Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 88

message: I've been removing forced pixel counts from a number of articles per the MOS recommendation. It points out that the default size is 180px unless otherwise specified. This seems a little small. Is there are reason for this? Can it be changed? It seems many editors (let alone readers) don't realise they can change viewing preferences and this is the reason, i presume, they specify pixel counts. Perhaps if the default was bigger they would not feel the need to specify pixels. Any thoughts? Am I asking in the correct place? Merbabu 12:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 180px is ridiculously small, especially for horizontal images, which should be approaching twice that width. DreamGuy 21:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree it's too small for horizontal pictures. Ideally, the software should be modified to give editors some control over big an image should be without specifying pixels. E.g. instead of saying "image:xxx|thumb|250px" you should be able to get an equivalent result by saying, "image:xxx|thumb|larger". The place to discuss it is probably Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 15:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to check out this archived discussion which debated the issue at some length. A claim of consensus for a revised size guideline was disputed; a number of pro-change arguments attracted dissenting views. I'm still of the opinion that the proliferation of larger, higher-resolution monitors means a thumb size increase is desirable, despite the possibility that this might mean some system-level changes. The last time it was taken to the pump, it fizzled out and disappeared.. mikaultalk 00:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Default image size question - 180px 

message: I've copy-edited the template at the top, without substantive change in meaning. However, there was still tension between "should be followed in Wikipedia articles" and the second paragraph of the lead, which went wobbly at the knees by seeming to say "Don't take it too seriously, ignore it if you please." The second para appears to undermine the whole reason for having the MOS.
Furthermore, the guidelines proper didn't start until the third section, “Article titles”. The first two sections—“Which style to use” and “Disputes over style issues”—seemed to concern more general things that sit better in the lead. 
So I've been bold in subsuming the first two sections into the lead and dumping the problematic second para. If there are reasonable objections, I'll revert it. Tony 13:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, the main WP:MOS should have primacy, because more people will come here looking for answers.  It may be worth adding notes to this effect (or an infobox?) on the sub articles to encourage authors to approve here, before changing sub-pages. Owain.davies 11:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised opening 

message: Question about alphabetization. Is there any guideline about alphabetizing titles that begin with numbers? To my knowledge, in any encyclopedia, or in a library, numbers go in their alphabetical location (64th Street: A Detective Story would be under S for Sixty-fourth). I don't think I've seen a volume 0-9 of an encyclopedia. Putting numbers first is only common because that's what a computer automatically does, but it seems pretty common on Wikipedia. ~ JohnnyMrNinja {talk} 22:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or if you can mention a better place to ask, I'll go there. ~ JohnnyMrNinja {talk} 07:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alphabetization 

message: The draft of six new sections comprising guidelines on chronological items and numbers is now available and under discussion at MOSNUM talk. 
The proposal is that these new sections will be inserted into MOS central and will, at the same, form the basis for improving the text in the related sections at MOSNUM itself.
Contributors to this page are welcome to scrutinise the proposal and to provide advice and feedback at MOSNUM talk during the next two weeks. Several improvements to the draft have already been made on the basis of feedback. Tony 07:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to add to MOS a summary of MOSNUM