Wikinews talk:Style guide
Discussions which have been implemented in the style guide have been refactored out. Please create a new section to discuss new changes and ideas.
- 15 May 2005
- Title Capitalization poll, reference vs. source, date vs. dateline vs. byline, date format and templates, use of subpages, use of fullstops in abbreviations, non-internet reference/original notes, names/titles of people, POV issues, spelling, sections, currencies, wide range of updates w/o discussion and w/discussion, citing wires.
In an article, the use of links are defined as follows:
- See also
- Links to related Wikinews, Wikipedia articles, Wikisource documents, Commons and Upload files
- Sources (used in article)
- Online articles or sites - these are by nature ephemeral and may change, move, or disappear
- Witnesses and personal observations - these are elements of Wikinews:Original reporting and should be archived online under [[Talk:Article name/Notes]]
- Texts - should be cited using Author, Title of work, Publisher, copyright and year of publication, ISBN if available
- Periodical artical (Journals, magazines, newspapers, etc.) cite Author, Title of article, Title of periodical, Volume and/or issue, Publisher, additional identifying characteristics if known.
- External links
- Online articles or sites which contain related subject matter. Wikinews does not take any responsibility for nor imply support or a relationship with external sites
See discussion about this at Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy#Minimum_length_of_articles_and_breaking_news
Gender policy in style guideEdit
While I approve the general sentiment of the Sex, gender, and pronouns policy, I'd reckon it needs some rewording. Specifically, I think a policy similar to on Wikipedia should be adopted, and outdated or possibly offensive terms should be removed from the style guide. Also, sex should not be considered equal to gender/used interchangeably with gender, as they're quite different terms. I'd propose renaming the policy to "Gender identity and pronouns", and changing it as below:
In general, a person's gender may be inferred and appropriate pronouns used. However there are certain cases where there may be confusion, or the subject expresses a specific preference, usually involving transgender or non-binary persons or other sexual minority or sexual health topics.
In these cases, use the person's expressed gender self-identification. Avoid referring to the person by previous gender identity, unless the individual's gender is an intrinsic element of the story, include an explanatory note stating the known facts; do not unduly sensationalize their part therein. When addressing works or statements made by a trans or non-binary person before their transition, use their current name unless it conflicts with the preferences of the person. Do not use an individual's former name, unless it is crucially important.
Avoid using terms such as transsexual or transvestite, unless the person self identifies with such terms. While articles should not be retroactively edited to reflect an individual's change in gender identity after the fact, if a mistake is made with misgendering an individual, the article should be corrected promptly.
- Darren is a transgender man who wrote a book on the history of supermarkets under his previous name. When referencing Darren's work, his current name and gender identity should be used. "In his book "The Supermarket Anthology", Darren wrote that "supermarkets have faced many obstacles in keeping produce fresh for consumers.""
- Sam is a politician who has just come out as non-binary. If writing about Sam, reference their former name in the lede and avoid drawing undue attention to it. "Sampletown Mayor Sam, formerly known as Sarah, has announced that they are non-binary."
- Amy, a transgender female, is being interviewed due to her status as a local community organiser, and her trans status is mentioned. Do not refer to her by her previous gender or name, but note that she is transgender. "Amy, a trans woman, brought up the difficulty she had coming out initially, fearing rejection."
I think these are pretty common sense updates and reflect updating terminology and understanding in regards to referring to trans and non-binary individuals. If anyone has any concerns or questions, do ask and I'll try my best to respond. --LivelyRatification (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- It says "sex/gender" so we don't end up in a situation where we are unnecessarily arguing over the label's definition, and directly identify what we are talking about and how it is supposed to be. I re-read our current policy, and I find it to the point. Is it short and precise -- to the point without any unnecessary complication. I read what you wrote above, (actually before reading the current policy), and frankly, I find it using too many words while achieving too little. I took the liberty of going through the archives, looking for articles about transgender, finding all of them complying with the style guide, and also complying with what you wrote. Given the advantage of having a smaller policy, which makes it easy to do a duck-test, I don't see any reason to have a longer one. If there is a glaring problem in the current policy, please point out. If it is leading to articles being created which are somehow problematic, please point out (but looking at the archives, that does not seem to be the case, since at its core, the above text is trying to say what the policy already says.) If there are any edge cases that needs coverage, please point out.
04:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why the style guide insists on using italic text for the names of songs versus quotation marks, e.g., Bohemian Rhapsody vs. "Bohemian Rhapsody"? This seems to be contrary to general usage in North American and UK writing. Wikipedia also goes with this usage. I'm unsure about the usage in other national varieties of English, but this seems to be a strange outlier rule we use here. —chaetodipus (talk · contribs) 07:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- I genuinely don't care what the enwp says in their MOS, and we had this discussion back in 2018, where SVTCobra said tha felt odd -- though we concluded, there are different styles of doing and there is no convincing reason to shift. The advantage of continuing was overall consistency with other form of media -- and that is a good idea, imo.
08:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)