WikiProject Manual of Style | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Contents
WP:HYPERHEADING
Hey guys :) Does anyone have any useful suggestions or ideas for things that could be included in the WP:HYPERHEADING article? Olowe2011 Talk 21:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
{{main}}
is an alternative to{{see also}}
. 'see also' implies the link goes to something related but necessarily the same as section topic. 'main' implies the link goes to something that talks about the subject itself and that this section is a mere summary of that other article. Stepho talk 21:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)- Why was this page created and tagged as a guideline without consensus? --Izno (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Inzo it has consensus. It's simply a re written version which is beginner friendly of a guideline on this page (WP:MOSHEADINGS.) It's actual content does not differ, only the style and tone. Olowe2011 Talk 22:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Regardless of whether or not it intends to offer a rewritten version of the same advice, it's a new page and needs a very high level of consensus to mark it as a guideline. Because guidelines like these are widely used by many Wikipedians, they need many hands to be properly formed. Something like the error noted below confusing headed and headings has already been caught because of more people looking at it. That's why this discussion need me to happen before the guideline tag is applied. As for the page itself, it looks pretty good on its own, but there's already too many MOS subpages as is, so I do question the need. oknazevad (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Stepho thanks for the suggestion :) I have added a main. Olowe2011 Talk 22:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- (i) Please be careful to use appropriate terms: headings are the parts of a page marked up in HTML with
<h1>...</h1>
to<h6>...</h6>
tags, or in Wikicode with=...=
to======...======
, such as the page title "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style" or section title "WP:HYPERHEADER"; whereas headers are things that go at the top of a page, section or table, like the box containing "This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines ..." seen when editing this page. (ii) Why does your page not link back to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings or an equivalent shortcut such as MOS:HEADINGS? (iii) Why have you gone against that advice in this very thread? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- (i) Please be careful to use appropriate terms: headings are the parts of a page marked up in HTML with
-
- @Inzo it has consensus. It's simply a re written version which is beginner friendly of a guideline on this page (WP:MOSHEADINGS.) It's actual content does not differ, only the style and tone. Olowe2011 Talk 22:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Is there any technical reason for not using links in headings? In articles {{Main}} and {{See also}} are better, but I can't see a problem with using them on talk pages. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
August 19 thru July 7
When I saw this construction for the first I corrected what looked like an obvious error, by changing "thru" to "through". But then I noticed that this spelling of "thru" is quite common when making statements about climate. It still looks mighty weird though. Is it an ENGVAR issue? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- It does look like ENGVAR: [1]. I am from the UK, and agree that it looks odd, but I have seen it used by Americans. MOS:RETAIN seems to suggest that leaving it as-is would be the best choice, unless something other than "thru" would make more sense to more people (MOS:COMMONALITY).
- I don't know how common it actually is in American English – wikt:thru says it is "less used in formal situations", and suggests "to", "till" and "until" as British alternatives (e.g. "the average window for freezing temperatures is November 16 till March 10" looks better to me), but input from more people would be good. anowlcalledjosh (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- I believe "THRU" originated as an American alternative to "through" on road signs, and isn't fully accepted in contexts where space isn't severely limited. Another subtlety is that in the US, "August 19 through July 7" means that the July 7 is included in the period. "August 19 to July 7" is ambiguous, at least in the US; the last day included in the period might be July 6, or it might be July 7. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- As a speaker of UK English, I can confirm that "19 August to 7 July" is ambiguous. To make it clear whether 7 July were in or out one would use either "19 August to 7 July, inclusive" or "19 August to 7 July, exclusive". I think 19 August is included in both cases (not really sure). In the body of a WP article there is no real space limitation, so can we conclude that "through" is preferred, except in verbatim quotes? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 06:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Generally, "thru" in unacceptable outside of informal contexts (e.g., texts and tweets) and signage (e.g., "drive-thru"). "Through" is more grammatically correct.SciGal (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding this diff, thru may be informal or archaic, but it's not an abbreviation. It's likely derived from the Old English thurh or thuruh. Pburka (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- It probably is derived from the Old English "thurh" or "thuruh" but via probably "through". Anyhow, I'd say that "thru" would be too informal for WP. As for the alleged ambiguity of "Monday to Friday", to me that would include all or part of Friday (i.e. it's pretty unambiguous) but "Monday through Friday" would not help whatsoever to clear anything up (even if there were ambiguity). I don't perceive and difference in meaning of "Monday through Friday" to "Monday to Friday" (but I'm not American). To me, "Monday through Friday" is simply a strange Americanism presumably short for "Monday through to Friday", which (to me) is the same in meaning to "Monday to Friday". So, if writers on pages in US English use "Monday through Friday", fine, but I hope they're not expecting to convey some nuance which is going to be lost on the rest of us. Jimp 07:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding this diff, thru may be informal or archaic, but it's not an abbreviation. It's likely derived from the Old English thurh or thuruh. Pburka (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Generally, "thru" in unacceptable outside of informal contexts (e.g., texts and tweets) and signage (e.g., "drive-thru"). "Through" is more grammatically correct.SciGal (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- As a speaker of UK English, I can confirm that "19 August to 7 July" is ambiguous. To make it clear whether 7 July were in or out one would use either "19 August to 7 July, inclusive" or "19 August to 7 July, exclusive". I think 19 August is included in both cases (not really sure). In the body of a WP article there is no real space limitation, so can we conclude that "through" is preferred, except in verbatim quotes? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 06:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- I believe "THRU" originated as an American alternative to "through" on road signs, and isn't fully accepted in contexts where space isn't severely limited. Another subtlety is that in the US, "August 19 through July 7" means that the July 7 is included in the period. "August 19 to July 7" is ambiguous, at least in the US; the last day included in the period might be July 6, or it might be July 7. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
RFC regarding COMMONNAME and MOS
Please comment at WP:VPP#RfC: MOS vs COMMONNAME. --Izno (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Request for Comment: Quotes and italics (at MoS:Comics)
Please take part in a discussion on when to use italics and when to use quotemarks in titles at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics#Request for Comment: Quotes and italics. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
ENGVAR and pagemoves
Right now, the policy firmly states An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another. But what if an article title goes against WP:TIES? Imagine an article about "Lorries in the United States", for example. With that in mind, I'm suggesting that this be added. Nyttend (talk) 02:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Renaming something on the basis of TIES would not be "simply switching from one variety to another", it would be done to comply with the guidelines. No change is needed. RGloucester — ☎ 02:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I wouldn't mind this change by Nyttend, since discussion might show that a change is better and/or more appropriate. Wikipedia is also WP:Consensus-based. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- If there's a good reason to change the variety, go ahead, that's a valid exception. Jimp 07:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Strong oppose – The guideline is already clear that a change is allowed if said change is not simply to change the variety, but is done for some good reason, such as TIES. The proposed change will open a wave of nonsensical discussions about changing the variety, legitimising requests to "simply" change the variety as long as a discussion is held. Such a massive change would require an RfC, and I doubt anyone would support reopening the ENGVAR can of worms. RGloucester — ☎ 16:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose the Article titles policy covers name changes. That suggested rewording of the MOS is outside the scope of the MOS. -- PBS (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment' @Nyttend edits such as this are WP:POINTy because they disruptive to make a point:
- such edits make changes, however temporary that may be, and those may be read by a person not knowing that it is just a temporary example (we expect guideline pages to be relatively stable and not have to check the edit history every time to see if someone is making changes to emphasise a point under discussion on the talk page)
- such edits clutter up the the edit history making it difficult to see the wood for the trees,
- such edits trigger events in watch pages, with false positives forcing those editors who watch this page to check for a change unnecessarily . -- PBS (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose WP:MOS is a guideline; Wikipedia:Article titles is a policy, and therefore overrides the MOS. From a practical point of view, all I can see is endless and fruitless argument over the spelling of articles like Armour and 393d Bomb Squadron. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- This "we've got bigger d..ks than you" nonsense is against everyone's interests—except for those of WP:AT diehards who seem to want to rule the globe. So let's see no inconsistency introduced because "we trump you". The text at both AT and MOS should reflect this, and MOS is the style guide. Tony (talk) 07:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)