Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 45

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47→Archive 50


History Articles

Recently I submitted a history article to FAC, and resulted in only recieving disputes over what the content of a history article should be. The problem is, that as far as I can see we have very little guidence on what should and should not make up a history article.

Some of the issues raised on the FAC were,

  • Should all History articles aim to have a Historiography section?
  • Should History articles cover Current Events as well as Historticaly Settled ones?
  • How to ballence 'comprehensive' with 'consice' when covering what can be a wide scope?

I think we're well in need of a Wikipedia:Manual of Style (history) to adress these issues and any others. --Barberio 10:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to better define what we're talking about. Are we referring specifically to articles of the type "History of XXXX", or to all articles with historical subjects? The first type tends to follow a certain structure; the second is so varied that I can't see a single guideline being meaningful (not to mention the fact that, for specific types of historical articles, guidelines exist under the purview of various WikiProjects). —Kirill Lokshin 16:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
This would be for "History of XXXX" articles. (Actualy, how we name them should be a topic for discussion. 'History of XXXX'? 'XXXX in History'? 'Historical uses of XXXX'?) --Barberio 10:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Those are really questions for Wikipedia:WikiProject History. Markyour words 19:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
That's not a particularly active project, in my experience; posting a question there is likely to be as helpful as a message in a bottle. —Kirill Lokshin 19:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
At the moment Wikipedia:WikiProject History simply links off to the manual of style. Wikipedia:WikiProject History was originally Wikipedia:History standards, and I assume originally intended as a style document, and currently it has a grand total of two participents. I think History as a subject is far to wide of scope for a WikiProject to be the only source of style and content guidence. As with Biography writing, History writing needs its own style guide. --Barberio 10:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The solution is to revive the Wikiproject, not to ignore it. The content of history articles is something that people interested in history articles should discuss, not people interested in colons (which is all you'll get here). Markyour words 12:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I can see a lot of problems with this idea. For example, should history of rugby union be formatted as a history project article or as a Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union? Also a global history project, which does more than lay out an high level description, cuts across other more specific areas were there is active participation in a project see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history as an example. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason why seperate history projects should continue to have to re-invent the wheel, when a central guideline for all can give the general guidelines. Individual projects should decide for themselves if they need to make special exceptions.
The argument you give against Wikipedia:Manual of Style (history) could also have been given against Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). Since the Biograph guidelines are usefull, I think History ones would be too.
This also adresses the current problems that there are no clear guidelines for what can constitute a 'History of' Featured Article. As I mentioned, there no clarity as to if Historiography should be a requirement, and if current events should be included. These are both general and global issues that should be adressed as an issue in the Manual of Style guideline, not as a WikiProject. --Barberio 11:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll point out that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) addresses questions of style and formatting, not content. If you create content guidelines that do not match current practice, they are likely to be ignored; and, given the lack of any top-level coordination in this field (WikiProject History is dead, at least as a editorial group), the best place to find out about current practice is via the appropriate second-tier WikiProjects. —Kirill Lokshin 14:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Precedence of national varieties rules

I have added the qualifier:

The following guidelines are roughly in order; guidelines earlier in this list will usually take precedence over guidelines later.

This came out of a question I got on #wikipedia noting that the rules appeared to conflict with one another. I thought it was pretty clear that they should be read in order, or from most-specific to least (which happens to be roughly the order they're already in), but apparently there was confusion on the point. I think this should be non-controversial. --TreyHarris 10:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The national varieties rules are a complete mess of arbitrary kludges, no wonder people are confused. I actually have another one to add: when a dialect has a choice between its localised version and the version that the rest of the world is using, the latter should be used. PizzaMargherita 11:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. So you would say to use "football" instead of "soccer", even in a distinctly American article? --TreyHarris 11:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, it depends how deep in the list of kludges we want to put it, doesn't it? What a mess.
Anyway, I don't think "football" is an appropriate example here. I was thinking more in terms of Gray/Grey. PizzaMargherita 11:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I also think that your "qualifier" is too vague and doesn't make the mud any clearer. IMHO "roughly" and "usually" should be dropped. PizzaMargherita 12:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree. Either it's a hierarchy with the most important rules first or it isn't. Roughly and usually sound a bit like weasel words; of course, this raises the issue of whether rules are even called for. ProhibitOnions 12:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the stricture against weasel words applies in the guideline space—Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines itself uses, "sometimes", "generally", and "usually". Do you really want to start a dispute over the exact ordering of these rules? Because if the words "roughly" and "usually" are removed, we're going to have to decide on an exact order. (I'm not 100% happy with the current order if we insist on preciseness here, and I already know from previous comments that we're not going to exactly agree on that new order.) --TreyHarris 14:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
No, my point was the exact opposite. ProhibitOnions 15:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry.... When PizzaMargherita said, 'IMHO "roughly" and "usually" should be dropped', and you said 'I tend to agree", you weren't agreeing with me, right? I think you need to be a little bit more verbose to help me to understand your point. --TreyHarris 17:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't make myself particularly clear, sorry. I'm not sure that a list of points, from most to least important, is necessarily the best way to present this information; it consists of one broad rule, several guidelines, some suggestions and a couple of helpful hints; the use of "roughly" and "usually" imply that this is intellectually less than rigorous. I think it might be better to reduce the number of points and combine several things mentioned here, for example:
  • Whenever possible, write for a international audience. That's who reads Wikipedia. Use vocabulary and phrasing that will be understood by readers outside the context of the article. Never assume readers understand jargon, or omit country references.
  • Strive for consistency. While Wikipedia is agnostic as to national or other spelling, punctuation, or vocabulary preferences, articles themselves should be written in a single style to avoid jarring the reader. Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the spelling of that country; US-British treaties usually use British spelling by convention and articles about them should probably follow. However, proper names always retain their original spellings, for example, United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force.
  • Article names should reflect widespread use. Redirects should accommodate other title variants, as with Artefact and Artifact, or if possible and reasonable, a neutral word might be chosen as with Glasses. Choose a word that does not have multiple spellings if there are synonyms that are otherwise equally suitable. In extreme cases of conflicting names, a contrived substitute (such as fixed-wing aircraft) is acceptable.
Now, I'm not suggesting that these examples are necessarily the best way of phrasing these points, and you may think that they are better reorganized some other way. (I do, however, think that "Whenever possible, write for a international audience" is an important point that should be made.) But reducing the number of points to three with an overarching principle for each makes them easier to remember, and we don't have to worry about adding a hierarchy. Regards, ProhibitOnions 18:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Did I mention that there is a solution to all this? PizzaMargherita 19:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

As soon as it goes into effect, I'll be happy to change the section to fit. What is the ETA for it getting installed on en? --TreyHarris 20:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully never. It's not a very good solution to anything, except maybe making the markup impossible to read. — Omegatron 21:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, then, it seems we need to strive to make these rules workable assuming it's not going to be installed, unless and until there's a firm ETA. --TreyHarris 22:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Your request for "a firm ETA" sounds pretextuous. First of all, even if there was an ETA, as you point out, it wouldn't make the current rules any less ambiguous and cumbersome, and we would need to put up with them until the proposal is implemented. Second, you know very well that there can be no ETA without a consensus. I find it very unfortunate that people who oppose the proposal don't bother reading it properly (if at all) and leave a drive-by "oppose", producing arguments that have been addressed in the proposal itself. My hopes to engage the opposition in a discussion, as you can see in the discussion section, are constantly and invariably shattered.
Anyway, I'm glad you admit that the current rules are not workable. What is your solution to this problem? PizzaMargherita 18:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes to Cite.

I'd like to propose a few style changes to the output of the <ref> and <reference> tags used for references, footnotes and citations.

An example of how it looks now:

AIDS is a collection of symptoms and infections resulting from the specific damage to the immune system caused by infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).[1]

Most researchers believe that HIV originated in sub-Saharan Africa [2]; it is now a global epidemic. Some authorities [3] estimate that AIDS has killed more than 25 million people since it was first recognized on December 1, 1981, making it one of the most destructive epidemics in recorded history.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b Marx, J. L. New disease baffles medical community. Science. 1982;217(4560):618-621. Cite error: The named reference "Marx" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  2. ^ New York Times. January 2010 issue, page 16
  3. ^ UNAIDS

An example of how I think it should look:

AIDS is a collection of symptoms and infections resulting from the specific damage to the immune system caused by infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)1.

Most researchers believe that HIV originated in sub-Saharan Africa2; it is now a global epidemic. Some authorities3 estimate that AIDS has killed more than 25 million people since it was first recognized on December 1, 1981, making it one of the most destructive epidemics in recorded history1.

References

1. a b Marx, J. L. New disease baffles medical community. Science. 1982;217(4560):618-621.
2. New York Times. January 2010 issue, page 16
3. UNAIDS

Proposed changes:

  1. No brackets around the in text ref numbers. It's visually cleaner without them, and the brackets don't serve a purpose that I can see.
  2. Regarding multiple links to a single note, for subsequent <ref>s to the same <reference> line (as in the note after "history" in the text) it should only be nessessary to put "<ref="name">" and not "<ref="name">something random that doesn't display</ref>". (Is there a use for the text within the <ref> tags on subsequent links to the same reference?)
  3. No carats for backlinks. Just link from the number, or if there is more than one backlink, link from the letters.
  4. No italics for the lettered backlinks. Plain text is easier to read in small font sizes.
  5. Re. reference #2, if there is only one backlink from the reference don't display a letter. (Note: this proposal (#5) has now been implemented)

Thoughts, anyone? Dv82matt 16:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that for your problem #2, I believe you just need <ref name="name"/> (note the xml-style closing "/") in subsequents refs. As far as the styling goes, the current look was chosen for consistency with the {{ref}} {{note}} footnoting system. (Not that that makes it good, but it's a consideration.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I also dislike the carets. Linking the numbers is a good idea. Agree with everything else, too. Looks much nicer. — Omegatron 16:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the reference link: I like the look of the clean link without brackets, but the brackets help make it a larger mouse target. I find that especially the number 1 takes an extra split second to aim and click, and for a computer novice or someone with a motor disfunction it could be very frustrating. That said, it doesn't actually break any accessibility guidelines that I know of, so it's a judgement call. Bracketed numbers are a common convention on the Internet and on Wikipedia (for external links). If they remain bracketed, I don't think there's a need to make them superscripts. Superscripts1, bracketed superscripts[2], or bracketed in-line links [3] are all acceptable to me.
Back-link location: I think the back-link should be made subordinate to the note by being at the end of it, possibly with an up-arrow to help identify its function. The row of carats or numbers at the front of the line looks like a redundant note bullet, and adding a/b links to some of the items spoils the clean alignment of the first word of each note. Example at the end of this line. ↑1
Backlink format: definitely drop the carat (^), which is a diacritical mark, an accent, not an arrow at all. Fortunately, Unicode provides us with an up-arrow (↑) which displays fine on most visual browsers.
I've also discussed this, with some more style examples, at template talk:Ref#^ revisited, template talk:Ref#^ primacy, and meta:talk:Cite/Cite.php#HTML format, and see also
—Michael Z. 2006-02-22 16:45 Z
Bunchofgrapes, thanks for the clarification on #2 I didn't realize you could close the tags that way. Obviously it's not a problem so I'll strike it out.
Michael Z., regarding the bracketed refrence links, you make a good point that I hadn't thought of. Certainly there's no point in sacrificing usability for a slightly cleaner look.
Regarding the backlink location, although your solution is elegant having the links at the front of the note seems more intuitive. Putting the link at the end makes it feel like a nested footnote to me, even in spite of the up arrow. That said, if your solution were adopted universally across wikipedia I could certainly live with it.
As long as we lose that carat :-) --Dv82matt 17:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I prefer the current formatting. It looks clean and is easily accessible. The suggested arrow, with or without brackets, looks spindly. There is no need for an arrow to actually point up, surely. The caret is simply an icon, to set references apart from ordinary lists.
Linking the number will probably confuse people (which is why we don't generally link like this (people expect the linked word to be the name of the linked article, or something close to it)).
As for the reference link, I strongly feel that the brackets should stay. Again, it looks like an icon, instead of an oddly formatted number. -- Ec5618 17:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Number 1 and 2 were originally intended for accessibility, it seems to me: Brackets make the (rather small) number a much easier target to click, while, carets are a clear indication that there is a backlink, and are an element of nearly all the other systems already present on Wikipedia prior to Cite.php.
On the other hand, the letters are not generated by number of references, but my labelling the references. It relies (which makes sense) on assuming that the users will only label references that are used multiple times. I think it is the user'sresponsibility to use the system as it was intendedto be in the forst place before requiring the system to change. Circeus 17:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Footnote styling has been (hotly :-)) discussed many times in the past. FWIW, I think removing the brackets certainly makes it more visually appealing, although I can live with the current version. I agree about the carat: it is the least aesthetically pleasing arrow, and it's not intuitive to many newbies (I remember taking more than a moment to figure out what that thing was when I first came across them in ref-noted articles, many moons ago). The an-anb system, in fact, was initially used because it had a much nicer arrow; however, it didn't render properly in IE. Whether or not the backlink letters are italicized, they should probably be emboldened. ENCEPHALON 18:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC) NB. IMHO, the most aesthetically pleasing footnoting system is the {{rf}}-{{ent}}, by Paul August. See for example [1]. ENCEPHALON 18:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I dislike the carets; they confuse. I also dislike the superscripting of the [1]; why can't it just be normal text (like an inline link)? (I also prefer inline links to footnotes, but thats another story...) William M. Connolley 18:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC).

In Apple's Safari 1.3, v312, a superscript character disrupts the display by putting extra space above the line in which it occurs. Makes the text look ugly. It's not a problem with Firefox and Macintosh IE, but may affect other browsers. I'd vote for inline links myself, not least because they'd make a bigger target for a mouse-click. -- Puffball 19:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the author of Cite.

Aside from linking from the number instead of from ^ all and treating named references as anonymous references these changes can be made by changing the relevant MediaWiki messages.

I don't think the former is a good idea because that would mean manually maintaining an ordered list instead of using the standard (X)HTML facilities to do so. Modifying the code to make this possible would be very easy however, it would just require passing one more variable that would contain a number indicating the position in the list, incremented from 1.

I don't have any strong opnions on the latter, I didn't expect that people would use named references when they only needed to use them once since there's no practical benifit, but I can see how it's easier to read. That change too is easy to implement. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the superscript numbers being small mouse targets, you can make them bigger by increasing the padding of the link element in CSS, without the ugly brackets. — Omegatron 20:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ec5618, your point regarding descriptive links seems like a non sequitor to me for two reasons. Firstly footnotes are a special case and using a descriptive link is not really an option. Secondly a carat isn't particularily descriptive either. As for the value of carats in setting references apart from ordinary lists, references would still be easy to distinguish from lists. First in most cases they will be clearly labled. Second, the numbers (or letters) will appear as links.
Circeus, Re. only labeling references used more than once, that does make sense. My concern is that as references get added and deleted many references with only a single backlink will end up having a letter in the link. Not a big deal, but worth considering I think.
Encephalon, why do you think the backlink letters should be bold? Does it help emphasize the fact that they are links? Not disagreeing, just asking.
Puffball, I'm surprised that some browsers still have problems with superscript. Do we know how common this kind of thing is?
Omegatron, I like the idea of increasing the padding. I'm all for it, provided it works without glitching on too many browsers.
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, sorry, are you saying that linking from the number would nessessarily mean manually maintaining an ordered list, or just that you would need to modify the code to accomodate automatic numbering in this case? If it's the former then I think that nixes the idea of linking from the numbers.
Dv82matt 22:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Both, you can't do that with standard (X)HTML list syntax, but to be able to work around it I'd have to pass another variable indicating the list position. You can't do what you're proposing in standard (X)HTML, when you make a standard list e.g. like:
<ol><li>item</li></ol>
Then you can't control the list index character in any way (well, some ways, but that's not relevant here), the above becomes:
  1. item
Working around that limitation and inserting a link where the digit is would mean scrapping standard lists alltogather and using something like:
<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">[[1]].</span><span style="margin-left: 1em">item</span>
And of course it wouldn't be semantic markup anymore if you do that since there would be no way for the user agent to know that it was dealing with a list and that it should present it as such. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 01:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, well bearing in mind that I'm certainly no coder, losing the <ol><li>item</li></ol> element doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. As for it not being semantic markup, I'm pretty sure the W3C will promptly comply with whatever schema we deem fit. :-D --Dv82matt 03:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Just trust me on this one, it's a horrible idea;) --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 15:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. A list should remain an HTML list, for standards compliance and accessibility. —Michael Z. 2006-02-23 15:40 Z
Okay, well I like the idea of linking from the numbers but not if it means manually maintaining an ordered list. So I guess that means linking from something else. --Dv82matt 01:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: The discussion "Changes to Cite." continues in Archive 46.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_45&oldid=1140199975"