerning the hard space.)
- Dashes are problematic, as you point out. Display depends on the user's system and preferences. It may be hard to distinguish between all three standard dash-like characters, especially when there's an isolated instance in the edit box, with a different font from the one you see right here:
- - (hyphen)
- – (en dash; ALT-0150)
- — (em dash; ALT-0151)
- Myself, I enter the dashes with the numpad codes as shown here.
- Here is the input for some text using a properly spaced en dash, if you do it the other way:
- "Spaced en dashes – like these ones – may replace em dashes."
- So awkward! Improved markup for the hard space to replace would help a lot. Hence the current hard-space push.
- – Noetica Talk 22:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Which just shows why everyone should get a Mac and use the superb Safari browser, which renders these characters beautifully. Windows users without an alphanumeric keyboard at the right are in trouble, since—unlike Mac—they have no in-built keystrokes for en and em dashes. They can, of course, set macros for the purpose (SO easy to do using cntrl-M, choose keyboard, accept, then record the sequence of actions—that is, insert, symbol, en dash, press blue button on screen to stop recording, then do the same for em dash. I suggest allocating your F2, F3 keys etc, top of your keyboard.) Noetica, what about the minus sign? Tony (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- No doubt there are some few things to be said in favour of the Mac. But I happen to prefer computers. <*Ahem, blink, blink*>.
- Seriously, we need to meet the needs of editors and readers with all manner of platforms and all levels of skill. That's the task, and it is not trivial at all.
- As for the minus sign, in my opinion the en dash is acceptable, or even best, for isolated uses in non-scientific articles.
- – Noetica Talk 03:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)