| ?????????? ???????????? ??????????????
??????????
???????????????
?????????????? ????????????????? ?????????
|
?????????????????? ????????????? (Google Translate) ????? ??????????????
???????
?????????????? ???????? ??????????????????? ??????????????? ???????????? ?????????????????????????? ??????????? ????????????????????? ????????????????? ???????? ??????????????? ? {{Translation incomplete}} ???????????? ???????????? ?????????? ????????????
|
|
?????????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????????? ?????????????????? ???????????? ????? ????? ??????????????????? ????????????????????????? ??????????? ???????????????????? ???? ?????????? ???????????? ??????????????? ?????????????????????? ???????????????? ??????? ?????????? ????????? ????????????????????????????
- ????????????? ?????????? ???????????????? ???????????????? ?????????????????? ???????? ??????? ?????????????????? ??????? ?????????? ???????????????????? ??????????????????? ?????? ??????????? ?????? ??????? ??????????????????????? ????
????????????
???? ???????? ???????????????????
- ?????????? ?????????????????????????? ???????????????? ?????????????????????
?????????? ????????????? ?????????
? ??????????????????????????
- ?????????? ????????????????????? ??????????????? ?????????????????????????? ??????? ????????????????? ???????????????????? ?????????????? ???????????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ?????????
????????????? ??????????? ?????????
?????????? ???????
?????????????????????
?????????? ??????? ???????? ?????????????
??????
?????????? ?????? ????????????????
- ????????????? ????????????????? ????????????? ???????????? ????????????????? ???????? ?????????? ?????????? ???????????????? ??????????????????????????? ??????? ?????????????? ???????????????????????? ???????????????
??????????????
??????? ?????????? ???????????????????????
- ????????????????? ??????????????? ?????????????????????? ???????????????? (??????????????) ??? ????????????????????????????? ??????? ??????????? ??????????????? ?????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????? ????????????????? ??????? ?????????????????????
????????????? ??????????????????????
?????????? ??????? ???????? ?????????????
???????????????? ?????????????
?????????? ?????? ????????????????
- ????????????? ?????????????????? ?????????? ????????
??????????????????
?
????????????????? ???????????
?????
????????? ????????????
?
??????????????????????
????????????? ???????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????????????????????????????
?????????? ?????????????????????? ???????? ?????????????? ??????????????????????? ???????? ?????????? ?????????????? ????????????? ??????? ?????????????? ??????????????????? ????????????????????? ??????????? ?????? ????????????????? ??????????????? ????????? ??? ???????????????? ?????????????????? ????????????????? ???????? ????????? ?????????? ?????????? ??????????? ???????????????????? ??????????????? ????????? ?????????????????????? ?????????? ?????????? ??????????? ?????????????????? ????????????????? ????????????? ????????? ???????? ????????????? ???????????????? ??????????????? ???????????????????????? ????????? ????????? ????????????? ???????????????? ?????????(??????????????????????) ????????????? ????? ??????????????????????? ??????????
?????????????????????????
[
??????????
]
?????????????????
[
??????????
]
?????????? ???????????????????? ????????????????????? ????????????????? ?????????????? ???????????????? ??????????? ?????????????????? ?????????? ?????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????? ??????????????? ????????????? ????????????????????? ??????????????????? (???????) ???????? ????????? ?????????? ?????????????????????? ??????? ??????? ????????????? ?????????
?????????
??????? ?????????????????? ??????????????? ?????????? ?????????????? ??????????????? ??????????????????????????? ????????? ?????????????????? ???????????????? ==???????==??????? ?????????????????? ??????????????????? ?????????? ????????????????????? ????????????????? ??????????? ?????????????????????? ????????????? ????????????????????? ???????????????????? ?????????????????? ????????????? ?????????????? ????????????? ??????????????? ????????????????????????? ???????????? ??????????????????????? ?????? ??????????????????
?????????????????? ????????? ????????????????? ?????????????? ???????????????????? ???????? ????????????????????? ????????????????? ???????????????????? ???????????????????? ???????????????????? ???????????????? ?????????????? ????? ??????????????????? ?????????????? ??????????????? ?????????????? ????????????? ??????????????????????? ?????????? ??????????????????????????? ??????????????? ????????????????? ????????????????
???????????????????? ???????? ???????????? ??????????? ????????????? ??????????? ????????????? ???????????? ( ?????????????????? ????????? ?????????????????? ?????? ???????????? ) ?????????????? ????????? ?????????????????? ??????????????? ????????????????? ???????????? ??????????? ??????? ?????????? ????????????? ??????????????? ??????????????????? ???????????? ?????????????? ????????????? ????????????????? ?????????????????????? ?????????? ?????????? ????????????? ?????????????? ?????????????? ??????????????? ???????? ????????????? ???????? ???????????? ????????????????
????????? ??????????????? ???????????? (????????????? ) ?????????????? ????????????????????????? ???????? ????? ?????????? ?????????????? ???????(??)??????????(??)????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????????? ??????????? ???????????????????? ???????????? ? ??????????? ??????????????? - ?????????????????????? ??????????? ?????????????????????? ????????????????? ????????????????? ????????????????? ????????????????
?????????
???????????????? ??????????????? ???????????
?????????
???????????????????????
????????????? ?????????? ??????????????? ???????????????? ?????????????? ??????????????? ????????? ????????? ?????????? ?????????? ???????????? ?????????????????? ????????? ???????? ?????????????????????? ?????????????????? ?????????????????????? ?????????????? ?????????? ????? ????????? ?????????? ??????????? ????????????? ?????????? ??????????????? ???????????????? ??????? ????????????????? ?????????
???????????????? ????????????
?????????????
????????????? ??????????????????????
?? ?????? ???????????????????????
????????????? ??????????????? ???????????????? ??????????????? ??????????? ???????? ??????????? ??????????????? ???????????? ??????????????????????????? ????????????? ?????????????? ??????????????? ??????? ???????????? ???????????????? ?????????? ?????????????? (==????????????????==) ??? ?????????????????????? ?????????? ???????????????? ?????????? ??????????????????? (===??????????????????????=== ) ? (====??????????????????????????==== ) ??????????????? ????????????????? ????????????? ???????? ?????????? ?????????????????????? ???????????????? ??? ????????????? ??????? ?????????????????? ????????????????????? ?????? ???????????????? ???????? ???????????? ?????????? ??????????? ???????????????????????
#????????????????
???? ???????
??????????????????????? ????????????????? ?????????????????????????
??????????????????????????
????? ?????????????? ?????????????????? ????????????????????????? ???????????????????????? ?????????????????? ????????????? ?????????? ??????????????? ????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????? ????????????????? ???????????? ????????? ?????????????????? ?????????? ??????????? ??????????????????????? ????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????? ?????????????????? ?????????? ?????????????????? ??????????? ?????????????? ????????????????
?????????? ????????????????????????? ?????????? ????????????????????????????? ???????????????? ????????????? ??????????????? ??????? ??????????? ???????????????? ????????????????? ???? ????????? ????????? ??????????????? ???????????? ?????? ???????????? ??????? ????????????????? ?????????
???????????????????
????????
??????????????????????????
????????????????? ???????????????????? ?????? ??????? ????????????????
??????????????????????
[
??????????
]
?????????? ????????????????????????? ???????? ?????? ????????????????? ??????????? ???????????? ??????????? ???????????
Wikipedia:Layout#??????????????????????????? ????????
???? ????? ?????????????? ?????????? ????????????????? ???????????????? ????????????????????????????? ??????? ?????????????????? ???????????????????? ??????????
- ????????????? ?????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????? ??????????????????????????? ????????????????? (
????????????????????? ???????????
)
- ????????????????? ???????????????????? ?????????????? "
?????????????????
" ??????????????????? (
?????????????????
)
- ??????????????? ?????????????????????? (
??????????? ???????????? (?????????) ????????????
)
- ??????????????? ??????????????????????? ???????????? ???????????????????? ????????????????? ??????????? ????????????? ( ????????? ) ???????? books, articles, or other ????????????????????? ??????(
???????????????
) ?????
- ??????????????? ??????????????????????? ???????????? ???????????????????? ????????????????? ????????????????????? ?????? (
??????????????????
)
??????????????????
???????? ??????????????????????????? ???????????????
??????? ???????????????????? ?????????????????? ??????? ???????????????????? ?????????????
??????????????????? ???????? ????? ????????/?????????????
??? ????????????????? ??????????????????? ?????????? ????????????????? ????? ????????? ????????????????????
?????????? ???????????????? ????????????????? ???????? ????????????? ?????????????????? ?? ?????????????? ?????????? ?????????????????? ????????? ???????????? ??????????????? ?????????????? ????????????????? ???????????????? ?????????? ???????????????????? ?????????? ?????????? ???????????? ??????????????? ??????????????????????? ??????????? ?????????? ?????????? ???????????? ??????????????? ?????????????? ????????? ????????????? ?????????????????? ????? ?????????????? ????????????? ??????????? ??????????????????? ???????????????????? ????????????????? ????????????????? ????????????? ?????? ??????????????? (?????????????) ??????????????????? ?????????? ??????????? ????????????????????? ??????????????????? ??? ???????????????? ?????????? ???????????? ??? ???????????????????? ( ????
???????????? -
?????????????? ?????????????????????? ????????
) ??????????????? ?????????????????????? ( ?????????? ????????????? ???????????????? ????????????????????????????? ????????????????
Category:Wikipedia page-section templates
? ??????????????) ????? ??????????????? ???????? ????????? ??????????? ???????????? ??????? ???????????????????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????????????? ?????????? ??????? ?????????????????? ????????????????? ????????????/ ????????????????? ????????????? ?????? ????????????? ??? ???????????????????? ???????????????? ??????????? ?????????? ????????? ???????????????????? ???????? ???????? ??????? ???????????????? ?????????????? ??????????????? ?????????????
????? ????????????????????????? ????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????? ?????????? ???????????????? ?????????????????????????? ????????? ???????????????????? ????????????????????? ???????????????????? ???????????? ????????? ??????????? ??????????????????????? ??????????????? ????????????????????????? ???????????????????? ????????????????????????? ??????????? ???????????????? ??????????????
Articles covering subtopics
[
??????????
]
????????????? ????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ????????????????????????? ????????????????? ????????? ????????????????? ???????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????? ????????????????????????? ???????????? ?????????????? ?????????????????? ?????????????? ??????????? ?????????????
?????????????????
??????? ???????????????????? ????????????????? ?????????????
Two styles, closely related, tend to be used for Wikipedia articles. The tone, however, should always remain
formal
,
impersonal
, and
dispassionate
.
?????????????? ?????
[
??????????
]
?????? ????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????? ?????????????? ???????????? ?????????? ?????????? ???????????????? ????????? ???????????? ????????????????? ????????????????? ????????????? ???????????? ??????????? ????????????????? ???????????????? ?????????????????????????? ?????????? ???????????????? ????????????????? ????????????????? ????????????????? ?????????? ???????????? ???????????????????????? ????????????? ?????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????? ??????????? ???????????????????????? ??????????????? ??????????? ????????????????????? ???????????????? ????????????????????
????????????????
[
??????????
]
?????????? ????????????????????? -
Wikipedia:Summary style
Summary style is an organizational style that is similar to news style except that it applies to
topics
instead of articles and mostly lead sections instead of lead sentences.
The idea is to distribute information in such a way that Wikipedia can serve readers who want varying amounts of detail. It is up to the reader to choose how much detail they are exposed to. Using progressively longer and longer summaries avoids overwhelming the reader with too much text at once. This is the style followed by such featured articles as
Cricket
and
Music of the Lesser Antilles
.
There are two main reasons for using Summary style in Wikipedia articles. One is that different readers desire different levels of detail: some readers need just a quick summary and are satisfied by the lead section; more people need a moderate amount of info, and will find the article suitable to their needs; yet others need a lot of detail, and will be interested in reading the sub articles. The other reason is simply that an article that is too long becomes tedious to read, and might repeat itself or represent writing that could be more concise.
Wikipedia articles, and other encyclopedic content, should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary depending upon the subject matter, but should follow the style used by
reliable sources
, while remaining clear and understandable. Formal tone means that the article should not be written using unintelligible
argot
,
doublespeak
,
legalese
, or
jargon
; it means that the English language should be used in a
businesslike
manner.
Articles should generally not be written from a first or second person perspective. In prose writing, the
first person
("I" and "we") point of view and
second person
("you" and "your") point of view typically evoke a strong narrator. While this is acceptable in works of fiction, it is generally unsuitable in an encyclopedia, where the writer should be invisible to the reader. Moreover, pertaining specifically to Wikipedia's policies, the first person often inappropriately implies a point of view inconsistent with
WP:NPOV
, and second person is inappropriately associated with step-by-step instructions of a how-to guide (see
WP:NOTHOWTO
). First and second person pronouns should ordinarily be used only in attributed direct quotations relevant to the subject of the article. As with many such guidelines, however, there are exceptions: for instance, in professional mathematics writing, use of the first person plural ("we") as a transitional pronoun is widespread.
Use common sense
to determine if the chosen perspective is in the spirit of this guideline.
Gender-neutral pronouns
should be used where the gender is not specific; see
Gender-neutral language
for further information.
Punctuation marks that appear in the article should be used only per generally accepted practice. Exclamation marks (
!
) should be used only if they occur in direct quotations.
Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and worldviews. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to explain the subject fully.
Avoid using jargon
whenever possible. Consider the reader. An article entitled "Use of chromatic scales in early Baroque music" is likely to be read by musicians, and technical details and metalanguage, linked to articles explaining the
metalanguage
, are appropriate.
An article entitled "Baroque music" is likely to be read by laypersons who want a brief and plainly written overview, with links to available detailed information. When jargon is used in an article, a brief explanation should be given within the article. Aim for a balance between comprehensibility and detail so that readers can gain information from the article.
Evaluating context
[
??????????
]
Here are some
thought experiments
to help you test whether you are setting enough context:
- Does the article make sense if the reader gets to it as a random page? (
Special:Random
)
- Imagine yourself as a layperson in another English-speaking country. Can you figure out what the article is about?
- Can people tell what the article is about if the first page is printed out and passed around?
- Would a reader want to follow some of the links?
?????????? ????????????????????? -
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking)
Remember that every Wikipedia article is tightly connected to a network of other topics. Establishing such connections via wikilink is a good way to establish context. Because Wikipedia is not a long, ordered sequence of carefully categorized articles like a paper encyclopedia, but a collection of randomly accessible, highly interlinked ones, each article should contain links to more
general
subjects that serve to
categorize
the article. When creating links, do not go overboard, and be careful to make your links relevant. It is not necessary to link the same term twelve times (although if it appears in the lead, then near the end, it might be a good idea to link it twice).
Avoid making your articles
orphans
. When you write a new article, make sure that one or more other pages link to it, to lessen the chances that your article will be orphaned through someone else's
refactoring
. Otherwise, when it falls off the bottom of the
Recent Changes
page, it will disappear into
the Mists of Avalon
. There should always be an unbroken chain of links leading from the
Main Page
to every article in Wikipedia; following the path you would expect to use to find your article may give you some hints as to which articles should link to your article.
State the obvious
[
??????????
]
State facts that may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader. Usually, such a statement will be in the first sentence or two of the article. For example, consider this sentence:
The
Ford Thunderbird
was conceived as a response to the
Chevrolet Corvette
and entered production for the
1955
model year.
Here no mention is made of the Ford Thunderbird's fundamental nature: it is an
automobile
. It assumes that the reader already knows this?an assumption that may not be correct, especially if the reader is not familiar with
Ford
or
Chevrolet
. Perhaps instead:
The
Ford Thunderbird
is a
car
manufactured in the
United States
by the
Ford Motor Company
.
However, there is no need to go overboard. There is no need to explain a common word like "car". Repetition is usually unnecessary, for example:
Shoichi Yokoi
was
drafted
into the
Imperial Japanese Army
in
1941
.
conveys enough information (although it is not a good first sentence). However, the following is
verbose
:
Shoichi Yokoi
was a Japanese soldier in Japan who was
drafted
into the
Imperial Japanese Army
in
1941
.
?????????????:Lead section TT text
??????????????? ????????????????????? ????????????????????? ??????????????? ???????????????? ??????????? ????????????? ??????????????????????? ??????????????????? ?????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ?????????????????????????? ???????????????????????? ?????????????? ??????????
?????????????:Lead section TT first sentence content
?????????????:Lead section TT first sentence format
The rest of the opening paragraph
[
??????????
]
Then proceed with a description. Remember, the basic significance of a topic may not be obvious to nonspecialist readers, even if they understand the basic characterization or definition. Tell them. For instance:
- Peer review
, known as
refereeing
in some academic fields, is a scholarly process used in the publication of manuscripts and in the awarding of money for research. Publishers and agencies use peer review to select and to screen submissions. At the same time, the process assists authors in meeting the standards of their discipline. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are liable to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields.
The rest of the lead section
[
??????????
]
If the article is long enough for the lead section to contain several paragraphs, then the first paragraph should be short and to the point, with a clear explanation of what the subject of the page is. The following paragraphs should give a summary of the article. They should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, including its more important controversies, if there are any.
The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than two or three paragraphs. The following specific rules have been proposed:
Article Length
|
Lead Length
|
Fewer than 15,000 characters
|
One or two paragraphs
|
15,000?30,000 characters
|
Two or three paragraphs
|
More than 30,000 characters
|
Three or four paragraphs
|
It is fine to include foreign terms as extra information, but avoid writing articles that can only be understood if the reader understands the foreign terms. Such words are equivalent to
jargon
, which should be
explained
somehow. In the English-language Wikipedia, the English form does not always have to come first: sometimes the non-English word is better as the main text, with the English in parentheses or set off by commas after it, and sometimes not. For example, see
perestroika
.
Non-English words in the English-language Wikipedia should be written in
italics
. Non-English words should be used as titles for entries only as a last resort. Again, see
perestroika
.
English title terms taken from a language that does not use the Roman alphabet can include the native spelling in parentheses. See, for example,
I Ching
(
??????????????
:
易?
;
???????????
:
易經
;
??????
:
yi j?ng
) or
Sophocles
(
???
:
Σοφοκλ??
). The native spelling is useful for precisely identifying foreign words, since transliterations may be inaccurate or ambiguous. Foreign terms within the article body do not need native spellings if they can be specified as title terms in separate articles.
?????????? ????????????????????? -
Wikipedia:Colours
If possible, avoid presenting information with color only within the article's text and in tables.
Color should only be used sparingly, as a secondary visual aid. Computers and browsers vary, and you cannot know how much color, if any, is visible on the recipient's machine. Wikipedia is international: colors have different meaning in different cultures. Too many colors on one page look cluttered and unencyclopedic. Specifically, use the color red only for alerts and warnings.
Awareness of color should be allowed for low-vision viewers: poor lighting, color blindness, dark or overbright screens, and the wrong contrast/color settings on the display screen.
Articles should use only necessary words. This does not mean using fewer words is always better; rather, when considering equivalent expressions, choose the more concise. Consider the view of
William Strunk, Jr.
from the 1918 work,
The Elements of Style
:
- Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.
Reduce sentences to the essentials. Wordiness does not add credibility to Wikipedia articles. Avoid temporary expressions like "due to the fact that" in place of "because", or "at the present time" for "currently". The ideal method of specifying on-going events is "as of ????". Wikipedia "grammar bots" will replace these types of expressions with correct wording.
Conciseness does not justify removing information from an article. The use of subjective qualifiers should be avoided.
Principle of least astonishment
[
??????????
]
When the
principle of least astonishment
is successfully employed, the information is understood by the reader without struggle. The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or overwhelmingly confused by your article. For example, do not write, "Most people in Fargo, N.D. are dead. That is, dead tired by the end of a long work day." As the writer, you should not use provocative language in descriptions or arguments. Instead, gently offer information by anticipating the reader's resistance to new ideas. Use consistent vocabulary in parts that are technical and difficult. To decide which parts of the sentence are going to be difficult for the reader, try to anticipate the reader's resistance to the ideas.
You should plan your page structure and links so that everything appears reasonable and makes sense. If a link takes readers to somewhere other than where they thought it would, it should at least take them somewhere that makes sense.
Similarly make sure that concepts that are being used to base further discussion on have already been defined, or linked to a proper article. Explain causes before consequences and make sure your logical sequence is clear and sound, especially to the layman.
For example, if a user wants to know about the nuclear power plant that exploded in
Chornobyl
, he is likely to type that in the search box. The page on "Chornobyl" redirects to "
Chernobyl
," an alternative spelling for that town. However, the user sees that a link to the desired page,
Chernobyl disaster
, is placed prominently near the top of the Chernobyl page, and happily clicks on that.
Use of 'refers to'
[
??????????
]
The phrase
refers to
is sometimes found near the beginning of Wikipedia articles. For example, the article
Computer architecture
once began by saying "
Computer architecture
refers to the theory behind the design of a computer." That is not literally true; it would be better to say, "
computer architecture
is the theory behind the design of a computer," as the article did later. Note that it is the
words
"computer architecture" that refer to a certain theory. That is, the words are what refer to the theory, while computer architecture itself does not refer to any theory; it
is
a theory.
Sometimes it may be correct to say, for example, "The term
Great Schism
refers to either one of two schisms in the history of Christianity," but most often, the simpler locution is better. If you
mention
the phrase
Great Schism,
rather than
using
that phrase to refer to one of the Great Schisms, then write the word in italics to indicate that.
The same problem occurs with variations, such as "is the name of" or "is a term for".
See also:
Use?mention distinction
Check your facts
[
??????????
]
Write material that is true: check your facts. Do not write material that is false. This might require that you verify your alleged facts.
This is a crucial part of
citing good sources
: even if you think you know something, you have to provide references anyway to prove to the reader that the fact is true. Material that seems to naturally stem from sourced claims might not have been actually claimed. In searching for good references to cite, you might even learn something new.
Be careful about deleting material that may be factual. If you are inclined to delete something from an entry, first consider checking whether it is true. If material apparently
is
factual, in other words substantiated and cited, be extra careful about deleting. An encyclopedia is a collection of facts. If another editor provided a fact, there was probably a reason for it that should not be overlooked. Therefore, consider each fact provided as potentially precious. Is the context or overall presentation the issue? If the fact does not belong in one particular article, maybe it belongs in another.
Examine entries you have worked on subsequent to revision by others. Have facts been omitted or deleted? It may be the case that you failed to provide sufficient substantiation for the facts, or that the facts you incorporated may need a clearer relationship to the entry. Protect your facts, but also be sure that they are presented meaningfully.
Check your fiction
[
??????????
]
The advice about factual articles also applies to articles on fiction subjects. Further considerations apply when writing about fictional topics because they are
inherently not real
. It is important to keep these articles verifiable and encyclopedic.
If you add fictional information, clearly distinguish fact and fiction. As with normal articles, establish context so that a reader unfamiliar with the subject can get an idea about the article's meaning without having to check several links. Instead of writing
- "
Trillian
is
Arthur Dent
's girlfriend. She was taken away from Earth by
Zaphod
when he met her at a party. She meets Dent while travelling with Zaphod."
write
- "
Trillian
is a
fictional character
from
Douglas Adams
's radio, book and now film series
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
. In the first book, Trillian is introduced to the main character
Arthur Dent
on a spaceship. In her backstory, she was taken away from Earth when the space alien
Zaphod Beeblebrox
met her at a party."
And so forth.
Works of fiction are generally considered to "come alive" when read. They exist in a kind of
perpetual present tense
, regardless of when the fictional action is supposed to take place relative to "now." Thus, generally you should write about fiction using the
present tense
, not the past tense.
- "Homer
presents
, Achilles
rages
, Andromache
laments
, Priam
pleads
."
[?]
- "Darth Vader
is
a fictional character from
Star Wars
."
- "Holden Caulfield
has
a certain disdain for what he
sees
as 'phony'."
- "Heathcliff, who
is
taken in by the wealthy Earnshaw family as a child,
falls
in love with their daughter, Catherine."
- Friends
is
an American sitcom, that
was
aired on NBC
Conversely, discussion of history is usually written in the past tense and thus 'fictional history' may be presented in that way as well.
- "Chroniclers
claimed
that Thalestris, queen of the Amazons,
seduced
Alexander the Great."
Articles about fictional topics should not read like
book reports
; instead, they should explain the topic's significance to the work. After reading the article, the reader should be able to understand why a character, place, or event was included in the fictional work.
It is generally discouraged to add fictional information from sources that cannot be verified or are limited to a very small number of readers, such as
fan fiction
and online role-playing games. In the latter case, if you absolutely have to write about the subject, please be especially careful to cite your sources.
If the subject, say a character in a television show, is too limited to be given a full article, then integrate information about that character into a larger article. It is better to write a larger article about the television show or a fictional universe itself than to create all sorts of stubs about its characters that nobody can find.
The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information. While writing an article, you might find yourself digressing into a side subject. If you find yourself wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with the topic. If you provide a link to the other article, readers who are interested in the side topic have the option of digging into it, but readers who are not interested will not be distracted by it. Due to the way in which Wikipedia has grown, many articles contain such redundant texts. Please be
bold
in deleting them.
Pay attention to spelling
[
??????????
]
?????????? ????????????????????? -
Wikipedia:Spellchecking
Pay attention to spelling
, particularly of new page names. Articles with good spelling and proper grammar will encourage further contributions of good content. Proper spelling of an article name will also make it easier for other authors to link their articles to your article. Sloppiness in one aspect of writing leads to sloppiness in others. Always do your best. It is not that big a deal, but why not have it right?
Avoid peacock and weasel terms
[
??????????
]
Avoid peacock terms
that show off the subject of the article without containing any real information. Similarly,
avoid weasel words
that offer an opinion without really backing it up, and which are really used to express a non-neutral point of view.
Examples of
peacock terms
|
an important...
|
one of the most prestigious...
|
one of the best...
|
the most influential...
|
a significant...
|
the great...
|
Examples of
weasel words
|
Some people say...
|
...is widely regarded as...
|
..is widely considered...
|
...has been called...
|
It is believed that...
|
It has been suggested/noticed/decided...
|
Some people believe...
|
It has been said that...
|
Some would say...
|
Legend has it that...
|
Critics say that...
|
Many/some have claimed...
|
Believe in your subject. Let the facts speak for themselves. If your
ice hockey
player,
canton
, or species of
beetle
is worth the reader's time, it will come out through the facts. However, in some cases (for example, history of graphic design) using superlative adjectives (in the "...
one of the
most important figures in the history of ..." format) in the description may help readers with no previous knowledge about the subject to acknowledge the importance or generally perceived status of the subject discussed. Note that to use this type of superlative adjective format, the most reputable experts in the respective field must support the claim.
Avoid blanket terms unless you have verified them. For example,
this article
states that of the 18 Montgomery Counties in the United States,
most
are named after Richard Montgomery. This is a blanket statement. It may very well be true, but is it reliable? In this instance, the editor had done the research to verify this. Without the research, the statement should not be made. It is always a good idea to describe the research done and sign it on the article's talk page.
If you wish to, or must refer to an opinion, first make sure someone who holds some standing in that subject gives it. A view on former American President
Gerald Ford
from
Henry Kissinger
is more interesting for the reader than one from your teacher from school. Then say who holds the opinion being given, preferably with a source or a quote for it. Compare the following:
- Some critics of
George W. Bush
have said he has low intelligence.
- Author
Michael Moore
in his book
Stupid White Men ...and Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation!
wrote an open letter to George Bush. In it, he asked, "George, are you able to read and write on an adult level?".
Sometimes the way around using these terms is to replace the statements with the facts that backs it up:
- "The Yankees are one of the greatest baseball teams in history."
- "The New York Yankees have won 26 World Series championships?almost three times as many as any other team."
By sticking to concrete and factual information, we can avoid the need to give any opinion at all. Doing so also makes for writing that is much more interesting, for example:
- William Peckenridge,
eighth
Duke of Omnium
(
1642
? ?
May 8
,
1691
) is widely considered to be one of the most important men to carry that title.
- William Peckenridge,
eighth
Duke of Omnium
(
1642
? ?
May 8
,
1691
) was personal counselor to
King James I
, general in the
Wars of the Roses
, a
chemist
,
bandleader
, and the director of the secret society known as
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
. He expanded the title of Omnium to include protectorship of Guiana and right of revocation for civil-service appointments in
India
.
Show, don't tell
. The first example simply
tells
the reader that William Peckenridge was important. The second example
shows
the reader why he was important.
When repeating established views, it may be easier to simply state: "Before
Nicolaus Copernicus
, most people thought the sun revolved round the earth", rather than sacrifice clarity with details and sources, particularly if the statement forms only a small part of your article. However, in general, everything should be
sourced
, whether within the text, with a footnote, or with a general reference.
Make omissions explicit for other editors
[
??????????
]
Make omissions explicit
when creating or editing an article. When writing an article, always aim for completeness. If for some reason you cannot cover a point that should be explained,
make that omission explicit
. You can do this either by leaving a note on the discussion page or by leaving
HTML
comments
within the text and adding a notice to the bottom about the omissions. This has two purposes: it entices others to contribute, and it alerts non-experts that the article they are reading does not yet give the full story.
That's why Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia?we work together to achieve what we could not achieve individually. Every aspect that you cover means less work for someone else, plus you may cover something that someone else may not think of but which is nevertheless important to the subject. Add {{
todo
}} to the top of the talk page of articles for which you can establish some goals, priorities or things to do.
- Honorifics
- Do not use
honorifics
or
titles
, such as Mr, Ms, Rev, Doctor, etc. See
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)
and
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)
- Inappropriate subjects
- If you are
trying to dress up
something that doesn't belong in Wikipedia?your band, your Web site, your company's product?think twice about it.
Wikipedia is not an advertising medium
or
home page service
. Wikipedians are pretty clever, and if an article is really just
personal gratification
or
blatant advertising
, it's not going to last long?no matter how "
important
" you say the subject is.
- Integrate changes
- When you make a change to some text, rather than appending the new text you would like to see included at the bottom of the page, if you feel so motivated, please place and edit your comments so that they flow seamlessly with the present text. Wikipedia articles should not end up being a series of disjointed comments about a subject, but unified, seamless, and ever-expanding expositions of the subject.
- Avoiding common mistakes
- It is easy to commit a Wikipedia
faux pas
. That is OK?everybody does it! Nevertheless, here are a few you might
try to avoid
.
- Make a personal copy
- Suppose you get into an
edit war
. Or worse, a
revert
war. Therefore, you try to
stay cool
. This is good. Congratulations! However, what would be great is if you could carry on working on the article, even though there is an edit war going on, and even though the version on the top is the evil one favoured by the other side in the dispute.
- So
make a personal copy
as a subpage of your user page. Just
Start
a new page at
User:MY NAME/ARTICLE NAME
, and copy and paste the wiki-source in there. Then you can carry on improving the article at your own pace! If you like, drop a note on the appropriate
talk page
to let people know what you are doing.
- Some time later, at your leisure, once the fuss has died down, merge your improvements back in to the article proper. Maybe the other person has left Wikipedia, finding it not to their taste. Maybe they have gone on to other projects. Maybe they have changed their mind. Maybe someone else has made similar edits anyway (although they may not be as good as yours, as you have had more time to consider the matter).
?????????:Writing guides