Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 75

Archive 70

←

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

→

Archive 80

Images

I deal with reviewing a lot of featured articles and I seek to make the following changes:

• If there are too many images in a given article, consider using a gallery. - galleries should not be recommended here. They go in commons. Articles should deal with content, with images serving to illustrate the content. Only in extreme cases should galleries be used.
• Starting a section with a left aligned image. Such images make the text harder to read. The eye is more accustomed to reading text in the following fashion left-right-left. Text should always start to the right
• More a greater proportion of images than text in the section. This causes the [edit] button to be pushed far down.
• Images should not be placed at the end of a section

=Nichalp «Talk»= 18:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with your fourth point; I see nothing wrong with including a right-aligned image near the end of a section. For that matter a left-aligned image that results in the following header/section pushed to the right can also work if the image is sufficiently tall.

In my view, image layout is too subtle an issue to be necessarily bound to the section structure. Images need to be placed such that they work within the article as a whole; considering each section in isolation doesn't result in a better overall design. Kirill Lokshin 18:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Putting an image at the end of a section often causes a layouting glitch with the [edit] button pushed into the subsequent paragraph. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That shouldn't happen unless there's another image (or other floating element) right below it; see WP:BUNCH. The answer is not over-stacking things rather than worrying about whether they're at the end of the section or not. Kirill Lokshin 07:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

While we are reviewing this section, I would also suggest that the current default thumb size be raised from 180px, or at least the stipulation that this be adhered to relaxed. I'm not sure when the current size was decided but would argue that the majority of modern displays are generally larger and of a considerably higher resolution than was the case five years ago. A 180px image on a 1000px display appears very small indeed. I understand the argument against this (readers setting larger screen font sizes) but the majority of visitors will (a) now have larger montors and (b) perceive, as I do, the current default size as marginalising images, to such an extent that pages look unbalanced; I regularly have to view such thumbs at 800x600 on their source pages in order to discern sufficient detail - unnecessary at 250px and a considerable inconvenience. I rarely see (newer) pages carrying image thumbs at 180px, presumably because of these factors. In a nutshell, if it being regularly and routinely ignored, as I believe it is, it really isn't much use as a guideline dimension. mikaul^talk 11:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree on this point; I've seen a few users going around removing image size tags in articles, citing WP:MOS. I don't think this is especially helpful as it often makes thumbnails illegible, but technically their actions are correct under the current guidelines. It's good to have consistent image sizing and I appreciate that for users who specify an image size in their preferences, having it overridden by a tag is annoying. I'm not sure how one goes about getting the MediaWiki default image size changed, but I'd suggest that would be the most sensible solution. 250px seems about right and is consistent with the image sizes used in Infoboxen. --YFB ¿ 12:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point. If you want the thumbs to be at 250 px, all you have to do is set your user preferences to that level. The point of having the user preferences function is that, since you prefer that size, you can view them at that size, without forcing other folks who don't prefer that size to have to view them that way. Likewise, for folks who have to view on smaller screens, and especially those whose eyesight necessitates them having their text size large, and who don't want big images squishing the text over, they can leave them at the 180px. Again, the point of having a user preferences feature is so that everyone can optimize the view to their needs. Bottome line is that some folks prefer them bigger, some prefer them smaller, and that's all good. But for you to advocate disabling that feature just so that you can view them at your preferred size without having to bother setting your user preferences seems a bit insensitive. Akradecki 16:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You've misunderstood me. I'm fully aware that I can change my preferences and I did not advocate disabling that feature, but my point was directed at the default Mediawiki settings which I believe are now out of date. For the average visitor, who doesn't have an account and isn't aware of the image size setting that comes with it, the default size is now too small to be consistent with the average monitor size and screen resolution. I would support a small increase in this default size to reflect that most users now have bigger displays. I find your suggestion that we should size the images for people with poor eyesight or large text sizes, who are very much in the minority, rather perverse. As you have pointed out, there are preference settings which could be used to cater for these users. Why should we reduce the utility of the encyclopaedia for the majority who visit to read, not to edit and who therefore don't require an account, in order to make things look better with unusual screen settings? --YFB ¿ 17:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I've had half an eye on this issue this week and (fortuitouly) the opportunity to view the site on monitors of various sizes and screen resolutions. While 250px makes for a decent thumb at 1024x768 and above, it does kind of overwhelm things at VGA (800x600) resolution. I'd suggest a 220px default as a good compromise. 180px at 1200px+ resolution is a postage stamp :o/ mikaul^talk 19:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Like I commented below (see here) I think all left aligned pics should push the section header to the right. Also see my comments below, left aligned pics are needed especially for thise with high res screens. Quadzilla99 09:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don’t follow: Why does having lots of pixels per inch make it especially necessary to put images on the left side of the text area? --Rob Kennedy 15:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The text shrinks in size noticeably on a high res screen, the images also do but not as much, so that there are large ugly blank gaps in the text on your computer screen—sometimes 2–4 inches—that don't appear on regular resolution computer screens. As I said, options to adjust text size on your computer or thumbnail preferences leave a lot to be desired. Also, the smaller text looks attractive on a high resolution screen after you get used to it, but it still leaves blank gaps in the text on many pages. To see what I'm saying, next time you see those gaps yourself, lower your screen resolution and you'll see they appear differently. Quadzilla99 16:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I definitely don't think that we should override the user's preferred settings. Perhaps the answer is to default-style thumbnails in ems? Andy Mabbett 20:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think there was any serious suggestion that overriding user settings was seen as an optimum solution. I don't know what you mean by "default style thumbnails in ems". Does the idea of an increased default image size (from 180px to, say, 220px per MIckStephenson's suggestion) seem reasonable to you? --YFB ¿ 03:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have recently had people telling me not to size images at Rugby, Warwickshire, which I find rather silly, so I would like to add my thoughts.

I find the 'lets not size images' argument to be rather unsatisfactory for the following reasons:

1. All images are not the same shape. It works fine when all images are square. Having all images the same size makes long thin horizontal images look tiny and long thin vertical images look enormous. It is silly to have all images at the same width regardless of their shape. In other words it is flawed.
2. You say that we should adjust our settings if we don't like it. Well appart from the above objections. Anonymous users (i.e the vast majority of wikipedia readers) do not have this facillity, so the let people choose argument doesn't really apply.

At the moment it says that images with 'extreme aspect ratios' are exempt, although it does not spell out what is meant by an 'extreme aspect ratio'. I would like to see it defined as images where the length of the image is significantly less than the width, as these can look tiny, or significantly longer than the width as these can look huge.

G-Man * 22:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I want to reiterate what others already stated here: Most readers of Wikipedia are anonymous users who are not logged in and have no idea they can log in and set a bigger default thumbnail size. Even many active editors don't seem to be aware of that setting. And, as an editor to set another default size for one self would kind of be an error since then you don't see what the readers will see.

The current 180px image size is way too small already at 800x600 screen resolution. So, I would like a default thumb size of at least 220px but preferably say 250px.

As long as the default image size is too small I will keep using 250-300px image size in the articles I edit. Yes, 300px is slightly large for 800x600 screens, but most users surf with 1024x768 in screen resolution nowadays. And Wikipedia often have very nice images, why should we hide them away? (And note, I myself use a screen resolution of 800x600 since I have sensitive eyes. But I often check how the articles look at 1024x768 too.)

Oh, and the argument that users with bad eyesight need smaller images so they get more room for larger text is ridiculous. Those users are the ones who really need large images so they can see them.

--David Göthberg 17:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your reasoning is that you are deliberately disabling a function of wikipedia. You are imposing your view on everyone else. Just because you disagree with it doesn't give you the right to impose your view on others, and doesn't give you the right to deliberatly disable user preferences. I have no problem with you campaigning to have the software changed to default to 250 px, or whatever, but what I have a problem with is that you aren't allowing others to choose what size they want to view it at. You're imposing your choice on them, instead. Akradecki 18:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it is actually you who impose your view on everybody else. If you have spent any time actually looking at articles in Wikipedia you ought to know by now that most editors do set their image sizes instead of using the default thumb size. And have you looked at the sizes used in the upper right corner infoboxes? Almost all infoboxes use a larger image size. Of course, lately there been some editors using bots to remove image size settings, even on the top image in the articles... (The Manual of Style actually states that the lead image might be excempt and may have a size setting.)

So, tell me, why should I even bother to make and upload images to Wikipedia if editors like you are going to remove their image size setting so they are not legible anymore? (Since as I said before, most readers of Wikipedia do not login and are not aware of that they can change their default thumb viewing size and never will be aware of it. And those that read Wikipedia on mirrored sites don't even have that option in theory.)

And when you removed the dispute tag on the sentences about image sizes in the Manual of Style you used this edit comment "rv - establish consensus that the MOS is disputed first". Ehm, consensus on a dispute being a dispute? And have you even bothered to read the comments above your comment? There are several editors that do dispute that guideline.

Oh, and let me remind you that the Manual of Style clearly states that it is only a "guideline". It is not a "policy".

--David Göthberg 23:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. Why should the vast majority of wikipedia readers have an illegible image size forced upon them, so a tiny minority of logged in users can choose their preferences, which is flawed anyway, due to the different shapes of images. This 'policy' is clearly seriously flawed and hasn't been thought through properly. I suspect that this will come up against a lot more opposition if there is any concerted attempt at enforcing it. Bots which go around removing image sizes should be banned IMO. G-Man * 19:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Not that this is a vote, but here's another user who's very much in favour of preference-respecting thumbnail sizes; primarily because of the accessibility issue (relating to user's eyesight, and also, separately, to small screen sizes). The so-called "problem" this causes already has a perfectly good solution: teach people to create accounts and log in, and set their preferences. The alternative is a "lowest common denominator" kind of solution. And why not create accounts? I've never understood the justification, apart from laziness. Logging in is actually *more* anonymous than not doing so since the username can be entirely fictitious and doesn't give away the IP except to certain admins - so there's no privacy reason not to do it. And convenience reasons? Well, lots of very popular sites seem to be good enough that people are prepared to register for them... the MySpace and Facebooks of the world, for example, so why do some people get an inferiority complex about WP and feel users wouldn't sign in if it were compulsory? – Kieran T ^(talk) 19:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would anyone log in if they only wanted to read articles? That is after all what the wikipedia is for. Many people only read WP glancingly and occasionally. Still that doesn't adress the problem of a one-size-fits-all set image size being applied to images of different shapes. Which can for example make a long thin horizontal image look tiny and a long thin vertical image look enormous at the same settings. I understand the problem of defferent monitor sizes etc, but there must be some better solution than this. G-Man * 21:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Why would anyone log in if they only wanted to read articles?" - to see dates and coordinates in their preferred format - and images at their preferred size. The "long thin" issue should be resolved by making the preferred/ default size a maximum in either dimension, or having "thumb-tall" and "thumb-wide" attributes; not by forcing one or another editors preferred size on all users. Andy Mabbett 21:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The "log in" argument just doesn't add up at all. The question of user registration is way, way bigger than the thumb size issue. Thumb size potentially creates minor visual inconveniences, at worst; compulsory registration affects the entire ethos of the "free encyclopedia" concept. Furthermore, apart from the lamentable situation G-man describes, there is a serious page layout issue with user-defined image sizes. How is an editor supposed to create a graphically compelling page when there is no agreed and defined standard for the size of page elements? Clearly, the current software arrangement is the correct one, it simply fails to address the problem of a majority of users (visitors and editors alike) viewing these pages at SVGA resolution or greater, and being presented (in theory, at least) with illutrative elements smaller than the average postage stamp. Wikipedia needs to move with the times and is extremely well-placed to do so. VGA screens are all but obsolete. The minority of users with viewing difficulties are most likely already well-accustomed to "tweaking" their favourite web pages and might well be encouraged to register with Wikipedia to do so. Let's get real about this: images and diagrams should be viewable as thumbnails, without recourse to their respective image pages. As screen real estate grows, wiki images shrink and therefore our thumb defaults must be enlarged accordingly. mikaul^talk 21:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. It seems to me that rather than setting pixels, the best solution would be to allow editors to set the proportion of the width of the article space that an image would take up (say 5% 10% 20% and so on) which would be uniform regardless of the monitor size. That would allow editors to set a page layout that would be constant regardless of the viewing device. Although I am not a technical person and so have no idea whether this is feesible or not. G-Man * 22:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"That would allow editors to set a page layout that would be constant regardless of the viewing device." - that will never be achievable. Andy Mabbett 11:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

(resetting indent) "Moving with the times" doesn't mean presuming that VGA screens are dead and everybody is at SVGA or higher resolution. The near extinction of VGA is probably true, (although not in third-world cyber-cafés, serving untold numbers of users!) but screens have moved in both directions. In the days of VGA, nobody was using Windows on a mobile phone — they are now. And even on car dashboards. We particularly need to remain aware that people are dipping into WP from all over the place. This is where technologies such as clever style sheets come into their own — and user preferences play an important part. The "everybody's on SVGA" argument is related to the question, "do we want to support all reasonably likely configurations and be future-proof, or do we want to proscribe / suggest just a few?". – Kieran T ^(talk) 22:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Kieran, are you saying then that because people use phone/pda/etc. displays, we should keep the 180px standard image size? Or just that we shouldn't use in-article overrides? I'd be with you on the second, in general, but I think we should bear the majority of users in mind when setting the defaults in software, which IMO means we should increase the default setting. G-Man: I would have thought that would be achievable by the devs. I'm not sure this discussion is sufficiently visible here - would anyone object to starting a thread at the Village Pump? --YFB ¿ 23:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the "what about PDAs" argument either. If I'm viewing the encyclopedia on a screen I know to be too small to view large images, then I'll make the effort to set a small thumb default in my prefs. It's the same deal as the "large text" point. The CSS can only do so much; at the moment it's a huge achievement just to have a page display the same on Explorer, Safari and Firefox, never mind PDAs and phones and SatNav displays. This is all about defaults, after all, and I'd say the default medium for these pages has to be considered to be the hi-res monitor, capable of showing something like a page from an encyclopedia, or we're all at sea. I'm sure there'll eventually be some wonderful way of reflowing these pages for a perfectly-formatted feed to your remote-viewing cranial implant phonecam display, but for now I'd suggest we just keep pace with current technology and agree on a SVGA-based standard thumb size. mikaul^talk 23:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

YFB, I'd agree that this warrants a wider audience. mikaul^talk 23:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a step ahead of you. :-) Feel free to correct me if I've made a bad job of summarising. --YFB ¿ 23:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

YFB - I meant we shouldn't be using article over-rides. Thanks for checking :) – Kieran T ^(talk) 23:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Image sizing, again.

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)

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)

From the discussion cited, there was, clearly, no such agreement. Andy Mabbett 21:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Read the discussion: Wikipedia is not a democracy. Andy Mabbett 23:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Soccer/Football

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. —^Jack_Lumber ^/tɔk/ 22:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

References

When did the MoS start explicitly to endorse the gimmicky templates for references? Was there discussion of this?

As these templates produce very small references, creating problems for those with visual impairment and for readers using small screens, shouldn't they be deprecated rather than endorsed? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

By “gimmicky templates,” are you referring to the citation templates, the <ref> and <references/> tags, or the {{reflist}} template? Fyslee added the text that now resides under the “Footnotes” heading on November 15.[1] Not quite a week later, Gunslinger47 added the link to Wikipedia:Footnotes for further information.[2]

The <ref> tag produces superscripted links to full references elsewhere on the page. If the superscript appears small, it’s because your browser is configured to show text in <sup> tags that way. The <references/> tag doesn’t do anything with font sizes. The {{reflist}} template wraps the <references/> tag in a <div> with class “references-small,” which sets the text smaller.

Firefox and Opera both allow users to specify minimum font sizes. When I set a minimum in Firefox, it seems to be effective at making the superscript text no smaller than the normal text.

Discussions about the visual appearance of references occurred in February 2006: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 45#Changes to Cite., Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 46#Changes to Cite. (continued). I didn’t check at Wikipedia:Footnotes, but it seems there wasn’t much discussion here about citation style. So let’s discuss it now. What exactly are you objecting to? --Rob Kennedy 19:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The list of references produced by the templates (such as {{reflist}}, {{ref2}}, etc., is in a very small font, and creates problems for those with visual impairments and for those using small screens (see [[Wikipedia:Footnote3#Footnotes|Footnote3, n.4). <References/> produces a perfectly acceptable and readable list without this handicap. Those insisting on its use say, essentially, that that's a small price to pay for the supposed prettiness of the results, and anyway visually impaired people can increase the size of their fonts. The first part is simply unacceptable; the second part isn't a good response — why should such readers have to read using a much larger font than is comfortable for the main text just so that they can read the notes? That some browsers offer a way round this isn't enough; it would have to be all browsers (or, at least, all browsers that show different font sizes; Lynx, for example, isn't affected). I don't think that IE allows this, and (like it or not) it's extremely common.

The reason that many printed publications use a smaller font for the notes is to decrease the space taken up; Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopædia, and I can see no good reason for using anything but <references/>. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Notes and references are usually by convention smaller in font size. To increase font size in Internet Explorer, simply go to "View" menu, then the "Text Zoom" option, then just change the desired font size (100%, 200%, etc). RaNdOm26 15:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, it will be very foolish for an internet browser that cannot modify font sizes. ALL internet browsers I've used CAN do it, and i'm currently using both Safari and Internet Explorer. RaNdOm26 15:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Random, you’ve missed the point. When you simply increase the browser font size in order to make the small text readable, you also make the normal body text larger than needed. That’s what Mel said “isn’t a good response,” above, and I agree. What I pointed out before that was that some browsers let the user specify a minimum font size, so requests for smaller text will be ignored. Set the minimum size equal to the normal size, and no text will be smaller than what’s readable. Internet Explorer doesn’t support that feature, apparently, which is unfortunate since it’s really the best solution. By setting a minimum font size, users affected by small fonts will benefit on all sites they visit, not just Wikipedia. --Rob Kennedy 01:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The desire to take up less space isn’t just about the danger of using too much paper. That danger obviously isn’t an issue on a Web page. I see some large reference sections and think, “wow, this is taking up a lot of space.” It’s not because I’m afraid of running out of space at the bottom of the page, but simply because I find the section bulky and clunky. The smaller text lessens that effect. I won’t try to judge whether the price is large or small.

Your reference to the fourth footnote of Footnote3 doesn’t make much sense. For one thing, page it links to says almost nothing about font size, and certainly doesn’t advise that fonts can become too small to read or that footnotes should not be set smaller. And the footnote merely says that “if footnotes are too small, then they are difficult for some people to use.” That’s pretty vague because it doesn’t say how small “too small” is. Is it your position that any size smaller than the browser’s default should be considered too small? --Rob Kennedy 01:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Mel Etitis keeps on insisting that reflist should not be used per MoS but if you check the MoS it could be used and almost all articles including featured and good articles use reflist! He says that only the references/ should be used per MoS!-chris^_^ 02:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, this is the MoS Talk page; it's not a question of checking it, but of deciding what it should say. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's very clear to me that if someone wants to change the size of EVERY references section, the way to do it is by changing the CSS, not by wrapping them all in tags. — The Storm Surfer 03:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the change in size that great? Have there been complaints that reflist is too small to read? I can hardly tell the difference so i don't think people who are able to read the normal text unassisted would have a issue with reading the reflist text unassisted.Harlock jds 10:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)