Misplaced Pages

Incorrect: five miles (eight km)

Correct: five miles (8 km)

Read more ...

Add this to your user page by typing in {{Styletips}}

• Overview
• Contents
• Tips

• Accessibility
• Biography
• Disambiguation pages
  • Organizing by subject area
• Gender identity
• Hidden text
• Infoboxes
• Linking
• Self-references
• Words to watch

• Abbreviations
• Capitalization
• Dates and numbers
• Pronunciation
• Spelling
• Text formatting
• Titles of works

• Captions
• Image placement
• Icons
• Images

• Layout
• Lead section
• Tables
• Trivia sections

• Lists
• Lists of works
• Road junctions
• Stand-alone lists

• Article size
• Article titles
• Categories, lists, and navigation templates
• Categorization
• Hatnotes
• Subpages
• Understandability

• Category

No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—_{Talk to my owner:Online}

• From the editors: Looking back, looking forward

• Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024

• In the media: Will you be targeted?

• Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last

• Essay: Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Misplaced Pages

• Opinion: Reflections one score hence

• News and notes: It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free

• Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next

• Op-ed: Elon Musk and the right on Misplaced Pages

• In focus: Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take?

• Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics

• Humour: How to make friends on Misplaced Pages

• Single page

• Front page
• About
• Subscribe
• Suggestions
• Archives

Self-help writing tutorials:

• Exercises in weeding out fluff from article text
• Advanced editing exercises
• Spot the ambiguity
• Build your linking skills
• Using hyphens and dashes
• Copy-editing essentials, part of the Military History Academy

edit

Move Request

See Talk:Women in development approach

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Misplaced Pages and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Nomination of Central Provident Fund (South Africa) for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Central Provident Fund (South Africa) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Teahouse

Hi Tony! I hope you are doing well! I really appreciate your contributions at the Teahouse. However, it appears you haven't been able to be that active at the Teahouse lately! I understand that we all get busy with real life and wiki-life. :) I hope you don't mind, but, for now I am going to remove you from the your hosts page and move you to our past hosts page which will be linked from the hosts page. You are of course encouraged to move yourself back to the active host page anytime, especially if I am wrong and you do expect to be more active at the Teahouse! You are always welcome to just drop by to lend a hand at your convenience. I'm really glad you were able to participate in the pilot! Enjoy the spring and see you for a cup of tea soon! Sarah (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

• Special report: Wikimedia and the "seismic shift" towards open-access research publication

• News and notes: Finance debate drags on as editor survey finds Misplaced Pages too bureaucratic

• WikiProject report: Welcome to Misplaced Pages with a cup of tea and all your questions answered - at the Teahouse

• Featured content: Featured content is red hot this week

• Arbitration report: R&I Review closed, Rich Farmbrough near closure

• Technology report: Cross-wiki watchlist controversy; and is "go file a bug" really a useful response?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Fanny Imlay for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fanny Imlay until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Chevrolet TrailBlazer edit

When correcting for style issues, please take care for things that affect page layout. Changing the date style on an image filename, like you did at Chevrolet TrailBlazer, removes the photo from the article. The preview function is your friend! IFCAR (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Right, thanks for spotting this. New changes to the script last night, and of course I mainly examine the diff, not the preview. It's not meant to do that, so changes are in order. I'll check that its been fixed. Tony (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Something silly on my part. Tony (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

chess notation

Tony, there are hundreds if not thousands of chess articles, have never seen "×" (vs x) or "0—0—0" (vs 0-0-0) in any. Are you sure you want to introduce inconsistency in *one* of them (Morphy vs the Duke)? No offense, thx for consider. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Tony, I think I miscommunicated. I think you are replicating on WP notation conventions you find in published sources related to specific articles? But I doubt ProjChess is interested in that; they don't have a hardline convention standard, but I believe they would not be in favor of introducing variations on "x" and "0-0-0" (dashes) in articles. And I'm confused how that is important at all. (E.g., sources that use P-K4 descriptive notation are always translated to e4 algebraic when quoting sources. Etc.) And I disagree the difference is subtle, IMO "×" makes notation hard to read, and "0—0—0" is just weird-looking. (It's just MO.) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No doubt "0—0—0" is appallingly hard to read. They're em dashes, used by only one source, a weird decision IMO. What almost every major source uses is "0–0–0", i.e. en dashes, which is what WP widely uses in such contexts. Just one, a minor one, is in musical expressions such as "C–E–G", rather than the crowded and harder-to-read "C-E-G". All I'm doing is pointing out (on your talk page) what the major sources use. Personally, there seem to be very good reasons for their decisions. I've never read much chess notation, but the character ex flummoxes my eyes, since it's of entirely different function to the adjacent letters, which symbolise Things rather than Actions/Events. The sources seem to have acknowledged this.

I'd be inclined to raise the issue of your own familiarity with the ex and the hyphen in this context (a common psychological phenomenon I see in myself, sometimes); but this would only have arisen if your exposure had been entirely or almost entirely to WP rather than to the sources on which it's meant to be based. Tony (talk) 04:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I'm not totally understanding you, but a few things: 1) I screwed up using the emdash example, when you only used the endash ("0–0–0"). But even endash, looks weird IMO, and isn't used much at all in WP chess articles. 2) "x" isn't confusing at all for chess players, because "x" represents no piece, so there's no ambiguity ever. "×" might be found in some books you're looking at, but (and I think ProjChess would agree, but they are slow to form many conventions) it isn't used in 99.99 percent WP chess articles, and wouldn't want to be. (The thing is, uniformity across WP chess articles, though we don't have that now for sure, is the direction. I don't think anyone cares what style of notation symbol is used in a reliable sources, the moves are what counts, and uniformity, and "x" and "0-0-0" are what are used in nearly all articles. ) 3) There are many notation conventions used, for e.g. German (":" for captures), abbreviated algebraic ("de" for "dxe5"), Yugoslav publications (which drop "+" for check and "x" for capture, e.g., "Ne5" for "Nxe5"). The style I've noticed followed in nearly all WP articles is almost identical to that used in "US Chess Life" mag, with "x" for captures, "+" for checks, "0-0-0" for castles. (The only diffs between "Chess Life" & WP is that "Chess Life" uses space after the dot: "1. e4", whereas in general on WP, unbolded and many times bolded notation goes without the space: "1.e4". And "Chess Life" uses "2. ... Nc6" when representing a straggler Black move, whereas most usually WP uses "2...Nc6" .)

So, those are all the subtleties. ("×" and "0–0–0" variations haven't been incorporated. Again it doesn't matter what's in RS - just the moves. ) Again there aren't strong conventions agreed at ProjChess, but I can assure that "×" and "0–0–0" are not intentionally used. (One thing I paused on was "1. P-K4" vs "1. P–K4", I thought for sure the endash was right since "to" was conveyed. But later I reversed the conclusion: "1. P-K4" seems more normal when descriptive is used ... is more compact for printing/reading, though again, I'm sure there are published RSs that use "1. P–K4". But descriptive is also nearly never used on WP, so, this isn't any issue either really.)

I'm not gonna step on what you're doing, because ProjChess is lagging on forming conventions and does not have strong conventions. (But, "×" and "0–0–0" are not good for chessplayers IMO, and not in WP articles, regardless if some published books or whatever chose those stylings. That's not important I'm sure.) Cheers! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The question is, then, whether en.WP has been based solely on one source, US Chess Life, against all of the other authorities I listed on your talk page. Tony (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No, you're misinterpreting me. I never said the notation convention here is based on US Chess Life. I just happened to noticed it is mostly the same as what is used in that rag, except for space after the dot ("1. e4" vs "1.e4") and punctuation for straggler Black moves ("2. ... Nc6" vs "2...Nc6"). I don't know that WP notation norms are based on anything. And there isn't a strong convention here either, with some differences. But one thing is certain, that notation style does not try to mimick, for a particular content, the styling used in the corresponding RS. (The moves are the thing, not a publisher's styling preference. I've never seen anyone care about that. Uniformity across articles is a good thing, but again, ProjChess conventions are not strong to make a uniformity. But that's what's valued, not what a publisher happened to print. For example, RSs might use different forms of algebraic, like what I listed, or even descriptive notation. But if the content ends up in a WP chess artcile, it's transcribed to one of the convention norms used here. But there is no consensus on total uniformity regarding that, so there are some differences out there. But those differences are diffs between editors' preferences, not what's in RSs.) Ok, take care. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Tony1, If you take a close look at MOS:HYPHEN, MOS:DASH, MOS:EMDASH, and MOS:ENDASH, I think you will agree that the correct character to use here is the hyphen. Hyphens indicate conjunction, whereas dashes mark divisions within a sentence. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)