UniWiki:Manual of Style/Words to watch: Difference between revisions

(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 47:

Words such as ''supposed'', ''apparent'', ''alleged'' and ''purported'' can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although ''alleged'' and ''accused'' are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear. ''So-called'' can mean ''commonly named, falsely named'', or ''contentiously named'', and it can be difficult to tell these apart. Simply ''called'' is preferable for the first meaning; detailed and attributed explanations are preferable for the others.

Punctuation can also be used for similar effects: quotation marks, when not marking an actual quote, may indicate that [[Wikipedia:scare quotes|the writer is distancing herself or himself]] from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression; the use of ~~{{em|~~[[UniWiki:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Emphasis|emphasis]]}} may turn an innocuous word into a loaded expression. Such occurrences should also be avoided.

Punctuation can also be used for similar effects: quotation marks, when not marking an actual quote, may indicate that [[Wikipedia:scare quotes|the writer is distancing herself or himself]] from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression; the use of ''[[UniWiki:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Emphasis|emphasis]]'' may turn an innocuous word into a loaded expression. Such occurrences should also be avoided.

=== Editorializing ===

Line 90:

}}

{{hatnote|See also: [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:As of#Precise language|Wikipedia:As of#Precise language]], and [[UniWiki:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Chronological items]]}}

Absolute specifications of time are preferred to relative constructions using ''recently'', ''currently'', and so on, because the latter may go out of date. "By May 2011 contributions had dropped" has the same meaning as "Recently, contributions have dropped" (when written in mid-2011) but the first example retains its meaning as time passes. And ''recently''{{ndash}}type constructions may be ambiguous even at the time of writing: was it in the last week?~~{{snd}}~~month?~~{{snd}}~~year?<ref>In long-view sciences such as palaeontology, "[[Wikipedia:Recent|recent]]" may have meanings such as "within the last 11,700 years"—the [[Wikipedia:Holocene|Holocene]]—and will not go out of date.</ref> The information that "The current president, Cristina Fernández, took office in 2007", or "Cristina Fernández has been president since 2007", is better rendered "Cristina Fernández became president in 2007". Wordings such as "17 years ago" or "Jones is 65 years old" should be rewritten as "in {{#expr:{{CURRENTYEAR}}-17}}", "Jones was 65 years old at the time of the incident", or "Jones was born in {{#expr:{{CURRENTYEAR}}-65}}".

Absolute specifications of time are preferred to relative constructions using ''recently'', ''currently'', and so on, because the latter may go out of date. "By May 2011 contributions had dropped" has the same meaning as "Recently, contributions have dropped" (when written in mid-2011) but the first example retains its meaning as time passes. And ''recently''{{ndash}}type constructions may be ambiguous even at the time of writing: was it in the last week? - month? - year?<ref>In long-view sciences such as palaeontology, "[[Wikipedia:Recent|recent]]" may have meanings such as "within the last 11,700 years"—the [[Wikipedia:Holocene|Holocene]]—and will not go out of date.</ref> The information that "The current president, Cristina Fernández, took office in 2007", or "Cristina Fernández has been president since 2007", is better rendered "Cristina Fernández became president in 2007". Wordings such as "17 years ago" or "Jones is 65 years old" should be rewritten as "in {{#expr:{{CURRENTYEAR}}-17}}", "Jones was 65 years old at the time of the incident", or "Jones was born in {{#expr:{{CURRENTYEAR}}-65}}".

When material in an article may become out of date, follow the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:As of|Wikipedia:As of]] guideline, which allows information to be written in a less time-dependent way.

Line 104:

=== Person or office? ===

It is necessary for a reference work to distinguish carefully between an office (such as president) and an incumbent (such as [[Barack Obama]]); a newspaper does not usually need to make this distinction, for a newspaper "President Obama" and "the President" are one and the same from 2009 to 2017.

It is necessary for a reference work to distinguish carefully between an office (such as president) and an incumbent (such as [[Wikipedia:Barack Obama|Barack Obama]]); a newspaper does not usually need to make this distinction, for a newspaper "President Obama" and "the President" are one and the same from 2009 to 2017.

* {{!xt|President Obama nominates new justices of the US Supreme Court}} – No, whoever is president at the time does.

* {{xt|[[President George W. Bush]] nominated John Roberts as Chief Justice}} – Yes, as this will always be true.

* {{xt|[[Wikipedia:President George W. Bush|President George W. Bush]] nominated John Roberts as Chief Justice}} – Yes, as this will always be true.

* {{xt|The President nominated [[John Roberts]] as Chief Justice in 2005}} – Yes, as the year makes this clear.

* {{xt|The President nominated [[Wikipedia:John Roberts|John Roberts]] as Chief Justice in 2005}} – Yes, as the year makes this clear.

* ~~{{xtn|~~The guest list included [[Charles, Prince of Wales]]}} – This is usually acceptable, as a confusion with [[Charles I of England]], Prince of Wales until 1625, is highly unlikely.

* '''The guest list included [[Wikipedia:Charles, Prince of Wales|Charles, Prince of Wales]]''' – This is usually acceptable, as a confusion with [[Wikipedia:Charles I of England|Charles I of England]], Prince of Wales until 1625, is highly unlikely.

* {{!xt|Former President [[Richard Nixon|Nixon]] met with [[Mao Zedong|Mao]] in 1972}} – This is technically incorrect, as Nixon was not the former president at the time; he was actually in office. Write {{xt|President Nixon met with Mao in 1972.}} The construction ~~{{xtn|~~then-President Nixon}} is usually superfluous, unless the context calls for distinctions between different periods of Nixon's career.

* {{!xt|Former President [[Wikipedia:Richard Nixon|Nixon]] met with [[Wikipedia:Mao Zedong|Mao]] in 1972}} – This is technically incorrect, as Nixon was not the former president at the time; he was actually in office. Write {{xt|President Nixon met with Mao in 1972.}} The construction '''then-President Nixon''' is usually superfluous, unless the context calls for distinctions between different periods of Nixon's career.

=== Neologisms and new compounds ===

~~{{shortcut|MOS~~:~~NEO}}~~

[[Wikipedia:Neologism|Neologisms]] are expressions coined recently or in isolated circumstances to which they have remained restricted. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions. They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last. Where the use of a neologism is necessary to describe recent developments in a certain field, its meaning must be supported by reliable sources.

~~{{See also~~|~~Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#~~Neologisms}}

~~[[Neologism~~]]s are expressions coined recently or in isolated circumstances to which they have remained restricted. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions. They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last. Where the use of a neologism is necessary to describe recent developments in a certain field, its meaning must be supported by reliable sources.

Adding common prefixes or suffixes such as ''pre-'', ''post-'', ''non-'', ''anti-'', or ''-like'' to existing words to create new compounds can aid brevity, but make sure the resulting terms are not misleading or offensive, and that they do not lend [[WP:NPOV#Undue weight|undue weight]] to a point of view. Adding ~~{{nobreak|~~''-ism''}} to a word, for instance, may suggest a tenuous belief system is well established.

Adding common prefixes or suffixes such as ''pre-'', ''post-'', ''non-'', ''anti-'', or ''-like'' to existing words to create new compounds can aid brevity, but make sure the resulting terms are not misleading or offensive, and that they do not lend [[Wikipedia:WP:NPOV#Undue weight|undue weight]] to a point of view. Adding ''-ism'' to a word, for instance, may suggest a tenuous belief system is well established.

== Vulgarities, obscenities, and profanities ==

{{hatnote|See also: [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Offensive material|Wikipedia:Offensive material]]}}

[[~~Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not~~#~~Wikipedia is not censored~~|~~Wikipedia is not censored~~]] and ~~its~~ [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|encyclopedic mission]] ~~encompasses~~ the inclusion of material that might offend. Quoted words should appear exactly as in the [[WP:V|original source]]. ~~But language~~ that is [[Vulgarity|vulgar]], [[Obscenity|obscene]], or [[Profanity|profane]] should be used only if its omission would make the article less accurate or relevant and there is no suitable alternative. Such words should not be used outside quotations and names except where they are themselves the topic.

EVE University's [[EVE University Rules#Code of Conduct|Code of Conduct]] and the UniWiki's [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Five pillars|encyclopedic mission]] encompass the inclusion of material that might offend. Quoted words should appear exactly as in the [[Wikipedia:WP:V|original source]]. Language that is [[Wikipedia:Vulgarity|vulgar]], [[Wikipedia:Obscenity|obscene]], or [[Wikipedia:Profanity|profane]] should be used only if its omission would make the article less accurate or relevant and there is no suitable alternative. Such words should not be used outside quotations and names except where they are themselves the topic.

== See also ==

* [[Wikipedia:Article titles]]

* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Article titles|Wikipedia:Article titles]]

* [[~~MOS~~:~~SUBSET~~|Avoiding redundant subset terms]]

* [[UniWiki:Manual of Style#Subset terms|UniWiki Manual of Style:Avoiding redundant subset terms]]

* [[wikt:Category:English idioms|List of English idioms on Wiktionary]]

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 Words such as ''supposed'', ''apparent'', ''alleged'' and ''purported'' can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although ''alleged'' and ''accused'' are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear. ''So-called'' can mean ''commonly named, falsely named'', or ''contentiously named'', and it can be difficult to tell these apart. Simply ''called'' is preferable for the first meaning; detailed and attributed explanations are preferable for the others.
-Punctuation can also be used for similar effects: quotation marks, when not marking an actual quote, may indicate that [[Wikipedia:scare quotes|the writer is distancing herself or himself]] from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression; the use of {{em|[[UniWiki:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Emphasis|emphasis]]}} may turn an innocuous word into a loaded expression. Such occurrences should also be avoided.
+Punctuation can also be used for similar effects: quotation marks, when not marking an actual quote, may indicate that [[Wikipedia:scare quotes|the writer is distancing herself or himself]] from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression; the use of ''[[UniWiki:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Emphasis|emphasis]]'' may turn an innocuous word into a loaded expression. Such occurrences should also be avoided.
 === Editorializing ===
@@ Line 90: / Line 90: @@
 }}
 {{hatnote|See also: [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:As of#Precise language|Wikipedia:As of#Precise language]], and [[UniWiki:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Chronological items]]}}
-Absolute specifications of time are preferred to relative constructions using ''recently'', ''currently'', and so on, because the latter may go out of date. "By May 2011 contributions had dropped" has the same meaning as "Recently, contributions have dropped" (when written in mid-2011) but the first example retains its meaning as time passes. And ''recently''{{ndash}}type constructions may be ambiguous even at the time of writing: was it in the last week?{{snd}}month?{{snd}}year?<ref>In long-view sciences such as palaeontology, "[[Wikipedia:Recent|recent]]" may have meanings such as "within the last 11,700 years"—the [[Wikipedia:Holocene|Holocene]]—and will not go out of date.</ref> The information that "The current president, Cristina Fernández, took office in 2007", or "Cristina Fernández has been president since 2007", is better rendered "Cristina Fernández became president in 2007". Wordings such as "17 years ago" or "Jones is 65 years old" should be rewritten as "in {{#expr:{{CURRENTYEAR}}-17}}", "Jones was 65 years old at the time of the incident", or "Jones was born in {{#expr:{{CURRENTYEAR}}-65}}".
+Absolute specifications of time are preferred to relative constructions using ''recently'', ''currently'', and so on, because the latter may go out of date. "By May 2011 contributions had dropped" has the same meaning as "Recently, contributions have dropped" (when written in mid-2011) but the first example retains its meaning as time passes. And ''recently''{{ndash}}type constructions may be ambiguous even at the time of writing: was it in the last week? - month? - year?<ref>In long-view sciences such as palaeontology, "[[Wikipedia:Recent|recent]]" may have meanings such as "within the last 11,700 years"—the [[Wikipedia:Holocene|Holocene]]—and will not go out of date.</ref> The information that "The current president, Cristina Fernández, took office in 2007", or "Cristina Fernández has been president since 2007", is better rendered "Cristina Fernández became president in 2007". Wordings such as "17 years ago" or "Jones is 65 years old" should be rewritten as "in {{#expr:{{CURRENTYEAR}}-17}}", "Jones was 65 years old at the time of the incident", or "Jones was born in {{#expr:{{CURRENTYEAR}}-65}}".
 When material in an article may become out of date, follow the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:As of|Wikipedia:As of]] guideline, which allows information to be written in a less time-dependent way.
@@ Line 104: / Line 104: @@
 === Person or office? ===
-It is necessary for a reference work to distinguish carefully between an office (such as president) and an incumbent (such as [[Barack Obama]]); a newspaper does not usually need to make this distinction, for a newspaper "President Obama" and "the President" are one and the same from 2009 to 2017.
+It is necessary for a reference work to distinguish carefully between an office (such as president) and an incumbent (such as [[Wikipedia:Barack Obama|Barack Obama]]); a newspaper does not usually need to make this distinction, for a newspaper "President Obama" and "the President" are one and the same from 2009 to 2017.
 * {{!xt|President Obama nominates new justices of the US Supreme Court}} – No, whoever is president at the time does.
-* {{xt|[[President George W. Bush]] nominated John Roberts as Chief Justice}} – Yes, as this will always be true.
+* {{xt|[[Wikipedia:President George W. Bush|President George W. Bush]] nominated John Roberts as Chief Justice}} – Yes, as this will always be true.
-* {{xt|The President nominated [[John Roberts]] as Chief Justice in 2005}} – Yes, as the year makes this clear.
+* {{xt|The President nominated [[Wikipedia:John Roberts|John Roberts]] as Chief Justice in 2005}} – Yes, as the year makes this clear.
-* {{xtn|The guest list included [[Charles, Prince of Wales]]}} – This is usually acceptable, as a confusion with [[Charles I of England]], Prince of Wales until 1625, is highly unlikely.
+* '''The guest list included [[Wikipedia:Charles, Prince of Wales|Charles, Prince of Wales]]''' – This is usually acceptable, as a confusion with [[Wikipedia:Charles I of England|Charles I of England]], Prince of Wales until 1625, is highly unlikely.
-* {{!xt|Former President [[Richard Nixon|Nixon]] met with [[Mao Zedong|Mao]] in 1972}} – This is technically incorrect, as Nixon was not the former president at the time; he was actually in office. Write {{xt|President Nixon met with Mao in 1972.}} The construction {{xtn|then-President Nixon}} is usually superfluous, unless the context calls for distinctions between different periods of Nixon's career.
+* {{!xt|Former President [[Wikipedia:Richard Nixon|Nixon]] met with [[Wikipedia:Mao Zedong|Mao]] in 1972}} – This is technically incorrect, as Nixon was not the former president at the time; he was actually in office. Write {{xt|President Nixon met with Mao in 1972.}} The construction '''then-President Nixon''' is usually superfluous, unless the context calls for distinctions between different periods of Nixon's career.
 === Neologisms and new compounds ===
-{{shortcut|MOS:NEO}}
+[[Wikipedia:Neologism|Neologisms]] are expressions coined recently or in isolated circumstances to which they have remained restricted. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions. They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last. Where the use of a neologism is necessary to describe recent developments in a certain field, its meaning must be supported by reliable sources.
-{{See also|Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Neologisms}}
-[[Neologism]]s are expressions coined recently or in isolated circumstances to which they have remained restricted. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions. They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last. Where the use of a neologism is necessary to describe recent developments in a certain field, its meaning must be supported by reliable sources.
-Adding common prefixes or suffixes such as ''pre-'', ''post-'', ''non-'', ''anti-'', or ''-like'' to existing words to create new compounds can aid brevity, but make sure the resulting terms are not misleading or offensive, and that they do not lend [[WP:NPOV#Undue weight|undue weight]] to a point of view. Adding {{nobreak|''-ism''}} to a word, for instance, may suggest a tenuous belief system is well established.
+Adding common prefixes or suffixes such as ''pre-'', ''post-'', ''non-'', ''anti-'', or ''-like'' to existing words to create new compounds can aid brevity, but make sure the resulting terms are not misleading or offensive, and that they do not lend [[Wikipedia:WP:NPOV#Undue weight|undue weight]] to a point of view. Adding ''-ism'' to a word, for instance, may suggest a tenuous belief system is well established.
 == Vulgarities, obscenities, and profanities ==
-{{main|Wikipedia:Offensive material}}
+{{hatnote|See also: [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Offensive material|Wikipedia:Offensive material]]}}
-[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored|Wikipedia is not censored]] and its [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|encyclopedic mission]] encompasses the inclusion of material that might offend. Quoted words should appear exactly as in the [[WP:V|original source]]. But language that is [[Vulgarity|vulgar]], [[Obscenity|obscene]], or [[Profanity|profane]] should be used only if its omission would make the article less accurate or relevant and there is no suitable alternative. Such words should not be used outside quotations and names except where they are themselves the topic.
+EVE University's [[EVE University Rules#Code of Conduct|Code of Conduct]] and the UniWiki's [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Five pillars|encyclopedic mission]] encompass the inclusion of material that might offend. Quoted words should appear exactly as in the [[Wikipedia:WP:V|original source]]. Language that is [[Wikipedia:Vulgarity|vulgar]], [[Wikipedia:Obscenity|obscene]], or [[Wikipedia:Profanity|profane]] should be used only if its omission would make the article less accurate or relevant and there is no suitable alternative. Such words should not be used outside quotations and names except where they are themselves the topic.
 == See also ==
-* [[Wikipedia:Article titles]]
+* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Article titles|Wikipedia:Article titles]]
-* [[MOS:SUBSET|Avoiding redundant subset terms]]
+* [[UniWiki:Manual of Style#Subset terms|UniWiki Manual of Style:Avoiding redundant subset terms]]
 * [[wikt:Category:English idioms|List of English idioms on Wiktionary]]