User:Dank/Copy2

Recurring prose problems at FAC, Part 2:


 * Note: I often rely on the online Merriam-Webster dictionary, the Chicago Manual of Style, and Garner's usage guide.


 * Acronyms: Per Chicago 10.3, spell them out at first occurrence, except for the most common ones, the ones with pronunciations given in Merriam-Webster. Other commonly used acronyms are fine even if you only need to repeat them once, but don't use uncommon acronyms at all unless you need them five times or more in an "article or chapter" (Chicago 10.3).


 * American English prevalence: see List of countries by English-speaking population, but note that the US population (not just people whose first language is English) is actually about 50% higher than listed there ... as of today, through the magic of templates, it's: 0. UK population was 61.8M in 2010. - Dank (push to talk) 20:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Anthropomorphism: Avoid uncommon expressions that imply that an inanimate object has sprouted arms or legs.


 * Chicago-style footnotes, British version:


 * Dangling words: A word "dangles" when you can't pin down what word or phrase it refers to. The fix is generally to remove the dangler, or move it closer to the word or phrase that provides the right context.  Check pronouns, including "which", for dangliness.  Check words ending in -ed or -ing when they're the first or second word in a phrase or clause.


 * End-of-paragraph citations: See WT:FAC discussion, WT:POLAND discussion


 * Fair use text on talk pages: see User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_42


 * Footnotes, alphabetized:


 * German "sharp S": For page titles and text that is or could be linked to page titles, see WT:Article titles/Archive 26. AP Stylebook proscribes diacriticals (see "accent"), but Chicago 11.12 says: "Foreign words, phrases or titles that occur in an English-language work must include any special characters that occur in the original language."


 * Glosses for foreign words: Chicago 6.93, 11.6


 * Headings: The is occasionally okay beginning a heading when it wouldn't be in a title; see this discussion at WT:MOS.


 * Hinting: If an author hints that they know something without actually saying what they know, that's not generally useful for attribution in Wikipedia.


 * Hyphens: discussion on WT:MOS, another one, and discussion from WT:SHIPS. Per the sentence currently just before the WP:DASH section at WP:MOS, "Hyphenation involves many subtleties that cannot be covered here; the rules and examples presented above illustrate the broad principles that inform current usage."


 * Inflation: Don't give "current values" of money for dates before roughly 1850, and be aware of the many pitfalls of giving current values for money after that date; see for instance the long discussions here and here, which make the case that many uses of the inflation template can't be supported, and even where they can be supported, they're original research if you don't provide a citation of some kind. There are few dangers giving present values over the last 20 years or so, and for these, some people use (for instance): "This is roughly equivalent to £0 as of 20." . Use "as of" (year) rather than "in" (year), otherwise some people (reading quickly) might get the idea that something relevant happened in that year. Measuringworth.com is a popular site to use for current values.


 * italic title prefixed: Use with a parameter for the number of characters not italicized


 * Links people have specifically asked for in ship articles: armor-piercing shot and shell, marine steam engine


 * Military units: See Chicago 8.111.


 * Navweaps.com: WP:RSN, WP:RSN


 * The New Yorker: "One of our best-edited literary magazines", Garner's, p. 226.


 * OCLC and publisher's info: Obtain from http://www.worldcat.org/


 * Unit conversions: WT:FAC, WT:SHIPS


 * Unit conversions in links: WT:MOS, WT:SHIPS Archive 27


 * Vagueness: Aspect, concept, influencing, involving, and regarding are popular words these days, particularly when they don't mean anything. Vagueness can be handy for journalists when the goal is not getting sued and not irritating anyone, and can be handy for anyone writing on a deadline ... finding the just the right words can take time. Vagueness is bad when you're actually trying to convey information.