Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 25

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 25

'Aluminium'

For chemical articles, WP has decided, after lengthy discussions, to compromise on the IUPAC spelling. For example, although our chemical articles use the Commonwealth "aluminum" and "cesium" English forms, they also use a clear "sulfur" of America. And in this case, the IUPAC spelling is relevant. This style option only applies in practice to chemistry-related articles - in another article the spelling that fits the style of the article should be used, for 5:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, sulfur is now the official English spelling (the Royal Society of Chemistry made changes a few years ago, after the IUPAC agreement, and the test board was followed, with some hoo-ha surrounding it). Frankly, I do not understand why we can not share the difference. I think the problem is that this affects the pronunciation, not just spelling. \\ Wooster

If I can summarize the suggestion as "follow the relevant authority where it exists", then I can support it wholeheartedly. So: chemistry articles follow the style of IUPAC (Aluminum); industry and other non-national articles also follow the IUPAC style (Deville process); American articles follow the American style (Charles Martin Hall); and Commonwealth articles follow the Commonwealth style (can not think of an example). Wooster 17:08, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

(Certainly we should be careful using this "official" word.) Certain spellings can not really be "official" in English, English, and language variants in general, do not work like that; acasà ©  © nie franÃÆ'§aise can force popular spelling changes So I highly doubt that "sulfur" is now a Spelling in the UK but I am too far...... - Cyberjunkie Talk 17:57, August 29, 2005 ( UTC)

I do not agree with the requirement to follow IUPAC style in industry and other non-national styles. By all means stick with IUPAC for chemistry related articles, but do not let prescriptivism spread, 17:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Cyberjunkie: Fair enough, sort of. "Official", really, is used to mean "in government and educational documents", which are almost as "official" as people get. Ã, :)

ng: I think my "main principle" is consistency - so readers who read about the various processes for aluminum making are not bombarded with stylistic and spelling changes over time, making all articles fit into broad categories following almost identical policies. The suggestion seemed most appropriate. I will apply it to all chemicals, including aluminum sulfate, which I have noticed exist, both chemically and encyclopedias. Ã,: D

In any case, the original Litefantastic question can even be an option - this is false thinking: what if the Commonwealth English speakers (remember Africa...) exceed the number of English speakers? Wooster 17:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

At a practical level, WP: Chem has enough difficulty maintaining the IUPAC style in chemistry-related articles, without attempting to impose prescripivism elsewhere. As I recall, I checked "what links here" for this article, and have changed some spellings, but I agree that there will be no "aluminum" in an article that is clearly US-style. In those cases I left the US spelling: there was a diversion from the alternative spelling to the relevant chemical article. Physchim62 08:21, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

My problem with this is that if you use aluminum, then it is obviously wrong for English, whereas if you go aluminum it is true, so you can have the correct spelling in both languages. Wikipedia does not seem to solve the basic language problem - it's not the American encyclopaedia or the encyclopedia. However, there are some articles that are very American-centered and Anglo-centric (or at least POVs) there. I do not think you can solve this problem unless there is a better policy about:

• Americans
• English
• World view
• Variant

After considering a double-quote article in which American writers declared POV America about how the English used this language, it became a nuisance to English readers. Obviously there is a tendency underlying both parties to try and claim the language in some posts - the assumption by various posters that the American view or the British view is true. The answer is both true, and sometimes sufficient for both views, sometimes they are wrong. I think it would be agreed that the two versions would not be productive, but I do not think that there is a sensible rule about how the common habits are. If we try and practice together, then if there is a general term that makes sense then surely that should be liked, regardless of national preferences. Spenny 15:30, September 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure the initial observations are accurate. "Aluminum" is equally "wrong" to Americans as "Aluminum" to the English. Nohat 16:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, technically correct, but in general usage wrong - does that make it better? I would still say that aluminum will be found in a pure American dictionary while Aluminum will not be found in a pure English English dictionary (it only comes in the one I have with the American tag). I'm happy to be wrong in this, but hope you see the main point. Petty though his spelling point is, he has to establish what his basic principle is. So basically, both versions must exist because for one group of people or else it will be wrong. I do not think "I am the one who started it, so it should be" according to the rules. It's just good enough for general text rather than the technical details of an article. So we can say color or color and do not have an edit war, but the car will be wrong in England to describe a motor car, it is not Englsih English, and even after years of American film, it will be considered very strange./dd>

There are many examples around: in the English gramophone so ancient that it became completely obsolete, it really just meant the old wind player and tried to use it as an encyclopedia entry as it insisted on a train without a horse for the car, but we got the impression that the gramophone is the current usage of Wikipedia. Will the appearance of the Gramophone talk page be considered current usage for the record player/stereo? From an English point of view, it directs articles to be read as strangely rooted in the past. Spenny 17:09, September 22, 2005 (UTC)

No. "Fair enough, technically correct, but in common usage wrong - does that make it better?" not true. Aluminum is not a spelling that is used at all in American English. It's just not Englsih Americans, and even after years of British films, it will be considered very strange. Rmhermen 17:28, September 22, 2005 (UTC)

Should not this page be given the correct name Style Manual ? Phaunt 09:34, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Added later: I am writing this based on Wikipedia: Naming convention (capitalization). It seems odd that the style manual does not match what it preaches. Phaunt 13:35, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree; let's lose the old typewriter pattern, please. Computers, and many devices to highlight titles, have been around long enough. Tony 09:56, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

This page has been here long. As with the Main Page, this is best maintained as is, for 14:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Hhmm, I know the lines sometimes get blurred between proper nouns and regular nouns, but I feel like Wikipedia: Style Manual is quite of a certain thing to deserve to be the right noun. The title describes what the page is not just what is in it (ie "This page is a Style Manual"). Similarly, Wikipedia: The naming convention (capitalization) does not so much describe what the page is as what lies above it (ie you will not say "this page is a Naming Convention (Capitalization)", you will instead says "this page describes/contains naming conventions (capitalization)").

To be honest the same goes for the Home Page. The title is not used to describe what the main page in general, nor is it used purely descriptively - it's the Home page.

Just think of an example: If I gave you a copy of the New York Times, I might ask you to go to page three. But if I give you a copy of The Sun, I will ask you to go to Page Three. Chuck 21:11, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

The reason I am behind capitalization in the article title is that in many cases Manual of Style will become a book. Although Wikipedia MOS is not a book, it is made as the equivalent of, or a substitute, a MOS book. ? 18:20, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 25

Capitalize list of links

Wikipedia: Manual_of_Style # "See also" and "Related topics" state that a list of links like the View also section should be downgraded (except the proper noun). The Manual of Style section is clearly contrary to common usage - I've never seen this done on Wikipedia before. In addition, the list of lowercase letters looks very bad :-) Therefore I recommend changing these paragraphs so that the link list should be capitalized. Cacycle 23:01, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

The Manual_of_Style paragraph reference to Wikipedia: The list where it says "as a style issue, do not use capital letters list items" . However, this has never been discussed on the Wikipedia_talk talk page: List and not even followed in the article itself. Cacycle 23:22, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

This is often done on Wikipedia (like a list of uppercase letters). I like it, and think it should be the rule. It gives us information we can not get from the article title, with initial capitalization still enabled. But the worst thing is when some are one way and some others. Gene Nygaard 09:10, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

There may be some list of lowercase letters out there, but I have not found them:

• The NONE of 116 randomly checked articles contains only a lower list entry, 5 containing mixed styles, 48 ​​contains only a capitalized list entry starting with an incorrect noun.
• NONE of about 40 templates The checked navigation contains a lower list.
• NONE about 50 checked List... article contains a lower list.
• A list of links in the ALL Wikipedia user interface is capitalized.

Manual_of_Style and Wikipedia Manuals: The list must clearly be changed to accommodate this remarkable consensus.

Cacycle 22:07, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Here's some for you:

• The British thermal unit
• competition (one miscapitalized)
• compiler
• crime
• gamma rays
• gold search
• es
• medium-bulk black hole
• invariant mass
• kerosene
• manifold
• math
• measurements
• newton
• semantics
• community

Gene Nygaard 04:14, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

The new lowercasing rule in Manual_of_Style was found by Lowellian August 16, 2005 without any discussion before and after. New lowercasing rules on Wikipedia: List created by Patrick March 23, 2005 without any discussion before and after. Cacycle 22:35, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Your claim is incorrect. I do not "find" some new rules. The rules already exist on Wikipedia: List, and furthermore, the rules match the example already given in Wikipedia: Manual Style. --Lowellian (reply) 07:58, September 26, 2005 (UTC)

I am writing what is familiar on Wikipedia, and what I think makes the most sense. Note that it is about capitalization in the arbitrary list, which is a separate discussion. But also in the "see also" list I support not to capitalize, but, again, unless the list item is accompanied by one or more complete sentences.-- Patrick 08:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Should we not follow the rules of uppercase/lowercase letters commonly used elsewhere:

See also: flaming, fire, Internet troll

atau

== Lihat juga ==

* [[Flaming]] atau [[api]]

* [[Internet troll]]

Basically, everything is lowercase except the first letter in the sentence, the first letter in a bullet, or the first letter of any word of the proper noun (except for a, an, from, etc.).

Looking at the Wikipedia page: List, I can not for the life of me figure out why it is the guide on that page. I made a suggestion there so we changed it. Chuck 22:36, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Can we please leave the era behind the typewriter? The computer can highlight and format very easily so we do not need to capitalize and underline again. The layers of meaning conveyed by capital letters must be kept in the list, rather than covered with an overused capital letter, the initial words. Tony 22:41, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I do not see what to do with this typewriter. Among the things that Wikipedia is not a forum for advocacy. There is no reason that it should be the vehicle for your crusade to change the written English convention. (You really ought to see someone about your hatred of typewriters... my boy.) Chuck 23:23, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

You personalize it, but the problem is a significant change in the formatting culture performed by a typewriter replacement with a computer. With a typewriter, the spotlight can be achieved in a very limited number of ways, that is, by capitalizing and/or underlining. These methods reduce the level of meaning, and are difficult to read and ugly, respectively. Its use is now declining as computers allow for a wider range of highlighting techniques that do not have this flaw. And this is precisely the forum on which this issue should be raised. Tony 00:01, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia is not a medium to advocate changing a written English convention, it is a reference source. Difficult to read and bad is subjective. I find it ugly and hard to read to have the switch list from uppercase to disguised. Also, cap heading and capitalization in the list before typing. It has nothing to do with the changing technology. Here's one example and another. Chuck 01:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree with everything you say. 'It's hard to read and bad is subjective.' - Everything is subjective, is not it? Pre-typed machine capitalization serves the same purpose in the absence of rich, rich computer resources. It's all about changing technology. Tony 02:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

No, "everything" is not subjective. There are many things that are not subjective. I will give you some examples of the non-subjective points I have seen used in the recent MoS discussion: ÃÆ'Ÿ not a letter used in English. Although ÃÆ'Ÿ is not used in English, it is a member of the same Latin alphabet wider than English. Johann Strauss spelled his name StrauÃÆ'Ÿ. Some early browsers display squares instead of quotes. The current Firefox version shows the quotes correctly.

Do you see the link I'm attaching? The first uses no less than 11 different font types (different shapes, sizes, styles or weights) and the second uses no less than 10. (And that does not even include places like the word "Illustrated" where they can get away with just make one word in one player, rather than doing the whole font.) I do not think they're starving because of the "rich spotlight resources". They already use separate fonts for chapter titles, for example, but still use title caps. Chuck 03:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

One more comment. Even our contents list (which is automatically generated for pages with multiple sections) capitalizes each item. There's nothing special about that table, it's just a list that's created automatically. Chuck 04:24, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Do not lie. It does not automatically capitalize them, it prints the lines in the contents list exactly as they appear in the header section. Gene Nygaard 14:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Being wrong and lying are two different things, jackass. Whatever it is, the result is the most common table form in articles using capital letters. Chuck 18:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, the Wikipedia Home Page contains a list of INCLUDES ONLY links. Cacycle 19:06, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

The list of upper case letters provided by Gene Nygaard is very interesting. Some of the lists mentioned have been handed down by Gene Nygaard herself! Other remaining-overs from comma editing are separated See also sentences or they are mixed lists. In some articles the list See also is a list with only a lower number in addition to the 8 or 10 list of uppercase letters in the article! [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

The diff-link chat clearly shows that a small group of users including Gene Nygaard and especially Eequor are actively involved in the lowercasing section See also . Contribution of Eequor and Gene Nygaard's contribution is impressive in this regard... Cacycle 19:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

If there is no (rational) object I will make the appropriate changes to the Style Manual. Cacycle 10:46, September 22, 2005 (UTC)

At least four people, Users: Gene Nygaard, Users: Eequor, Users: Tony1, and I, mind you changing the Style Manual. There is no consensus to make such a change. --Lowellian (reply) 07:58, September 26, 2005 (UTC)

The madness and deceit of some of these four users goes against the overwhelming consensus of the Wikipedia community. While we have collected many arguments for a list of links with higher links above, you and your friends do not provide a rational, single argument for this discussion. In addition, you are the person who arbitrarily smuggles the controversial issue into the Manual of Style without prior discussion. So you are really in a very, very bad position to be an object. Cacycle 23:06, September 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm with you, Cacycle. Change it back! --Wahoofive (talk) 23:15, September 26, 2005 (UTC)

"Re-change"? You are trying to impose some new rules in the community, and you call it "change [ing] it back "? --Lowellian (reply) 04:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

And what "big consensus" is there? You continue to use words like that without showing such "extraordinary consensus. Calling non-"rational" arguments is not a counter argument; it just shows the deficiency of a counter argument. --Lowellian (reply) 04:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia