Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 75

message: The section on image sizing was recently changed, on what appear to be spurious grounds to allow image sizing "On a lead image that captures the essence of the article". I can see no good reason for this; and image sizing is, as the rest of that section says, a very bad idea. I propose to remove that wording. Andy Mabbett 21:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was apparently the agreed wording which was voted upon. A more curious question is why it was originally left out. G-Man * 21:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the discussion cited, there was, clearly, no such agreement. Andy Mabbett 21:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look above, the version with the clause in it was the option which recieved the most votes. G-Man * 20:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the discussion: Wikipedia is not a democracy. Andy Mabbett 23:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image sizing, again.

message: If there is a dispute over what to call this sport in an article the article's subject is not region specific (like a video game that gets released worldwide), how should it be handled? Should it follow the spelling guidelines regarding different varieties of English (use what the article originally said, i.e. use "honor" instead of "honour" if that is what the articles creator used in it)? TJ Spyke 07:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think within an article, it should follow the first contributor rule. However, in naming categories and deciding on titles for articles, for example, there may be some value in uniformity across a number of related articles/categories. If a uniform decision had to be made, the greater popularity of soccer in Britain might be considered. However, the ambiguity of "football" is an argument in favour of "soccer". Within articles, I don't think this makes a shred of difference, so there should be no preference. Joeldl 12:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The majority of the English speaking world speaks Commonwealth English, most other languages use the term football as well, so should it not be football, I do not understand the arguement here.Spacedwarv 23:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because one speaks Commonwealth English doesn't mean one calls soccer football.  In Australia & New Zealand, for example, soccer is called soccer & football usually refers either to rugby or Aussie rules. Jimp 00:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a debate which has run for years, with the result that the main article on the sport is the not-entirely felicitously-named Football (soccer), which at least allows the pipe trick to be used to allow it to appear as "football" in articles while still directing to a disambiguous name. The problem is that "football" is the common name of different sports in different parts of the English-speaking world, or even in different parts of the same country. Even in the UK, although "football" normally refers to "soccer", it can also refer to rugby union or rugby league; in Ireland it commonly refers to Gaelic football, but can also refer to soccer and rugby union; in Australia, it's commonly Australian rules football, but can also refer to either form of rugby, or to soccer (the governing body renamed itself Football Federation Australia a couple of years ago); in New Zealand it's usually rugby. And of course there's American football and Canadian football too. The situation is made even more complicated by the strong antipathy to the term "soccer" among many followers of the sport in the UK, which will likely result in edit wars or at least interminable arguments if you try to use it. There is no ideal answer to your question, I'm afraid. -- Arwel (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Genug. Please.  Nobody speaks Comomnwealth English.  People speak several varieties of English English in England, Scottish English in Scotland, Australian English in Australia, u.s.w. —JackLumber /tɔk/ 22:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soccer/Football