Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 80

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

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 75

←

→

Consistency

Ok, say you have an article, in this case called yoghurt. If you mention soyog(h)urt - how should you spell it? Does the guideline that consistency should prevail succumb to what is more popular? --daniel folsom 22:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not a MoS question. It's a Verifiability and No Original Research question. Daniel wants us to make up new words that are unused in the real world because an archaic spelling of yoghurt is used in our article on yogurt. Wikipedia describes, not prescribes. We don't prescribe by making up new word spellings. SchmuckyTheCat

I had already explained this to shmucky on the talk page - and for the record I wasn't even the one who added the word - but just theoretically for now, I can check accuracy later.--daniel folsom 23:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, but SchmuckyTheCat is exactly right in this case. The forms "soyghurt" and "soyoghurt" are for all practical purposes nonexistent variants. Why should they be used in wikipedia in preference to a form that at least has some appreciable level of usage? That is not what the MOS is about. The MOS does not mandate a slavish application of mechanical principles in complete disregard of real-world usage. Google results on English language sites: soyghurt (18) or soyoghurt (21) is vanishingly small compared to soygurt (279). soyogurt comes in second at 130. I'll grant that all of them are niche variants, but there is no clear indication that any of these spellings are British/American -- until there is, I don't see much point to using a form that is virtually unused by anyone. older ≠ wiser 00:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok now I'm kinda hoping for a response from someone that wasn't involved - I can look for more info on soyoghurt later - but, my point was theoreticaly (assuming soyoghurt checked out - which it may or may not) - which one. --daniel folsom 00:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh holy crap - I just realized that you were trying to put in soygurt and not soyogurt - fair enough I'm fine with soygurt going in, I just don't think we should put soyogurt. --daniel folsom 00:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, most (if not all) of these soy yogurt products are referred to as soyogurt, while all instances of soyoghurt are just from individuals referencing those products. Strad 00:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

National varieties of English: draft copy-edit for feedback

The only slight change of meaning might concern the status of the "original contributor", but I'm unsure that it has actually changed anything (the variety chosen by the original contributor is favoured in the early stages of an article; more generally, the variety that an article has predominantly evolved with is favoured—probably the same).

I've removed the sermon-giving tone, the opening negativity, and the fluff.

The new is at the top; the existing version is below it.

Draft

Tony 04:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It’s missing the problem of identifying the variant used in the first place. That task is often plain impossible, even more so for the majority of people who don’t have a profound theoretical knowledge of the English language. (Consider the number of transclusions of Template:User Mixed English for instance.) Thus it’ll basically remain a rough guess between ou/re/ise and o/er/ize, if the article in question isn’t from an identifiable contemporary geopolitical domain, which has special orthographic, syntactic and lexical rules assigned to it, anyway. Christoph Päper 12:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't see the problem, then. As soon as the first identifiable variable spelling is edited in, it's established and is subject to the guidelines just as if started from scratch with identifiable variety. Does this need to be explicated? (I'd have thought not—it's not there at the moment.) Tony 12:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is sufficiently clear; explicating would needlessly lengthen the guideline, IMO.--Paul Erik 17:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Great improvement, Tony—I do like how you have removed the negativity and the preachy tone. I am wondering whether the European Union institutions example is necessary, or even if it introduces some confusion: Is it "appropriate" to use Maltese English in the early stages of an article about a general European topic? I know that may not be the intended meaning of the instruction, but I wonder if some readers might take it that way.--Paul Erik 17:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Paul, thanks for raising an issue that was bobbing about in my mind. I think it should be removed. Tony 00:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

An excellent rendition, Tony! I think I would switch the order of the “Retaining the existing variety” and “Strong ties to a region” subsections, though. The priority of rationale and the natural logical flow run better that way. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Askari. Done. Tony 02:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It is quite possible for someone to create a stub of an article that uses one version of English, that is changed when the article is changed from a stub into an article. Up to now it has been considered acceptable for the English to be changed to another version by the first major contributor that turns a {{stub}} into an article. This was formulated to stop the preemptive creation of stubs to lay claim to an expanded article being in one specific English. As many see that as not in the spirit of this MOS section, and it can lead to disputes -- speedy deletion requests etc, etc. So it was, and I think should still be, emphasized that stubs should do not dictate the form of English to be used for the article. To give an example articles like "Gasoline" or "Petrol", "Tram" or "Streetcar" may be created as a stub so that when an article is created the national variety of English is already dictated. Up to now it is generally considered OK for a person who is creating a real article to move it to the name they prefer. So removing mention of a stub in this guideline has a profound effect on the creation of articles and the use of stubs. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

So is the new version unsatisfactory in this respect? Tony 11:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably, becuase the current wording is not clear on this point, but I am not sure how to introduce it so that the wording is brief and elegant. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly like using Lord of the Rings as an example of a subject that has "strong ties to a particular national region". Can we use a more cut and dry example, such as River Thames or London Underground? i.e. a subject that is obviously primarily of interest to people in a certain region? Kaldari 18:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not "strong ties to a particular national region" any more but "Strong national ties to a topic". The Ayers Rock example already covers the "River Thames". I take this example to mean that it applies to a work by any English speaking author, e.g. Jane Eyre, The Catcher in the Rye or Foundation Series. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe there is concensus among editors for that. I have seen several debates concerning works of literature that are of international interest where the concensus has been to leave the articles in the original style rather than switching to the national variety of the author. This is especially true for works that are known worldwide and of interest throughout the English-speaking world. For that reason I don't support using Lord of the Rings as an example. How about London Underground or some other example that there is definitely concensus on? Kaldari 18:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish people would stop obsessing about these things; it's provincialism at its worst — as though anyone might be offended (yes, I've seen that argument) by seeing "color" instead of "colour." It's sad and absurd. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Philip, I removed the Maltese and Hiberno English (or whatever it's called), because it was always kind of silly to include dialects; otherwise we'd have to start mentiong Estuary English, and Scots English, and of course there are different dialects of Scots too. There'd be no end to it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Slim we have already been through this before, From memory there are other discussions in the archives on "European Union institutions" but here are three to be going on with ,Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style--Archive11#EU , Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style--Archive11#EU_and_OAS, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 20

This is to make clear that European institutions, treaties etc are conducted in British/Irish/Maltese English and such articles should be written in the language used by those institutions. The three are mentioned because they are all states in the European Union. I have no objections to removing Irish and Maltese, from the English used as they are all using the same formal English, (but I think that others would object to this). I would be equally happy using Commonwealth English in place of British English, but the example of European institutions should stay as it is just as valid as the other examples given. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do we care what the UN does? The pertinent question for us is whether there has ever been a content dispute based on the difference between written Maltese English, and written British English. If there has, please show me an example; if there hasn't, please don't mention it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are confused. This is nothing to do with Maltese English/British English differences, it has to do with the English used for articles on European Union institutions. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the language used in the documents of those particular institutions. It is because of the special interest British/Irish/Maltese people have in institions they are under the jurisdiction of. For example, there is no way that articles about the UN should have a preferred variety of English or a preferred spelling. That is missing the point. Also, I think "British/Irish/Maltese English" should be retained. There are differences between the formal varieties of English used in different countries, including the UK and Ireland, though probably few differences in spelling, granted. Joeldl 05:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Can someone give me an example of a "formal" difference between Maltese, Irish, and British English? It seems especially odd to mention these distinctions (if they exist) given that there are enormous differences between English and Scottish English, yet they are lumped together under "British." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The differences in grammar between English English and Scottish English, and between English English and Irish English, are remarkable; but most of them are unlikely to affect the kind of prose you need for an encyclopedia article. An example of Scottish shibboleth is outwith for outside (as in within and outwith). And then there's vocabulary, of course: e.g. Scottish janitor, English caretaker; Scottish carry-out, English takeaway; Irish substitute teacher, British supply teacher; Irish yield, British give way etc. Institutional terminology may be somewhat different too (as in Scottish law vs. English law). I don't know jack about Maltese English. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I an easy on whether Irish and Maltese or British is mentioned (any or all can be included) but the EU should be mentioned because as Joeldl writes "It is because of the special interest British/Irish/Maltese people have in [EU] institions they are under the jurisdiction of". All this has been said before in the archives ... --Philip Baird Shearer 10:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Slim's removal of the EU example, and have re-removed it:

"* European Union institutions—(British, Irish and Maltese English)

We're trying to convey style guidelines as succinctly as possible. First, there are quite enough examples to get the point across without the EU examples (New Zealand and South African English aren't exemplified, I see too); second, the EU example clouds the basic issue by expecting that readers know all about the EU, its member countries (including, recently, Malta), its language issues, and of course that Malta does have a separate variety of English. It weakens the section, IMV. Tony 11:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

These are guidelines not just examples in an essay. Please read the archives there are good reasons for including the EU because of the shared sovereignty and the close national interests tied up in this issue, further because of the shared sovereignty the EU is in the unique position of being an international institution that does to a limited extent have some sovereignty. It is precisely because we can not "expect[] that readers know all about the EU" that is should be included. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It just doesn't add anything to the stylistic point being conveyed, and begs too many questions. Does it, for example, suggest that in this list of EU institutions, every title should be rendered in all three varieties (British, Irish and Maltese)? It's just too opaque. Tony 11:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are only objecting to the three nations use of English. Then why delete the whole entry? Why not just delete two of them?

But to address your point, obviously the one to use [that] you describe is dictated by is the one used by the EU, as for example European Central Bank. So you are not objecting to the EU entry, only the use of the mention of three versions of English. Surly if there is a difference in the English used in an EU article then the differences between English, Irish and Maltese English can be sorted out on that specific page, although as the spelling and the the use of English is very similar that is not likely to be a problem. As you are objecting to the three I will reinstall it with only one version of English. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Philip, please give examples of the differences between written Maltese, Irish, and British English. And I couldn't understand your sentence above: "But to address your point, obviously the one to use you describe is dictated by is the one used by the EU as for example European Central Bank." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It was to address the point made by Tony "Does it, for example, suggest that in this list of EU institutions, every title should be rendered in all three varieties" that the one to use in this case is dictated by the one used by the EU. (I agree what I wrote above is not clear -- children were distracting me)

I could not give an example of a difference between written Maltese Irish and British English, but I will not dismiss Maltese English as any less valid than the English used by other English speaking populations. However in this case there might be a way to drop Irish English and Maltese English, as both Maltese and now Irish are both official languages of the EU, it can I believe be argued that the English used is British English within the EU (See European Commission Directorate-General for Translation "For reasons of stylistic consistency, the variety of English on which this Guide bases its instructions and advice is that spoken and written in the British Isles."). But if there are any differences in the written English used by the Irish or Maltese their use of English is just as valid as British English in Wikipedia articles about EU institutions and treaties.

So to sum up, I think the EU should be remain in the list and not be deleted. I think that only British English needs to be mentioned, but I will not object if others think that all three states that use English within the EU should be included. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to come in late to the discussion, but I felt the need to chime in since I was the one who originally expressed concern on this page about the EU institutions note. It is only now that I have read the previous discussions (thanks for the links, Philip) that the intention is completely clear to me. The confusion arose because of the three languages, yes, but also because the entry does not fit with the other items in the list. The others are examples of US use, Australian use, and so on. So on first glance it looked to me as if the EU institutions entry was also an example, perhaps of general European topics. But it is meant to be an instruction about EU institution articles and only those. Perhaps it should appear separately, as running text, rather than in this list? --Paul Erik 00:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm mystified as to what the latest edit adds to the meaning of the guidelines. Tony 13:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Exact addresses?

Are exact addresses unencyclopedic, that strike me as a bit Yellow Pagey/Travel Guidey. Seems coordinates would have the most meaning for a reader, only someone in the location would find the address (and probably the street name for that matter) useful. Is there a general consensus about this? Is there a guideline you can point me to? I don't usually include exact addresses myself. IvoShandor 15:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There's probably something in here--WP:NOT--I'm kind of new so I couldn't tell you for certain. Marcus Taylor 20:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There is but it says that you should mention the Eiffel Tower in an article about Paris but not the address and phone of your favorite coffee shop in Paris, too vague. IvoShandor 20:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm? Maybe in the infobox? I don't know how to approach this. Any thoughts? IvoShandor 18:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think street names (when the street in question is well-known) and/or named areas of cities can often be useful - certainly they are likely to be more immediately informative to most readers than coordinates, even if less exact. However, I'd agree that exact addresses are rarely necessary, except of course in the case of buildings like 10 Downing Street! Barnabypage 19:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Overlinking

What constitutes overlinking? It's a little annoying to read an article with tons of blue links, also should common cities like New York City and London even be linked? I doubt there's anyone out there who speaks English and has never heard of New York City, particularly if they're using a computer. Marcus Taylor 20:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a delicate balance. My personal rule of thumb goes something like this: WP articles are more or less a tree or directed acyclic graph, with the most general articles at the top (my trees grow upside down, with the root at the top and the leaves at the bottom). Links that jump down the tree many levels, from very general to very specific, are fine. Links that jump up many levels are usually excessive.

So, for example, the article on Denton, Texas should probably not link to United States of America, even if that term appears in the article. If you're looking up Denton you probably know where the USA is, and there's no strong reason to presume you're trying to find out how many states there are or the structure of the American constitutional republic. But smaller steps up the tree are good: Denton, Texas should link to Texas, and Texas should link to United States of America. --Trovatore 20:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Marcus's point was that it's not just someone who's reading the Denton article who knows what the US is; it's every English speaker; I'd go further, and contend that just about every human being knows what the US is. If they don't, let them key it in and search for it. Otherwise, our articles are spattered with useless blue that (i) make it slightly harder to read, (ii) dilute high-value links, and (iii) look pretty untidy.

I frankly wonder whether large, prominent countries should ever linked linked, unless interrupting your reading of the text to travel to that country article will yield useful, focused information on the topic.

On the other side are the allwiki-ists, who would have every single word linked to satisfy their urge to create a complete, all-encompassing tree (of what use I'm not exactly sure, but it's a lovely structure, OK). Wikipedia, IMV, should strive for a highly selective system of links that are aimed at improving the reading experience. Tony 00:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what I think also Tony. I'm guessing it's a subjective standard determined by editors then? Linking places like Chicago, Moscow, and Tokyo seems unnecessary to me, as well as terms like psychology, commercial, and air conditioning--which I've all seen. Marcus Taylor 19:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I happen to like a lot of links in the articles. I could be reading about something and see a link and decide to go check it out. That is the advantage of an online encyclopedia, that you can just follow hyperlinks all over the place. However, one thing that I don't like is linking dates for no reason. If John Smith, football player was born in 1972, having 1972 linked does nothing for the article at all. Looking at the events of 1972 is not going to have anything important to John Smith. The same with his month and day of birth. Unless the dates are important to the article, they should not be linked. But most other things should be. Fanra 20:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, although I'm a minimalist when it comes to linking, because the fact that they're a different colour and underlined degrades the visual appearance of the text and makes it slightly harder to read. But make links black, like unlinked words, and have the underline appear just when you move the cursor over a linked word: then I'd be an allwiki-ist—link everything.