Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 91

City Names
Maybe an edit war can be resolved here. Over at Talk:Stargate SG-1, there's a discussion centering around the formatting of the show's city of origin - should it read "Vancouver, Canada," "Vancouver, British Columbia," or "Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada"? (Or any of the other possible combinations...) Thank you! =David ( talk )( contribs ) 14:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Vancouver, British Columbia seems the most natural to me, but then, I am American, so tacking on Canada might not be a horrible idea. — The Storm Surfer 15:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That seems to be consensus among Americans, but most agree that it wouldn't work as well internationally, and we are trying to preserve NPOV. =David ( talk )( contribs ) 15:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Vancouver, Canada" would be my first preference, if "Vancouver" alone is too obscure. But please not all three items. Tony


 * Interesting. I never thought about it before, but Vancouver, Canada, sounds awfully odd to my American ear. It's like Dallas, United States of America vs. Dallas, Texas. But that's the only thing wrong with it, and nobody cares about my ear. In an international setting, I think Vancouver, Canada, is the only right choice in an ordinary context. To put all three would be proper if there was a need for so much specficity, but City, Province, would mystify many in the Old World. --Milkbreath 04:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not Vancouver, British Columbia? British Columbia is not exactly obscure and foreign to the English-speaking world, and we do generally use things like city, state when dealing with American cities, city, county for British ones, etc.  Unless you're specifically trying to distinguish it from Vancouver, Washington, the American city just down I-5 also called Vancouver, it really seems odd saying, "Vancouver, Canada."  Here's a more familiar one to English-speaking ears: when Tornoto is mentioned on the news, BBC, American, and Pakistan English channels, it is called, "Toronto, Ontario," not "Toronto, Canada," if additional words are used.  KP Botany 04:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I do much prefer the assumption that English-speaking visitors to the site know where Vancouver and Toronto are—and if they don't, will type them into the search box to lessen their ignorance. The context will often frame a city as located in a country, too. But if not, Vancouver, BC, or Vancouver, British Columbia are vastly preferable to the triple-bunger gobbledygook. Tony 04:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Proposed "Words as words" change

 * See also for genesis of this debate.

I propose changing:
 * Italics are used when citing a word or letter (see use–mention distinction). For example, “The term panning is derived from panorama, a word coined in 1787.” “The most commonly used letter in English is e.”

to


 * Quotation marks (" or ', consistent with the US or UK English of the article) are used when citing a word or letter (see use–mention distinction). For example, "The term 'panning' is derived from 'panorama', a word coined in 1787." "The most commonly used letter in English is 'e'."

Rationale: Using italics is grossly problematic. It confuses mention-demarking with emphasis, and effectively makes it impossible to adequately emphasize anything in an article or projectpage (such as WP:MOSNUM and other MOS pages) that uses a lot of examples, because the intended-to-be-emphasized item is too easily mistaken for yet another example (and boldfacing is too over-the-top). It also conflicts with italicization of foreign words, again leading to no choice but to inappropriately bold face them when they are also being used as mention-cases. It is routinely ignored as a MOS recommendation; the vast majority of examples I see in WP articles use quotation marks, not italics, for use-mention distinction. The can't-emphasize problem is compounded a bit by inappropriately making it look like any random example is in fact intended to emphasized, which it generally is not. The cited Use-mention distinction article actually gives italicization as the second, not first, option, and does not recommend one either way. I could go on, but this ought to be enough justification for the change. If necessary, it could be be changed to allow either but recommend quotes over italics; I'd prefer not being that wishy-washy about it. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 01:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

PS: User:Tony1 from over at WP:MOSNUM pretty much pleaded for guidance on usage with regard to this sort of thing, more than once, and received silence, which suggests to me that a) hardly anyone cares one way or the other, and b) there is no actual demonstrable consensus to keep the more problematic italic usage. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 01:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The proposed changes were worked on over a long period with multiple editors; I see no reason to be changing things quickly. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In a phrase like “A man came” the first word a is composed of the uppercase variant &lt;A> of the roman letter ‘a’, which is usually not pronounced /a/ in English – the sound [a] may be encountered in other words, though.
 * Granted, most people won’t note the subtle differences and therefore will not mark them up when authoring, which is often okay provided the distinction doesn’t matter. Furthermore this convention is not universal. The question again is whether to recommend the best style or to document the most common style. I prefer the former, but am frequently in the minority here. Christoph Päper

Is there some authoritative source on this? I'm no professional writer, and when this was raised as an issue about "sub-professional writing" on one of the FACs I was pushing, I thought italicising "words as words" is something that is done in professional writing. Now it seems like it's kind of arbitrarily decided amongst a few WP editors. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe quotation marks are more problematic. It would be useful to use double quotes for quotations and single quotes for words as words, but we can't really do that, so it gets confused as to whether the word is quoted or not. The emphasis and foreign word examples you suggest are difficult, but if bold is over the top, there must not be much reason to emphasize at all, or perhaps the emphasis should be added in a more subtle manner than italics. — The Storm Surfer 19:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to see an example of an encyclopedia article where the ambiguity of italicizing "words as words" is detrimental to the article. It seems to me that this would almost always be clear in context.  Using quotation marks (either single or double) makes for considerably more clunky sentences -- in the naming section of an article this would make the proper style:
 * "A group is called a 'pod,' 'herd,' 'school,' or 'bloat.' A male is known as a 'bull,' a female as a 'cow,' and a baby as a 'calf.'"
 * That's not elegant at all. --JayHenry 00:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I am in favor of keeping the italics, mainly because switching will cause a whole bunch of people to come out of the woodwork and start circular arguments about whether punctuation goes inside or outside the quotation marks. Strad 00:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, what on earth are a "pod," "herd," "school," and a "bloat."?? - MPF 22:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This problem is a survivor from the pre-computer era, where italics were not available except in formal publishing. The Chicago manual recommends using italics when it is unambiguously words being talked about as words, but in cases of definitions and the like it is less prescriptive, recommending italics the first time, followed by quotes thereafter, except when talking about the words in a purely linguistic sense. I wouldn't change what exists here, unless it is inconsistent within an article--but that's my approach to most MOS questions.DGG (talk) 03:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the status quo; italics should preferably be used for words as words. That said, if an editor prefers quotes, I have no fundamental disagreement, provided it is used consistently in a single article. — Brian ( talk ) 03:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, MOS is widely breached by WP articles generally, and FAs in particular; the latter must comply with MOS. So I've been right to prod and poke at nominators recently on this matter, to force a change to italics? Tony 09:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably not; this is like the possessive below: there are several reasonable ways to do something. One of them may well be most common, and recommending it here is (in itself) harmless. This one happens to be what I do myself.    But chivvying FAC nominees to comply with this one scheme, as long as they are consistently following some reasonable and comprehensible method, is not helpful to Wikipedia.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, FACs are specifically required to follow MOS. Either MOS needs to be changed to accept both methods or FACs have to follow the italics. Loosening the reigns just for one MOS requirement is not only messy, it's a slippery slope to chaos and a diminished authority of MOS. 03:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That was a mistake. Here, as often, all MOS can do is "point out the alternatives". FA should not be enforcing one valid method against others, even if MoS prefers one to others. MOS is a guideline, to be interpreted with common sense and an awareness of exceptions; not an "authority".


 * Treating it as an authority has led to the present state of FAC, where articles can be supported and opposed at great length without a single mention of content; what we are (after all) here for. This leads to FA for poorly sourced, poorly written, pieces of trash, like Daniel Webster; I was in on that review, and gave up on improving it. It has pretty pictures and lots of footnotes; but the sources are Profiles in Courage and a nineteenth century monograph by a professor of Eloquence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (outdent) Sorry to say that I find much of your comment unclear. What was a mistake? Including the following of MOS as a criterion for FAs? I agree with the retention of that criterion; please state what is wrong with it. In fact, to extend your point logically, the notice at the top of MOS ("editors should follow") should be removed. The opening statement frames MOS as virtually mandatory for all WP articles; again, what is the point of having a MOS if no one follows it? Its purpose is to provide a framework for reasonable cohesion, with practical options and exceptions. It does this by variously prescribing, recommending, and proscribing; in many cases, options are outlined, with good reason. I can't make out the meaning of your second paragraph, in which you appear to assume that FAC is in some kind of undesirable state related to the balance between content and other attributes. I spend a lot of time at FAC, and am unsure of your point. Tony 06:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But MOS is not a series of mandates, or should not be: it's largely a collection of advice and preferences, mingled with genuine instructions about not edit-warring for a particular style. This is what a manual of style ought to be; the purpose of one is largely to decide issues about which the author doesn't care, but has to do one way or the other.


 * Bullying other editors into "following the MOS" is a sign of unfitness to be a Wikipedian. Anyone who does misunderstands what our processes are; they did not descend from Mount Olympus, they are the current rough approximation to what we want, made of scotch tape and piano wire, as WP:PRO says.


 * More importantly, they misunderstand what English is and how it is written. For example, it is usually good advice to avoid "doesn't" in language of the level of formality suitable to an encyclopedia; but there are exceptions. Most obviously, quotations should left alone; but if there is a sentence where "doesn't" works well, and "does not" would be clumsy or ambiguous, it should be retained.


 * This sort of nonsense has always been more common at FA (and much more common at GA) than is good for Wikipedia; this is why many editors regard passing GA, especially GA/R, as a clear warning of a bad article. Have you really never met this before? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to change the current imperative (FAs) and requirement (all other articles) to follow MOS, why don't you propose changes in the two directives (one is at the top of MOS, the other within the FA Criteria)? Tony 09:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it is enough, for now, to avoid imperatives here, which is desirable in any case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Comprises vs comprised of
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)


 * 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  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 20:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Or just "the US is made up of 50 states". -- Hongooi 07:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The United States are 50 states... — The Storm Surfer 13:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 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". &mdash; Dave (Talk | contribs) 15:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * "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)
 * 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)


 * "A consists of X, Y and Z" (emphasises the components), "A comprises X, Y and Z" (emphasises the whole), and "X, Y and Z compose A" are all correct. "Is comprised of" is incorrect. Tony 09:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

All of the below say that "comprised of" is attacked as wrong, or something to that effect, although it is getting more and more common. I propose the comprise should only be used in the active voice, and something else (e.g. composed of, made up of) be used for passive voice. Dictionary.com Encarta Ask Oxford Merriam Webster Online American Heritage Dictionary V2 Vocabulary Building Dictionary i said 00:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Images below headings
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, &hellip;

I don't understand why this is a problem (and only if done with 2nd level headings). Anyway, this is against the Accessibility policy, so this guideline should be removed unless there are very good reasons to violate this policy. Best regards &mdash;surue&ntilde;a 18:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I see the contradiction. — The Storm Surfer 20:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As explained in Accessibility, 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! &mdash;surue&ntilde;a 01:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

I reverted this as it doesn't say it should be outside, it says it shouldn't be left aligned, which makes it much easier for the vast majority of people to read. The two alternatives are making it right aligned or putting it somewhere else in the section. Owain.davies 06:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 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? &mdash;surue&ntilde;a 10:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

Image size
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)
 * 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)

Wow, this discussion goes round like a virus... see another further up the page with a link to a very long debate on the issue in archive #75. It seems to me that the time for that stage is now, as a growing number of users bring this same complaint up almost every month. It went to the Village Pump once, and never came back. As it might be a coding or markup issue, what's the best way of getting some action on it? mikaultalk 14:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Too soon. — The Storm Surfer 18:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hawaii
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)
 * IMV, it's ridiculous to use the apostrophe (which should point the other way, anyway, if curly). Tony 08:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)