Info and Resources

  

Style Magazine

Manual Of Style (Biographies)/Survey On Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles/External Style Usage


= Comparison with other publications = This page is devoted to analysis of how styles are used, or not used, by other publications in some way comparable to Wikipedia. The publications of main interest are reference and journalistic sources. It is helpful to look at both styles and other honorifics to give some context of usage. As a rule there seems to be a continuum among publications between using no honorifics at all, using some honorifics but not styles, and using all honorifics including styles. But in certain cases honorifics and styles may be used according to some other pattern, or selectively only for certain persons. Press releases, web sites, and in-house publications by parties interested in a figure who might be addressed with a style are outside the scope of this investigation. As a rule, followers and subordinates of a styled individual indeed use their style; but those sources are, by definition, not Neutral Point of View. Also, journalistic or academic sources may directly quote individuals who use styles, but those direct quotes are not particularly reflective of editorial policy at the quoting publication. In corner cases, the willingness or unwillingness of a publication to include styles within direct quotes might be illustrative, however. Please identify the actual uses, preferably with URL links where applicable, in the sections labelled "Styles Used", "Styles Used Sometimes", and "Styles Not Used." Comments on the merit, meaning, or background of the usage patterns should be placed only in the discussion section. Within the identification of uses, please provide neutral and minimal description of the pattern you can detect. Short examples quoted from outside sources are helpful if they illustrate a pattern, but reserve commentary to the bottom section.

Styles Used

  • Middle East North Africa Financial Network http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?StoryId=91074
  • Gorkhapatra http://www.gorkhapatra.org.np/pageloader.php?file=2005/04/28/topstories/main1,

    Manual Of Style (Biographies)/Survey On Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles/Ballots


    Ballots in a Condorcet method can be converted to a matrix representation where the row is the choice under consideration, and the column is the opponent. The cell at (choice,opponent) has a one if the choice is preferred, and a zero if not. For illustration, a ballot between choices A, B, C and D might be represented thusly: Blank cells are logically zero; they are not considered, as a choice cannot be defeated by itself. The utility of this structure is that it may be easily added to other ballots represented the same way. The sum of all ballot matrices is called the sum matrix, and will be used when we consider the contest between each alternative. As the voting proceeds, in the instant survey, I will try to convert each voter's set of preferential choices to a ballot for that voter, so that this process will be transparent to anyone who is interested. Please do not edit ballots, but comment if you feel I have made any mistake or suggest changes for clarity.

    Individual Ballots

    Standard blank ballot
    jguk's ballot
    Maurreen's ballot
    Asbestos's ballot
    Bratsche's ballot
    Zscout370's ballot
    Jonathunder's ballot
    Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters's ballot
    Fear''ÉIREANN'''s ballot
    ghost's ballot
    Neutrality's ballot
    Flyers13's ballot
    Whig's ballot

    Results so far

    This is the current sum matrix of the individual ballots cast so far, and will be updated as new individual ballots are added or in the event anyone changes their preferences on the survey page.
    Pairwise results
  • Alternative 3 beats Alternative 5 (8:0) -- 100%
  • Alternative 3 beats Alternative 2 (8:1) -- 89%
  • Alternative 3 beats Alternative 4 (6:2) -- 75%
  • Alternative 4 beats Alternative 5 (6:2)

    Manual Of Style (Biographies)/Survey On Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles/Archive01


    Due to the personal turn this item has taken, I took the liberty of submitting the question to http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/cmosfaq.html Chicago Manual of Style Q&A page. Hope it helps.--ghost 04:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC) :Well, this is rather OT, but it was interesting to see, and suggests that the Chicago MoS may not be the best source of grammatical advice. ::"Q. When I encounter a restrictive clause with multiple elements, do I put a comma at the end of the last element? For example: The woman who was blonde, green-eyed, and slim said hello to me. Or is it: The woman who was blonde, green-eyed, and slim, said hello to me." ::"A. Commas are like parentheses when they indicate nonrestriction, so you need two of them, but in a restrictive clause you don’t need them at all: The woman who was blonde, green-eyed, and slim said hello. In a nonrestrictive clause, you need a pair, whether it’s parentheses or commas: The woman (who was blonde, green-eyed, and slim) said hello. Or, The woman, who was blonde, green-eyed, and slim, said hello." :In my personal opinion, the answer is less preferred than: ''The woman who was blonde, green-eyed and slim, said hello.'' Which scans better? Whig 04:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC) ::Whether a comma is used after "woman" changes the meaning of the sentence. #No comma after "woman": ''The woman who was blonde, green-eyed and slim, said hello.'' In this case, ''who was blonde, green-eyed and slim'' identifies the woman. The information indicates which woman you referring to. #Comma after "woman": ''The woman, who was blonde, green-eyed and slim, said hello.'' In this case, ''who was blonde, green-eyed and slim'' is nonessential information. The woman has already been identified, and the information is extra. Maurreen 06:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC) :::Absolutely. My point was more to the fact that the comma before the ''and'' can and should be omitted as redundant, and also that omitting the comma after ''slim'' makes the sentence hard

    Manual Of Style (Biographies)/Survey On Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles/Archive02


    The behaviour of Lulu is seriously undermining the credibility of this debate. Instead of letting the debate reach a conclusion he has repeatedly ''unilaterally'' attempted to highjack Pope Benedict XVI and remove the style. Whig, who is co-ordinating this process here, has already indicated on that talk page that things should be left as they are until we decide on a new policy here. But alone Lulu has ignored everyone and repeatedly tried to enforce ''his'' policy, even though it is contrary to the current one, on the page. In doing so Lulu is showing complete contempt for everyone else's work here. Now he has begun to censor other people's opinions here by deleting a comment by Proteus that he disagreed with. Unless Lulu stops this vandalism, many of the users here will leave the vote here altogether, meaning that there will be no consensus on any change in policy. Any more vandalism by him will be treated as such, reported as vandalism and a request made that the appropriate action be taken against him. Fear''ÉIREANN'' 00:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • It ''appears'' that an edit by me removed a comment by Proteus. It was absolutely not my intention to remove any comment. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:36, 2005 May 8 (UTC) To touch on Jtdirl's point, I personally think with the debate at Benedict XVI's article spawned this recent debate. I have set up an archive section in the Benedict XVI talk page that is just talk about his style. Granted, it took a while to find the appropriate style, but once it was settled, the majority of the people who are watching the page agree with the style. Lulu, who watches and debates about the page along with myself and Jtdirl, does not like for the style to be used (for reasons that might be personal or not). Though we can ask for Lulu to keep the style in place until the debate is over (which Whig agreed (see Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI#Holiness)), and if

    Manual Of Style (Biographies)/Survey On Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles/Ratification


    ''Two RFCs have been called regarding the behaviour of editors on this page: 1 and 2 . Feel free to comment if you wish. Please remove this notice after the RFC's are completed.''

    Survey Result

    The Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles is concluded, and the results have been counted. The question presented was whether the ''status quo ante'' represented a neutral point of view (NPOV) and/or whether it should be changed to a convention which refers to the formal style of address without using it at the start of the article. The ''status quo ante'' was defeated by a majority of all ballots cast. NPOV trumps consensus, regardless of the outcome of any ratification. Biographical entries in the Wikipedia should not begin with a prefixed style of formal address. The prevailing alternative was prescriptive, and states: :The formal style of address should always be provided in the introductory paragraph of the article, but only after the name is provided, and not otherwise prefixed. The question presented for ratification is only as to whether this convention has a consensus. If this ratification is unsuccessful, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) will not provide a guide as to whether, how and where formal styles of address should be provided in biographical entries, until and unless a subsequent consensus on some convention can be reached. This ratification question shall be open for participation through May 28, 2005 (UTC). If the number of those who Accept the ratification shall exceed the number of those who Reject it by a ratio of 3:1, the ratification shall be considered to have passed consensus and shall be incorporated as part of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). All responses must be signed by valid users (Please use: ~~~~) to be counted.

    ACCEPT Ratification

    The formal style of address should always be provided in the introductory paragraph of the article, but

    Manual Of Style (Biographies)/Survey On Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles


    ''Two RFCs have been called regarding the behaviour of editors on this page: 1 and 2 . Feel free to comment if you wish. Please remove this notice after the RFC's are completed.''

    What This Is

    This survey is intended to establish a policy on naming conventions for biographical entries in the Wikipedia. Presently, the policy is to begin articles on political and religious figures with their style of address, for instance: :''Her Majesty'' Queen Elizabeth II :''His Holiness'' Pope Benedict XVI :''Dear Leader'' Kim Jong-il The question presented is whether the ''status quo'' represents a neutral point of view (NPOV) and/or whether it should be changed to a convention which refers to the formal style of address without using it at the start of the article.

    How You Participate

    Due to size constraints, please go to the Project page to participate in the survey. Discussion will remain here on the Talk page. :As one active discussants, I cut some of my comments to try to improve flow, where I had written substantially the same thing several times. Others might, perhaps, consider similar abridgement for new readers. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:46, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

    Discussion

    Any discussion relating to the survey itself and not intended to indicate a preference for a particular alternative should go here. Votes should begin with a * and not a # because of the nature of the way we are tabulating these. Also, it is very important that when responding under multiple alternatives, you clearly indicate your first, second, third, preference as such. Where commentary appears without a designation of a preference order, we will have to count that as a no-preference (equivalent to no response under that heading). Whig 08:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) :What's all this - first choice, second choice, etc.. This seems like an attempt to corral the vote so that whatever comments people make, Whig will count up the votes using whatever way gives him a "majority"

    Manual Of Style (Biographies)/Survey On Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles


    What This Is

    This survey is intended to establish a policy on naming conventions for biographical entries in the Wikipedia. Presently, the policy is to begin articles on political and religious figures with their style of address, for instance: :''Her Majesty'' Queen Elizabeth II :''His Holiness'' Pope Benedict XVI :''Dear Leader'' Kim Jong-il The question presented is whether the ''status quo'' represents a neutral point of view (NPOV) and/or whether it should be changed to a convention which refers to the formal style of address without using it at the start of the article.
    Options
    The following is a summary of the alternative options. For more details and discussions see the sections below. #Yes. As a matter of Wikipedia policy, in all cases where a formal style is known it must be used to begin the biographical article. #Yes, with exceptions. In certain cases of controversy, the formal style may be provided in the body of the article after the name is provided. #No. The formal style of address should always be provided in the introductory paragraph of the article, but only after the name is provided, and not otherwise prefixed. #No, but we should follow a different convention than that prescribed in Alternative 3. #None of the above.

    How You Participate

    The alternatives listed below can be ranked according to preference. You are encouraged to respond under each alternative with your signature and timestamp (please use four tildes: ~~~~) giving your order of preference for that alternative, for example: Alternative 1:
  • First choice, ''comments'' ~~~~ Alternative 2:
  • Third choice, ''comments'' ~~~~ Alternative 3:
  • Second choice, ''comments'' ~~~~ You do not have to rank more than one choice. If you wish to vote for only one or two, for instance, just respond under those headings with your ranking of those alternatives.

    Manual Of Style (Biographies)/Survey On Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles/Vote Corralling


    Vote Corralling

    Jtdirl is attempting to corral votes in this survey. The following text has been posted to the Talk pages of those voters who have expressed a preference for Alternative 1 and voted "First and Only choice": :Re your vote on styles. I understand and agree. But only casting one vote is effectively a vote ''against'' Alternative 1 because it means that less opposition is recorded against its nearest rival. Ireland uses an electoral system called ''Proportional Representation using a Single Transferable Vote''. It works on the same principle as the one being used (only less complicated! I never thought I would find a system more complicated than PR.STV!) What you do is give your bottom preference to the people you want to defeat, and spread your vote in a way that boosts the rivals of the alternative you do not want. So if for example, you find Alternative 3 the one you least like, give it your bottom vote so that opposition to it is recorded. And spread the other votes to ensure the weakest get votes ahead of it. If for example in Ireland I want to ensure candidate 'x' of Fianna Fáil is elected, and ensure candidate 'y' of Sinn Féin is defeated, and there are 15 candidates, I give my number 1 to 'x', my number '15' to 'y' and spread my other votes to ensure that all other candidates beat 'y'. :Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil voters famously used to practice a 'first and only choice' vote by just voting for their own preferred candidate and then stopping. They eventually realised that they were wasting their vote because they weren't using it to block those they were most opposed to, or to build up the rivals to the candidate they were opposed to. To stop Alternative 3 winning, if that is what you want, give it your ''fifth choice'' and give your second, third and fourth choices to the weakest options. :Just be careful though not to copy everyone else doing it. If everyone gives the same other alternatives the same order of votes they may win. So

    Manual Of Style Archive (Style Guide Errata)


  • Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

    NPOV or not NPOV?

    With the comment "adding some NPOV" to the opening paragraph some words undermining the idea of a style guide have been introduced. Since I don't want to be too proprietary, I am raising the point here, rather than simply taking them back out, but the style guide is no place for equivocation and weak remarks about "some believe". No one is required to follow the style guide, but in the end every serious publication must have and use a style guide. The paragraph already says both those things. I have bolded the phrases that were added: :A Manual of Style has the simple purpose of making things look alike - it is a style guide. The following rules don't claim to be the last word. One way is often as good as another: some Wikipedians believe that if everyone does it the same way, the Wikipedia will be easier to read and easier to use, not to mention easier to write and easier to edit; others disagree, of course. Be that as it may, new contributors are reminded that clear, informative and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Writers are not expected to follow all these rules -- rather, copyediting Wikipedians will be referring to these pages when weeding. I have no problem with the and unbiased, but the other additions imply that the statement that "if everyone does it the same way it will be easier to read" is not true. If one article refers to the short story ''The Black Cat'' in italics and another as "The Black Cat" in quotes, and another article refers to Gogol's novel "Dead Souls" and compares it to War and Peace and contrasts it with ''"Remembrance of Things Past"'' and For Whom the Bell Tolls and ''Tobacco Road'', the Wikipedia will be harder to read and edit without a doubt. People need to be able to tell the song "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" from the album ''Sgt. pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band''.

    Old Style And New Style Dates


    In Britain and countries of the British Empire, Old Style or O.S. after a date means that the date is in the Julian calendar, in use in those countries until 1752; New Style or N.S. means that the date is in the Gregorian calendar, adopted on 14 September 1752 (New Style). For example, it is sometimes remarked that William Shakespeare and Miguel de Cervantes died on the same day, 23 April 1616. However, England was still using Old Style dating in 1616, while Spain was using New Style. Cervantes actually died 10 days before Shakespeare. A further complication is that for a long time the year in England began on 25 March (Lady Day), so for example Elizabeth I of England was recorded as having died on 24 March 1602 (Old Style); this would be written 24 March 1603 in the modern system of numbering years, which corresponds to 3 April 1603 (New Style). For complete avoidance of ambiguity, historians write dates in the ambiguous part of the year in slashed format, for example "24 March/3 April 1602/1603". Catholic countries such as Italy, Poland, Spain, and Portugal were first to change to the Gregorian calendar. Thursday, 1582 October 4 was followed by Friday, 1582 October 15, with ten days "missing". Countries that did not change until the 1700s observed an additional leap year, necessitating 11 "missing days". Some countries did not change until the 1800s or 1900s, necessitating one or two more "missing days". France changed from Julian to Gregorian Calendar on 9 December 1582 JU where the next day was 20 December 1582 GR. France had a special calendar in the period from 22 September 1792 GR to 31 December 1805 GR, the so-called ''French Republican Calendar''. In Russia, the terms "Old Style" and "New Style" have exactly the same meaning, the only difference being that Gregorian calendar have been introduced there much later — on February 14, 1918 (New Style). Hence the October Revolution of 1917 is so called, despite taking place


    Sync Time | Telegraphic Transfer | Thule Kayak | Toronto Canada | Trucking Co | Universal Stainless | Vancouver | Vintage Baseball Hats | Wart Removal | West Nyack | Windows Andersen | Ws 65511 | 002 | 4 Less | Adidas Clothes | Alliance Imaging | Antidepressions | Ash Furniture | Auto Barriers | Banding Tools
    Style Magazine
    Stylish Maternity Clothes | Styrofoam Recycle | Sub Woofer Boxes | Subaru Parts | Sublet Berkeley | Submersible Well Pump | Subway Poster | Subwoofer Amplifiers | Sue Devitt Cosmetics | Suffolk Ny | Sugar Acne | Sugar Glider Supplies | Suit Bag | Suits Of Armour | Sullivan Edu | Sullivan University | Sumatra Coffee | Summer Classes | Summer Course | Summer Courses

    Style Magazine
    • Style Magazine

    © THIS PAGE ON Style Magazine, COPYRIGHT 2004 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED -- Some Segments Used from Wikipedia under the GNU Free Documentation License