HRWiki talk:Manual of Style
From Homestar Runner Wiki
Revision as of 19:35, 9 November 2005 by Heimstern Läufer (Talk | contribs)
Contents |
Overlap with Standards
Well, I've gotten the ball rolling. Some of the information from HRWiki:Standards should be copied or moved to this page. — It's dot com 23:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
West Is Ellipsis
Actually, according to the Chicago Manual of Style (see halfway down the page), ellipses should have spaces before as well as after. Ellipsis does concede that "some write ellipses without spaces," though. I was just wondering, is there a particular standard we base the wiki's on? I know journalists play by a slightly different set of rules on a lot of issues; is that what we're using, since a wiki is somewhat a journalistic entity? —: AbdiViklas 03:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of this, and as far... as I know... we write ellipses... without spaces before them... in most cases... --Jay (Talk) 03:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- When I did stuff with journalism way back in the day ... ellipses ... were like ... this. As opposed . . . to a more English-papery . . . way of doing them, or...this. Just..............my two cents.Spell4yr 05:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Ellipses... with spaces? I've never... heard of such a thing. And try reading... this conversation with... the implied pauses. It's... hilarious. --Dorian... Gray
- If you were publishing a book . . . this . . . with spaces everywhere . . . is how you would make . . . an ellipsis. But that isn't necessary here, and it could cause bad line breaks. If we're using the ellipsis to actually indicate omitted words, then ... this ... with the space before and after but not internally ... would be fine. If we're indicating a pause... or trailing off... then it looks better... without the space before. No spaces at all...just looks...silly. It's... Dot com 16:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Dot Dot Dot — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 17:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- On a side note, following up the journalistic idea, the bad line break reason is why most journalistic stylebooks wage against the usage of . . . (in favor of ... and it was fun proving my English teacher/newspaper advisor wrong on that; he thought it was . . . for newspapers too). It's how I've become accustomed to using my ellipses, no matter the reason for it. But I can see the argument for... but not...at all.Spell4yr 17:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Newspapers get so many things wrong when it comes to style that I can hardly stand to read them. They try to squeeze as much as they can into as small space as they can, and they will therefore sacrifice accuracy for brevity. So don't get me started on that. I happen to be in the publishing business, and A Dictionary of Modern American Usage and The Chicago Manual of Style are two of my best working companions as I edit the magazine that we print each month. To solve the problem of bad line breaks caused by the internal spaces, I use nonbreaking spaces. I suppose we could do that, too (like this: "
. . ."), but that seems overly pedantic. — It's dot com 17:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)- I see. Understood. (The indentation on my previous reply was correct, by the way -- I'm not reverting the formatting back, but it was more of a reply to you than to Under Construction, though that is quite possibly the best. Usage of ellipses. EVER. Spell4yr 17:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- So it sounds like we're agreed on.... However, do we also maintain that full sentences should end with four, as I just did (period plus ellipsis)? —AbdiViklas 19:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- The thing is... we almost never use literal ellipsis points. By that I mean, relatively speaking, we rarely have the need to quote something and leave out part of it. In those cases, I still think that the space before is appropriate: "Do you take your wrestling mask ... off before you go to bed?" The period-plus-ellipsis-points variety (typographically identical to four periods and used when the previous sentence is complete) would be even rarer. We just don't quote that much stuff. Most often we use them as a suspension... to indicate a pause. I personally think the subtlety of the four version versus the three version would be lost on most people and not worth the effort to fix them. By the way, this discussion has taken on a life of its own, and seems to be a bona fide standards conversation. Should it be moved to HRWiki talk:Standards? — It's dot com 19:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps those who feel most passionate about these style issues would like to collaborate on an official HRWiki Style Guide defining what to do in these types of arbitrary grammar/spelling situations. I'd love to see something like that come into existence alongside our Standards. —
Joey (talk·edits) 22:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps those who feel most passionate about these style issues would like to collaborate on an official HRWiki Style Guide defining what to do in these types of arbitrary grammar/spelling situations. I'd love to see something like that come into existence alongside our Standards. —
- The thing is... we almost never use literal ellipsis points. By that I mean, relatively speaking, we rarely have the need to quote something and leave out part of it. In those cases, I still think that the space before is appropriate: "Do you take your wrestling mask ... off before you go to bed?" The period-plus-ellipsis-points variety (typographically identical to four periods and used when the previous sentence is complete) would be even rarer. We just don't quote that much stuff. Most often we use them as a suspension... to indicate a pause. I personally think the subtlety of the four version versus the three version would be lost on most people and not worth the effort to fix them. By the way, this discussion has taken on a life of its own, and seems to be a bona fide standards conversation. Should it be moved to HRWiki talk:Standards? — It's dot com 19:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- So it sounds like we're agreed on.... However, do we also maintain that full sentences should end with four, as I just did (period plus ellipsis)? —AbdiViklas 19:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- I see. Understood. (The indentation on my previous reply was correct, by the way -- I'm not reverting the formatting back, but it was more of a reply to you than to Under Construction, though that is quite possibly the best. Usage of ellipses. EVER. Spell4yr 17:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Newspapers get so many things wrong when it comes to style that I can hardly stand to read them. They try to squeeze as much as they can into as small space as they can, and they will therefore sacrifice accuracy for brevity. So don't get me started on that. I happen to be in the publishing business, and A Dictionary of Modern American Usage and The Chicago Manual of Style are two of my best working companions as I edit the magazine that we print each month. To solve the problem of bad line breaks caused by the internal spaces, I use nonbreaking spaces. I suppose we could do that, too (like this: "
- On a side note, following up the journalistic idea, the bad line break reason is why most journalistic stylebooks wage against the usage of . . . (in favor of ... and it was fun proving my English teacher/newspaper advisor wrong on that; he thought it was . . . for newspapers too). It's how I've become accustomed to using my ellipses, no matter the reason for it. But I can see the argument for... but not...at all.Spell4yr 17:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Dot Dot Dot — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 17:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- If you were publishing a book . . . this . . . with spaces everywhere . . . is how you would make . . . an ellipsis. But that isn't necessary here, and it could cause bad line breaks. If we're using the ellipsis to actually indicate omitted words, then ... this ... with the space before and after but not internally ... would be fine. If we're indicating a pause... or trailing off... then it looks better... without the space before. No spaces at all...just looks...silly. It's... Dot com 16:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Ellipses... with spaces? I've never... heard of such a thing. And try reading... this conversation with... the implied pauses. It's... hilarious. --Dorian... Gray
- When I did stuff with journalism way back in the day ... ellipses ... were like ... this. As opposed . . . to a more English-papery . . . way of doing them, or...this. Just..............my two cents.Spell4yr 05:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Quotation marks
As long as we're hashing out these things, I've noticed some disparity or just plain uncertainty about when to put punctuation inside "quotation marks," and when to put it "outside". I've gotten pretty confused on this myself. I used think I had a handle on the situation, and it was just (Brian Regan impression) "punctuation inside the quotation marks... always." But obviously there are situations that would make that impossible or nonsensical; if I'm writing an exclamatory sentence and quote a line that doesn't end with an exclamation mark, you'd better believe it would be "Do you use them for good or for awesome?"! I don't have any manuals of style, except for MLA in a box in a closet, which I find unhelpful for these sorts of things anyway. Perhaps you could fill us in, It's dot com?
It seems to me the tendency here seems to heavy on putting punctuation outside; I wonder whether sometimes it actually goes too far. —AbdiViklas 01:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- While I don't actually know the answer, I can't help responding to this. I think the rule is punctuation inside the quotation marks on weekends and holidays, and all throughout May, and you'll always be wrong no matter what you say! I gather from what's on the page now that it only goes outside of the quotes if you're quoting a single word or phrase that you would put finger quotes around if you were speaking, but what do I know?
Username-talk 01:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm in the publishing business. As part of that, I am a copyeditor of a magazine. Our policy where I work is (AbdiViklas impression) "punctuation inside the quotation marks... always." Here on the wiki... I don't know whether it's the default font, or what, but it just looks wrong sometimes. We certainly don't have a standard, and in my opinion we don't need one. That's why I left it open on the project page (which is, in turn, based on some comments I wrote on the FAQ a while ago). — It's dot com 02:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- OK, I'm pretty sure I know the "official rules": In British English, you put the punctuation inside quotes if the punctuation belongs with the thing inside the quotes. E.g.: "What are you doing?" But you put it outside if the punctuation goes with something that's not entirely in the quotes. E.g.: Did you just say, "doyng"? But in academic American English, you put the punctuation inside no matter what, including when it makes no sense. For example: Did you just say "doyng?" Here, the question mark applies to the sentence, not the "doyng" in quotes, but you still put it inside. But this really makes no sense, and Americans outside academic circles are abandoning this practice and punctuating like the Brits. From what I've seen in the past, I think the Wiki has thus far also preferred to go like the Brits on this one. (Read the Chicago Manual of Style for more info.) Hope that I helped! Heimstern Läufer 02:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure which academics you've been cavorting with, but American style places the question mark outside quotations to which it does not belong (Chicago Manual of Style § 5.28, at 164 (14th ed.)). So here, just like in the old country, it's: Did you just say "doyng"? Where the two styles differ applies to periods and commas and whether to start with double quotes or single quotes. — It's dot com 02:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- OK, I'm pretty sure I know the "official rules": In British English, you put the punctuation inside quotes if the punctuation belongs with the thing inside the quotes. E.g.: "What are you doing?" But you put it outside if the punctuation goes with something that's not entirely in the quotes. E.g.: Did you just say, "doyng"? But in academic American English, you put the punctuation inside no matter what, including when it makes no sense. For example: Did you just say "doyng?" Here, the question mark applies to the sentence, not the "doyng" in quotes, but you still put it inside. But this really makes no sense, and Americans outside academic circles are abandoning this practice and punctuating like the Brits. From what I've seen in the past, I think the Wiki has thus far also preferred to go like the Brits on this one. (Read the Chicago Manual of Style for more info.) Hope that I helped! Heimstern Läufer 02:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- In reply to SHSRTU: Ah, another Brian Regan fan! That guy cracks me up! Cracks! Me! Up!
- In continuation of discussion: I have a vague recollection of seeing some quasi-official source validate the above concept, of putting the punctuation outside quotes when it's part of a sentiment that doesn't belong to the quote. [After edit conflict: okay, maybe the Chicago Manual] E.g. on the current More Fan Costumes: I said "S and more different S"! However, down in Fun Facts, the sentences ending in "collection" and "wing" put it inside. On the other hand, we have Strong Bad refers to his head as "husky", despite. ... That's the sort that I might have put inside. (And by the way, back to ellipses; what I just did—". ..."—is what this page currently recommends, but would "... ." make more sense in this case?) One more thing: doesn't pretty much every system put semicolons outside quotation marks? If so we should note that. —AbdiViklas 02:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- On the period-plus-ellipsis-versus-ellipsis-plus-period question, I would omit the internal space in that case. Even the style books don't insist on splitting hairs, though (Chicago Manual of Style § 10.55, at 373 (14th ed.); but see also A Dictionary of Modern American Usage "quote", at 552 (1st ed.), where it insists that the hairs should rightly be split). As for semicolons, you're right. They go outside the quotation marks in both styles if they don't belong to the quote. We could note that, but I thought that this page would illustrate our house style; it should only mention English rules when it differs from established styles. — It's dot com 02:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- I updated the project page, but I'll bet this situation doesn't come up all that often. — It's dot com
- On the period-plus-ellipsis-versus-ellipsis-plus-period question, I would omit the internal space in that case. Even the style books don't insist on splitting hairs, though (Chicago Manual of Style § 10.55, at 373 (14th ed.); but see also A Dictionary of Modern American Usage "quote", at 552 (1st ed.), where it insists that the hairs should rightly be split). As for semicolons, you're right. They go outside the quotation marks in both styles if they don't belong to the quote. We could note that, but I thought that this page would illustrate our house style; it should only mention English rules when it differs from established styles. — It's dot com 02:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- In continuation of discussion: I have a vague recollection of seeing some quasi-official source validate the above concept, of putting the punctuation outside quotes when it's part of a sentiment that doesn't belong to the quote. [After edit conflict: okay, maybe the Chicago Manual] E.g. on the current More Fan Costumes: I said "S and more different S"! However, down in Fun Facts, the sentences ending in "collection" and "wing" put it inside. On the other hand, we have Strong Bad refers to his head as "husky", despite. ... That's the sort that I might have put inside. (And by the way, back to ellipses; what I just did—". ..."—is what this page currently recommends, but would "... ." make more sense in this case?) One more thing: doesn't pretty much every system put semicolons outside quotation marks? If so we should note that. —AbdiViklas 02:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- In reply to HSRusername: That "finger quotes" bit is perfect. Not that it should be on the page that way, but it completely captures what I was thinking. — It's dot com 02:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, you're right. I forgot to think. The question mark does always go outside. So just go read what I said and make them all statements with periods at the end! (Trying too hard to come up with a funny quote.) Heimstern Läufer 06:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC) P.S.: Chicago Manual of Style p. 242-243.
- I filled in my citations above. — It's dot com
Email in filmography
Some filmographies use email tags, like this:
- Email sibbie
While others don't.
We should aim for consistency. So which one should we use? I prefer using the email tag, myself. - Joshua
- Quite a few of them already use the email label in front of them. It's only natural that we keep it. The job may be quite tedious, but since GrapeNuts is on hiatus, we'll need to crack down on it ourselves. — Lapper (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- I would think it could help for disambig purposes, e.g. marzipan. —AbdiViklas 02:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm in favor of the label. I don't know quite how this manual of style is going to shape up, but we could have sections on how to do this or that—how to do a filmography, for example. And like I said at the top of this page, some things from the standards page are probably going to need to be moved (or at least copied) here. — It's dot com 02:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- So this is now the proper way to do fimlographies:
- Debut: Main Page 1
- Pumpkin Carve-nival
- Email japanese cartoon
- Mr. Shmallow
- Email flashback
- Stinkoman 20X6
More maintenance
I was wondering if it would be wise to make links between this page, HRWiki:Standards, HRWiki:List of common misspellings etc. Also, I wondered if there might be some good in making a list of commonly confused words, since this doesn't seem to be covered in the list of common misspellings. I'm talking about things like its-it's, effect-affect, descent-dissent etc. If other people think it's a good idea, I'll start work on it. Heimstern Läufer 19:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- This project is currently a stub. A lot of work needs to be done on it. It does need links to/from other maintenance articles, and (like I have said above) some content should even be moved here from there. By all means, update this page as you see fit, based on your observations of what our current style is. That is, if you notice that we always do something a particular way, then it should go on the project page. This talk page is (among other things) to discuss changes to our style or to clarify it. — It's dot com 19:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- I guess the reason I asked about it is that I don't feel like I've really got a grasp on what our style is for this sort of thing. I guess I'll just take as good a stab at it as I can and some of you can see if it looks right. Heimstern Läufer 19:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
