Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 79

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't like infoboxes myself, but they're widely used, and I can't see it stopping. You'd need strong support for that change. Do you have it? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What we have is the start of a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Image_V_InfoBox. It started as a question. But there appears to be - like yourself - a number of people who feel that use of infoboxes could do with some extra guidance. Please join the discussion. SilkTork 21:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If you want to discuss adding this to WP:LEAD, please discuss it here, rather than on my talk page or on the MoS talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whenever this comes up, people say they don't like them but nothing is done about the box creep. For historical arts and bios I find them particularly obnoxious (Shakespeare, W. "Occupation: Playwright, poet, actor"). In other areas, such as taxa, they serve a clear purpose and are well-established. We could deprecate marginal boxes here; I'm sure we'd find support. But Silk, images and infoboxes are not an either/or. Boxes have images within them whenever possible. Marskell 15:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's funny that you mention Shakespeare, since that particular infobox does contain some useful information not contained in the lead section, including birthplace and a reference to "Elizabethan era". So if I wanted to find out where he was born, I'd have to either scroll down to the biography (only the birth and death dates are in the lead) or take a quick peek at the box - it's clear to me at least which I prefer. --Darkbane talk  16:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "Scroll down..."—that's precisely what we want readers to do. Marskell 17:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But as a reader, that's precisely what I don't want to do unless I intend to read parts of the article ^_^; If there is a way to present the most relevant facts without having to scroll down, why would you want people to go dig for it? Isn't that essentially information hiding? --Darkbane talk  17:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If everyone agreed that Shakespeare's birthplace was among the "most relevant facts" about him, we probably wouldn't have any dispute. But I think that many people would deny that this fact is particularly important. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Well, it's improbable, but not impossible that someone comes along thinking Shakespeare was born in Venice. But I think your statement is an issue for the standardization of a specific userbox template, and not necessarily an argument against userboxes as a whole. Rather than saying "let's get rid of some userboxes because they appear to have marginal value", I'd rather follow the line of thought that tries to improve those particular userboxes. --Darkbane talk  02:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No, please discuss proposed changes to WP:LEAD on WT:LEAD. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the main argument here is for the removal of infoboxes from the lead section, I think SVs request is reasonable. The debate here should concern itself with possible guidelines to standardise the size, scope and appropriateness of infoboxes, until the positional issue is resolved over at WT:LEAD. mikaultalk 13:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copied from [[Wikipedia:Lead section]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copy-editing the remainder of the punctuation section 

message: 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)
replies: text: The guideline is absolutely still applicable. In your example, NAMBLA is the organization's name, and we call it NAMBLA. No problem. Characterizations (whether self-characterizations or not) of the group as either a 'boylove organization' or a 'pack of unapologetic child molesters' are each a POV, and not the same as self-identification. In this hypothetical, both of those opposite notable views should ideally be reflected in the article. It's not any more hard-and-fast than any other guideline, but it works when we don't take an organization's self-characterization as gospel. We instead reflect notable characterizations from all relevant opinion groups and when possible, we use notable self-identification for naming where possible. I don't see a 'rules-level' conflict if good judgment and discussion is employed. Most specifically, the guideline around transgendered individuals is indeed very applicable and I would oppose any attempt to remove it without dialogue. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About The Identity Guideline 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "First contributor" rule for titles. 

message: 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)
replies: text: I read it as refering to the herd (as I think was the intention), else it should be "The dugong swam down the coast five kilometres long and 300 metres wide in a herd" or better still "The dugong swam in a herd down the five-kilometre long and three-hundred-metre wide coast". Jɪmp 23:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous sentence 

message: 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:
:For surfing on boards with mast and sail, see Windsurfing.
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)
thread_title:  When mentioning an article by name, the name should be capitalized 

message: 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)
replies: text: Good point: something I've wondered about too.  Could we not order alphabetically according to the name of the language in English? Jɪmp 23:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would only work if the display name was in English. As it is now with mutiple non-Roman character sets in use, I just do not see that working.  But using the English language code, which does display in the edit view would be viable.Dbiel (Talk) 01:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sort by language name in English, sort by ISO language code ... either would work in the sense of giving each language a unique position in the list, neither, however, would always produce an order which would make sense to readers.  How about ordering by language name using standard (i.e. Wikipedia standard) romanisation of any non-roman scripts (e.g. alphabetise 日本語 as Nihongo)?  This would, of course, be much more difficult to impliment than ordering by ISO language code but might make a little more sense to readers ... maybe. Jɪmp 06:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very true that ISO language code sort order would appear very unordered in the article view mode, but would be easy to maintain in the edit view mode. Any other change would require a major revision in how things are currently done. To require romanisation of any non-roman scripts would very likely be considered unacceptable by some even if they would produce a better reading list in English. The reality of it is that the list is not meant for the English readers but rather for those who perfer a language other than English. Therefor the display name should be in a form that is most acceptable to the reader of that language. Dbiel (Talk) 07:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign Language Translations list