Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"Other websites" vs. "External links"[change source]

There is a four year old discussion about the name of the header of the list of external links to other websites at the end of an article. Is it really mandatory to use "Other websites" instead of "External links" as in the Complex English Wikipedia? If not, could "External links" be listed as an alternative to "Other websites"? --Лъчезар (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The decision was made four years ago, and is now part of our Manual of Style. External links should not be used. I think there are some bots out there that will probably change it back to "Other websites" automatically. --Peterdownunder (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Japan chronology projects[change source]

I have used Japanese language kanji and a diacritic (en:macron) in these articles:

This writing is consistent with en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan Manual of Style. Is this good or appropriate for simple:Wikipedia?

Do you have comments? questions? suggestions? --Tenmei (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That aspect seems good. Macdonald-ross (talk) 04:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Should restaurant/pub/bar etc. names be italicized?[change source]

I didn't find this in the "Italics" section. Should they? Y'all should add this info to the guidelines page for other users like me who'd have such a question. --TheBearPaw (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Usually names of places aren't. Nifky^ 13:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

First sentence[change source]

There's nothing wrong in principle with this:

"If the article is about a foreign person or place, the name in the original language(s) should be given in parentheses immediately after the title is first mentioned. Link the name of the language, followed by a colon (:), just before the native name".

Except that, in practice, it often makes the first sentence hard to read. If that happens, a good tactic is to put the stuff in a f/note. Some names have been used in several other languages, each with its own link. Similarly, if the key term of a title has several complex alternatives, it may be right to delay listing them. This means putting them in a later sentence, or even a f/note.

The rule is: the first sentence is mighty important: do nothing that would make it harder to read. All good writers know this is vital, and so should we, especially in Simple. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"See also" vs "Other pages"[change source]

Continues from here. πr2 (talk • changes) 17:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking more of "Related pages" because it's more specific than "Other pages" and "Related" (Relation) is on the Basic English word list. Battleaxe9872 / 18:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I like that. πr2 (talk • changes) 18:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
OK with me. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Related pages is better as it does suggest that the pages have something in common, members of the same "family". Other pages could be taken to mean just that, it is another page. --Peterdownunder (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the same should go for "Other Websites" too, as their essentially the same. Battleaxe9872 / 20:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
So we would now have "Related pages" and "Related websites". Good idea. --Peterdownunder (talk) 23:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

<-Take this back to ST please. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Moved back to Simple Talk for a more thorough consensus. Battleaxe9872 / 00:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You should have left the conversation where it is, its been linked to numerous times. If people haven't responded its because they either don't care or think status quo is ok. -DJSasso (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

+1 Jon@talk:~$ 00:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Other pages is fine. Jon@talk:~$ 00:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally I prefer related pages since I am being asked. Other pages is far to vague. -DJSasso (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree for the same reason as DJ. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's simple enough, and more specific. :) Yes, I think "related" is better. —Clementina talk 02:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Split?[change source]

Should this page be split into other pages, like on the English Wikipedia? --- cymru lass (talk to me)(see my edits) 18:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. This is hardly ever used or edited, and splitting it would mean there would be many more pages to take care of, rather than just this one. We need to make this more functional and useful, rather than splitting it up; that is, unless you can give us a good reason. Just because it's split on en is not a good reason for us to do the same, unless there is a reason why we should do it, too. EhJJTALK 18:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation[change source]

I think the advice we give here is absolute nonsense. What percentage of readers can interpret IPA symbols? It isn't even sensible for English wiki, let alone Simple. We should give a simple phonetic spelling using regular alphabetic characters, and that only if it is really needed. Much superior is the use of a recorded spoken word, but that we cannot regularly organise. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

And how to handle dialects and accents? (As in aunt or tomato?) IPA does solve the problem, I believe, but only by becoming so ... crazy ... that few people know how to use it. I think pronunciations should just not be used except for words from systems where everyone sufficiently interested will know the system (pinyin for Chinese words, etc.). --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. I am particularly concerned with proper nouns. There are a lot of Americans, Australians etc. (not to mention people in countries where English is not the first language) the pronunciation of whose names is not obvious based on English pronunciation. Yet, we should tell our readers how to pronounce the names of people like J. S. Bach and Charles Simic. Kdammers (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I think the place for pronunciation info is either in Wiktionary or in sound files on Wikimedia Commons. If we have infoboxes that provide a place to include it, it can go there, too. I also think the IPA method is difficult to work with from both sides. As for phonetic spelling, there are too many different ways to represent sounds phonetically. Besides that, spelling given according to English phonetics wouldn't make sense to people who don't know English well (which includes many of our readers). I see this a lot with the Spanish-speaking student that I tutor in English: I've learned to let her write her own phonetic spelling according to pronunciation of the language she knows, because if I write what looks phonetically right to me, it doesn't always help her. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Time[change source]

The suggested a.m./PM style seems overly restrictive.

"The Chicago Manual of Style and Garner's Modern American Usage: 4 p.m. or 4 PM (with PM in small capitals)

The Gregg Reference Manual: 4 p.m. or 4 P.M. (with PM in small capitals)"

- See more at: http://www.businesswritingblog.com/business_writing/2009/06/what-is-the-correct-time-am-pm-am-pm-am-pm-.html#sthash.vt0hlgTR.dpuf Kdammers (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Different organizations have different style guidelines. Many of the ones I see say either lower case or small capitals. Small capitals are more difficult to do on keyboards, so that makes lower case a better choice. Is there a particular reason this is a problem? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree with lower case. Small caps not right here: book typography is styled with more sophisticated software than ours. (it is possible to build macros with a standard keyboard, but we should not base our style guide on that) I prefer 9am style. There's no real reason for spaces and full points. Over-fussiness is all over WP typography styles. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

What is "the Continental way"?[change source]

Section Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Scientific style says:

"The Wikipedia rule for commas and periods in numbers is, for example, 12,345,678.901 — not the Continental way."

What does "the Continental way" mean? I searched both Simple and En Wikipedia and could not really find a clear answer. My best guess is "European" (from en:International_System_of_Units). Anyone know? Zeniff (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the reference to continental way means the same as European "style" (numbers and comma use). Quoting a web page: "commas are decimal points and decimals commas, so a euro and a half is €1,50 and there are 5.280 feet in a mile. (Britain and Ireland use commas and decimal points like North America.)" User:Rus793 (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation and example! It makes sense now:) Zeniff (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Piped link for Wikilink[change source]

I improved several explanations in the Wikilinking section. It still needs an example of why and how to write a piped link. Would appreciate some help on this. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)