Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 4

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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

September 14, 2004 – November 5, 2004.

Should we cite serial comma opposition?

Tired of the incessant omission of serial commas in many Wikipedia articles, bolstered no doubt by the odious standards set by nearly all print and online news sources that I've recently read, I finally went to my local library and reviewed every major work on writing style that they had in the Reference section. The only one that disagreed with the consensus described in this article under Commas was The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, 1st edition, 1999. Yet everyone seems to be following it! Are we so lazy that we can't be troubled to add a single comma, just because some upstart authority (compared to the Oxford, Harvard, and even Chicago University Presses) decided it needed the fractional character space taken by a punctuation mark that sometimes isn't necessary for clarity? (Excuse me while I take a few deep breaths. ☺) Anyway, since omitting the serial comma is so prevalent in popular writing, I wonder if we should cite in the main article the solitary exception to this consensus, pointing out that its motives are likely not based on clarity but rather ink and paper conservation. Comments? — Jeff Q 23:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From Comma before "and":

Although grammar gurus abandoned that comma rule for a while in the twentieth century, we have since realized that using the serial comma (as it is called) is a good idea ...

For years omission of the serial comma was the recommendation of many prestigeous style sheets and was taught in many schools. It is not unsensible. If we write "Tom and Jerry", should we not write "Bob, Tom and Jerry" rather than "Bob, Tom, and Jerry"? If you don't need a blob of punctuation then why not get rid of it except when it is really necessary for sense. That being said, though style guides have moved back to supporting serial commas for other reasons, it does take time for people to catch up, to learn that what they were taught in school as correct (that is what the supposed experts recommended) and which was common enough in many books is suddenly wrong (that what supposed experts recommend against). And even if they realize that rules have changed, there are old habits to unlearn. I'm not sure of when the swing one way started and when the swing back occurred, a swing obviously still not complete or people would not so often omit the serial comma here. What one would like to read is the whole story: where the omission started, and how it spread, and when the pendulum began swinging the other way. I don't know the story. And in another twenty years many style sheets may be again recommending that one not use serial comma except when needed for sense. Who knows?

Jallan 00:26, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, my problem with "Bob, Tom and Jerry" is that it makes Tom and Jerry seem more closely associated with one another than either is with Bob... john k 01:40, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just an observation. The serial comma is not normally used in Ireland, or, I believe in Britain or Australia. Filiocht 12:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The "serial" comma is not, no; here (UK) it's called the "Oxford" comma, and is both very widely used and supported.

James F. (talk) 12:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's also known as the "Harvard" comma, in case anyone is wondering. I suspect "serial" comma is used to avoid implications of primarily British or American usage. — Jeff Q 07:26, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This has no weight really, but I just think the serial comma looks messy; why add unnecessary punctuation? If its an ambiguous case, then use I use it, if not, I don't. I was tought in grade school to use it, but I always hated that (: —siro χ o

I don't buy the "unnecessary punctuation" argument. One doesn't lose any sense by omitting commas before quotations, as in:

She said "I don't believe it."

but that doesn't give one license to omit such punctuation willy-nilly. Sense itself is usually clear when citing the list in isolation, out of context, although I agree with john that omission can imply greater association between the last two items. But context makes all the difference. There are cases where a serial comma introduces ambiguity, just as there are cases where omitting it does. There is no simple way to avoid this, because the comma has many distinct uses which may overlap in a single sentence or even phrase.

HOWEVER, this is beside my original point. I'm not looking to challenge the existing policy. I'm just asking for opinions on whether we should cite the New York Times exception, and, if so, whether any explanation can or should be given, since many people may wonder why we (and every modern authority except NYT) don't follow a common practice. — Jeff Q 07:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would rather see a listing of style guides that do support it. I suspect a number of newspapers besides the New York Times have similar style rules about not using serial comma. Not using serial comma is a common practice and has been a common practice as my first post here indicated. The problem is not the New York Times guidelines especially, which most people don't know, but that stylistic conventions and practice of a number of publication style sheets have changed during the past thirty years (and people don't know that either). They do know, often, that some print sources use serial comma and some don't, and therefore, in a general way, either is an acceptable practice and so choose to follow whichever practice they want in their own writing, if not under compulsion to follow a particular style. They may not realize that Wikipedia does request editors to use serial comma style or they may forget to do so out of habit. Anyone who does know the the standards laid down here and who is purposely going against them, making more work for otthers, should be told, politely to stop. If the editor doesn't, then, I suppose there is nothing for it but harsher measures. It sounds stupid to make a fuss over something so trivial. But why should others have to clean up after someone who is purposely making a mess. Jallan 17:33, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oooh, yes, let's punish them horribly! Make them change all "--" to "—" and vice versa in all articles! I don't think we need to justify the use of serial commas or even necessarily point out that some people use it only sometimes. Most style guides don't justify it; they just say do it. So do we. It's nice to feel authoritative. Karen Elizabeth Gordon, in The New Well-Tempered Sentence, says, "When the last two elements in a series are joined by a conjunction, a comma comes before the conjunction—unless you're a journalist." So maybe we should just punish all journalists ahead of time on general principle?

Just for entertainment: Lyn Dupre in Bugs in Writing says, "In Great Britain, writers use open punctation, in which ...for example, the series comma is omitted. In the United states, it is correct to use closed punctuation, in which such commas are included. Certain magazines and various informal arenas choose to use open punctuation; in formal writing in the U.S., however, it is correct to use closed punctuation." Maybe we should just punish all Brits in advance just in case they're thinking about leaving off the series/serial/Oxford/Harvard comma? And then add insult to injury by making rude comments about their spelling? Elf | Talk 18:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly either way, but the Associated Press stylebook, which most U.S. newspapers go by, is generally against serial commas. Maurreen 17:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, from my assortment of style guides:

Always use series comma: Chicago, Microsoft Manual of Style for Technical Publications (I'm not a microsoft fan, but this is a nice book), The New Well-Tempered Sentence (see above), Bugs in Writing (see above), Strunk and White, The Elements of Grammar (although notes "some writers prefer to omit this comma")
Usually use except sometimes maybe you don't have to: REA's Handbook of English Grammar, Style, and Writing; The Merriam-Webster Concise Guide for Writers (which also observes, "Most reference books, and most other book-length works of nonfiction use the serial comma. In all other categories of publishing, according to our evidence, usage is evenly or nearly evenly divided on the use or omission of this comma."); Woe is I (notes that it's optional but recommends using it)
Optional except when required to make meaning clear: The Holt Guide to English

Elf | Talk 18:26, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and near as I can tell, Encyclopaedia Britannica uses the serial comma. Elf | Talk 18:33, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On the order of names

I'd like to propose that all names, in all languages, are given as [Family name] [comma] [Given name] in article titles (as, for example: Parker, Sarah Jessica). This would solve a lot of problems related to name orders which contradict the common English order of [Given name] [Family name]. Exploding Boy 21:43, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

How about just keep it in the order it should be in for all name orders, as there is nothing stopping us from doing that. That would make more sense, as thats what the peoples names really are. The [Family name] [comma] [Given name] seems like a real waste of the flexibility of wikis and computers in general. Also, I really like how articles about people are titled with their real name, and yet can be listed in categories under thier family name. —siro χ o

Nonsense, perfect, if you ask me. This is the Wikipedia, English.

Wetman 07:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Other than being entertained by Wetman, User, I think we have to consider how most people will access the information. I'm guessing that almost everyone would type "Sarah Jessica Parker" and almost no one would start with "Parker, Sarah Jessica". Which means we'd also have to add redirects for every name in its natural order--and I'm not sure that it makes sense to always have the redirect be the text that's most commonly accessed. Although I certainly appreciate the challenges in our culture's tendency to sort by last name even though the last name comes--um--last. Wreaks havoc in my personal address book, I'll tell ya. Elf | Talk 18:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Exploding Boy might try looking up Family name and see what a mess his system would create. To begin with, not everyone has a family name. There are numerous incompatible systems of nomenclature, present and past. What benefit if the article on Hamlet were renamed to , Hamlet and the article on Henry VIII was renamed to Tudor, Henry, VIII or something similar and the article on Björk was renamed to , Björk, Guðmundsdóttir or something similar? Jallan 21:33, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The reason I brought it up is largely because there has been an ongoing dispute regarding the order of Japanese names (and, to a lesser extent, Chinese and Korean names), which are normally given, in their respective languages, as FN-GN. Right now on Wikipedia, some names are given in GN-FN order, some are given as FN-GN, and probably a variety of other ways as well.

The argument about redirect pages is answered easily: Wikipedia is not paper.

The argument about single names (eg: Cher, Hamlet, etc) or people without family names is specious. Clearly single names don't require a comma. There's nothing wrong with Tudor, Henry, VIII, and since Björk is her first name, the article would be titled Guðmundsdóttir, Björk, not the other way around (though it's debatable whether an article on Bjork really needs to include her last name in the title at all).

It's quite simple really:

articles on people with single names or who are best known by only one name would be titled with that name (thus, Madonna, not Ciccone, (Esther) Madonna Louise Veronica)
articles on people well known by both names would be FN, GN (as Clinton, Bill)
Articles on people whose name includes some embedded title would be in the normal order (thus Atilla the Hun, not Hun, Atilla the)

This is both encyclopaedic and bibliographical style, and it would quickly solve a lot of problems with name order. Exploding Boy 15:35, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

No this doesn't solve problems. It creates many new ones. Forcing use to move 10,000's of articles, requiring redirects from GN FN to the new format, etc. This is a very old established convention and there is no need to change it. Foreign name formats have been handled at Wikipedia:Naming Conventions. Rmhermen 16:20, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

This is a terrible idea. Among other things, this makes the situation for other languages where given name comes second even worse. Will we have Mao, Zedong? john k 16:58, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The only possible reason for quoting personal names in this fashion is to allow them tp be sorted into, or looked up in, alphabetical order. Wikipedia is not paper and there is therefore no enforced order: you could produce an article List of People sorted by the third letter of their middle name if they have one or else not if you really wanted and this would produce, if not a helpful article, an interesting insight into the processes of your mind (just as this particular edit is an insight into mine at this tag-end of an…interesting Friday). You would then be subject to merciless editing, or more likely instant targeting by the list-phobics, and your list would be gone. That's got to be enough, it's Friday, just go home for goodness' sake! --Phil | Talk 17:10, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Mao, Zedong is desirable if for no other reason than that people will then be aware that he was not Mr. Zedong, just as Koizumi Junichiro isn't Mr. Junichiro and Kim Il-sung isn't Mr. Il-Sung. Exploding Boy 22:15, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Not only is this idea blatantly bad, but it contradicts our policy about locating the article at the most common english name. →Raul654 22:17, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, another constructive post from Raul. Exactly why is it "blatantly bad," Raul? And how does it contradict the policy? People would still be under their most commonly used name, they'd just be listed in a more encyclopaedic and all-round more user-friendly style, because EVERYONE would be listed family name-first, rather than just a few people. Exploding Boy 22:41, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

This idea is blatantly bad because

You're talking about moving tens of thousands of articles, which realistically is never going to happen (and if you tried, you'd never get them all). And then of course there's the little matter of getting people to write new articles at [[family name, given name]] which is also never going to happen. Oh, and good luck trying to get everyone else to agree to it. (because if you think I'm being stubborn, you haven't seen anything yet)
Our policy is that: "Generally, article naming (IE, where the article is located) should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity" - Harry Truman is quite a bit more obvious than Truman, Harry - it's almost more recognizable. This proposal violates our naming policy.
If you want to link to someone now, you have to use [[Truman, Harry|Harry Truman]] instead of simply [[Harry Truman]]. All instances of [[Harry Truman]] now point to a redirect.
On the other hand, what exactly do we gain by creating this mess for ourserlves? The vast majority of our biographical articles use the western custom of given name, family name. So for the vast majority of our biographic articles, this policy only creates problems. →Raul654 22:52, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Just one comment: people with a patronymic but without a family name are normally sorted on their first name, thus Björk Guðmundsdóttir, not Guðmundsdóttir, Björk, even in cases where other names are sorted with family name first. (As a matter of fact, the entire Icelandic phonebook is sorted according to first name.) However, I wouldn't trust most contemporary, Anglophone contributors on Wikipedia to recognize the difference between a patronymic and a family name, and if the unnecessarily complicated way of writing "last name" first would be implemented, names with a patronymic will no doubt often be written in the wrong order. //Tupsharru 06:07, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As this is the English Wikipedia, we would sort them in the English usage, not the Icelandic. That is, patronymic as a kind of last name and are sorted together with them. (However we still have trouble deciding on a sorting order for the Dutch van and German von names.) Rmhermen 14:30, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Do you have an authoritative source for what English usage is in this case?//Tupsharru 15:48, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It appears that Exploding Boy really wants to go with standard bibliographic style. That is somewhat more complex than always putting the family surname first. General bibliographic usage as been to generally list names by surname, followed by a comma, then by the other names, when the names are post-medieval names and when they are of European origin or names of those who have adopted European conventions or when the names have been adapted to fit European conventions. These modern surnames are sometimes patrynomics rather than family surnames. Names not fitting this convention are generally not re-ordered. Classical Roman names, for example, are not reordered. One normally does not see "Antonius Creticus, Marcus" rather than "Marcus Antonius Creticus" in an index. Where in modern usage surnames seldom appear, as with royal families of Europe, the names generally don't appear ordered by surname in indexes. It would be extraordinary to find a book referring to Queen Elizabeth II of the UK and find her listed in its index under something like "Windsor, Elizabeth, Queen of the United Kingdom, II".

An advantage of the traditional system is that it clarifies whether a surname is a modern family surname or a descriptive surname. If we come across "Marie d'Anjou" in an index, the reference is almost certainly to some pre-modern personage connected with the territory of Anjou, likely a member of its ruling family. If we come across "D'Anjou, Marie", the reference is almost certainly to a more modern person who happens to have the hereditary surname "D'Anjou". There is some small value in such a distinction, though it annoys indexers of books dealing with periods when hereditary family surnames were first coming into vogue.

But adopting the normal bibliographical system in Wikipedia would not at all solve a dispute over order of Chinese names. Under the traditional system someone knows immediately, by the presence of a comma, that in the case of "Dickens, Charles", for example, that "Dickens" is a surname and that in normal use the two elements are reversed. But coming across references like Hrólf Kraki, Vlad Tepe, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Mark Antony, Julius Caesar, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a reader unfamiliar with the name style or the persons knows nothing other than that, if there is a family name within any of these combinations, it is not marked by a comma. The only one of the above where we could reasonably make this clear though a comma is Mark Antony which we might reverse as Antony, Mark. For the rest, there is nothing to indicate whether "Hrólf", "Vlad", "Ho", "Julius", "Antiochus", and "Mao" are family names or not. In fact, of these, only "Mao" is a pure family name, "Julius" comes very close though the full family name was "Julius Caesar" (the given name "Gaius" being usually dropped in references to this particular personage).

One might use Mao, Zedong as Exploding Boy suggests. But the comma also indicates reversal and so indicates that in normal text we should see "Zedong Mao". That is incorrect. Placing a comma here would mislead. And that is not done in traditional usage. The dispute on particular names is because in environments derived from European culture the elements of Chinese names are indeed sometimes reversed. Should a Chinese name appear in reversed order or native order in an article title if it mostly appears in reversed order in English sources, as for example the name of a person of Chinese ancestry who is a native-born US citizen? Adopting normal bibliographic conventions in Wikipedia would now mean that the dispute would be instead about whether a comma should follow the family name rather than about the order in which the name elements should appear. The dispute would still exist. Exploding Boy's suggestion doesn't solve it at all.

Jallan 14:20, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Capitalization of compass directions with proper nouns

I've done some searching and come to the conclusions that (a) we don't currently have a policy on this and (b) this is the right place to raise the issue. Apologies if I'm mistaken.

Capitalization in Wikipedia articles is not consistent as regards the following usages. Can we adopt official policies and include them in our MoS? Have I missed the fact that we already have them? Or is this not the sort of thing we need to adopt specific policies for?

I know I'm supposed to be bold, but I didn't think unilateral changes to the Manual of Style were quite what was intended. Comments on these proposals are solicited.

{S,s}outheastern Pennsylvania

Clearly one heads north when one is going to North Dakota, but does one go to Southeastern Pennsylvania or southeastern Pennsylvania? If something comes from the Pacific Northwest, is it Northwestern or northwestern? I'm inclined to say the latter, i.e. to use lowercase, and the Chicago Manual of Style seems to back me up at the bottom of [1].

The {W,w}estern world

However, I think that Western and Eastern, when they refer to the cultures of the two hemispheres, are special cases. Western music, for example, is inconsistent, and I don't know which way to correct it. I guess I'd prefer capitals in this case, e.g. "I've spent six semesters studying Western philosophy and I'm sick of hearing about Western beliefs and customs", but I don't feel strongly about it.

It is customary to refer to the North as opposed to the American South (the latter article demonstrates appropriate capitalizations of related terms), and it would be inaccurate and potentially confusing to do otherwise, since "South" is a proper noun referring to a geographical and cultural reason and "south" is a direction on the compass. It's important to consider the context—I suppose it depends most basically on whether the word is being used as a proper noun or an adjective. --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

American South isn't entirely consistent either, but here's what I'm getting out of it:

The East and West parts of the world, the North and South parts of the U.S., and other similarly named regions such as the Pacific Northwest, the Midwest, etc., are all capitalized.
Their adjectival forms are likewise capitalized, so that people or things from the South are Southern, from the Midwest are Midwestern, etc.
However, directional words that refer to a general region of a defined area are not capitalized, so that one speaks of southeastern Pennsylvania or north Idaho, and people and things from those places are southeastern or northern, at least relative to people and things from other parts of the states. This convention will certainly help distinguish west Virginia from West Virginia.
Unfortunately, following these rules requires knowledge of the correct proper noun. Apparently, South Central Los Angeles is a proper name, so it's not south central Los Angeles, but you have to know that or be able to look it up.

I'll allow a few days for objections/additions, then I'd like to try to clean this up and post it on the project page. —Triskaideka 19:21, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

draft

How about this?

Directions and regions:

Directions are not capitalized. Regions which are proper nouns are, but whether a region has that status can be a gray area.

Maurreen 17:20, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We should probably give some examples. I was thinking of something like:

Directions and regions:

Compass directions that are part of the proper name of a region should be capitalized, e.g. the American Midwest or South Central L.A.
When directions are used to indicate only a part of a region, they should be lowercase, e.g. north Louisiana.
Other forms of the words should follow the same conventions, so that a person from the Midwest is a Midwesterner, but a tree that grows in north Louisiana is northern (at least relative to trees in other parts of Louisiana).
It can be difficult to know whether the direction is part of the proper noun or not. Look it up when possible. If you cannot determine whether the direction is part of the name, it may be best to assume that it is.

I don't know that I like the idea of capitalizing when you don't know for sure, but I like it just as much as not capitalizing when you don't know for sure, and I like them both better than telling people to do whatever they feel like, which I don't think befits a style guide. —Triskaideka 20:07, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd prefer not capitalizing when people don't know whether the area is a proper noun. Maurreen 20:18, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with the usage suggested. All references to specific regions should be capitalized. Directions or general locations should not be capitalized.

So:

You head north from Richmond to reach Northern Virginia.
It is often cold in northern climes.
Unfortunately, South Phoenix is the focus of gang activity in metropolitan area.

Derivative words follow from the parent:

People who live in the Midwest are Midwesterners.
Inuit and Laplanders both live in northern climes. These northerners are a hardy sort.67.109.122.70 18:10, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do you have a reason for wanting to capitalize direction words even when they're not part of the proper name? I'm inclined to follow the CMoS in the absence of a reason to do otherwise. —Triskaideka 18:17, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How are you defining "proper name" of a region that is different than "reference to a specific region"?67.109.122.70 20:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is, for example, no officially defined geographical region called "Southeastern Pennsylvania". Certainly Pennsylvania has a southeastern part, but one can't be sure exactly what is meant when someone says "Southeastern Pennsylvania", so IMO, "Southeastern Pennsylvania" isn't the proper name of any geographical area, but rather, "southeastern Pennsylvania" is a handy description of a vague area. In constrast, "South Central Los Angeles" (or nowadays "South Los Angeles", according to that article) is a specific geographical region whose boundaries are defined by the city of Los Angeles. That's why I think the direction words in the former should not be capitalized, but those in the latter should.

I don't feel all that strongly about this, but whatever alternate policy we adopt, I'd like us to be able to give a reason for it. People will have a much easier time following a rule if they can remember why it's the rule. —Triskaideka 21:04, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That is why I suggested the definition I did. Its easy to remember (capitalize if referring to a specific place, region, or area, don't capitalize if referring to a general direction or area). Its easy to implement (you don't have to know whether something is the "official" term -- whatever that means).

Under your definition, West Coast would NOT be capitalized because there is no official West Coast. The South (referring to the southern U.S) would not be capitalized because there is no official South. Preposterous.

Even where there are govenment-recognized regions of cities or states, the government recognition often comes long after the terms are in broad usage. Think Upper East Side of Manhattan for example.

Let's focus on your vagueness test for a minute. I think we agree that the South gets capitalized. But what states does that include? Florida? Just Northern Florida? Texas? Missouri? Well, some people would say yes to all three states, some would exclude South Florida, seems pretty vague to me.

Is there a place here for a concept of common usage? Maybe the following couple of sentences are correctly capitalized: "The culture in Northern California is different than in Southern California. Similarly, though, the culture in eastern California is different than in the western, coastal cities."

BTW, do you have the CMoS language handy? I don't, so I don't know exactly what they say about this. They've got people who have thought a lot about this stuff so I'm sure their opinion would be helpful.Chuck 22:24, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

U.S. Southern states suggests that there is a reasonably common definition of what states that term includes.

I certainly think there's a place for a concept of common usage, even though it may be difficult to determine whether a term is in common usage or not.

I don't have access to a copy of the CMoS itself, but I linked a page from their web site above. In response to the question, "What do I do when attempting to indicate specific regions in a particular county of a state? Do I write the North Central region of Contra Costa County, or do I lowercase north central, etc.?", they say, "We would lowercase regions within counties." However, they also say that one should "capitalize regions in the United States such as the Northwest, East Coast, etc." So I guess the question is, at what point does a region become too small (or too infrequently referred to) to merit capital letters?

I'm not partial to the CMoS over any other decent style guide; that was just the best comment on the subject that my web search turned up. —Triskaideka 00:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

With all due respect to the Wikipedia, it is not the end-all on discussions of common usage of terms. Nor is it the end-all on discussions of how vague those terms might be. If you used the term "the South" to me, I generally wouldn't think you were including Oklahoma (it wasn't even a state during the Civil War). I definitely wouldn't think you were including Washington, D.C. since it was specifically placed in its location so it would be neither in the North nor the South, and it was part of the North during the Civil War.

Careful with that CMoS quote. They were asked a specific question about "the North Central region of Contra Costa County". I agree that it shouldn't be capitalized, because north central is merely an adjective describing region. However, North Central Contra Costa County perhaps should be capitalized, if it is a commonly used (especially if government sanctioned) term.

How about this for an idea. Let's use your earlier definition and say it gets capitalized if it is a proper name. This is a little loose, but fits with other capitalization rules. Basically let the author decide if the compass word is being used as an adjective (lower-case) or is part of the name (upper-case). We can further define that place names are proper names through governmental action or common usage.

BTW, I would like to try to end up with a suggestion which gives reasonably strong direction. I was reading the Economist's on-line (abridged) style guide. While each one of their points may make sense on its own, its difficult to make up a simple set of rules that would cover all of their examples.

I think its easier to err on the side of more capitalization. The difficulty of erring on the side of less capitalization is as follows: You should always capitalize if its an official name (South Dakota for example). But what about the North Atlantic? How would you even go about deciding if its possible for there to be an official name for that. OK, so you decide not to capitalize the word north there. Then what about the North Sea? Chuck 02:09, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The CMoS says, section 7.34m in my edition: "Certain nouns and some adjectives designating parts of the world or regions of a continent or a country are generally capitalized. Descriptive adjectives not part of an accepted appellation are lowercased." Omitting lots of detail, here are some examples of capitalized and not capitalized: Antarctic Circle, North Atlantic, northern Atlantic, the South, the Southwest (US), the south of France, Upper Michigan, northern Michigan.

So, by the CMoS it should be northern California, southern California, north central region of Contra Costa County, etc. If anyone is dying for it, I'll type some more, but basically, no go on excess capitalization for unofficial and unrecognized place names incorporating directional indicators. Ortolan88 01:13, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) Emphasis added for clarity.

Isn't the important phrase here "accepted appellation". I would think your list would look like Northern California, Southern California, north central region of Contra Costa County. If Upper Michigan is capitalized, why are you coming to the conclusion that northern California should not be capitalized? (I can't imagine that CMoS is making a distinction between upper and northern purely because one is a compass direction.)

Another example to back up capitalization of Northern California is CMoS' distinction between North Atlantic (accepted appellation) and northern Atlantic (not the accepted appellation). Chuck 02:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, "Upper Michigan" is rather uncommon usage--it is far more commonly known as the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. older ≠ wiser 14:47, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think all of this might be more trouble than it's worth. Isn't it already a standard rule of English that proper nouns are uppercase, and most other things aren't?

I think it's best for the style guide to a concise reference to common questions that arise in Wikkipedialand. Maurreen 04:59, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This seems to come up a lot so if we can come up with something short and clear, I think its worth it. How about we go with your original suggestion, and let people figure it out on a case-by-case basis. In most cases, I think people will be able to easily decide between common terms that get capitalized ("... towns in Northern California") and descriptive terms that don't ("... the tribes of eastern Arizona"). Its probably not a big deal if it doesn't work perfectly on the margin, but its nice to provide guidance for people who may just be unsure what the rule is.

So we'll say to capitalize for proper nouns, terms in common usage, and their related forms, lowercase for terms not in common usage and their related forms, and use your best judgment (and above all, be consistent) if you're not sure? That's good enough for me. —Triskaideka 18:55, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Draft 2?

Triskaideka, I'm not clear on what you mean by "terms in common usage."

Is this better?

Directions and regions:

Directions are not capitalized. Do capitalize regions that are proper nouns, include widely known expressions such as "Southern California," and their related forms.

But whether a region has attained proper-noun status can be a gray area. Use an appropriate reference if needed. Use lowercase when in doubt.

Maurreen 04:34, 24 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 – 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./Tupsharru 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)

Inline lists of translated words

I want to comment on the formatting of lists of inline translations of words. Compare this, from the preceding topic:

Three French words with related meanings are maison 'house', domaine 'estate, property', and château 'castle'.

with this from the following topic on this page:

...englisch transcription for Bulgarian (Bulgarisch), Macedonian (Mazedonisch), Russian (Russisch), Serbian (Serbisch), and Ukrainian (Ukrainisch).

The latter--parens instead of quotes without dividing punctuation--is much easier to scan, read, comprehend than the former, and that's the form I've been changing things to as I have found them. For example, History of the Scots language was almost unreadable until parens were used. Elf | Talk 15:52, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is a good idea – should be policy, although I'm not sure how often it pops up. Derrick Coetzee 02:49, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think such a policy is needed. For one thing, I doubt it's a common problem. Maurreen 04:38, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Transliteration of Cyrillic

I'm sure I saw a comment a while ago that several users who can just about read Cyrillic find the italicised forms difficult (as some of the italicised forms aren't immediately obviously the same character as their non-italicised forms). Naturally, now I want to re-read it, I can't find it, nor can I find anything in the Manual of Style.

I'd like to propose that we create a policy thus:

When transliterating Cyrillic words, the Cyrillic should not be italicised, but the Roman alphabet transliteration should be. Ideally, a translation into English should follow.

A possible addition might include a guide on how to iotised and palatised characters, such as Ч (Che), Ш (Sha), Щ (Shcha), Я (Ya) and Ё (Yo). (Personally I'd suggest a háček on the core consonant(s) — so č, š, šč — and a letter Y before a vowel — ya, yo).

Opinions? :o) — OwenBlacker 21:46, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

There are pretty complete tables on de.wikipedia at de:Kyrillisches Alphabet, I assume you can make sense out of the tables even when not speaking German. They give a) scientific transliteration (with ISO variants where applicable) and b) german and c) englisch transcription for Bulgarian (Bulgarisch), Macedonian (Mazedonisch), Russian (Russisch), Serbian (Serbisch), and Ukrainian (Ukrainisch). Pjacobi 23:06, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See also http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/rom1_ru.pdf -- Pjacobi 15:15, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Latin acronyms

I'd like to make the proposal, consistent with a number of style guides I've read, that all Latin acronyms but especially e.g. and i.e. be avoided in articles in favour of phrases like "for example/example:" and "that is/in other words". Derrick Coetzee 01:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree; I think that many people editing Wikipedia of course know what they mean, but my experience with the rest of the world says that most people don't. English is better for an English-language encyclopedia. :-) Elf | Talk 04:32, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. In legal writing I might use a term like "viz.", because it's comparatively well known among lawyers, but I'd avoid it on Wikipedia because of its obscurity. By contrast, "e.g." and "i.e." are fairly common. This is the English-language encyclopedia, not the Simple English version. JamesMLane 05:01, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's true that "e.g." and "i.e." are fairly common. They're also fairly commonly misunderstood, by writers and readers. I've worked with a bunch of highly intelligent, well-educated people who consistently got these the wrong way around. I banned use of all Latin phrases when I was a documentation manager - yes, even "etc" - and I support the proposal here. English evolves, and it's evolving to route around Latin since most people don't have a classical education. I don't think of this as a bad thing: it's just what English does, and has always done. Above all: we write to be read, or else what's the point? -- Avaragado 08:28, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your comment uses several words that came into English from Latin. As people learn English, they learn the meaning of words like "documentation", and they learn the meaning of abbreviations like "e.g." They don't need a classical education. They don't even need to know that the word or abbreviation they've just learned comes from the Latin. Plenty of people who've never heard of Algonquian can tell you what a raccoon is.

I agree with writing to be read. From that perspective, Latin can indeed be overdone. There are some instances in which a Latin-derived word tends to be favored by writers who want to seem educated, or who think that it's more appropriate to formal writing -- or, perhaps, who've spent too much time in academia. I personally use "understand" (Old English root) more often than "comprehend" (Latin root). The most common Latin abbreviations, however, are known widely enough that I don't see their use as an impediment to readability. JamesMLane 13:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with JamesMLane and would also add that banning perfectly ordinary English acronyms like i.e. and e.g. (and yes, they are English even though they are derived from Latin) is not really in the spirit of this place. Neither is it a realistic option. What English does best, and the reason that it has such a huge word store, is that it freely robs words from other languages. If we try to ban them all from Wikipedia, we'll have to write in Anglo-Saxon (or maybe Old Norman French, and isn't that just dog Latin at base?). Filiocht 13:43, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Quotation marks: New policy proposal

With quotation marks, we have no rigid rule. Some users prefer using one style (punctuation goes outside the quotation marks when quoting only part of a sentence, but inside when quoting a compete sentence), while other prefer another style (punctuation always goes inside quotation marks).

I prefer the "rigid rule" that is presently in place, not because it is a rigid rule, but because it gives guidance to editors, that is, if the punctuation is part of the quote, quote it, if not part of the quote, don't quote it. Keep in mind, that which is frequently forgotten in these discussions, the purpose of any manual of style is consistency. This proposal will result in inconsistency and gives no guidance to editors. Contributors in general don't pay much attention to the Manual of Style so far as I can tell. This is good, because a lot of the Manual of Style is intimidating to people not accustomed to editorial markup.

If I am reading correctly, this "no rigid rule" paragraph is the only part of this proposed policy that is actually new, the rest is pretty much as it already is in the Manual of Style. Ortolan88 03:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) PS -- I should state my bias. I wrote the first draft of the Manual of Style, basing it on what I found in the Wikipedia at that time, and the rule about "logical quotes" was in that first draft because many carefully written articles, including mine, already used it. Ortolan88

Have to agree. Seems like we should just pick one system and move on. (Also, it seems like we already have, so lets.) Chuck 04:17, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep in mind that if you're quoting several paragraphs, there should be quotes at the beginning of each paragraph, but only at the end of the last paragraph. For longer quotations, an indented style may be better. Since quotations are already marked by quotation marks or indentations, they need not be italicized.
It is probably best to use the "double quotes" for most quotations, as they are easier to read on the screen. Use 'single quotes' for "quotations 'within' quotations," or to mark words for attribution.
Note that if a word appears in an article with single quotes, such as 'abcd', the Wikipedia:Searching facility will find it only if you search for the word with quotes (when trying this out with the example mentioned, remember that this article is in the Wikipedia namespace). Since this is rarely desirable, this problem is an additional reason to use double quotes, for which this problem does not arise. It may even be a reason to use double quotes for quotations within quotations as well.
For uniformity and to avoid complications use straight quotation marks and apostrophes, not curved (smart) ones or grave accents:
- Correct: ' "
- Incorrect: ‘ ’ “ ” `
If you are pasting text from Microsoft Word, remember to turn off the smart quotes feature by unmarking this feature in AutoEdit and "AutoEdit during typing"! [2]. Many other modern word processors have a smart quotes setting - please read the appropriate documentation for your editor.
The grave accent (`) is also used as a diacritical mark to indicate a glottal stop; however, the straight quote should be used for this purpose instead (e.g., Hawai'i, not Hawai`i).

I'm planning on adding this revised policy in a week if there are no objections. Comments? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:07, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Except for the punctuation issue (addressed above) I'm fine except for the Hawaii example. Why are we even addressing a rare character here. My understanding of that character, also used for other Hawaiian words, is that the preference of character use is (i) the Unicode character (there is a specific unicode character defined), (ii) opening left apostrophe, (iii) grave accent, (iv) straight apostrophe. Straight apostrophe might be the most cross-platform, but is the least accurate. Anyway, is this really the right way to open up the rare character can-of-worms. There are plenty of other characters and diacritic marks we would need to address as well. We can start a section to address such characters, but it doesn't belong with quotes. Chuck 04:17, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't see what this change would improve. Maurreen 04:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The only real change here is removal of long-standing Wikipedia preference for logical quotation. But editors have long time been writing articles by this standard and correcting articles to fit this standard. As with any change here, consensus is needed. And I don't see that occurring.

I agree with Chuck on the Hawai'i issue, which is controversial and not clear and also not altogether folllowed. Does this mean that when referring to Hawaiian names in an English context one should use the straight quotation rather than the grave, or that even when quoting Hawai'ian forms natively one should do the same? I don't think the latter is intended, or at least would not be understood now as being a reasonable rule. That should be made clear. There is an increasing tendency in general for use of rarer Unicode characters to appear throughout Wikipedia as fonts increasingly support them. I have seen use of the ‘ character in Hawaiian names and the only objector I've seen to it backed down at once when the user made an issue of it, even saying that if the editor wanted to persist in using it against the standard, he'd support the user. It is hard to remember that even as short a time as three years is was considered rather daring on the web to display even common characters outside of ISO Latin-1 without special downloadable fonts and how a few cranks were still raving away on usenet claiming that Unicode couldn't work and that no-one was using it. That no-one is generally addressing the matter of rare characters may indicate that there is no problem to be addressed, that is, that those using rare characters are largely doing so with reasonable restraint and issues raised are being solved reasonably by individual discussions.

Jallan 17:32, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

May I suggest that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) should be renamed to something like Wikipedia:Manual of Style (puntuation), and any policies in this area sould join it there.Susvolans 17:05, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Don't think so. Punctuation is pretty much the first line of "style" and should remain in the main body of the Manual. Ortolan88 18:02, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fictional Universe Format

While most of the pages have, as thier first sentence the particular universe they're from, I was thinking if it would be good for the first line of every entry like this to appear as something like this:

Part of the Star Trek fictional universe.

Then the start of the article text (after a single empty line), just so there's something universal to differentiate fictional articles from non-fictional. --Barry 16:46, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Only if there are variants available. "Fictional universe" is not a designation associated with all fictional story-settings. (Tolkien, for example, preferred the term "legendarium", which is more appropriate in this case. Middle-earth is in this universe, not a fictional one.)

It would seem more reasonable to simply suggest that all articles referring to fictional settings should clearly indicate the setting in an appropriate manner. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 17:09, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nor does one normally refer to the "Oliver Twist fictional universe" or the "Romeo and Juliet" fictional universe. That would sound absurd. And overstandardization is often worse than no standardization. Simply indicate that the article concerns something fictional and identify where it comes from in any words that is clear and appropriate to the subject. Jallan 17:36, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unless the article is written from the POV of someone in the universe, (which is not a good idea), it should just be part of the first sentence or two. Too many "standardized" notifications will make Wikipedia seem more like a database of facts and less like an encyclopedia —siro χ o

I wasn't speaking for every single fictional reference. Just the one from the large and complex ones. Star Trek, Star Wars, Tolkien, etc. Just a single point to tie them together. --Barry 14:07, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Pronouns

Because the discussion on gender neutrality for pronouns has died out, I'm going to remove the link to the discussion from the style guide. Maurreen 14:04, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Libel

I've seen a few potentially libelous articles, with statements along the lines of someone was "arrested for ..." If the person hasn't been convicted or pleaded guilty, the sentences should be reworeded. Does anyone object to adding an explanation in the style guide about this? Maurreen 23:16, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

At least in the U.S., people are generally arrested for a specific crime, that is they are charged with that crime at the arrest. This does not mean the same thing as they are convicted of. They were charged with is similar but can mean arrested for or might mean merely that a warrant was issued for their arrest for a specific crime. Rmhermen 23:42, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

To say that someone is "arrested for" a crime at least implies that the person committed that crime. This is from the Associated Press stylebook:

"To avoid any suggestion that someone is being judged before a trial, do not use a phrase such as 'arrested for killing.' Instead, use 'arrested on a charge of killing.' Maurreen 00:39, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Somewhat of a..."

Moved from Village pump. Reuben 18:30, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have always learned that constructions like "somewhat of a bore" are incorrect - in this case, "something of a bore" or "somewhat boring" would be correct. See for instance "Common Errors in English". I haven't found any sources supporting the "somewhat of a..." form, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it might be correct in the UK. Any comments? In the U.S. at least, "somewhat of a..." is often used but is considered incorrect.
Reuben 08:26, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Considered incorrect by who? And why should be listen to them? I would avoid these constructions not because they're wrong, but because they're a little bit informal, colloquial, and awkward. Also, they're a little too wishy-washy. But wrong? I think not. Nohat 08:43, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

One example is the New York Times, which puts considerable effort into its formal and traditional style. As I understand it, that's an important component of the encyclopedic style that Wikipedia aims for. Whether to talk about things being incorrect or just informal, colloquial, and awkward is more a question of philosophy than style. Careful U.S. sources seem to avoid using "somewhat" as a pronoun. What I'm wondering is whether this carries over to other parts of the English-speaking world. I have changed "somewhat" to "something" in a few articles, but will revert those edits if they are not appropriate. If the point of style I was applying is U.S.-only, then I certainly would not want to impose it on somebody else's text when copy editing. Reuben 09:27, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Nohat. "Somewhat" is wishy-washy, but not wrong. Nor is it a U.S. taste. The New York Times style guide has no entry for it. And the "something of" construction is not familiar to me. Maurreen 16:56, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Really? I don't have access to the NYT style guide, but I have always known them to avoid "somewhat of a." A quick check on their usage, from Google: "somewhat of a" (a few hits, mostly in direct quotes), "something of a" (very many hits). Thanks for looking it up in their style guide. Also, is there a better place in the Wikipedia to ask for comments on style? Thanks. Reuben 17:20, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Maurreen 17:39, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure that we should be using 'somewhat' or 'something of a...' at all in these contexts in an encyclopaedia. Surely Wikipedia should say exactly how much or how far a fact is correct or incorrect. It's one thing for a newspaper to use this kind of style, because they often want to introduce an attitude or a comment on previously discussed items ~~whereas we~~ but it's another thing in an encyclopaedia. In Wikipedia we should be discussing items pared down to facts. Dieter Simon 22:29, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Billion

Go to Talk:Earth. I removed the word billion from the article yesterday because billion is a word with ambiguity in its meaning. Then, later on, it was returned, with scientific notation also being kept. Does anyone have any opinions about the use of the word billion at Wikipedia?? 66.245.96.130 16:30, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As I understand it, although it is certainly ambiguous when reading a document from many years back, and while its cognates in foreign languages may have different meanings, in contemporary English "billion" almost always means the value 1,000,000,0000, and any other use is increasingly seen as archaic or obscurantist. Certainly this is the case in the U.S., as far as I know it's the case in Canada and the UK. Are there places where this is not so? Do you have recent citations of it being used in any other meaning in English? -- Jmabel 05:14, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

In English, one "billion" is

10^{9}

, or 1,000,000,000. The problem may arise in other languages, where the loose translation of "billion" (i.e. in Spanish "billón") means 1,000,000,000,000; in other words, that's a million millions, or a trillion in English.--Logariasmo 06:59, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"In English"? That depends on American English, British English or the others. Billion is indeed ambiguous and should be avoided where possible, though I agree

10^{9}

is the most common definition now. violet/riga (t) 19:29, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's very vague. Again, I will ask: "Do you have recent citations of it being used in any other meaning in English?" - Jmabel|Talk 19:49, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but only in discussions of the difference between the (largely historical) British-based meaning of

10^{12}

and the (now more more common) American-based meaning of

10^{9}

. Certainly, the British government stopped using

10^{12}

about 30 years ago [3], and in my experience everyone in the UK these days would expect "billion" to mean

10^{9}

. However, I cannot vouch for the rest of the English-speaking world. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:14, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My point was that if there is some other way of stating the information then that should be preferred. Unfortunately, however, it's rarely the case that you can write it some other way. violet/riga (t) 20:37, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fortunately, it is usually the case that you can write "thousand million", which is easily understood and unambiguous. —AlanBarrett 21:22, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But we all trip over "thousand million" every time we read it. Just say "billion". I doubt that a Wikipedia article will flabbergast anyone on Earth, by introducing the word "billion" as meaning

10^{9}

. Tempshill 23:55, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's a part of the introduction to the Style Guide that may be relevant here: "One way is often as good as another, but if everyone does it the same way, Wikipedia will be easier to read and use, not to mention easier to write and edit." It's reasonable for us to select one meaning of "billion" to be used here. But in this case, it's not in fact true that one way is just as good as the other — using it to mean

10^{9}

is far more common. So why not make it official and use it that way all the time? Factitious 02:46, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

This is covered in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Maurreen 03:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Looks like that issue has already been argued to death — avoiding the billion wording seems a reasonable solution in light of all that. Factitious 04:20, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

We should definately avoid this, as there are other, clearer ways of saying the same thing. It is like the flamable / inflamable debate. The amount of confusion is not worth being right. Mark Richards 03:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Use of quotation mark for glottal stops, etc.

User:Susvolans replaced a paragraph about rendering the glottal stop in Hawaiian with new material. I have reverted to the older version. The new material was as follows:

The grave accent (`) is also used as a diacritical mark to indicate a glottal stop; however, except in article titles, the left quotation mark should be used for this purpose instead (e.g., Hawai‘i, not Hawai`i or Hawai'i). It is supported in almost all browsers, and can be used in Wikipedia.  Do not type a left quotation mark directly into Wikipedia. It may display correctly on your browser, but not on others. Instead, use the HTML entity ‘ or the numeric form, ‘ or ‘. Wikipedia in English does not currently support left quotation marks in article titles; a grave accent should be used instead.

The difficulties are that, other than in Hawaiian, the glottal stop is normally indicated by a right quotation mark or a similar mark and the left quotation mark or similar mark mark indicates a pharyngeal consonant found in Semitic languages called there ‘ayan or ‘ain. The symbols resembling quotation marks are commonly used in Latin-letter transliterations of Arabic names and of Hebrew names and words in scholarly transliterations. Accordingly all renderings of glottal stop are not done by a left-quotation mark symbol. Also, two more technical symbols are available in Unicode: U 02BE MODIFIER LETTER RIGHT HALF RING and U 02BF MODIFIER LETTER LEFT HALF RING which are generally preferred by Semiticists for transliterations of Semitic words and names and which are already in use in hundreds of articles in Wikipedia for transliterations of Semitic names.

At the least the above needs to be reworded to recognize this. Personally, it seems to me reasonable to use ‘ for ( ‘ ) at the present time for the ‘okina character in Hawaiian. But that is itself not the proper character according to Unicode and Hawaiian government specifications. The proper character is U 02BD MODIFIER LETTER REVERSED COMMA. See the discussion at Okina and the external links there. If Susvolans' recommendation is accepted for Hawaiian, it should at least be mentioned in the recommendation that in future, when systems better support it, the proper ‘okina symbol should be substituted. Or, since of common browsers, only Microsoft Internet Explorer on Windows currently won't find the proper characters if they exist on any font on the system and insert them, should we perhaps now be using the proper character (as is being done in many Semitic transliterations) rather than wait only because Microsoft can no longer be bothered to improve their browser to the standard of other browsers?

Jallan 15:27, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of MS's immobility, our service is ultimately to our readers, who almost all use IE, and aren't going to change browsers to see glottal stops on Wikipedia. If anything doesn't look right in IE, it's not an option. Derrick Coetzee 16:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Almost all Wikipedia readers use IE? What percentage? I would hope they'd realize that if they use a browser that can't handle Hawaiian characters reasonably, their ability to read Hawaiian words will be impaired. Factitious 16:50, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

I think he's basing that on the general widespread use of IE. Do you really need statistics about how MS dominates in the browser wars? Unfortunately, most readers (i.e., users of IE) couldn't care less about Hawaiian characters. They come to Wikipedia and see an empty square or a funny looking character and conclude that Wikipedia is broken, not their browser. older≠wiser 17:10, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

There are hundreds of articles in Wikipedia now that don't look right on most users' versions of IE, perhaps thousands. People who care about special characters generally don't use IE. There have been no guidelines in that area such as character sets for the Latin script, Greek script, Cyrillic script, mathematical characters and so on that must be used for any article in Wikipedia. Accordingly, for example, editors have used IPA characters for pronunciation indications and so forth. There are two extreme attitudes about this on the web (outside of Wikipedia):

1. Bleeding edge: Do things right from the beginning, using the proper Unicode characters and proper XHTML features and expect readers who care to use proper tools. The entire web will catch up soon enough. After all, using anything outside of Latin 1 or one of the other standard 8-bit sets on the web was considered rather daring only three years ago. Things move very quickly. So build for the future, not for the past. People too stubborn to upgrade when upgrades are free will just have put up with a few characters not appearing properly, but often characters they don't care about anyway.
2. Ultra-careful: Don't use any character or any feature that every browser at least as old as Netscape 5.0 onward doesn't support fully. You can always update the page later. For Wikipedia this would mean almost nothing outside of Latin-1.

Wikipedia obviously should generally be somewhere in the middle. But exactly where is probably very contentious. And the target is constantly moving. I expect this is why the matter has not come up in the style manual. It's too hot to touch and too complex. And the genie is out of the bottle already. Many articles, perhaps thousands of articles, exist using characters that don't display on all systems. Yet users and other editors aren't complaining signficantly. I don't recall ever seeing a complaint outside of an occasional individual complaint on a talk page, that was quickly overruled by others or where a compromise was easily obtained. Obviously, then, using such characters is an option, since it has been taken as an option with minimal or no opposition. There is no policy that every Wikipedia article must display to perfection on every system, regardless of browser being used and local fonts available. The problem tends to be self-correcting, in that those users who care about seeing particular special characters are also the ones who have their systems set up to view them properly (or are already used to seeing them displayed as boxes or question marks on other sites). The other users don't care, and so the boxes or question marks that appear don't matter to them. They just know that some characters are being used that don't display properly on their system, which often happens when languages other than their native language are displayed. Nothing odd there at all. All quite normal. Just what one expects. And editors using rare characters are generally restrained in their use.

Wikipedia could set a policy that, for example, until further notice, the normal left-quote and right-quote characters must be used for Semitic transliterations rather than the half ring characters, that dotted t for emphatic t in Semitic languages should be rendered by t. rather than by the proper Unicode character which has been used instead in many Wikipedia articles. But then who would do the fixing, expecially when even a year from now it might be generally conceded that those characters were no longer a problem?<br\><br\>Jallan 18:20, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Jallan. I have no problem with restrained use of rare characters, so long as some equivalent that renders correctly in older browsers is also given. I like how this is handled in the Hawaii article, where the "correct spelling" with the special mark is noted and explained, but the more common English spelling is used through most of the article. older≠wiser 18:41, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

We should be "bleeding edge" and warn people via {{SpecialChars}}. Chameleon 18:54, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I like Chameleon's idea. Of course even Unicode is incomplete in some respects (such as lacking p-macron used in phonemic Hebrew transliterations), but I generally like using proper Unicode most of the time. But even I'm not perfect, and I find myself using ‘ for ‘okina. I suppose I am willing to bend on the half-circle/single-quote issue, going single-quote instead of the ultra-rare characters. As for other characters in Semitic transliterations, they are well supported in fonts such as Tahoma, so I'm comfortable using them. - Gilgamesh 02:17, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what we are talking about here anymore. If we're talking about providing a precise transliteration or pronunciation guide once in a article, I see no problem with using rare characters. But if you start using those rare characters at every instance throughout the article, that may be a problem. I mean, this is the English Wikipedia and if something makes words in an article illegible to a significant number of readers, that is definitely a problem. older≠wiser 02:58, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

We were originally talking about User:Susvolans's quite reasonable attempt to replace some material in the style guide which is obviously outdated. Even the Hawaii article now ignores that recommendation. The difficulty was in part that Susvolans spoke of "glottal stop" rather than simply ‘okina and that opened up another set of issues, indeed the whole matter of special characters, however such characters are going to be defined. Also, if the style manual is going to be changed on that point, as indeed it should be, since the character proposed for ‘okina is in fact not the official character, there should be some discussion on the matter of whether people should go through articles containing Hawaiian forms and replace one incorect character (the typewriter apostrophe) by another incorrect character (the left quotation mark) or should immediately start using the proper character.

I don't think we should to try to define general usages here for all unusual characters. It's too big. What characters particular editors wish to use for transliteration depends very much on what they are trying to do and the particular languages they are dealing with and what users might expect ... and so forth. People dealing with Semitic languages should be dealing with issues having to do with transliterating Semitic languages, people dealing with English phonetics should be deciding how to render English phonetics, people dealing with Hindu languages should be deciding how to render Hindu languages, people working on articles on logic should decide what logical notation should be used, people discussing Chinese characters are the ones who can best decide which characters are most likely to display properly. If people working in any such field wish to set up standards for that field they should try to get consnensus themselves. Mostly that is what has been happening.

As to the current obsolete rule about how to render ‘okina, I have two alternate suggestions:

1. Simply remove it. It was an oddity anyway. We don't have similar rules for Semitic transliteration or Hindu transliteration or how to render Icelandic here. Those working on articles displaying Hawaiian forms can do as they wish, as is done with other languages.<br\><br\>2. Change to a modified version of Susvolans' recommendation that refers only to the ‘okina rather than glottal stop in general, which I believe is what Susvolans intended to do. The revised text might read:
To indicate the ‘okina (glottal stop) character in Hawaiian, the left quotation mark should be used (that is, Hawai‘i, not Hawai`i or Hawai'i), though in any article titles where the ‘okina should be displayed, the grave accent must currently be used as a substitute. (The proper Unicode ‘okina symbol is Unicode U 02BD MODIFIER LETTER REVERSED COMMA, but currently this is not available in many fonts and unfortunately display problems are likely to result on many systems if the correct character is used.) But do not type or paste a left quotation mark directly into the Wikipedia editor. It may display correctly on your browser, but not on others. Instead, use the HTML entity ‘ or the numeric form, ‘ or ‘.

I'm not pushing this exact text or even the exact recommendation. It is for those working on articles where Hawaiian forms will be displayed to decide whether ‘okina should now be rendered by ‘ or by the more correct ʻ (as in Hawaiʻi versus Hawai‘i). They can best balance current problems versus future benefits in using the ʻ character now or using ‘ now—knowing that in a year or two at most everything should be changed to the proper form.

Jallan 04:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Read m:instruction creep. Restricting the character set other than on a case-by-case pragmatic basis is generally bad, so we should just cut back, possibly including parts of the preceding section. Susvolans 12:26, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed on attempting to restrict character set usage here. However we don't want people to get the idea that the single curly quotation mark characters are totally forbidden for all purposes. How about this:

Characters identical in appearance to left single quotation mark or right single quotation mark are used as letters in some languages and some Latin-letter transliteration systems, for example the ‘okina character in Hawaiian and for ’alef and ‘ayan or ‘ain in Semitic languages. For such purposes, use of the single left quotation and right quotation characters may be acceptable to produce unambiguous display on almost all systems even though these characters are not the recommended ones in Unicode for those purposes. The characters may also be used in discussions about the quotation marks themselves. If using left or right quotation mark for such reasons, do not type or paste a left quotation mark directly into the Wikipedia editor. It may display correctly on your browser, but not on others. Instead, use the HTML entities ‘ or ’ or the correponding numeric forms: ‘ and &#8217 or ‘ and ’. If necessary to represent such characters as letters in article titles, the normal straight apostrophe ( ' ) should usually be used in place of the right quotation mark and the grave accent ( ` ) in place of the left quotation mark.

This is general, rather than restricted to Hawaiian and makes it clear that the curly single quotation mark characters may be used in particular circumstances without committing to desireablity of doing so, as something for case-by-case discussion on talk pages and so on. I think it is useful to warn against attempting to use the curly quote characters directly rather than using the HTML entities.<br\><br\>Jallan 14:27, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with this, from Jallan: "As to the current obsolete rule about how to render ‘okina, I have two alternate suggestions:

1. Simply remove it. It was an oddity anyway. We don't have similar rules for Semitic transliteration or Hindu transliteration or how to render Icelandic here. Those working on articles displaying Hawaiian forms can do as they wish, as is done with other languages.<br\><br\> Maurreen 13:52, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Spelling of scientific words (sulphate/sulfate)

The current guide says (under "scientifc style"):

In articles about chemicals and chemistry, use IUPAC names for chemicals wherever possible, except in article titles, where the common name should be used if different, followed by mention of the IUPAC name.

This is OK (I guess) but recently we have had a round of edit war followed by inconclusive (rather thin) discussion over at Talk:Global_warming#Standards_.26_Chemical_names over whether this policy applies to science articles in general, or just (as the policy above appears to say) for chemical names. I'm introducing the discussion here in the hope of getting some more opinions.

I would like to propose that the policy above be modified to include:

note that this policy applies strictly to articles whose main concern is chemistry, and not to science articles only peripherally concerned with chemistry, in which case the std wiki policy applies..

or somesuch. You might think that unneccessary, but see the discussion on the t:GW (William M. Connolley 18:49, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)).

"Sulfur" will be acceptable the day "telefone" is. The same day Hell freezes over. Chameleon 18:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To you perhaps. But "phantasy" is now an archaic spelling. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 19:18, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Google hits:

Search pattern   All languages   English only
 
sulfur               1,760,000      1,130,000
sulphur              1,560,000        978,000
 
sulfur -sulphur      1,130,000      1,050,000
sulphur -sulfur        967,000        913,000

The form sulfur is currently at least acceptable to a large number of people (as is sulphur), however unacceptable it might be to one individual here. That's fact. And of course many who use sulfur in some contexts are quite willing to accept sulphur in others, and vice versa, or willing to accept both evenly, or don't care much at all, or follow their own preferences in their own writing and don't mind others doing the same. Jallan 20:41, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please please please. DO NOT use Google to try to prove any point about usage. Google only proves a point about usage on the Internet, and as there are probably more English web pages based in the United States than in the rest of the World put together, it proves little about usage in general. This should really be posted somewhere prominent, indeed there should probably be a Wikipedia namespace article on it. Mintguy (T) 23:04, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I will continue to use Google to see what it says on usage issues. I don't always follow it, but it's often better than "my usage is usually normal so whatever I normally do must be the norm." What is the best spelling to use for a name that occurs in different spellings in different sources? Sometimes Google shows the opposite to what I think it should as to what the standard form should be. Sometimes further thought and research indicates that Google is probably correct. Sometimes there are good counter-arguments against what Google seems to claim. But Google can show, as in this case, that two different spellings are both widely accepted. I totally agree that in this case the ratio between the figures is not to be trusted. But Google is a useful tool for usage when, like all such tools, it is used with care and not used exclusively. Jallan 01:00, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusion in this case, but not your argument. Certain clear misspellings that would never be considered acceptable any time soon still remain popular, as evidenced by their many thousands of Google hits. Here are some simple examples:

cigarete (28,700 hits)
lvoe (14,500 hits)
copyrihgt (8,110 hits)
tonw (3,150 hits)

Derrick Coetzee 15:44, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It can be useful tool when there isn't a USA vs. rest of the world debate going on and more generally when it used with an understanding that simply comparing hit counts doesn't always tell you anything useful. I agree with Derrick and was going to make the same point myself. In addition, I remember some time ago someone stating that out article on the Ardennes Offensive should be called "Battle of the Bulge" because of the huge hit count, ignoring the fact that "battle of the bulge" diet gets almost as many hits as "battle of the bulge" germans. Mintguy (T) 17:46, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:57, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)) What you say is true, but besides the point. I'm not arguing for a policy of spelling (for example) sul(f|ph)ur as sulphur in all articles, only that the std policy - in general, of spelling being left as with the originator of the article - be accepted to apply to all articles except those strictly concerned about chemistry. Note that there are exceptions: direction quotations should go with the original (hence I reverted the 1955 nobel for chemistry back to sulphur).

This was also discussed recently in the Darbot registration section of Wikipedia talk:Bots. Rmhermen 21:01, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

My comment and Google results were mostly pointed at User:Chameleon's odd point. But on the main issue, I can't see that the suggested addition would help. It would only move debate to the exact meaning of peripherally. Personally, I'm for scientific terms in scientific articles where they don't obscure meaning, and certainly sulfur doesn't obscure the meaning as a replacement for sulphur. (Where a new term that might be new to many would possibly obscure meaning, use both terms. An encyclopedia should inform.) But even if the new clause was included by consensus, I'd still feel that the global warming article was more than peripherally connected with chemistry. Accordingly, the proposed addition would accomplish nothing. If anything, the current clause should be strengthened. It seems to me odd to suggest that an article on chemisty should use sulfur while an article on atomic physics might not. Jallan 21:10, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:40, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)) I disagree with you over the chemical content of GW. The current policy *is* that a chemistry article should spell it sulfur but a physics article should spell it as the originator left it. I'm asking for that to be clarified.

I don't think the suggested additional words clarify. That is, anyone who believed that sulfur should be substituted for sulphur because the article was concerned with chemistry would say that same even if the new wording was added. Similarly, anyone who disagreed because they felt the article was not sufficiently concerned with chemistry would also still disagree. I don't care very much myself about the standards in this case. After all, sulphur, sulfur: it's the same thing. But my opinion is the suggested addition wouldn't help. Jallan 23:05, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"I would like to propose that the policy above be modified to include: note that this policy applies strictly to articles whose main concern is chemistry, and not to science articles only peripherally concerned with chemistry, in which case the std wiki policy applies.. "

Please do not insert this shortsighted, hasty and completely unnecessary clause in the style manual. Can you imagine the edit wars that will be created by such a thing? Each and every article dealing with chemistry in any way will have one. We've already had a war on Global warming because Connolley thinks that it is only slightly related to chemistry

(William M. Connolley 15:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)) At this point, you've blown your case.

and therefore should remain exempt from IUPAC nomenclature (Vsmith and I disagree with that completely). Wikipedia should strive to attain the maximum amount of standardization between all articles, and especially SCIENCE articles, as possible. I wish to stress again, this is NOT a USA vs. whatever argument here, this is an international standard.--Deglr6328 23:13, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 15:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)) You can say that this isn't a USA-issue as often as you like, but it won't make it true.

Mr Connolley, please read the note I quoted below from from [World Wide Words], it is a British site and they are going along with IUPAC. Read it and stop your personal attacks and silly posts please. -Vsmith 16:09, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The issue has been discussed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Science and the following is the reccomendation there:

In the interest of consistency and clarity the IUPAC standard should be used for chemical names in all science articles. Alternative spellings should be referenced in addition, especially when dealing with regional issues and historical development.

The IUPAC currently recommends:

Aluminium instead of aluminum
Caesium instead of cesium
Sulfur instead of sulphur

-Vsmith 22:27, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 15:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)) You kind of forgot that you wrote that in on 10th Oct yourself. Probably just an oversight I imagine.

No, I didn't write it. It was there for discussion. I moved it to and adopted it as the policy for the science group. Check before making accusations - it is there in the history. I'm getting tired of these chidish rants with no substance. -Vsmith 16:09, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Being from the US, I'm fond of the crazy aluminum spelling, but the IUPAC guidelines seem like the best way of keeping things consistent, and, as a bonus, strike a balance between the major dialects. I wholeheartedly support the recommendation above. Factitious 18:24, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley has launched an edit and revert attack on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Science page in an obvious attempt to be disruptive and obscure the points made here. I am asking him to stop and engage in serious discussion. -Vsmith 17:20, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am proposing that the current guide under scientific style:
In articles about chemicals and chemistry, use IUPAC names for chemicals wherever possible, except in article titles, where the common name should be used if different, followed by mention of the IUPAC name.
be modified to reflect the Wikipedia:WikiProject Science recommendation above, as follows.

In the interest of consistency and clarity the IUPAC standard for chemical names and spellings should be followed in all science and science related articles, except in article titles, where the common name of a compound should be used if different, followed by mention of the IUPAC name. Alternative terminology and spellings should be referenced in addition when dealing with historical development and some local or regional issues.
-Vsmith 22:41, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 15:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Stongly disagree.

Suggest providing at least one example of how a IUPAC name would follow a common name in an article title. I can't figure out exactly what is required and don't think this should be required. A REDIRECT with the IUPAC spelling would probably be better. Also, the Wikipedia Style Manual recommends against the use of the word "alternative" in this kind of context. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Usage and spelling. Change to "Variant" here? The phrase "should be referenced" combined with "some local or regional issues" is confusing. The "should" is negated by the "some". Perhaps a better last sentence would be:

Variant terminology and spellings may also be used in addition to IUPAC recommendations where appropriate, for example in direct quotations and close paraphrases, in historical discussions, when treating local or regional issues, and for general clarification.

Jallan 13:54, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. I was not really happy with my wording of the last part. And the redirect idea is better and more consistent.-Vsmith 15:07, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

IUPAC?

How about spelling out IUPAC on first reference? I never heard of it before I came to Wikipedia. Maurreen 04:07, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 11:35, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Interior Unit for the Promotion of American Cpelling?

Must you be so obnoxious here? Please stop this nonsense. Don't drag the legitimate disagreement we're having here into ad-hominems and underhanded jabs. The IUPAC has adopted what are traditionally British spellings for many other things, see: aluminium, caesium etc. and no one here, except you it seems, really cares a whit about such a petty thing anyway. --Deglr6328 17:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Follow the links here IUPAC
The following quote is from [World Wide Words], (read the whole article for a good and humorous perspective on the issue):

Nobody is suggesting British people change these spellings for all purposes, only when using them in scientific contexts. The Royal Society of Chemistry rushed out a press release the next day to support the QCA, pointing out that standardisation is especially important for ease of communication (like looking things up in databases, for example, where variant versions of common terms are a bugbear). The Society added that standard chemical nomenclature already specifies the f forms of words like sulfur following agreement by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) in 1990.
-Vsmith 12:02, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is not just a case of making the British change. Americans would have to use "aluminium". I would be happy with this, though perhaps it should be only rigorously enforced in technical and scientific articles; how many Americans would remember to use "aluminium foil" in a cookery article! -- Chris Q 13:58, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Almost all of the "pure science" articles already use "aluminium" but some others about capacitors, rocket engines and whatnot still use the old spelling and should be changed. Next on the list. Cooking articles though will be ok as is and exempt from the changes as per the manual of style dictates.--Deglr6328 17:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There. I just did like 20 aluminum-->aluminium fixing edits [4]. Are you satisfied that this is not a "US thing" now Mr. Connolley?--Deglr6328 08:02, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is there somewhere on the IUPAC website where these spelling preferences are listed? I'm all in favor of international standards and this seems like a very good solution, but if we are going to go by the IUPAC standard, we should be able to point to what it is. The best I could find were [5] (PDF) and [6], both of which list sulfur, but each lists aluminum and cesium as alternate spellings. Where is the "standard"? It seems like aluminium and caesium are only just barely marginally preferable in the IUPAC recommendations. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 19:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Info is hard to find it seems in the vast IUPAC list of reports, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Science page (that has been essentially vandalized by one of the parties here) has a link that does list it. Note - it may be a draft version. -Vsmith 20:43, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here's that link (PDF). For aluminium and caesium, alternative spellings of aluminum and cesium are said to be "commonly used". No alternative spelling is listed for "sulfur". Obviously this is only talking about scientific usage of the term. I think that the goal to follow IUPAC for naming of chemical elements and compounds in all scientific articles is laudable and correct. (Even if I do hate "aluminium", if only because it ruins an old cartoon where the aliens came from the aluminum planet "Munimula".) However, the original problem came up more because of definition of "what is a science article", which is a lot harder to judge. (Personally, I'd think global warming falls into that category, but one of the main contributors feels that it doesn't, or at least that it has little to do with chemistry, so that the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry has nothing to say to him in this context. But I can't see a different standard for physics and biology as compared to chemistry, either.

As regards the policy, I'd personally support the Vsmith formulation with the Jallan codicil. Mpolo 07:44, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Should, in accordance with this rule on using IUPAC nomenclature, all instances (bar in article titles perhaps) of ethylene be changed into ethene, or glycerine/glycerol into 1,2,3-propanetriol (propane-1,2,3-triol?), or lecithin into phosphatidylcholine, or even sulphuric acid into sulfuric(VI) acid? All these are standardised systematic names which should be adhered to, but are evidently not. There is no reason that I can see to limit the rule to element names. If this rule should not apply to such names, then there is no reason to bastardise sulphur, either. I'd much rather go with the 'we accept all variant spellings' attitude ... —Sinuhe 14:06, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Standardize and also include the common or more familiar name, such as glycerine and lecithin for clarity when the IUPAC name is drastically different or unfamiliar. Sulfur like aluminium is clear and not drastically different nor unfamiliar. I don't think the oxidation state (VI) is needed in sulfuric acid, hmm.. is that from IUPAC? Sulfur(IV) oxide and sulfur(VI) oxide are recommended for SO₂ and SO₃ although the di- and tri- prefixes are still commonly used. I'll have to check rhe nomenclature for polyatomic ions & acids. -Vsmith 15:12, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know, unless you make the distinction sulphuric acid = H₂SO₄ and sulphurous acid = H₂SO₃ (as Wikipedia appears to be doing, of course not in keeping with IUPAC), then the former is sulphuric(VI) acid and the latter sulphuric(IV) acid.

Disregarding for the moment whether or not the IUPAC recommends using oxidation states in acids, the IUPAC would not recommend "sulphuric (X) acid", it would recommend "sulfuric (X) acid"