Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rmhermen (talk | contribs) at 19:55, 7 January 2005 (→Different forms of English). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Because this page is so long, I have moved the archives list to an archive directory. Maurreen 17:12, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style--Archive Directory

See also

• Misplaced Pages talk:Establish context
• Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (capitalization)
• Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dashes)
• Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (titles)

• Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (jguk's changes)

Jguk's changes

Does anyone mind if discussion of the following is moved to a separate page?

1. The quote at the beginning of style guide.
2. Fowler's "good" guidelines.
3. The expressions "period" and "full stop."
4. The serial comma.
5. "U.S."

Maurreen 06:20, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have moved all of the discussion related to the above toMisplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (jguk's changes). Maurreen 07:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have filed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment about jguk's behavior. Maurreen 09:56, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reopening discussion

In case anyone is interested, I wanted to let you know that I have reopened the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (jguk's changes). Maurreen 06:57, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My guess is that other Wikipedians would prefer this sleeping dog to lie. jguk 22:19, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't take my occasional silences for complacency or disinterest. I was off the 'Net for a week or so (including the brief Request for comments period on these changes). Now that I'm back, I'm rather weary of seeing people deliberately misconstrue each others' arguments which are already largely based on personal opinions and anecdotal experiences. Since I'm not getting sufficient action on my call for authoritative sources, I'm slowly working on my own research on leading authoritative sources in the various dialects of English. I expect it will take me at least another month, maybe significantly more. (American sources are relatively easy; British, Canadian, et al. are more challenging from my location. But I'd rather do it right than quickly.) If I find that the constant repetition of opinions, unscientific, biased polls, Google searches, and general bickering still haven't produced adequate research on global English publishing practices by then, I'll publish my results. Where and if warranted by the multi-national results, moderated by Misplaced Pages philosophy, I'm liable to do some jguk-style major editing and page moving, then challenge everyone to prove me wrong for doing so. Editing the Manual of Style and its associated elements should not be done as casually as it's been for the past few months, and I plan to raise the level of this debate even if it kills me. ☺ — Jeff Q 04:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

US/UK spelling

Archived at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style archive (spelling 4). Maurreen 23:34, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Corporate abuse of capitalization

Is there/should there be a guideline for capitalization of corporate names? In the text of certain articles (OpenGL, specifically), I have been changing NVIDIA to Nvidia, as I am a strong believer that we should adhere to the accepted capitalization rules instead of letting corporations hijack them for their own benefit. — Flamurai 07:30, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there is the specific guideline that you refer to. I agree with you about not letting companies, marketeers, technology types, etc., hijack the language. But I fear we may be fighting the tide. Maurreen 07:50, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is a great article on the subject, if you're interested. Reading it is kind of theraputic. — Flamurai 09:17, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

the only guideline as regards corporate names is 3M not 3m nor Three M and EBay not eBay nor Ebay, so I would think it would be NVIDIA and OpenGL as well. The corporations aren't hijacking the language so much as the way we use symbols. (Coca cola is recognisable in any alphabet) etc. Pedant 11:38, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

Well, OpenGL makes sense, as it's pronounced "Open Gee El", but "Nvidia" is not pronounced "En Vee Eye Dee Eye Aay". "NVidia" would also be acceptable. — flamuraiº 15:35, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

I've listed The Slot article as an external link from the CamelCase article. Maurreen 16:54, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The article on Time magazine (currently at TIME) should be moved. ] 18:58, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Now that I've actually looked again, I see that we do cover this, at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (trademarks). It says:

Follow our usual text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment:

avoid: REALTOR

instead, use: Realtor

Trademarks in CamelCase are a judgement call. CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable:

OxyContin or Oxycontin - editors choice

Maurreen 19:47, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 

The Chicago Manual of Style says for Names with unusual capitalization:

Parts of names given in full capitals on the letterhead or in the promotional material of particular organizations may be given in upper- and lowercase when referred to in other contexts (e.g., "the Rand Corporation" rather than "the RAND Corporation"). Company names that are spelled without an initial capital (e.g., drkoop.com, which is not a URL) or with a capital following a lowercase letter (e.g., eBay) should remain thus in text. For obvious reasons, however, a name beginning with a lowercase letter should not begin a sentence: if it must, it should be capitalized.

I wonder if it might not be small-capped: "IBay is a very successful business". That looks right to me. The Cambridge Guide to English Usage under capital letters notes:

Some organizations and businesses go by compound names with a capital letter in the middle, e.g. AusInfo, HarperCollins. The mid-capital is thus part of their trademark or business identity, and it defies the general practice of using a hyphen before a capital letter in mid-word (see hyphens section 1c). The practice is established in personal names such as FitzGerald and McIvor: see under Fitz- and Mac or Mc.

That last seems unassailable. If you spell FitzGerald rather than Fitzgerald, why should you baulk at OxyContin rather than Oxycontin? I'm inclined to change the MoS here using that as an example: "Trademarks in CamelCase only extend what has been accepted style in personal and corporate names like FitzGerald and McDonald's. CamelCase should normally be retained when it reflects general usage and does not hinder readability: OxyContin." That would allow for cases, that I do not forsee but may occur, where for some reason CamelCase did look awkward. From Editing Canadian English (11.58):

If a trademark – registered or unregistered – must be specified, use the owner's preferred style:

Her cold-fighting artillery was on her night table: Extra-Strength Tylenol, a box of Kleenex (the big ones), echinacea, grapefruit juice, and a Harlequin romance.

However, if the owner's style is to use lowercase, all caps, italics, or other graphic flourishes for the mark, a reference in ordinary text may be styled with standard capitalization and type treatment.

When he was 12, he seemed to live on Pop-Tarts .

Scrabble games at Lisa's last all night.

Jallan 03:26, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interesting stuff. I don't see it as the job of Misplaced Pages to do company's marketing for them and logos and trademarks are all about marketing. Magazines I have worked for had blanket bans on replicating trademarks and logos (except to avoid confusion). Partly to was for cleaner layout (two firms we wrote about had superscript 2s, because they we a company squared)). But it was also to be seen to be disinterested (c/w NPOV). So no midCaps, no @ signs or superscripts. Just treatment as proper nouns (always initial caps).

In the case of initials, the rule was usually: if it can be pronounced as a word, write it as such (so Start Treaty, Unesco), if it could not then all caps (so BBC, OECD etc). Icundell 10:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Foreign Language Titles

I'd like some feed-back on a section I've put together on Foreing language titles at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (titles)#Foreign languages. I've been working on editing French language films and have found no consistancy to how people treat the names of foreign films. I'd like to get some consensus before I go around moving and changing everything. Thanks. --Samuel Wantman 10:02, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I concur with what you have there. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:46, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

I think articles ought to be under their native names hwen that is commonly known and used in English. E.g., Das Kapital not Capital and Mein Kampf not My Struggle but The Name of the Rose not Il nome della rosa. Just my 2¢/€0,02 ;) —Tkinias 22:55, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is what I proposed, and I think it is already policy (though not always followed -- especially with French films). Was this not clear in what I wrote? --Samuel Wantman 00:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Very good! I do think that greater emphasis should be placed on naming articles based on the common name of the film, whether it is in English or French or Elvish. (Not that I know any of the latter.) If it's well-known by the non-English name, then by all means, use it. When there are special alphabets involved, I tend to think that it's better to put something readable by most readers first and the correct form second (since it might not display properly on visitors' browsers anyway).

I've gone back and forth on which goes first. I think in the case of lists (like the academy awards) the original foreign language name should go first. Otherwise it may give the impression that the English name IS the orignal name. Having lists done in a standard format for foreign languages will also help people get used to understanding what they are seeing in the lists. If the names just appear in the text of the article, I want to leave it to the authors and editors to decide. In some languages (like French and Italian) authors seem to like to use the orignal language first. In other languages (like Russian and Chinese) authors appear to use the English titles first. But I don't think this needs a hard and fast rule because there may be good reasons for doing it differently in a specific case. --Samuel Wantman 00:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would recommend, in order to preserve peace, goodwill, and reasonable editing, choosing an example of a film with an other-than-literally-translated title that does not involve a U.S./UK distinction. That way your message can get across without excess baggage being attached. Winged Migration wouldn't be a bad choice (you could probably do better if you spent more than five minutes looking, though). There's no point in risking bringing nationalistic sentiments into this if we can help if. ;) -] 23:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Advocating  

What do you say about a section advocating the usage of the non-breakable space? Cases I would start with are:

1. Separating the initials from a name, or other cases distinguishing an abbreviation ending from the end-of-sentence period, as in B.N. Delaunay
2. Preventing a stand-alone (before a comma or a period) numeral or short acronym/abbreviation carried over to a new line
3. em-dash tying, as with the "Tom and Jerry" example in the Sections:Introduction in the article

Please add more. BACbKA 22:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep the amount of HTML in the style guide to a minimum, and for the style guide to focus on language. Maurreen 06:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Should, following this logic, - and – and — and ${\displaystyle -}$, be treated all the same and therefore interchangeable? What about the "Use straight quotation marks and apostrophes" section — do you consider it redundant as well? I fully agree with the "don't get fancy" section that one should not abuse the HTML power in the articles here, but I think that using the non-breakable space where needed is a necessary part of markup, i.e., a part of the necessary minimum. Any of the cases I have enumerated above looks REALLY ugly without a non-breakable space, in case the line is actually gets broken there. Pity the wikireader creators, on the paper it is even uglier...

But, maybe, both things are needed — one document about language/wording and the other dealing more with the fonts selection/selection of the punctuation signs/markup? BACbKA 09:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Those are valid cases you make, but I still think HTML entities should be kept to a minimum in source. Most editors do not know what they mean. -- Tarquin 09:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your point makes a lot of sense, but then there has to be some other way to minimize the ugliness induced by the lack of proper markip. Maybe we should ask the software to be configured to recognize additional shorthand in the source (e.g., like in TeX: -- for an en-dash, --- for an em-dash;, and ~ for a non-breakable space)? BACbKA 11:08, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am sure there will be a very old post by me on the mailing list suggesting that -- and --- be turned into en and em dashed ;) It's very easy and it's clear to editors. I'd certainly support this. For the non-breakable space I'm less sure. The French WP has a big problem with this, because all numbers (eg 100 000) and punctutation (the space before : ? ! etc) need nbsp, and this makes markup pretty ugly. -- Tarquin 16:34, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with having this information in a different section. Maurreen 16:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Italics vs. quotes

This is still a confusing area of the style manual many editors don't understand. I think a sentence or two differentiating between the two should be added along the lines of, "Quotation marks are only used around quotations from an outside source. Italics are used in all other situations." The words as words section is not strong enough. — ] 01:30, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Is "from an outside source" needed? Maurreen 06:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I didn't really edit that sentence – just wrote it as I posted. — ] 09:30, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Underlining

A section should be added discouraging underlining. It is a holdover from the typewriter days, and in the Internet days, underlining implies links. — ] 03:55, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

agreed. BACbKA 06:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are people using underlining? Maurreen 06:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Occasionally guilty; APA is somewhat hardwired (but I no longer use two spaces after a full stop.) Mea culpa, and I will repent. - Amgine 07:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've seen it a few times, and in some WikiProject templates. I once saw a book title underlined, italicized, and in quotes. — ] 09:29, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

At least it wasn't also "bolded" :-) BACbKA 11:13, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree entirely with the above -- Tarquin 09:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now, the tough question: Where should this section be added? Seems like a good place might be under the italics section, as italicization is almost always the proper replacement for underlining. — ] 12:48, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)s

Maybe call the section "Titles." Maurreen 16:40, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I somehow feel like this should be treated at Misplaced Pages:How_to_edit_a_page. Someone who didn't know HTML would have to look up the special syntax there. We should add a note that says underlining is being phased out of formatting online, and should never be used. --Sean Kelly 23:43, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is a Titles section. But a personal question, which I think is addressed at the Ships Wikiproject: What is the correct format for a ship's name? Most usage is to italicize (which I dislike but would use if it were suggested style), but professional usage is to treat as a formal name (HMS Bounty as opposed to HMS Bounty or "HMS Bounty"), and of course linked where possible. - Amgine 23:15, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Current standard is 'HMS Bounty' (without quotes). See Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions#Ship_names and the associated links and discussion. I like it and don't see any reason to change it. —Mike 01:23, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

<face> Don't like it, but don't wish to change it either. (The reasons for not liking it are two-fold: it's not the standard I used while serving in the Navy, and a ship/boat is considered a person by people who work/sail it; you wouldn't call your co-worker 'Mr. Amgine.) - Amgine 05:00, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Capitalisation of artistic movements

I have reached a conundrum. Every usage guide I consult (including Misplaced Pages and Chicago) says that artistic, philosophical, and cultural movements are by default to be not capitalised, unless they explicitly refer to, or their name originated from, a proper noun. Yet, I see artistic movements constantly capitalised when this is not the case, e.g. "Realism", "Expressionism", "Impressionism", etc. This seems to be a particular habit among those writing about the visual arts; literary, musical, philosophical movements and so on tend to follow the "rule". Why is this??

Some questions regarding Maurreen's changes

I don't wish to get back into a revert war, but I do have some queries regarding Maurreen's latest changes. I'd be grateful if she would answer them: jguk 15:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oxford comma

A large number of Wikipedians, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was most, do not use the Oxford comma. This is not surprising. It tends to not be used by those outside North America, and tends to be used in North America. But both using and not using the Oxford comma are permitted by all forms of standard English. Commonsense would be to keep the de facto status quo of not preferring one permitted form of English over another. My queries to Maurreen, who wishes to require Wikipedians to use the Oxford comma, are: 1. Why? 2. Is she proposing that copyediting Wikipedians should actively hunt out instances where the Oxford comma is not used (which, I'd guess, number in the tens of thousands)? jguk 15:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Changing the clarification of "full stop (period)" to "period"

Assuming Maurreen recognises that not everyone understands the usage of the word "period" as a punctuation mark, what does Maurreen have against clarifying the word for British and Irish users. Maybe we could try "period (full stop)" if Maurreen does not like the British/Irish English word to go first? jguk 15:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm with jguk on this: it's harmless to say "period (full stop)", and, to a portion of the world, it's a useful clarification. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:38, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

"but I do agree with the deletion, as it seems silly to keep on saying period/full stop. Everyone knows what a period is. While we shouldn't assume readers of this page are linguists, we also shouldn't assume they're stupid." Slim 09:40, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC) So if I replace every instance of period with full stop, as everyone knows what a full stop is, and while we shouldn't assume readers of this page are linguists, we also shouldn't assume they're stupid, you will not object? Did you read Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (jguk's changes)#Period? Philip Baird Shearer 11:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No! ... whilst WP editors may be aware that a period in typographical terms is usually known as a full stop by many, that would be a very US-centric approach to take for our users. Around the English-speaking world both terms are used (and, probably, both can be mis-understood!) so it would *not* be harmless to drop either in favour of the other. We shouldn't assume people are stupid, but we shouldn't assume that their primary language is US English either. --Vamp:Willow 12:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

U.S.

I'm still not clear as to why it is meant to be easier to search under "U.S." rather than "US". Google searches, for instances, find references to the US written either way regardless of whether the stops are inserted. If I could understand the rationale, maybe I'd accept the policy Maurreen has (re-)inserted. At present, all I can see that that policy does is make articles that otherwise adopt the convention of not having stops between initials look inconsistent. jguk 15:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is one of those cases that is right on the cusp between two policies, and we simply ought to adopt one consistently. It seems to me entirely appropriate that we adopt the dominant spelling from the country that the name designates. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:41, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Maurreen's response

I have copied the comments and questions from jguk and Jmabel to Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (jguk's changes), and I answered jguk there.

Jguk has suggested on my talk page that he and I "not re-address the issue for a while, and let other Wikipedians add their commments." I am willing to do that. Maurreen 19:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Different forms of English

I feel we should stop referring to American English v. British English. English is used as a first language in Australia, Canada, England, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, Scotland, the U.S., and Wales, plus smaller outposts. Although a lot of written English-English and Scottish-English is the same, for example, written Scottish-English tends to follow the Oxford English Dictionary, and so will use -ize endings, and yet whenever I read about so-called British-English, I see -ise endings being recommended. I feel that some of the editors working on Misplaced Pages are basing their knowledge of British-English on what newspapers in England do, but newspaper style guides are often quite different from ordinary usage. In Canada, for example, they are completely different. And in the UK, a newspaper published in London will use quite different rules to the ones taught to a child in Scotland.

I'm not proposing we do a detailed analysis of Commonwealth and American usage because it would be close to impossible, but I feel we shouldn't simply assume there are two kinds of English, one American and one British. It would be preferable always to give a couple of examples when we talk about different usage, depending on context. For example, "check" as used in the U.S. and Canada, or "cheque" as used in Australia, New Zealand and Canadian newspapers, and so on. Slim 22:49, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

How about "Commonwealth English" or "International English", which one sees used in quite a few contexts to describe exactly this, pretty much.

James F. (talk)

Hi James, it wasn't me who deleted all the references to "full stop," but I do agree with the deletion, as it seems silly to keep on saying period/full stop. Everyone knows what a period is. While we shouldn't assume readers of this page are linguists, we also shouldn't assume they're stupid. Also, I reinserted America and Canada in the example about the spelling of center, instead of North America, because Canada and American spelling and other usage are sometimes quite different, so the two shouldn't be equated. Many English speakers in Canada do, as a matter of fact, spell center as "center," although some Canadian newspaper style guides spell it "centre." As I said above, I feel we should stop assuming there are two kinds of English. English is used in over 70 countries as a first or second language, and within the UK alone, punctuation, pronunciation and sometimes spelling differ between, say, Scotland and England. Commonwealth English wouldn't work because Canada is the Commonwealth, yet doesn't have the same usage as, say, Australia. I don't see that there's a need to use these categories in the Manual of Style. Examples tell people what they need to know, I feel. Slim 09:40, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with using the term "International English" in the style guide. At best, it is ambiguous and I don't see how it is needed. It might be best to make minimal use of labels of various nationalities here. For example, a few months ago, a few people were re-ordering the labels, presumably to put their own country first in the list. Maurreen 15:20, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Slim, not everyone understands Americanisms. Period. (or is that Full Stop?)

On the "International English" front, Maurreen's right, we should not use that term. The style guide should note that any form of standard English may be used in Misplaced Pages as long as it is used consistently within an article. It should recommend that when terms/words are used that are not universally understood they are either replaced with terms/words that are universally understood, or alternatively are explained. It should recommend (solely for the purposes of trying to avoid edit wars), that where a place, person or subject is linked closely to any one region that an article on that place, person or subject is written a form of standard English that is used in that place. And that is all.

Unfortunately the style guide does not yet recommend this. Though the inconsistency can be fun;) For instance, it does mean I can slate Slim mercilessly for appalling punctuation :)) (see the style guide recommendations on where to place inverted commas!) jguk 17:32, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where to place inverted commas? Not sure what you're referring to, but if you mean "this," I take it you mean my placement of the comma inside the punctuation marks. If you look around at recently published books on both sides of the Atlantic, you'll find this is increasingly common. It looks neater, in my view, than "this", which to my eyes looks like a comma trying to escape from the sentence.

I agree about not referring to "international English," as it's not clear there's any such thing. As for period/full stop, in the UK, journalists use the term "dot" to refer to these - U.S. - and "stop" to refer to period, but they don't use "full stop" because it's too long-winded and brevity matters when you're dictating copy over a dodgy phone line, for instance. From my personal knowledge of British English, I'd say "full stop" is something people use in English schools, but not in all Scottish ones, but then probably don't use after that. And I wouldn't agree that "period" is an Americanism. But this is a very trivial point. Regardless of which terms are used on first reference, we should only use one on second and further reference, because otherwise we're assuming our readers are idiots. Hopefully, not all are, or we're wasting our time here anyway.  :-) Slim 00:29, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Not to mention that the largest English-as-a-first-language group will very shortly be in India. It is probably inappropriate to use "International English" (although there is a form sometimes called "Simple English"). A comparison of various dialects of the language is suitable for a Misplaced Pages article, and should be referenced by the style guide, but not reiterated in it. A simple and brief expansion of the terms (such as "period, or full stop,") on first use is suitable where there are multiple common terms, and then the more widely understood term should be used thereafter in that section. Simpler guidelines are to be preferred over complex ones; thus "be consistent in spelling usage" rather than "use southeastern-U.S. dialectical usage when discussing regional topics." - Amgine 07:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To me, “period” seems awfully more ambiguous than “full-stop”. To readers who aren’t familiar with the term could take it to mean a coma or a semi-colon, where as “full-stop”, when it context, is self-explanatory. Should not the term that is more easily understood be used?--211.29.1.34 06:47, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is not "self-explanatory". It is not understood in America. We have already established that much. Rmhermen 19:55, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)