Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Alpha Archive 3


 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style--Archive Directory

New section proposal
I'd like to propose a new section on image/article integration. In particular, I'd like it to be official policy that first image (IE, images at the top of an article) have to go on the right. &rarr;Raul654 20:31, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Notes for editors that are visible to non-editors
Some articles contain notes for editors that are visible to non-editors. Most of them are statements of the obvious. They often are merely invites to edits. For example:


 * "A mathematician is a person whose area of study and research is mathematics. [edit] "


 * "Putnam and Saul Kripke both made important contributions to what is known as the causal theory of reference. [Add more here.] "


 * "South African and New Zealand accents have a similar distribution of sounds to Australian. New Zealand accents are more like to use the broad version. Someone who knows them in detail could add more here. [edit] "


 * "The development of algorithms to handle graphs is therefore of major interest in computer science: see graph algorithms. To do: Add more pictures here."

Others are more subtle but still a matter for editors only. For example:


 * "Please use after  for new Tolkien-related articles."

This sort of thing is so common that I think a mention in the manual is needed. Does anyone else dislike it? Bobblewik (talk) 15:22, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, I dislike it too and try to remove any instances I find. Some mention of the hidden comments method might be good here. Rmhermen 22:19, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that it looks very unprofessional. However if an article is missing crucial aspects I'd rather the reader were made aware of that than think he/she had read a comprehensive assessment of the subject. Is there a curly bracket thing that can be added to the top of partial articles along the lines of or something? adamsan  22:41, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * AFAIK the only existing equivalent is, which produces  ··gracefool |&#9786; 14:04, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * One thing i'm aware of is to mark sections as stubs.  In general notes to editors should be hidden comments, imo.  &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  02:44, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Insertions in edits such as (please insert correct date here) are a last resort, but it's best to keep on editing anyway! These editorial asides are disfiguring but impermanent. It is best to cast doubt on a single dubious statement within the text than to label the entire entry as "disputed," a technique that has become too degraded for some of us to use. These interpolations (in italics please) are also effective, because other editors stop and fix them when we find them. That Wikipedia is a work is progress is the best excuse for Wikipedia's many remaining limping, inadequate entries. We're not ready to be cast in bronze quite yet. Wetman 07:41, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On quotations and punctuation marks
Right now our official policy is to put punctuation marks inside quotation marks if it is a full quotation, but outside the quotation marks if it is a partial quotation. I've been looking at many encyclopedias and found that this is uncommon even in British publications. does anybody else feel that the current policy is needlessly confusing... or am I simply being an Ugly American here? I'd like to change it to have a uniform "punctuation goes inside quotation marks" style, but I really don't want to step on anyone's toes &#8211; just looking for a few comments on the issue. ;) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 16:52, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * The present official policy is in agreement with what is done in many (most? all?) other languages. You should consider the fact that many contributors here do not have English as their first language and have in fact learnt in school/university that the punctuation only goes inside the quotation marks if it actually belongs there in the first place. The only reason to do otherwise is, I guess, typographical, and I don't really find it much of an aesthetic improvement to get the empty space in one place rather than in an other./u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 17:19, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The rule has been in there since the first draft. I believe it is clearer that way.  There were many examples of this usage in the Wikipedia already.  I tried to make the first draft reflect what was already "best practice" in Wikipedia.  Ortolan88 22:21, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Personally, I can never remember what the policy is, so I generally just fake it. (I've read enough British authors over the years that my sense of such things is confused. In other words, my gut instinct is unreliable.) There would be something to be said for a system that is entirely consistent (and therefore easier to remember).
 * However, at the moment there is so much inconsistency with regard to punctuation that I almost wonder if it is worth the effort to have a rule. (Trying to enforce any change would be very difficult. Not that the current "rule" is enforced.)--[[User:Aranel|Aranel

("Sarah")]] 22:30, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Like the rest of the Manual of Style, none of the rules here are enforced, but when someone who loves copy-editing comes along to tend to an article, maybe quite an old one, they can look in the Manual of Style for guidance on consistency. Not that the rule is all that hard to remember:  If the punctuation is part of what is being quoted, put it inside the quotes, and if it is not part of what is being quoted, leave it out.  That is, the quotation marks contain only what is being quoted.  Ortolan88 22:57, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The current Wikipedia policy is often called "logical quotation". I far prefer it, despite what I was taught in school, and always use it when not prevented. Proponents of "typographical quotation" claimed it "looks better". Too often, I believed, it did not look better. It looked stupid. This is especially so in lists of words and meanings. For example, using logical punctuation:
 * "Three French words with related meanings are maison 'house', domaine 'estate, property', and château 'castle'."
 * This seems to be me to be more understandable and better looking than:
 * "Three French words with related meanings are maison 'house,' domaine, 'estate, property,' and château 'castle.'"
 * (The use of single quotation marks here rather than double quotation marks is standard linguistics usage when indicating a meaning of a previous word or phrase regardless of whether in the article as a whole double quotation marks or singlular quotation marks are used for top level quoting. I use it in Wikipedia since I prefer it and guideliness currently don't specify and the convention has spread to technical writing outside of linguistics. But using double quotation marks wouldn't change the point.)
 * Now if you aren't at all concerned with meaning, it is possible that at some level of abstract design that always putting a small base-line punctuation mark before a small high punctuation mark is aesthetically better, if there is an absolute in asethetics. But in parsing a sentence we are concerned with meaning.
 * This is only my personal feeling, not binding on anyone. If the Wikipedia Style Guide specifications had specified typographical quotation, I would bend to its whims. But considering that logical punctuation is specified in prestigious British style guides and in some general technical style guides, it is doubtful that such a rule would have stayed fixed in Wikipedia. The only reasonable choices are between letting the editor choose and logical quotation everywhere.
 * From The Canadian Web Magazine for the Writing Trade: Placement of Punctuation and Quotation Marks:
 * "In a literary work, we recommend the American style of always placing periods and commas inside the quotation marks. In a technical or legal work, where accuracy is essential, we recommend the British practice of placing periods and commas within quotation marks only when they are part of the quoted material."
 * I take Wikipedia as more technical than literary and this recommendation to come from noting increased use of logical punctuation in academic and technical writing outside of Britain.
 * Jallan 00:17, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Various observations: The comma and period inside the quotes "look better" only when true typography is used to place the quote over the punctuation, so that's not really an argument for doing it. My arguments for doing it come from Chicago and many other American style guides, but most acknowledge the historic reasons for the punctuation order. In technical style guides here, it is not the general case for punctuation to go outside the quotes, only when what's inside the quotes is an exact value (as in: type this URL into the field: "http://www.foo.com" .). However, I have no problem using the Wikipedia style guide and editing according to that. Elf | Talk 15:52, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)