![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 75 | ← | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | Archive 81 | → | Archive 85 |
Your feedback will be appreciated. The "how to" element has been removed, since there are links for that purpose. Reference to the Chicago removed—why is an external reference necessary? Wikipedia not confident enough?
User:Tony1/MOS comparison: Italics and Quotations
Infoboxes have a wide consensus as being useful as the best of them provide a snapshot of stable information and statistics that give a quick feel for the topic. Because of this popularity they are frequently placed top right in an article, rather than an image. However, the MoS suggests placing an image in the top right [1] unless there is a compelling reason not to. Is an infobox a compelling reason not to have an image? As part of the intention with the lead section is to present a welcoming and attractive introduction which soothes, invites and excites the reader, an image is commonly seen as being the best means of doing this. Books have attractive images on the cover, rather than a list of contents. So my question is - is there a guideline for when to use an infobox in place of an image in the top right? I have had a look and I can't find a guideline - nor can I find any discussion on this topic, though I am sure there must be. SilkTork 07:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Infobox templates#Design and usage Point 2: ( For consistency the following rules apply:) "Insert at the top of articles and right-align." The people who create and use InfoBoxes would take their guidance from this rather than from the overall MoS. So there is a conflict. SilkTork 07:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the placing of images or infoboxes in the lead section of articles. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Image_V_InfoBox. The long standing guideline has been to use an image unless there is a compelling reason not to. However, the use of infoboxes in the top right has crept in. The suggestion is that an image should be used in the top right of the lead section, and that, unless there is a compelling reason otherwise, infoboxes should start below the lead section, preferably in the section to which the infobox actually relates. SilkTork 18:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
(moved from SV talk)
I noticed that you took out the recent addition to Wikipedia:Lead section. A discussion has started at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Image_V_InfoBox at which your opinion would be valued. I would value your input. SilkTork 21:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised and disappointed at your immediate revert. You have left no comment on the talk page that was indicated. I understand that you disagree with the addition to the guideline; however, as you have not joined in the discussion, I'm not aware that you are aware of the issues. Would you please join in the discussion and give us your thinking on the contradictory guidelines, and your thoughts on how best to advise people to proceed. A revert is not going to assist the debate. The addition is there to bring people into the debate. Without the addition to the guideline people will not be aware of the issue. I would like to get as many people involved as possible. Given that thought, I hope you understand a little more of the reasoning behind the edit, and you will understand why I am now going to put the edit back. I have no problem with the edit being modified after discussion - but it doesn't assist anyone to muffle discussion at the start. SilkTork 21:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you are misunderstanding the intention. Look at my original edit. In the edit summary I provided a link to the discussion that is currently taking place. There is already an active discussion taking place. You need to be addressing yourself to that discussion rather than attempting to split the discussion by taking it somewhere else. Please stop reverting. Please come to the table with your thoughts. This constant reverting is not doing me, you, the current issue, or Wiki in general any good. Please be aware that you are doing the reverting. Please be aware that you are ignoring repeated requests to discuss this in the place set aside for the discussion. There is no urgent need for the edit to be removed from Wikipedia:Lead section. The edit itself, as I have pointed out, is drawing attention to an active and valid inquiry. The edit is legitimate, coming as it does from a long-standing MoS guideline. You would need to join the debate and give your reasons for objecting to its inclusion, rather than the reverse as you are suggesting. I am stepping aside from this edit war now. I would ask you to please think about what I have been saying and give me the benefit of the doubt as regard good intentions. Regards SilkTork 21:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Please direct comments on infoboxes to: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Image_V_InfoBox. SilkTork 07:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out another page (orphaned?) with yet another discussion on infoboxes, at
WP:IBX. I've added a pointer to these discussions on the talk page, where the possibility of a merge/rename with regard to MOS has already been floated.
mikaul
talk
13:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Well spotted. There may be other related discussions and queries dotted about the place. I feel it is useful to direct people here. It would be awkward for editors to make a decision here, when editors somewhere else are making a conflicting decision. That is what has happened in the past, and has led to this present discussion. SilkTork 06:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd already created and worked on a draft HERE. I'm pleased for people to tamper with that rather than the actual MoS, so that we're all working on the same text. The old and new subsections are positioned adjacent to each other in sequence, and there's space at the top for notes to be written.
WRT to my paste-in of a new version of Quotation marks, I do hope I caught all of the subsequent changes that were made here. Please check. Tony 23:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Just curious, but I wanted to know, is this section still applicable? If so, it strikes me as odd. For instance, doesn't it mean neo-nazis, holocaust deniers, and NAMbLA get to choose the names we use for their organization? For instance, deniers like "revisionists", NAMbLA likes to be called a boylove organization or "child rights group" rather than a pedophilic organization, and neo nazis prefer "race warrior" a lot of the time. In light of this, is it possible the section only applies to subjects we -like- (I can note other instances of reviled subjects not being referred to by the terminology they use for themselves), or where a concensus of editors exists to keep the name constant as the one not preferred by the groups? Or should something be added to the guideline, does anyone think, about how if we can find reputable sources calling them one thing, and only their group claiming the other, the reputable news organizations win out over some dude saying he's the Great and Benevolent Ruler of Mankind and Wisest Man On Earth (Seems like something Gene Ray would like, for instance). The guideline has, I guess this is my complaint, no description of the circumstances in which reputable sources override and are plentiful or well founded enough that the name the public would use or recognize, based on those sources, is the one we should use for that person or group. Otherwise it could be argued that if an article is not about the thing the person self identifies as (An article written about Neo Nazis, when our article is forced to use "revisionist"), doesn't it lead into a lot of spurious argument? (I've SEEN people go, "The name of the article isn't the same as the subject of that source! Your argument is stupid!". Most common names save time and headache, especially when they corellate with the most common name among sources). Am I crazy, or has anyone else noticed this? Raeft 08:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Err, anyone, thoughts? Raeft 20:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
In the case of a title having to stay at its original title if it is a valid title, is this always so? I ask because I am currently involved in a dispute, and one is arguing that because both titles are valid, we should stick with the original. However, I've shown that that version of the subject has been more successful, is currently relevant (in that it continues to be advertised, unlike the other version), and that it is more well-known and Nintendo has acknowledged this by releasing the sequel in the EU region first. Additionally, I've shown that the argument for "first contributor" basically says that no force in the universe can get the title changed - even when the NA title was announced, it was the only English title to use. So basically, it's suggesting that it be the NA title solely because EU editors aren't clairvoyant. I think that for many mediums, the "first contributor" rule works to the advantage of one particular side far too frequently. In video games, for instance, EU is a smaller market, so video games are most often released in the US before it. However, in the case where it is first released in EU or is more successful in EU (the latter event is a big accomplishment, since it's a smaller region beating a larger one). - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
In the section Big, little, long, short, the sentence "The dugong swam down the coast in a herd five kilometres long and 300 metres wide" seems ambiguous in meaning to me. Is the coast 5 km long and 30 m wide (as what I think was the intention), or is the herd that big? -- Brandon Dilbeck 13:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
When an article is specifically mentioned by name – unlike when the topic of an article is mentioned – the name should be
capitalized, because the name of the article is a
proper noun.
(I hope it's obvious I'm not talking about most links in
running text.)
For example:
There seems to be a need for this to be stated in a guideline.
See
talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#When mentioning an article by name ...
--
Fyrlander
19:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there any policy regarding the sort order of the list of languages that an article appears in? It does not appear in this Manual of Style; Featured Articles do not appear to follow any given order or pattern. When the list gets long if becomes very easy to end up with duplicate entries. Many of the articles I have been watching have had numerious additions and deletions of these entries with the deletion reason often not given. When the list is unordered it becomes difficult to comfirm if the reason is because of a duplicate entry or some other reason. Sorting alphabetically by language name does not appear to be a viable option due to the various character sets in use. The only practical ordering would appear to be alphabetical by language code. Any guidance on this issue would be apprecated. Dbiel ( Talk) 23:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 75 | ← | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | Archive 81 | → | Archive 85 |
Your feedback will be appreciated. The "how to" element has been removed, since there are links for that purpose. Reference to the Chicago removed—why is an external reference necessary? Wikipedia not confident enough?
User:Tony1/MOS comparison: Italics and Quotations
Infoboxes have a wide consensus as being useful as the best of them provide a snapshot of stable information and statistics that give a quick feel for the topic. Because of this popularity they are frequently placed top right in an article, rather than an image. However, the MoS suggests placing an image in the top right [1] unless there is a compelling reason not to. Is an infobox a compelling reason not to have an image? As part of the intention with the lead section is to present a welcoming and attractive introduction which soothes, invites and excites the reader, an image is commonly seen as being the best means of doing this. Books have attractive images on the cover, rather than a list of contents. So my question is - is there a guideline for when to use an infobox in place of an image in the top right? I have had a look and I can't find a guideline - nor can I find any discussion on this topic, though I am sure there must be. SilkTork 07:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Infobox templates#Design and usage Point 2: ( For consistency the following rules apply:) "Insert at the top of articles and right-align." The people who create and use InfoBoxes would take their guidance from this rather than from the overall MoS. So there is a conflict. SilkTork 07:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the placing of images or infoboxes in the lead section of articles. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Image_V_InfoBox. The long standing guideline has been to use an image unless there is a compelling reason not to. However, the use of infoboxes in the top right has crept in. The suggestion is that an image should be used in the top right of the lead section, and that, unless there is a compelling reason otherwise, infoboxes should start below the lead section, preferably in the section to which the infobox actually relates. SilkTork 18:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
(moved from SV talk)
I noticed that you took out the recent addition to Wikipedia:Lead section. A discussion has started at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Image_V_InfoBox at which your opinion would be valued. I would value your input. SilkTork 21:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised and disappointed at your immediate revert. You have left no comment on the talk page that was indicated. I understand that you disagree with the addition to the guideline; however, as you have not joined in the discussion, I'm not aware that you are aware of the issues. Would you please join in the discussion and give us your thinking on the contradictory guidelines, and your thoughts on how best to advise people to proceed. A revert is not going to assist the debate. The addition is there to bring people into the debate. Without the addition to the guideline people will not be aware of the issue. I would like to get as many people involved as possible. Given that thought, I hope you understand a little more of the reasoning behind the edit, and you will understand why I am now going to put the edit back. I have no problem with the edit being modified after discussion - but it doesn't assist anyone to muffle discussion at the start. SilkTork 21:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you are misunderstanding the intention. Look at my original edit. In the edit summary I provided a link to the discussion that is currently taking place. There is already an active discussion taking place. You need to be addressing yourself to that discussion rather than attempting to split the discussion by taking it somewhere else. Please stop reverting. Please come to the table with your thoughts. This constant reverting is not doing me, you, the current issue, or Wiki in general any good. Please be aware that you are doing the reverting. Please be aware that you are ignoring repeated requests to discuss this in the place set aside for the discussion. There is no urgent need for the edit to be removed from Wikipedia:Lead section. The edit itself, as I have pointed out, is drawing attention to an active and valid inquiry. The edit is legitimate, coming as it does from a long-standing MoS guideline. You would need to join the debate and give your reasons for objecting to its inclusion, rather than the reverse as you are suggesting. I am stepping aside from this edit war now. I would ask you to please think about what I have been saying and give me the benefit of the doubt as regard good intentions. Regards SilkTork 21:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Please direct comments on infoboxes to: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Image_V_InfoBox. SilkTork 07:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out another page (orphaned?) with yet another discussion on infoboxes, at
WP:IBX. I've added a pointer to these discussions on the talk page, where the possibility of a merge/rename with regard to MOS has already been floated.
mikaul
talk
13:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Well spotted. There may be other related discussions and queries dotted about the place. I feel it is useful to direct people here. It would be awkward for editors to make a decision here, when editors somewhere else are making a conflicting decision. That is what has happened in the past, and has led to this present discussion. SilkTork 06:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd already created and worked on a draft HERE. I'm pleased for people to tamper with that rather than the actual MoS, so that we're all working on the same text. The old and new subsections are positioned adjacent to each other in sequence, and there's space at the top for notes to be written.
WRT to my paste-in of a new version of Quotation marks, I do hope I caught all of the subsequent changes that were made here. Please check. Tony 23:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Just curious, but I wanted to know, is this section still applicable? If so, it strikes me as odd. For instance, doesn't it mean neo-nazis, holocaust deniers, and NAMbLA get to choose the names we use for their organization? For instance, deniers like "revisionists", NAMbLA likes to be called a boylove organization or "child rights group" rather than a pedophilic organization, and neo nazis prefer "race warrior" a lot of the time. In light of this, is it possible the section only applies to subjects we -like- (I can note other instances of reviled subjects not being referred to by the terminology they use for themselves), or where a concensus of editors exists to keep the name constant as the one not preferred by the groups? Or should something be added to the guideline, does anyone think, about how if we can find reputable sources calling them one thing, and only their group claiming the other, the reputable news organizations win out over some dude saying he's the Great and Benevolent Ruler of Mankind and Wisest Man On Earth (Seems like something Gene Ray would like, for instance). The guideline has, I guess this is my complaint, no description of the circumstances in which reputable sources override and are plentiful or well founded enough that the name the public would use or recognize, based on those sources, is the one we should use for that person or group. Otherwise it could be argued that if an article is not about the thing the person self identifies as (An article written about Neo Nazis, when our article is forced to use "revisionist"), doesn't it lead into a lot of spurious argument? (I've SEEN people go, "The name of the article isn't the same as the subject of that source! Your argument is stupid!". Most common names save time and headache, especially when they corellate with the most common name among sources). Am I crazy, or has anyone else noticed this? Raeft 08:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Err, anyone, thoughts? Raeft 20:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
In the case of a title having to stay at its original title if it is a valid title, is this always so? I ask because I am currently involved in a dispute, and one is arguing that because both titles are valid, we should stick with the original. However, I've shown that that version of the subject has been more successful, is currently relevant (in that it continues to be advertised, unlike the other version), and that it is more well-known and Nintendo has acknowledged this by releasing the sequel in the EU region first. Additionally, I've shown that the argument for "first contributor" basically says that no force in the universe can get the title changed - even when the NA title was announced, it was the only English title to use. So basically, it's suggesting that it be the NA title solely because EU editors aren't clairvoyant. I think that for many mediums, the "first contributor" rule works to the advantage of one particular side far too frequently. In video games, for instance, EU is a smaller market, so video games are most often released in the US before it. However, in the case where it is first released in EU or is more successful in EU (the latter event is a big accomplishment, since it's a smaller region beating a larger one). - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
In the section Big, little, long, short, the sentence "The dugong swam down the coast in a herd five kilometres long and 300 metres wide" seems ambiguous in meaning to me. Is the coast 5 km long and 30 m wide (as what I think was the intention), or is the herd that big? -- Brandon Dilbeck 13:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
When an article is specifically mentioned by name – unlike when the topic of an article is mentioned – the name should be
capitalized, because the name of the article is a
proper noun.
(I hope it's obvious I'm not talking about most links in
running text.)
For example:
There seems to be a need for this to be stated in a guideline.
See
talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#When mentioning an article by name ...
--
Fyrlander
19:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there any policy regarding the sort order of the list of languages that an article appears in? It does not appear in this Manual of Style; Featured Articles do not appear to follow any given order or pattern. When the list gets long if becomes very easy to end up with duplicate entries. Many of the articles I have been watching have had numerious additions and deletions of these entries with the deletion reason often not given. When the list is unordered it becomes difficult to comfirm if the reason is because of a duplicate entry or some other reason. Sorting alphabetically by language name does not appear to be a viable option due to the various character sets in use. The only practical ordering would appear to be alphabetical by language code. Any guidance on this issue would be apprecated. Dbiel ( Talk) 23:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)