477:
use sentence case for book titles in the bibliography, while others use title case for book titles. This is independent of the question how the source itself formats its title (unless it is in a foreign language; many foreign languages do not have a concept of title case, and usually formatting as in the source is best). The FAC criteria ask us to be internally consistent; personally, I think these MoS/consistency aspects get too much attention at FAC at the cost of actual fact/source checking (we should care far more whether an article contains one incorrect statement than a hundred incorrect dashes). —
53:
155:
476:
I understand that this allows us to follow subject-specific citation and bibliography styles. For example, in mathematics, the vast majority of journals use sentence case for article titles mentioned in the bibliography (and title case for journal titles). Some publishers (like the AMS) also tend to
522:
is the overarching principle here, I think: in stylistic matters, we adjust the formatting to match our MoS, not whichever house style an individual publication happened to use. As such, I think
Caecilius is right that an article would be in error to have, for example, some articles capitalised and
498:
of fiddly little rules to remember, and it doesn't require any subject-specific expertise) whereas unless you happen to have significant knowledge of the field already, it is very difficult to make substantive points about content – generally anyone bringing an article to FAC is more expert on that
432:
Does "consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required." require that all citations use the same capitalization style when the sources don't
517:
Generally, I agree with Kusma here: if an article establishes a consistent style (for example, that book titles are capitalised, and article/chapter titles are not), that's fine. It's preferable if they're following a particular named citation style, but I don't think we should police too firmly
278:
I meant leads in general. "Most featured articles have a lead length of about three paragraphs, containing 10 to 18 sentences, or 250 to 400 words" may well be true, but unfortunately these days "Most featured articles" are on micro-topics where a short lead is justified, if not unavoidable.
459:
permits the use of pre-defined, off-Knowledge (XXG) citation styles within
Knowledge (XXG), and some of these expect sentence case for certain titles (usually article and chapter titles). Title case should not be imposed on such titles under such a citation style consistently used in an
311:
is plainly descriptive rather than a recommendation, let alone a prescription; I don't get paid the coordinator big bucks to make these decisions, but I cannot see how not fitting that guideline would be considered a valid reason to oppose promotion or to delist an existing FA.
502:
But regardless of that, I think we agree on what the rules as currently written actually say? In which case, in the linked discussion SchroCat is in the right, and in the extreme case it would technically be valid (if silly) to oppose promotion while this is not "fixed".
256:, maybe many leads are too short because the current wording ("Most featured articles have a lead length of about three paragraphs, containing 10 to 18 sentences, or 250 to 400 words") is too restrictive? I checked
518:
whether something is indeed the
Loughborough University Arts Faculty house style (or whatever). As SchroCat says in the linked discussion, it is however not fine to simply follow what another source does --
434:
102:
217:
If you check that MOS talk page, you'll find a substantial discussion on that topic from not so long ago. FWIW, the size guideline is also rather controversial, as guidelines go.
98:
94:
90:
86:
82:
78:
74:
70:
66:
523:
others uncapitalised on the grounds that that is how the publication did it (I'd note as well that lots of older articles are often printed with titles in all-caps, and that's
231:
I'd certainly oppose adding anything. Imo many leads are too short (but some too long), & FA ones should on the whole tend to the long end of ranges. I thought the lead of
462:
My reading of this is that either all article titles should be in sentence case, or none should: we don't mix-and-match depending on how they are presented at the source.
260:, which went through a recent FAR. It has 575 words. So I'm guessing 500's are ok, depending on the topic. I am also asking because I recently changed the lead in
194:
says 250 to 400 words for most FA's. But these are just suggestions. Some articles also have considerably higher word counts for their leads. An example would be
404:
featured. However, an editor won't get a second star at FASA for "saving" an FA that they previously got promoted and then ignored, which what that statement at
165:
has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the
381:
Hi. Is there a place in the instructions to add, "FAC nominators are expected to continuously maintain articles they nominated"? I just read that yesterday at
527:
not a good move!). As Kusma says, though, foreign-language sources are a different thing, and here the MoS already tells us to follow that language's norms.
191:
167:
353:
508:
467:
317:
293:
Let me ask a different way. If an article has a lead with a word count in 500s, would that cause an unsuccessful FAR by itself?
161:
143:
492:
personally, I think these MoS/consistency aspects get too much attention at FAC at the cost of actual fact/source checking
359:
Note that there is a proposal in
Village pump regarding the consistency requirement for short and long inline citations:
504:
463:
313:
222:
494:
I don't disagree with this! The problem is that it is easy to nitpick fine details of the Manual of Style (there are a
132:
456:
529:
199:
111:
441:
218:
176:
409:
202:. Something like a table? Recommended: 250-400. Ok:400s. Acceptable:500s. Above 600:should be trimmed?
28:
390:
367:
331:
298:
269:
207:
198:, although its FAR was a long time ago. I wonder if we could get a more precise guideline similar to
115:
535:
512:
486:
471:
445:
421:
394:
371:
335:
321:
302:
288:
273:
244:
226:
211:
180:
437:
117:
284:
240:
172:
405:
382:
417:
113:
52:
147:
482:
386:
363:
327:
294:
265:
203:
17:
360:
308:
451:
454:
says that titles of works should be given in titlecase, but with the exception that
400:
There is no such instruction because there is no such requirement for an article to
280:
251:
236:
408:
is trying to communicate. If you don't like the way it is worded, a discussion at
519:
413:
478:
232:
261:
257:
195:
435:
Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates/Mount Hudson/archive1
118:
46:
433:
use the same capitalization convention? Question came up at
385:, about 15 years after the fact. Pardon me if I missed it. -
235:(now withdrawn) too short, which the nom disagreed with.
36:
192:
Knowledge (XXG):Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Length
126:This page has archives. Sections older than
8:
200:Knowledge (XXG):Article_size#Size_guideline
491:
455:
354:Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (policy)
7:
499:topic than any of the FAC reviewers!
362:This would concern FA criteria 2c.
457:WP:Citing sources § Citation style
162:Knowledge (XXG):Content assessment
144:Knowledge (XXG):Content assessment
25:
130:may be automatically archived by
153:
51:
428:Capitalization of source titles
307:The 250-400 words mentioned by
1:
412:would be more appropriate. --
245:22:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
227:20:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
212:20:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
181:22:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
558:
422:00:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
395:21:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
372:16:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
26:
336:20:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
322:13:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
303:11:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
289:03:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
274:23:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
536:11:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
513:09:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
487:09:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
472:08:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
446:07:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:FA?
505:Caeciliusinhorto-public
464:Caeciliusinhorto-public
314:Caeciliusinhorto-public
133:Lowercase sigmabot III
219:~~ AirshipJungleman29
531:UndercoverClassicist
140:
139:
16:(Redirected from
549:
255:
157:
156:
135:
119:
55:
47:
39:
21:
557:
556:
552:
551:
550:
548:
547:
546:
430:
379:
357:
326:Great, thanks!
249:
188:
168:discussion page
158:
154:
151:
131:
120:
114:
60:
43:
42:
35:
31:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
555:
553:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
500:
497:
429:
426:
425:
424:
378:
375:
356:
352:Discussion in
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
309:MOS:LEADLENGTH
229:
187:
184:
152:
150:
141:
138:
137:
125:
122:
121:
116:
112:
110:
107:
106:
62:
61:
56:
50:
41:
40:
32:
27:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
554:
537:
534:
533:
532:
526:
521:
516:
515:
514:
510:
506:
501:
495:
493:
490:
489:
488:
484:
480:
475:
474:
473:
469:
465:
461:
458:
453:
452:MOS:TITLECAPS
450:
449:
448:
447:
443:
439:
438:Jo-Jo Eumerus
436:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
398:
397:
396:
392:
388:
384:
376:
374:
373:
369:
365:
361:
355:
351:
337:
333:
329:
325:
324:
323:
319:
315:
310:
306:
305:
304:
300:
296:
292:
291:
290:
286:
282:
277:
276:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
253:
248:
247:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
228:
224:
220:
216:
215:
214:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
193:
185:
183:
182:
178:
174:
171:. Thank you.
170:
169:
164:
163:
149:
145:
142:
134:
129:
124:
123:
109:
108:
105:
104:
100:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
59:
54:
49:
48:
45:
38:
34:
33:
30:
19:
530:
528:
524:
431:
401:
380:
358:
189:
173:Schierbecker
166:
160:
159:
127:
65:
57:
44:
520:MOS:CONFORM
377:Maintenance
190:Currently,
186:Lead Length
525:definitely
387:SusanLesch
364:Bogazicili
328:Bogazicili
295:Bogazicili
266:Bogazicili
204:Bogazicili
460:article.
58:Archives
29:Shortcut
410:WT:FASA
406:WP:FASA
383:WP:FASA
281:Johnbod
252:Johnbod
237:Johnbod
233:Narwhal
146:has an
128:56 days
414:RL0919
402:become
262:Turkey
37:WT:FA?
479:Kusma
258:Earth
196:India
509:talk
483:talk
468:talk
442:talk
418:talk
391:talk
368:talk
332:talk
318:talk
299:talk
285:talk
270:talk
241:talk
223:talk
208:talk
177:talk
496:lot
148:RfC
511:)
485:)
470:)
444:)
420:)
393:)
370:)
334:)
320:)
301:)
287:)
272:)
264:.
243:)
225:)
210:)
179:)
103:10
101:,
97:,
93:,
89:,
85:,
81:,
77:,
73:,
69:,
507:(
481:(
466:(
440:(
416:(
389:(
366:(
330:(
316:(
297:(
283:(
268:(
254::
250:@
239:(
221:(
206:(
175:(
136:.
99:9
95:8
91:7
87:6
83:5
79:4
75:3
71:2
67:1
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
