Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 91

message: MJCDetroit, can you briefly summarize the changes in this?  It's hard to tell what was done.  Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's easier if I just direct you to the MOSNUM post (here), which should explain it. —MJCdetroit 18:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of recent change

message: This is a small detail, but when a word has a couple of uses, but one is recognized as being more informal, which is given preference in Wikipedia? Saying The US comprises fifty states is more formal than saying The US is comprised of fifty states. The first is the traditionally correct grammar, but both are "acceptable" today in that both are described in dictionaries and usually both are understood correctly. Which should be followed? My first impression is that the more formal should be used since some readers will be older and not accustomed to the newer, relaxed usage. Sancho 16:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. Use "is comprised of" because it is not ambiguous.  "Comprises" is ambiguous because the word is one of the few that is its own opposite: It can mean both "makes up" and "is made up of", e.g. "The US comprises fifty states" and "fifty states comprise the US", both of which are "correct"; the latter usage while not the original is the more common in 21st century English from my informal review of the matter (others may disagree, but I find it pretty rare to see the "X comprises Y and Z" form", vs. "Y and Z comprise X" form).  Avoiding the construction altogether for the "X is comprised of Y and Z" form eliminates the abiguity entirely. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 20:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: agree with SMcCandlish. But in general, neither word is necessarily the best choice--including this example--the much simpler  "The U.S. is composed of 50 states"-- is preferable. DGG (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or just "the US is made up of 50 states". -- Hongooi 07:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The United States are 50 states... — The Storm Surfer 13:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: In fact, is comprised of is considered a neologism and many speakers of a more traditional version of English would find it unusual (although it is becoming more common). Standard usage is the active voice: "The US comprises 50 states." See here. I agree, though, that's it's likely preferable to avoid it entirely and I would favour Hongooi's "the US is made up of 50 states". — Dave (Talk | contribs) 15:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking as an "old fart", I look at "comprised of" as a hypercorrection of "composed of" by people for whom "comprise" seems more intellectual, and who are unaware of its classic meaning. I'm aware that many aspects of standard use start out as hypercorrections, but I don't see a convincing reason for Wikipedia to encourage this case.--Curtis Clark 22:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "Comprise" and "include" are a pair. You say "The US comprises 50 states" because you can't say "The US includes 50 states". New England includes Massachusetts and Vermont, but it comprises Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island...don't make me type them all—you know what I mean. And there are plenty of ways to express the inverse without misusing a good word: is made up of, is composed of, is a union of, has. "Comprised of" is an illiterate mistake for "composed of" no matter how much currency it gains. There, I said it. Descriptivism is for wimps. Let's try to take some power back from the broadcast journalists and hold the line on this one. --Milkbreath 03:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The alternative, which is often clearer, and not yet subject to this obfuscation, is "The US consists of 50 states." Includes is not part of this; "the US includes New England and California" is a true, if incomplete, statement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comprises vs comprised of 

message: I would like to ask what's the rationale for the following guideline:
:Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. For example, …
I don't understand why this is a problem (and only if done with 2nd level headings). Anyway, this is against the Wikipedia:Accessibility#Article structure policy, so this guideline should be removed unless there are very good reasons to violate this policy. Best regards —surueña 18:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I see the contradiction. — The Storm Surfer 20:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As explained in Wikipedia:Accessibility#Headings, every "image should be inside the section it belongs to (after the header and after any link to other article), and not just before the header for similar reasons," regardless of its position. In contrast, this MoS guideline clearly states that left-aligned images should be just before the (2nd level) header, and therefore outside the section. Is the policy somewhat obscure? (I'm involved in the accessibility project, it's very interesting to know if the policy should be rewritten :-) Thanks! —surueña 01:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a general design principle, I have to agree with "do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level headings."  I think it looks truly awful to have the image directly below a headine, and mostly for the stated reason: it "disconnects the heading from the text."  With second-level headings, then the image is still accessible by editing the whole section. --JayHenry 02:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think left-aligned images at the start of a section look ugly, but I understand it can be more difficult to read to some people. Anyway the problematic part of the guideline is the second one, which states that an alternative is to put the image at the end of the previous section (i.e. just before the section header), so it should be removed (but editors can still use the other solutions). What do you think? —surueña 10:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This archived discussion has the rationale behind the consensus for the current wording (and my opinion on it!) and a analysis of the whys and wherefores of second-level heading image placement. Hope it helps. mikaultalk 14:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images below headings 

message: While I am sure it is annoying for users that have low resolution screens (600x800) to see images that are too large for their current resolution we are far into a state were the average user has HD screens or at the very least screens with a resolution of 1024x768. I think that having someone run around shrinking images is annoying. Users shouldn't have to click on an image to see the picture. I think it is truly time to reconsider the recommendations of the MOS. I stress to readers that these are RECOMMENDATIONS not a hard rule or policy and I think that wikipedia may need to catch up to current standards. Plus when I view under low resolution it is not that bad, However when I view thumbnails at the default size in my full resolution I can barely see the image at all.--Amadscientist 01:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing more annoying than tiny, detailed images. At some stage, the rules will need to be reviewed to reflect technological/market advances. Tony 08:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The best way is to propose a draft change to the relevant text in MOS, word for word, state that you are seeking consensus, and ask for feedback. Then try to mediate the ensuing discussion and bring it around to a workable solution (if possible; or give up if it appears unachievable). Best to create a fresh subsection here for the purpose. Tony 03:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I can do that, but the last discussion kind of stalled over the best way to implement a consensus for a larger thumb size default, if indeed it came to that. As it would involve a change to markup, is MOS the best place to be debating it, or (put another way) aren't there some more relevant techie editors somewhere we should be getting involved? mikaultalk 07:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds as though it needs input from both techies and style-freaks. Can you identify/coax one or two techies who'd be interested? I don't know where to look, but there must be several places. Tony 09:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image size 

message: There is a silly edit-war going on at Hawaii over whether to spell it Hawaii or Hawaii throughout the article (even as the article is titled "Hawaii").  Can an administrator who is a WP:MOS expert intervene and resolve the dispute? THF 16:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMV, it's ridiculous to use the apostrophe (which should point the other way, anyway, if curly). Tony 08:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it would be silly to use an apostrophe, but in this case it's not an apostrophe.  — The Storm Surfer 17:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hawaii]]