Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]

I was told this section must follow the references section but for the vast majority of articles the references section is so huge and long, no sane human being will ever be able to scroll beyond it to find External Links, so they are basically lost for the reader.

And secondly in actual books References is the normally the very last section of the book.

I don't understand the rationale for actually burying/hiding/making inaccessible the external links. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First claim would need some stronger foundation other than just your opinions about the inconvenience of scrolling. I assume you're talking about mobile users, who can collapse sections.
Second point is irrelevant, since books don't have an external links section. (It's also not true? Most books with an index place it after the bibliography.) Remsense诉 11:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
External links are normally few and between, they often contain super important stuff, e.g. home/main pages for the relevant articles, they often contain extremely valuable external resources, yet references (often more than a hundred of them) are pushed in front of them. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we have different views of the average EL section, since we seem to edit different types of articles. Remsense诉 09:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the way I would put it, regardless of the above distinction, is that articles should theoretically be "complete" documents without the EL section (else the content should be in the article), whereas literally no article is complete without its references, so the contiguity is logical.
Forgive me if I'm reading too much into your userpage, but most editors tend to care a lot about WP:V, so arguments that subordinate it aren't likely to be persuasive to other editors. Remsense诉 09:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale is that the references are part of the Wikipedia article text and the external links are external material. Whether or not you agree that the rationale sufficiently supports the placement, because so many articles are ordered in that fashion - and, as a result, so many readers expect that order - we're pretty much stuck with it. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> the references are part of the Wikipedia article text
I don't see how it's the case - to me they are as "external" as "external" links. They refer/link to external websites, just like "external links". Meanwhile let's say there's an article about some company and in the "External links" there's a link to this company home page. How is it "external"? Maybe you could first precisely explain the terms being used here because I have a strong feeling you're using them however you see fit.
> Whether or not you agree that the rationale sufficiently supports the placement, because so many articles are ordered in that fashion - and, as a result, so many readers expect that order - we're pretty much stuck with it.
It's not about "disagreeing". Like I said the "External links" section is normally very short and quite important as it may contain further material for the reader, e.g. a home page, various PDFs, etc. The References section is wholly explanatory and doesn't prompt the user to follow any of the links. It's a sort of confirmation/proof, just like in real books. Have you ever seen normal books' readers following the references? Almost no one ever does that except for (peer) reviewers. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

to me they are as "external" as "external" links.

This seems falsifiable on its face, since unlike external links there's...an explicit connection, usually very granular, that certain parts of the references section map onto the actual body of the article as written? so what you said seems ridiculous. unless you simply don't care about like, citations and WP:V at all, which is what I'm concerned about. Remsense诉 10:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Artem S. Tashkinov, do you have specific examples of extremely valuable resources in the EL section. One example you give is the home page associated with the topic but that's usually in the infobox near the top of the article and doesn't need to be repeated in the EL section. In many of the articles I work on the EL section contains a lot of material that either would be better used as a reference or deleted.
To your point about hard to get to the bottom of the article. On a computer, you can get there quickly by pushing the End key one time. ~Kvng (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's something here that I strongly disagree with: that putting information into an infobox makes it unnecessary to repeat it elsewhere. To me, everything in an infobox should be a summary of article content. An infobox can supplement an article by summarizing its content. It should never be used to replace and remove anything in an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple articles have such examples and since I don't want to look/be biased by offering the web pages that I'm heavily invested into, let's open the main page and go from it:
What I've noticed is that:
  • Mostly contemporary events, organizations, etc. have relevant "interesting" (in quotes, because how much something is interesting for someone is open for debate) links
  • The number of external links in the articles where they are present, is normally relatively small
  • I don't think there's going to be any harm in moving them in front (before) the references section
The references section is almost universally quite very long and makes discovering external links even by chance quite hard/impossible. That's my point. I don't want to push it hard, I just gave my logical reasoning why the status quo could be changed.
For mobile users both are collapsed by default anyways, so this issue that we're discussing now is mostly irrelevant for them.
Peace out :-) Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 07:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To address one point here: putting the external link section after the references section is required, by MOS:SECTIONORDER. This is the sort of issue where, if you don't follow MOS, your watchlist will overflow with gnomes "fixing" your deliberate variation, and when you complain that it is a deliberate style choice, you have a high chance of losing the debate. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as per @David Eppstein, the infobox is a quick summary of some key points of the content of the article, and the official website of a person or organisation must always be included as an External link, whether or not it's also present in an infobox. PamD 07:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks David Eppstein and PamD for the correction on official website. Still learning :)
I believe Artem S. Tashkinov is proposing a revision to MOS:SECTIONORDER placing EL before References and this is the right place to discuss this. Where would propose to move the EL section? I actually think it is more prominent and easier to find and access at the very end where it currently sits than somewhere in the middle of the article's endmatter.
Thanks for listing some examples. Those are a lot cleaner than most of the articles I work on. With the official website links as an exception, I would classify the material here as interesting but not critical. If anyone wants to raise the prominence of this information they could describe it in the body and use the EL as a footnote. For example in Boeing Starliner, the Spacecraft characteristics section could mention something like, "Boing has produced a series of videos detailing the design of the ship[1][2]" ~Kvng (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Boeing/Bigelow Crew Space Transport Vehicle on YouTube by Boeing (2010)}}
  2. ^ Boeing Unveils America's First Space Taxi, Unlocks Possibilities for Future on YouTube by Boeing (2014)

citation maintenance templates

[edit]

I've only recently begun seeing {{CS1 config}}, {{use list-defined references}}, and similar templates being added to articles. Speaking on the list at MOS:ORDER, do these count as "maintenance tags" (despite not being found at that page) for ordering purposes? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fourthords: Template:CS1 config#Usage says this template should probably be placed adjacent to {{use dmy dates}} or {{use mdy dates}} (if present), and Template:Use list-defined references#Usage says Place this template near the top of articles that use the list-defined reference format. What's the problem here? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ordered list at MOS:ORDER doesn't seem to indicate where such templates should go. Saying only adjacent to and near the top doesn't answer my question of where they should specifically be placed (as the rest of MOS:ORDER is laid out) and whether they count as "'maintenance tags' (despite not being found at that page) for ordering purposes". — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd group them together with "Templates relating to English variety and date format", as their own docs suggest. They aren't maintenance templates, since maintenance templates are meant to be removed sooner or later (once the problems they describe has been resolved), which is not the case with variety, format, and config templates such as these. Gawaon (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
10-4. If that's where they should go, MOS:ORDER would benefit from naming them more specifically, especially since {{use list-defined references}} (and any similar templates if they exist) doesn't have anything to do with language or date formatting. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Placement of the commons category template

[edit]

See also the section #External links above by User:Artem S. Tashkinov, this is not about that whole section but placement of Template:Commons category.

Could we please slightly change the part Links to sister projects of this guideline per Template talk:Commons#Should the box not appear inline? for the following reasons:

  • it is already widely practiced to put this template into the See also section rather than the external links and this is for good reasons where the guideline doesn't reflect actual practice
  • the References section is often very long, thereby in practice burying this box so nobody sees it (people rarely click or notice even if it was in the See also section)
  • the reason for why the External links was recommended for it seems partly or mostly be because if there are many images above the template it can move it into the References section (as depicted here) causing layout problems however the layout problem can be solved by:
    1. simply adding {{clear}} at the bottom of the See also section below the template (if not adding it to the template itself)
    2. since it only affects pages with images close to the see also section (or so many images that they get close it) that may push the template down, this info could be added to the guideline so that in such cases either it goes into the external links or needs a {{clear}} at the bottom of the See also section
  • one could recommend to only put it into the See also section if it is a well-populated well-organized WMC category or simply make that the established practice so people readily find more media for an article whenever WMC has lots of media that isn't included in the article itself
  • the associated Wikimedia Commons category for many pages can be very useful since only a few images are included in an article even if there are lots of them on WMC and people are relatively likely to be interested in/seeking more of them (e.g. more charts about the subject or files subcategorized by subtopic) – there is no good reason to make these links that inaccessible and disadvantage this other mature heavily-used well-maintained but barely-popular Wikimedia project and readers by making it so inaccessible. Files on WMC are very complementary to the article which is generally a text-based entry about the subject and of high interest to many readers which would appreciate if this link was more visible to them. User:Animalparty made some related points in the link above.

So if the External links section isn't moved to below the See alsos which also seems reasonable at least for most cases, I'd like to improve this part for the above reasons – let's discuss and please be clear and specific if you have any objections. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Places with more information"

[edit]

I've run across a number of articles lately that have a section at the end of the article called "Places with more information" - see for example Philip A. Traynor. These are typically lists of societies, libraries, museums, etc; they do not typically include direct links to any specific pages, resources, or collections related to the page topic. What should be done with these? Should they be incorporated into Further reading? Removed entirely? Something else? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong feeling about where to put this information but I support leaving it in. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Single-sentence paragraphs

[edit]

Re: [1][2]

I suspect that most of MoS lacks such precise definition and requires judgment calls. Effectively in practice, the current guideline says, "Single-sentence paragraphs bad", and I witnessed it being interpreted/applied exactly that way just today. It wasn't the first time. That's a problem that needs addressing (there can't be a CREEP objection to re-wording a sentence), and I'm open to alternative suggestions. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps delete the entire wishy-washy sentence? Or, if it is important to say, move it to Wikipedia:Basic copyediting? It doesn't really seem to be a layout issue. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized" is sane advice and don't see any good reason to change it. It doesn't say that such paragraphs are forbidden, but just that they should usually be avoided, which is a good rule of thumb and in agreement with my own editing experience. Gawaon (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Mandruss is trying to solve the problem of editors reading "should be minimized" as "should be zero." Why not just remove the whole sentence*? See Wikipedia:If MOS doesn't need a rule on something, then it needs to not have a rule on that thing.
* To clarify, the "whole sentence" I'm proposing to remove is the one in this article that is causing the problem: The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read.
- Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If everything that can be misread is removed from the MOS, the MOS will be empty. Why not just point people who have misread something to the actual wording so they can read it again? Gawaon (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't misread it the first time. The problem is disagreement about whether the case in question is part of the "minimum". The guideline provides no answer, no help with that. A guideline that effectively says "Use your own judgment" is not a guideline and should be modified or eliminated per CREEP. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some degree of judgement is always necessary, but that rule is still good advice. Gawaon (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which rule? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If everything that is good advice is placed in MOS, the MOS will be infinitely long. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That, however, is not an argument for taking stuff out that's already in (and wasn't added just recently). Gawaon (talk) 06:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, it's no better argument than "If everything that can be misread is removed from the MOS, the MOS will be empty."
The argument for taking the sentence out is that is is not a "rule" but is being taken as one by some editors. See Wikipedia:If MOS doesn't need a rule on something, then it needs to not have a rule on that thing.
What - besides "it's been there for ages" - is the argument for keeping it in this guideline (rather than removing it or moving it to an essay)? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Greetings and felicitations. Per the discussion I just started on Talk:Wolverton Viaduct, it seems that we forgot to update or involve WP:MOSSIS or Template:Commons category—or Template:Commons for that matter. :-/ —DocWatson42 (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The MOS:NOTSEEALSO guideline states (just slightly paraphrased) The "See also" section should not include red links or external links (including links to pages within Wikimedia sister projects. This seemed to me to apply but I was reverted here. Could we get a second opinion on whether these de.wiki links, which are redlinks on en.wiki, are appropriate or inappropriate? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This would come down to three questions:
PamD 20:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the guideline is clear and interpret it as it's written, which means not to include links to sister projects (including Wikipedias in other languages) nor red links, as those won't benefit our average reader. (Red links might benefit editors and links to the German Wikipedia might benefit readers fluent in German, but I'd argue that neither can be considered as "average".) Gawaon (talk) 06:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yet if these weren't links at all, we might still include them (although not in this section) as a list of the related local equivalent sites. That, IMHO, is what tips these over. And even as someone with very poor German, I can follow a link and read a map (again, a useful action for this case). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whether they belong into the "External links" section is a separate issue, to be discussed separately if somebody thinks so. But that doesn't magically change what's admissible for the "See also" section, which has its own clear rules. Gawaon (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way (nor has anyone suggested it) that they would belong under 'External links'
Even clear sister project links don't belong there. (They are floated CSS boxes, which are coded within the last section on the page. Although this is often 'External links', that's not where they're related to.) Andy Dingley (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

It is just an observation but the Further reading section reads An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized... and Any links to external websites included under "Further reading" are subject to the guidelines described at Wikipedia:External links.,

The "External links" section is also an optional bulleted list but it does not state this. It does state "Depending on the nature of the link contents, this section may be accompanied or replaced by a "Further reading" section." I added the bold. The content guideline does contain: "Wikipedia articles may include external links".

It would seem to be less confusing to add "An optional bulleted list" because the section is "optional". -- Otr500 (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every section discussed in Layout is optional. Perhaps a better solution would be to remove "optional" from Further reading. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Gawaon (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also section status

[edit]

My experience and general observation is that see also sections are slowly being trimmed back and deprecated during the article development process. This is because most of the time, as an article progresses from a stub, entries in the see also section can often be incorporated into the article and eliminated. However, at least one editor feels differently, and is keeping the spirit of the early 2000s alive. ("It's the 90s 2000s, Colin!") Instead of using the see also section for articles that can be incorporated into the article during the expansion process, they are using the see also section purely as a navigational tool. In this instance, they are using the see also section in a wide variety of articles to point to "list of x" articles that are generally related to the biographical subject, such as a list of their paintings or books, etc. In most cases, this usage duplicates links in the footer template. The user has several justifications as to why we should use the see also section as a navigational tool instead of the footer template, often having to do with limitations on mobile users and the uptick in article hits (or so it is claimed) when the see also navigational link is used. I don't have any strong feelings on this, but I think adding see also sections as a navigational tool is slightly unusual and isn't spelled out or explained anywhere in the MOS, and is also, in many cases, duplicating the link in the footer template. More input would be appreciated. @Randy Kryn: courtesy ping. Viriditas (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any examples. I see that there have been a few talk about dropping footer.templates all together since only about 20% of our readers have access to them. Moxy🍁 21:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be easier to just look at Randy's contribs. He's committed to this like peanut butter on jelly. However, if you just want to look at one article instead of a bunch, you can take a look at The Gust of Wind (Renoir), where the see also duplicates the same link in the footer (which I've now collapsed). I guess I'm just not familiar with Randy's position that the see also should be used for navigation, and that's not something I've seen in the MOS, although I could be missing it. My objection to footer templates is that they look terrible, so I wouldn't be sad to see them go. If there was a way to make them look professional, then I would be in favor of keeping them. Viriditas (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see the link at The Gust of Wind (Renoir) as a good addition as the footer is not see by the vast majority of our readers. This reminds me of what we do for country articles linking an index or an outline of the topic.... that is links that lead to a vast amount of information about the topic. Moxy🍁 22:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, could I see an example of such a country article link? I'm not familiar with it. Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Canada#See also as outlined at the essay WP:COUNTRYSECTIONS "See also – 'See also" sections of country articles normally only contain links to "Index of country" and "Outline of country" articles, alongside the main portal(s).". Moxy🍁 22:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, because it limits and restricts the type of entries at the project/country level. I'm not sure that applies or is relevant to biographies, works of art, literature, etc., but I could see how one could loosely apply it. I don't see anything at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography or any the other relevant projects, however. Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's something they should develop...... or at the very least develop some sort of anti-template spam that is seen at Meryl Streep#External links....that is one of the many examples used to justify why nav footers aren't visible in mobile view..... all related to masslink spam to loosely related articles and template limit concerns. WP:BIDIRECTIONAL is one of the worst ideas the MOS has and is simply ignored by those working on academic topics that are concerned about accessibility and structure of an article. WP:BIDIRECTIONAL results in mass template span that really only affects pop culture and biography articles and if one of the main reasons footers aren't seen in mobile view.Moxy🍁 22:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the education. I'm more confused than before I started this thread, but over time I've come to learn that's a sign of progress. Viriditas (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy: I’ve been thinking about this, and I don’t really see how the link is all that helpful in see also sections about individual paintings. Yes, it should definitely appear in a top-level article about the artist, but in an article about an individual painting I don’t find it helpful or informative. There is virtually no useful content, such as info about his different periods and styles, and the accuracy of the information is probably in doubt. If it was a verified list with relevant material I wouldn’t have a problem with it, but it’s not. We just have one editor spamming the list to every article about Renoir, and I don’t like that. How does the link help the reader of the article? I don’t find it helpful, so I don’t see how anyone else does. I also don’t think it’s the job of the article to facilitate navigation, but rather understanding. For this reason, I would prefer to remove the see also section and merge the link into the article itself. Viriditas (talk) 04:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think having the most important related articles in the "See also" section (provided they weren't already mentioned in the article text) is a good thing, since we should not forget that mobile readers (which are clearly the majority, as far as I know) won't see footer templates at all, so having the "See also" section as a kind of mini-footer template will certainly help them. It's indeed no longer the 2000s, and we should try to think "mobile first" now. Gawaon. (talk) 07:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I’m a bit confused by that, honestly. 90% of all cell phones are smartphones, and many people browse in desktop mode. So where is this whole mobile users aren’t seeing footer templates thing coming from? I assume you are talking about people using the app? Viriditas (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that you are referring to https://en.m.wikipedia.org, specifically. Viriditas (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Navboxes are coded to prevent their display on the Mobile Web site. This is because the layout is horrendous when the screen is 2.5 inches wide.
You can approximate the problem if you visit a page like Template:The Beatles and make your browser window as narrow as possible. The more 'nested' the template, the worse the problem. See Template:Concepts in infectious disease for an example of that. Navboxes were designed as wide tables, and those just don't fit into the smartphone format. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with navboxes and templates in iOS (except for playing video) but I assume other people do. Viriditas (talk) 08:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scroll to the end of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multidrug-resistant_bacteria on your phone. Make sure you are on the default-for-iOS mobile site, not switched to the desktop view. Do you see a navbox at the end of the page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I got it. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I talk about people using browsers on mobile, not about the app. When I open Wikipedia on my smartphone's browser, I don't see any navboxes. It happens automatically based on one's screen size, as far as I know – which is very reasonable. Like WhatamIdoing said, navboxes on phone screens would be a terrible user experience, and I'm quite happy that they are automatically hidden. But of course that means that we can't rely on them for anything essential. Gawaon (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I edit and write from my phone on a daily basis, but I use desktop mode, not mobile. Viriditas (talk) 02:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout&oldid=1253047525"