If we were talking about a living playwright who spoke last week, then maybe, but. Anyhow, even though I think your way is fine in the original example and the conventional sequence of tenses isn't rigid in English, i feel it needs strong justification to claim that a writer is wrong to apply the convention. Count yourself lucky to have a local paper where such issues are even noticeable. Where i live, it would be well below the radar. Tony, i'm wondering why you raised this issue. Is this a general chat, or does ir affect something specific in wikipedia? stfg ( talk ) 20:01, (UTC) Hyphens and "ly" adverbs Formerly a little hasty?
And, then, there, were, none - wikipedia
Mos is silent on the matter, as it probably should. Tony (talk) 03:09, (UTC) (ec) I suspect that there can't be a fixed answer to this. First, note the difference between "The minister said that." and "The minister says that.". In the former we're reporting that he has made a specific statement at some time; in marathi the latter, we're saying that his opinion is known (however we may have come to know it). Concentrating on the ". Said that." case: putting what the person said in the present tense seems to imply that we think his statement is as valid today as when he made it; past tense would remove that implication. "Shakespeare said that the actors are rubbish" would be absurd, since the actors are presumably dead by now. Your local reporter may just be reflecting the notion that politicians change their minds very frequently - stfg ( talk ) 11:17, (UTC) And "Shakespeare said that actors are rubbish"? Tony (talk) 14:25, (UTC) Hmmm. He also said "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely avatar players" which would put any comment about actors (in general) being rubbish in a new light. (c: Blueboar ( talk ) 15:00, (UTC) Still in the past, i think, unless we want to claim that Shakespeare would have applied that view even to actors 400 years after his death.
Unfortunately, i'm not going to be able to edit wikipedia for a week or two, for medical reasons. Can someone else step in, please? Andy mabbett (Pigsonthewing talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 13:34, (UTC) you've had plenty of advice, andy. You just don't like it! Johnbod ( talk ) 17:08, (UTC) Tense and statement indirect projection When projecting indirectly—paraphrasing what someone has said—I favour present tense for verbs expressing ongoing or permanent facts, unless there's a good reason to use past (and I can name some good reasons one occasionally encounters). I notice that some sources—particularly, to my irritation, my local daily newspaper—unerringly use past tense for indirect projections: "The minister said that modern hospital protocols in this area were a significant improvement, and would lead to improved performance" (rather than my default practice of: "The. There's an advantage in being able to continue to paraphrase without inserting explicit tags such as "she said again, just by forcing past tense; but it doesn't always work clearly, and imo presents potential problems of logic. Aside from that, on the gut level, to me, present tense is much crisper. Can anyone point to authoritative advice on this point?
Whisternefet ( talk ) 05:55, (UTC) The Brits do not use to denote "number". The reason is quite simple - on earlier computer systems, there was no key on British keyboards - we had a " key instead. Martinvl ( talk ) 06:34, (UTC) That's interesting to note, but I'm not sure if what you're saying expands upon my issue. My question didn't infer anything about international keyboard layouts, i was just addressing why particular episode list pages used the symbols and to represent series number and season number, instead of using the abbreviation "No. and if the latter method is more preferable than its abbreviated counterpart, and if that should be noted in the manual of Style (i.e. The word number should be written verbatim or abbreviated as "No." instead of substituting with or with the exception for tables ). Whisternefet ( talk ) 07:09, (UTC) WP:otherstuffexists. People violate the mos constantly. — alan M 1 ( talk ) — 12:13, (UTC) Image sizing Some advice on image sizing is needed at Talk:Charles-Valentin AlkanLede image.
Summary - book drum
Oknazevad ( talk ) 06:52, (UTC) you want to permit only those editors deemed worthy to participate in mos talk page discussions? I'm not sure the words "elitist "exclusionary" and "anti-participatory" even begin to cover your suggestion. I think the percentage likelihood of such an idea actually being implemented is pretty close to zero. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk ) 16:54, (UTC) 'no.'. in wikitables I was originally going to raise this issue in Template:Episode list, but that had more to do with technical parameters than semantic things like this, so i'm going to raise it here instead. The manual of Style forbids (or advises against, to put it better?) the use of the numero sign or the number religious sign to substitute the abbreviation "No." The template documentation also follows this guideline with their example tables, but I see those symbols being used.
being used previously has been overridden by other users with either of the two symbols, such as this revision here and here. Is there a preference to using that format in some cases, such as accessibility? In that case, isn't it a bit redundant to have to specify a key for each symbol, demonstrated here or here, instead of just integrating it into the wikitable itself, like most other articles do without problems? Is representing season number and for series number something practiced in the production of tv guides that I'm not aware of? It's not an issue that's particularly pressing or anything, but nonetheless some clarification would be nice on what should be adopted in the future.
If the value of an editor is going to be based on "expertise and verifiable credentials then those can be harmonized with wikiproject membership. — wavelength ( talk ) 01:38, (UTC) I fail to see how the frequency with which one contributes to a project page or its related Talk page, or one's voluntary self-identification as a member of a project, indicates anything with regards to their competence. I've known plenty of people who talked plenty but said little of substance. DonIago ( talk ) 03:12, (UTC) I did not make those connections. I mentioned a conditional harmonization.
— wavelength ( talk ) 04:59, (UTC) and 05:06, (UTC) Darkfrog24, wikipedia is not egalitarian. Please see wikipedia:User access levels. — wavelength ( talk ) 15:02, (UTC). Something that affects the entire encyclopedia cannot be allowed to become the plaything of a privileged few. To do such is to utterly destroy the open naturte of wikipedia. Its an atrocious idea. Hell, i think this may be the absolute worst half-baked idea i have ever seen anywhere on wikipedia.
And, then, there, were, none : novel, summary : Chapter i novelguide
Sometimes, things need to be explained to new editors and maybe even re-explained to veteran editors. Also, every editor needs time to become acquainted with every other editor in regard to personality and in regard to knowledge and skills related to writing style. (Ideally, attention to personality and aptitude would not matter so much, and more focus can be given to sources and reasonings, but realistically that seems to be difficult at this shredder time.) Harmonious interactions among editors are helped by stable relationships, which might be limited. If every editor of wikipedia (with the possible exception of beginners presentation until a time limit is reached) is required to be a member of at least one wikiproject and at most an undetermined number of wikiprojects (possibly five or ten and if membership. If every wikipedian can have a voice (and possibly a vote in preliminary polls) but only members can have a vote in final decisions, then decisions might be made more efficiently and consensuses might be more stable. (In July 2012, i started a related discussion, now archived at wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 129too many editors spoiling the manual.) — wavelength ( talk ) 00:44, (UTC) I feel that that would bias wikipedia decisions against people with responsibilities outside of wikipedia. People who prefer to gnome, for example, don't always feel the need to join a wikiproject. The whole point of wikipedia is that it's egalitarian, but if we're going to value any one person over another, then it should be based on expertise and verifiable credentials relevant to the issue at hand, not on wikiproject membership. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 01:12, (UTC) For wikignomes ( wikipedia:wikignome there are specific wikiprojects.
At 16:19, (UTC) and at 18:30, (UTC), i added to, wikipedia:Manual of Style/RegisterPunctuation inside or outside many links to archived discussions about the position of"tion marks in relation to other punctuation. I found them (at writing least generally) by searching for logical punctuation in the archives. —, wavelength ( talk ) 19:53, (UTC). Social dynamics of WP:mos and WT:MOS. From the top of the page of the revision history of, wP:mos, there is a link to a list of contributors. Likewise, from the top of the page of the revision history of WT:mos, there is a link to a list of contributors. Some editors have been contributing to these two pages for many years, but some editors are relatively new to doing. (I sometimes see contributions from editors whose usernames I do not recognize.) Consequently, some editors are very familiar with editing here, but others are unfamiliar with the social atmosphere and with past and present discussions.
settle it and unaware of unintended consequences. However, i request help from all editors so that those pages can be maintained and used with minimal time being spent in studying future past discussions. Then, when a discussion will have been archived, it will be more accessible and more easily documented. Past discussions are in the past, but henceforth we can all spend time in forming brief informative headings. —, wavelength ( talk ) 00:09, (UTC) and 22:47, (UTC). Brief informative headings are important for convenient maintenance. That page was recently discussed. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register.
Subheadings can often be more challenging than main headings, but concise informativeness can be achieved when a reviews subheading repeats briefly some or all of the main heading and then adds information specific to the section. A subheading "Arbitrary break" appearing in a watchlist (or in a link on a talk page) contains very little useful information. Concise informativeness is a skill to be developed by practice. (If any professional instructor is reading this, then that person can incorporate the teaching of this skill into the report-writing part of the teaching program. The benefits of that skill can be applied to e-mail subject lines and to advertising and marketing.). Here are links to archived discussions. Here is an external link to additional information. Brief informative headings in, wT:mos can help me (or anyone else) to maintain.
And, then, there, were, none, chapters 7-9, summary and, analysis
Contents, brief informative headings, this is a reminder for the attention of all editors. WT:mos or of any other talk page. Brief informative headings (and subheadings, and so forth) help all of us to gender use the table of contents (of a talk page, either active or archived) and to follow changes to watchlisted pages. A simple glance at a heading in a table of contents or in a watchlist can often be enough to help an editor to decide whether to investigate a discussion further. A heading does not need to contain every detail describing a discussion, but should contain enough information to convey, as narrowly as it can within practical limits, the scope of the discussion. Attitudinal words (whether they are positive or neutral or negative) are generally wasted words when they are in a heading. Topical words help to identify the topic of a discussion.