Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Changing placement of Template:Subject bar, Template:Portal bar, and Template:Sister bar

I propose making the following change to MOS:ORDER:

4. End matter

  1. Succession boxes and geography boxes
  2. {{Sister bar}}[a]
  3. {{Portal bar}}[b] or {{Subject bar}}[c]
  4. Other navigation footer templates (navboxes)[1]
  5. {{Taxonbar}}
  6. Authority control templates
  7. Geographical coordinates (if not in the infobox) or {{coord missing}}
  8. Defaultsort
  9. Categories[d]
  10. {{Improve categories}} or {{Uncategorized}} (These can alternatively be placed with other maintenance templates before the article content)
  11. Stub templates

Background

Problems caused by current MOS:ORDER

Looks strange

As discussed last year, placing {{Portal bar}} in between navboxes looks strange. For example, Javascript currently looks like:

Reader confusion

As discussed at Template talk:Portal bar, users may be confused by having {{Portal bar}} abut against navboxes. They may think that the portal bar is an open subbox of the previous navbox, and not understand the "Show" button. The following example from Charles III was discussed:

In this case, some editors were concerned that readers would think that the Portal bar was the content of the "Links to Related Articles". There was no visual fix to {{Portal bar}} that both fixed the problem and was found to be acceptable by a large fraction of editors.

{{Subject bar}} currently follows the placement for {{Portal bar}} (although it is not explicit in the MOS). This produces a strange ordering when {{Subject bar}} contains both {{Portal bar}} and {{Sister bar}}: a list of external interwiki links is buried in the navboxes. For example, the External links section of Polar Bear currently has a navbox in the middle of the ELs and interwiki links:

No guidance for Template:Sister bar

Currently, editors do not have guidance of where to place {{Sister bar}}.

Proposed solution

Let's place {{Sister bar}}, {{Portal bar}}, and {{Subject bar}} before all of the Navboxes. This will eliminate the odd layout of putting the portal box inside a stack of navboxes, will eliminate any confusion about the portal bar being a subbox, and will place {{Sister bar}} immediately at the bottom of the External Links section (if there are no succession boxes). After changing MOS:ORDER, the examples above would look like:

Javascript

Charles III

Polar bear


Discussion regarding template placement

What do other editors think? Pinging previous discussants (Lord Belbury—Michael Bednarek—Krisgabwoosh—DocWatson42—Bahnfrend—Trialpears—Nikkimaria—Redrose64—Kvng) — hike395 (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I feel the best solution here is moving Portal bar and similar to after Taxonbar and authority control which would resolve the problems with it looking strange and interwikis being buried. The big difference though is that putting portal bar last keeps everything (roughly) ordered by importance to our readers. More readers are looking for other articles than portals and that should be reflected in the order. The possible reader confusion with the show button is a potential problem, but I have no idea how widespread it is and feel it is a lower priority than ordering them by importance. Also noting that this is what I suggested doing in 2021 with lukewarm reception. --Trialpears (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
I saw you suggested this --- my concern with that solution is that it will drag {{Subject bar}} even further away from the EL section, so we are putting sister project links in a very surprising place (at the very bottom of the page) for ~2000 articles. Sister project links are more important than navboxes, I think. (It's unfortunate that {{Subject bar}} mashes together portal and sister project links). — hike395 (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
That's another concern I hadn't considered. I don't see it as huge one since it should in the vast majority of cases still be on screen at the same time regardless. The exception being if you have something monstrously large like the succession boxes at Charles III or too many navboxes that should be collapsed. Using {{Sisterlinks}} is also a solution and then you get a box floating to the right of the external links both making the grouping more logical and in many cases making the space usage more efficient, but that isn't that relevant to the main discussion. --Trialpears (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
No, portals should be before authority control, as internal links come before external links. The theory that order should be based on likely importance to readers is interesting but not what we're currently doing more broadly. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: what do you think of the original proposal? — hike395 (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I think the placement you've proposed for {{portal bar}}/{{subject bar}} makes sense. I'm less sure about {{sister bar}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Support I completely agree with the proposal. It appears that @Nikkimaria: misunderstands the reason for it. The proposed arrangement has nothing to do with likely importance to readers, but is intended mainly to prevent "Looks strange" (see above) and "Reader confusion" (again, see above). Bahnfrend (talk) 08:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I think Nikkimaria was reacting to Trialpears' comments, not the proposal — hike395 (talk) 09:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose change As stated, above, internal links come before external links, so the portal bar should be above authority control. As for the issue of readers confusing the portal bar with an open navbox, I've still yet to see proof that this is a widespread issue and so oppose a change to order or portal bar size/layout/etc. until that's demonstrated. As of now, I'm satisfied with the status quo. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose change as stated by Krisgabwoosh. Also, I feel that the order should give priority to the subject of the article—{{Medical resources}} where appropriate, followed by the navbar(s) on subject of the article in descending order of specificity, Portal bar, Sister links bar, Taxon bar, and Authority control bar. As side notes,
1). I favor adding back Interlanguage links to the Appendices list (with a note that they are to be phased out wherever possible, with the links added to Wikidata), as I have run across two of them recently, one in the last few days.
2). I'm wondering why {{Coord}} templates are at the bottom of the page, instead of at the top, where they display.
—DocWatson42 (talk) 07:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
I stand by my [edit: opinion about the placement of that template] in the current Medical resources discussion. —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Let me clarify, since PamD has expressed confusion. I would prefer:

1. Before the article content

  1. Short description[2]
  2. {{DISPLAYTITLE}}, {{Lowercase title}}, {{Italic title}}[3] (some of these may also be placed before the infobox[4] or after the infobox[5])
  3. Geographical coordinates (if not in the infobox) or {{coord missing}}
  4. Hatnotes
  5. {{Featured list}}, {{Featured article}} and {{Good article}} (where appropriate for article status)
  6. Deletion / protection tags (CSD, PROD, AFD, PP notices)
  7. Maintenance / dispute tags including {{Improve categories}} or {{Uncategorized}}
  8. English variety and date style[6]
  9. Infoboxes[e]
  10. Language maintenance templates
  11. Images
  12. Navigation header templates (sidebar templates)

4. End matter

  1. {{Medical resources}}
  2. Succession boxes and geography boxes
  3. {{Portal bar}}[f] or {{Subject bar}}[g]
  4. {{Sister bar}}[h]
  5. Other navigation footer templates (navboxes)[7]
  6. {{Taxonbar}}
  7. Authority control templates
  8. Defaultsort
  9. Categories
  10. Stub templates
  11. Interlanguage links (for the few legacy links that do not match the Wikidata links in the left sidebar)
  1. ^ The primary purpose of this template is for when using Template:Sister project links would cause formatting problems. It is part of the "External links" section.
  2. ^ The primary purpose of this template is for when using Template:Portal would cause formatting problems.
  3. ^ Subject bar is a convenience wrapper around {{Sister bar}} and {{Portal bar}}
  4. ^ While categories are entered on the editing page ahead of stub templates, they appear on the visual page in a separate box after the stub templates. One of the reasons this happens is that every stub template generates a stub category, and those stub categories appear after the "main" categories. Another is that certain bots and scripts are set up to expect the categories, stubs and interlanguage links to appear in that order, and will reposition them if they don't. Therefore, any manual attempt to change the order is futile unless the bots and scripts are also altered.
  5. ^ It is important that hatnotes and maintenance/dispute tags appear on the first page of the article. On the mobile site, the first paragraph of the lead section is moved above the infobox for the sake of readability. Since the infobox is generally more than one page long, putting hatnotes etc. after it will result in them being placed after the first page, making them less effective.
  6. ^ The primary purpose of this template is for when using Template:Portal would cause formatting problems.
  7. ^ Subject bar is a convenience wrapper around {{Sister bar}} and {{Portal bar}}
  8. ^ The primary purpose of this template is for when using Template:Sister project links would cause formatting problems. It is part of the "External links" section.
  1. ^ Rationale for placing navboxes at the end of the article.
  2. ^ Discussed in 2018 and 2019.
  3. ^ Per the template documentation at Template:Italic title/doc#Location on page
  4. ^ Per the RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive 14#DISPLAYTITLE
  5. ^ Per the template documentation at Template:DISPLAYTITLE#Instructions
  6. ^ The matter was discussed in 2012, 2014, and 2015.
  7. ^ Rationale for placing navboxes at the end of the article.

My proposed changes are bolded.

  • Place the {{Coord}} and {{Coord missing}} templates where the "Coord" template is actually displayed, so that it can be found, rather than buried out of sight at the bottom of the article.
  • Place the {{Improve categories}} or {{Uncategorized}} with the rest of the maintenance templates, in part so that they can be found, rather than buried out of sight at the bottom of the article.
  • The standalone "Portal bar" is actually a little shorter than the one in the "Subject bar", and placing it there follows the internal links/external links standard (which I admit I differ with in the case of the "Medical resources" template—it should be easy to find for novice users).
— DocWatson42 (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 Question: How are the external links in {{Medical resources}} different than the ones in {{Taxonbar}} or {{Authority control}}? These all seem to be links to external databases, but I don't understand the links in {{Medical resources}}, so maybe they are different in kind or importance in some way?
 Question: Does having full-width boxes before the succession boxes look good to you? If that is considered acceptable by multiple editors, I would suggest also putting {{Sister bar}} before the succession boxes, because that would make them appear as part of the EL section (where they truly belong). — hike395 (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  1. The external links in {{Medical resources}} are the same type as in {{Taxonbar}} and {{Authority control}}.
  2. They do not. And I'm generally in favor of using {{Sister project links}} whenever possible.
DocWatson42 (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Common Section names

I am considering doing some Wikipedia editing. I normally confine my work to talk pages at present. I would find a list of common section headings with brief usage comments useful in a page like this. E.g. “See Also” with notes on why it is good to use and dangers in using it.

Perhaps an easy way to find projects recommended headings as well. CuriousMarkE (talk) 05:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

For recommended project headings, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Specialized layout. I'm adding a link to that in the Order of article elements section.
With respect to usage comments, that may be a subject for an essay, but seems like wp:KUDZU for a guideline. I may be reading too much into your post, but I think it may be helpful for you to worry less about making a mistake and concentrate more on being wp:BOLD, leaving it to other editors to fix any technical issues. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Adding a line/space between top templates and Infobox template or article beginning

I think with the added amount of hidden templates, article information notices, maintenance tags and other notices that precede the article, that a space/line break should be made standard separating all the normal and accessory notices from the Infobox, to better differentiate between what the reader/editor sees as the article and the numerous templates placed above the article beginning. I believe his helps in editing, especially in vector, and makes it easier to add other, less used templates such as Merge, Split, Copyedit, Cleanup, etc. While editing, this area can then be pretty much ingnored and you can get right into the article. In other words, this would put a line break between position #7 and #8 in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Order of article elements on the project page. I appreciate any comments or suggestions. Thanks, GenQuest "scribble" 02:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm slightly concerned that we will get more unwanted blank lines if a template on either side of this newline doesn't generate any content. I don't believe there are any high use templates susceptible to this issue, but I know it's a risk from when I messed up with {{Short description|none}} generating thousands of excess newlines a couple years ago. If this occurs it would be very difficult for most editors to diagnose and would likely be reintroduced later by well meaning editors trying to follow the guideline. --Trialpears (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm really talking about a break between the top-templates, and the Infobox/article beginning, such as: 
{{Short description|American phlebotomist (1951–2020)}}
{{Use American English|date=March 2023}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=March 2023}}

{{Infobox person
| image = {Placeholder}.png
| caption = joe performing in 2011
etc...
GenQuest "scribble" 02:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I sometimes insert linebreaks in this frontmatter stuff to improve source code readability. I haven't seen this affect layout. Some editors undo it anyway. I do not fight them. Not a big deal. Why do you think it is necessary to create a layout policy for this? ~Kvng (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Because it makes it easier to edit the mark-up/source code in the header (hidden template) area with the inserted line break. (They don't affect the readability at all.) I add them also, but they are constantly removed or reverted. Since they don't affect what the reader sees, why not make it easier on us gnomes and article editors, and just leave the break? . GenQuest "scribble" 00:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Blank lines above the infobox can cause an extra-tall gap to appear above the lead section text. This is because {{Short description}}, {{Use American English}} and {{Use mdy dates}} are themselves treated as a blank line. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Redrose64 A single line break/separator has zero-effect on top-space or where the article begins on any of my devices. Try it out. GenQuest "scribble" 00:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
@GenQuest:I notice you've removed some line breaks between infobox and lead. Why not leave a break there to help editors find the lead? Dicklyon (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to me on my talk page that sometimes when I put a blank line between an infobox or such template and the lead, extra space appears in the rendered article, and that that's because the template source has a "noinclude" section at its end, with a newline before the noinclude tag. If those templates were fixed to not have that newline (as many templates are already), the problem goes away. So, is it OK if I fix a bunch of templates? I find 6900 college football templates that transclude Template:CFB Standings End and follow that by a noinclude; I haven't yet checked how many have a newline between; looks like most or all do. Example fixes: [1], [2]. Not pretty in the template source, but allows prettier article source without creating a visible problem in rendered articles. Dicklyon (talk) 09:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Of those 6900 templates I mentioned, about 230 don't need to have a newline removed. So about 6570 to fix... Dicklyon (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I agree that removing the newline in the template source code is not pretty. A large portion of relevant edits on those 6000+ templates are mine. I put the newline in there for readability. Is there an elegant way to make it so the newline doesn't get transcluded into article? I suspect this may require some sort of change to the fundamental coding of Wikipedia? If we have to go the brute force route, should we get a bot to run though these and remove all those newlines? We may want to consider doing the same for sports other than football; cf. Category:American college sports standings templates. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I'd be happier to see it done in a better and more automated way. I've just done a bunch of football edits where I was putting a blank line before the lead, which is something I had done in lots of other areas before, when a couple of editors noticed this unusual side effect. I've stopped adding such spaces, but for fixing the existing problems, taking blank lines out of the article source seems like the hardest and most unsatifying approach. It would be nice if the this kind of noinclude placement wouldn't bring in the extra newline, but I bet it's hard to change that in the underlying code, too. I can do this football batch with JWB in a few hours. Dicklyon (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
When a template is transcluded, the whole of the template code is copied. Only then are the <noinclude>...</noinclude>, <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> and <includeonly>...</includeonly> tags processed. So if a template has newlines before a <noinclude>, those newlines will be included in the transcluding page, see WP:NOINCLUDE (the part just after the table). To suppress them will require a fundamental change to the MediaWiki template parser, and you would need to file a feature request at phab:. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured it would be too hard to fix something so deeply ingrained. I just checked, and found that the pattern }}<noinclude> followed by newline is quite common (JWB stops enumerating at 10000). So this approach of not putting a newline before the noinclude tag seems to be a pretty standard way to avoid the problem. Dicklyon (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
So, for clarity, where are the hidden "noinclude" tags? GenQuest "scribble" 17:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Who mentioned hidden "noinclude" tags? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Not hidden exactly, but at the end of the source code for the templates, such that putting a blank line after the template invocation turns into two blank lines. See my recent contribs. Dicklyon (talk) 08:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
@GenQuest: In which case, tags like these. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I made a test-case example to illustrate the problem, using a pair of adjacent templates that I have not modified, one of which has the problem (due to this edit that put a newline before the noinclude tag): User:Dicklyon/Template_test. I also did a search through 10,000 templates with the noinclude tag at the end of a line, and found only 12% of them had a newline before the tag. So it seems to be a widespread practice, though not universally appreciated, to not put a newline before a noinclude tag (at least at the end of a template's source). I've done ahead and removed the extra newlines from the 6900 college football templates I mentioned, so that particular corner of wiki template space won't cause us more trouble. Dicklyon (talk) 08:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

After a discussion on my talk page, I realized that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Links to sister projects should be updated slightly. The current wording states:

Links to Wikimedia sister projects and {{Spoken Wikipedia}} should generally appear in "External links", not under "See also". If the article has no "External links" section, then place sister links at the top of the last section in the article. Two exceptions: Wiktionary and Wikisource links may be linked inline (e.g. to an unusual word or the text of a document being discussed).

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Wikipedia logos.

More precisely, box-type templates (such as {{Commons category}}, shown at right) have to be put at the beginning of the last section of the article (which is not necessarily the "External links" section) so that boxes will appear next to, rather than below, the list items. Do not make a section whose sole content is box-type templates.

If box-type templates are not good, either because they result in a long sequence of right-aligned boxes hanging off the bottom of the article, or because there are no external links except sister project ones, then consider using "inline" templates, such as {{Commons category-inline}} in the "External links" section, so that links to sister projects appear as list items, like this:

...and I propose that this section should be replaced with (main points/changes in bold):

Links to Wikimedia sister projects and {{Spoken Wikipedia}} should generally appear in "External links", not under "See also". If the article has no "External links" section, then place the sister link(s) in a new "External links" section using inline templates. If there is more than one sister link, a combination of box-type and "inline" templates can be used, as long as the section contains at least one "inline" template.

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Wikipedia logos.
  • Box-type templates (such as {{Commons category}}, shown at right) have to be put at the beginning of the "External links" section of the article so that boxes will appear next to, rather than below, the list items. (Do not make a section whose sole content is box-type templates.)
  • "Inline" templates are used when box-type templates are not good, either because they result in a long sequence of right-aligned boxes hanging off the bottom of the article, or because there are no external links except sister project ones. "Inline" templates, such as {{Commons category-inline}}, create links to sister projects that appear as list items, like this:

If an external link is added and/or exists in the "External links" section, the "inline" templates linking to sister projects can be replaced with their respective box-type templates.

These wording changes remedy a few issues:

  • Placing a box-type template in the "References" section (which could be the last section of the article) causes the reference list to be formatted improperly if width customization options are used in the {{Reflist}} template. With the new wording, there's instruction that box-type templates are only placed in an "External links" section where there is a very low chance of there being such issues.
  • This ensures clearer instruction about how and when to add sister link templates to the article by always having the templates in an "External links" section, preventing the need for moving links to an "External links" section in the event the section is created later (which is the case with the current instruction, even if it is not stated specifically.)
  • The new instruction reduces WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP by not specifying which sister projects are allowed to be linked "inline" by themselves. (Currently, the passage states that only links to Wiktionary and Wikivoyage can be by themselves as inline templates in an "External links" section).
  • The new formatting and wording more clearly defines what "box-type" and "inline" templates are by making their descriptions list items with definitions.
  • Instruction has been added stating the circumstances when "inline" templates can be replaced with "box-type" templates, which currently is not present in the section.

...Thoughts? Steel1943 (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Took a nice large dose of fukitol after this edit/revert. Good luck, ya red tape-wrapping bummers. Steel1943 (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
TL;DR. Maybe make these changes, one a day, and include the explanation for each in your edit summaries. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The "TLDR" can disappear if the first passage is ignored; it's just the current state of the text for reference. Steel1943 (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Okay, it's been over a week with no "support/oppose"-style feedback, so I'm going to assume this is uncontroversial per WP:SILENCE and make the changes. Steel1943 (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm late to the party, but I support the change, as I prefer consistency in article order, and would also welcome a similar change for Portal templates/See also sections. I also don't mind sections whose sole content is box-type templates, but I avoid making them since others object. —DocWatson42 (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Maybe there was no feedback for a week because your post is TL;DR. As I suggested above, I'm okay with you making bold edits to find out what folks think of your changes. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, they found out, but couldn't handle the revert of their work. Too bad, but if that's how they react when someone disagrees with them, then it's probably a good thing they've decided to leave. It saved themself from warning for incivility. BilCat (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, I'm not at all happy at how that played out – I had just no idea that the user felt so strongly about this rather trivial matter, and greatly regret having contributed, even unwittingly, to the departure of a valued long-term editor. That said, I oppose the proposed changes, both on the grounds of instruction creep and because creating a whole extra section for one sister-project link is quite excessive. Unfortunately, EL sections have a tendency to attract spam, so are probably best avoided unless actually necessary. If we absolutely have to have yet more rules, I'd suggest something along the lines of "Do not create an external links section just for sister-project links". Oh, I see that my revert was undone by Butwhatdoiknow on the grounds that consensus was not required; I disagree – once a bold edit has been challenged, consensus is indeed required to re-instate it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers - You and I agree that when an edit is reverted for a substantive reason, such as you have provided above, the editors should resolve the challenge before the change is reinstated. WP:QUO. Where we diverge is whether it is appropriate for an editor to revert without giving a substantive reason. I believe it isn't. WP:DRNC.
In this case, User:Steel1943 first provided a lengthy explanation of their proposal on talk. They then waited a significant period of time and received two responses. One neutral and one positive. Finally, they make their non-bold edit, only to see their thorough and patient work undone by a substance-free hit-and-run revert. I can see how frustrating the experience must have been for them. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: This discussion was brought to my attention following a revert. While some of WP:MOSSIS seems pretty clear, some of it is left a bit ambiguous. That may be intentional (speculation), to allow for situations in which a hard rule would not be a good idea; instead of an exception to a hard rule, it's left a bit ambiguous. I agree that perhaps WP:MOSSIS needs a clarification update, but I wouldn't advise going at a thumbtack with a maul. Personally, I don't mind § External links containing only one sister project, provided it's the bulleted inline-type. Sister projects are external to Wikipedia as their own project, with their own set of rules and templates (though I find this annoying at times). The reasoning against the box-type in such a situation is the excessive white space it creates. I would suggest (my personal guide) that a box-type sister project template is a good idea in §El if there is at least three bulleted external links, or when it's otherwise necessary/unavoidable (taking font/zoom/platform into account). Again, I would write that as a guide, not a strict policy. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
    Note: I'm specifically mentioning Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects#Where to place links (WP:MOSSIS), while this discussion has called Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Links to sister projects. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

"Mos:FURTHER" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mos:FURTHER has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 11 § Mos:FURTHER until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposed modification to further reading sections

In 2014, we added the following line to MOS:FURTHER: "Any links to external websites included under "Further reading" are subject to the guidelines described at Wikipedia:External links."

I'd like to tighten that requirement by pointing to Wikipedia:Reliable sources instead of external links. My understanding of what differentiates further reading sections from external links is that they are intended to hold reliable sources anyway ("publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject", my emphasis).

This change would also allow paywalled sources in further reading sections, which seems fair given that we currently allow editors to list offline sources that may or may not require money to acquire, and WP:PAYWALL allows their use elsewhere in articles. Ed [talk] [OMT] 01:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Just so it is clear in my head, your proposal would not change the criteria for publications to appear, just the criteria for when links may be placed within a listed publication entry. Do I have that right? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
@Butwhatdoiknow: The change would require "further reading" entries to be reliable sources, and remove the requirement that they meet the "external links" guideline. (I don't believe EL would add any benefit above RS, and it would maybe even conflict because EL doesn't apply to references.) Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
But the sentence you propose to change only applies to "links to external websites" (it doesn't include other entries). Maybe the RS link should appear elsewhere in the FURTHER - perhaps in a new sentence? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 07:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Many articles don't require literature to be "reliable sources" because they are not "sources", just literature the reader may be interested in that is related to the topic. Let's not fix what is not broken and let's WP:NOTCENSORED be taken into account also. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
    NOTCENSORED does not apply to every removal of anything; it has a specific meaning that isn't relevant to the rationale for the proposed change. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
    In your opinion but I respect that you disagree with me. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
    @Thinker78: Thanks for your thoughts! Do you have examples of articles that use further reading sections for non-reliable sources? I imagine it would be for self-published sources that aren't available online? I don't believe I've seen this before. I'd be open to tweaking this proposed change to allow for what I'm thinking is an edge case. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
    I don't have examples of articles at hand.[a] But I would imagine one benefit of not restricting it is if someone wants to know more about a fringe theory that is not supposed to be treated extensively in the article body (specially maybe the author of it which may not be reliable source), the Further Reading section could be the appropriate place to go. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. There is already an external links section that can hold external links per the external links guidelines. This clarification for this section seems quite reasonable, and as noted allows informative publications that otherwise are technically not permitted. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support – Maybe "(and) reputable/scholarly" captures the spirit of help interested readers learn more about the article subject. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - WP:RS would exclude WP:PRIMARY sources which I see as acceptable Further reading material. I do support lifting the current implied restriction on paywalled material. I suspect that was an unintentional consequence of adoption of WP:EL in 2014. ~Kvng (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:PRIMARY sources may usefully go there, as Kvng points out. Another option might be partially fictionalized accounts of historical events – clearly not WP:RELIABLE, but may nevertheless be good for this section, if identified accordingly. Or even biased or otherwise problematic accounts, again provided they are clearly labelled as such and no undue weight is given to them. "Further reading" content is not actually used as sources, hence we can afford to be a bit more tolerant in what we accept there. Gawaon (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ When I said many articles I was thinking specially non-science articles, like fiction, movies, novels

Are "References" sections obsolete in light of Citation lists?

Perusing the Nationalism article, I couldn't help but feel its reference section felt obsolete, in light of the much more complete citation list above it. I'm sure this applies to (probably) every article with such a section, given all citations automatically go into the citation list. In most cases, reference lists only repeat the relevant information of the citations ad tend not to be updated in line with them either. It seems they just bog articles down, with the obvious exception of when those citations are not full citations. But perhaps I'm missing some other function they provide? Yr Enw (talk) 09:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

That article is no good. The citation list is poor and incomplete. It lists books but not the relevant page numbers. When you have books, you either need the reference section along with cite templates, or you need to supply the page references next to the footnote references with rp templates. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
It looks to me like somebody began to use WP:CITESHORT but gave up partway through. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed definition of 'body'

The Wikipedia:Glossary did not have an entry for the body of an article, nor is there one here at MOS:LAYOUT. The definition at MOS:LAYOUT is merely implied negatively by what it isn't; namely, it's what's left after defining everything else: i.e., it's not the lead or table of contents, and not the Appendixes or bottom matter. Of course, not all articles have a lead, table of contents, or appendixes, and anyway, a negative definition isn't appropriate for a glossary entry. So I've attempted a positive definition. Here's what I came up with:

Body – The part of an article containing detailed content about the article topic, as defined by its title, excluding the lead, if any. The body follows the lead and may be followed by optional appendix section(s). For short articles with no lead or appendixes, the body may be the entire article, with any end matter following after.

Note that MOS:BODY points to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Body sections, and nothing there disagrees with this definition, although it never actually defines it. I've added this definition to the Glossary just to have something, but will adjust it to conform to any consensus reached here. Your feedback would be appreciated. Mathglot (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

All good except for "appendix sections". I've not seen or used that term around here. I prefer "end matter". ~Kvng (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. The term appendix is used in the major section heading § Standard appendices and footers at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout, and in the shortcut MOS:APPENDIX that links to it. It is also point #3 in the ordered list at § Order of article elements (a.k.a., MOS:SECTIONORDER), where "End matter" is point #4, and comes after "Appendices". Appendices is also used in other pages, such as WP:Perennial proposals. That said, I think that all three terms (appendices, bottom matter, end matter) are often understood interchangeably, and we should go with whatever most people are familiar with. Maybe we could just finesse the whole issue and not use any of them, and just end the definition with, "... and may be followed by supplementary, non-content material", or use both, and say "...appendices and end matter"? Mathglot (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
I would avoid "appendix" because to me it means a textual section appearing after the main body of a written work. We don't have those in Wikipedia articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Of course we do, in millions of articles. Your understanding of appendix is not how it is used in numerous locations at MOS/Layout as just linked above. The sense in which Wikipedia uses it aligns well with definitions at American Heritage, Merriam-Webster, OED[via TWL] and other dictionaries. If you want to avoid the use of appendix, that would have to be a separate proposal on this page, and imho would be a steep mountain to climb, as this meaning goes back decades; even the shortcut MOS:APPENDIX goes back to 2009.
However, I don't want to get sidetracked, as this discussion is about what to write in the Glossary for the entry Body, which should merely reflect what it means here. The fact that there isn't a clear definition for it on this page, is what prompted it. I'm just looking for agreement for (or objections to) the glossary definition for body. Mathglot (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
@Mathglot, your finesse is good. I was obviously not aware that we had so many terms in play for the stuff at the end of an article. ~Kvng (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
The "supplementary, non-content material" will not solve disputes; in will probably increase them, as editors will disagree over whether the citations to reliable sources are "content". Duplicating terms ("appendices and end matter") will make editors believe that these are different things (==See also== is the appendix, and ==References==, where the endnotes are located, must be the end matter?). If we need to define this thing at all (which I doubt), we probably need to use the word appendix and link to MOS:APPENDIX for anyone who doesn't know what that bit of wikijargon means.
About the definition: I'm not sure that larger tables are always included when editors talk in "the body of the article". Sometimes "the body" seems to get used to indicate "the paragraphs of text" (as opposed to tables, long lists, or perhaps images). Also, WP:ELBODY includes the lead of the article (but not infoboxes) as "the body". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm not the one calling appendices and end matter two different things; this guideline is. "Appendices" are listed as major bullet #3 in section § Order of article elements and lists 5 items; "end matter" is bullet #4 lower down, and lists ten. As fn 6 points out, this is largely unchanged since 2003, so that's what they mean, for the last 20 years. It's not asking too much to define "body" here as well. Mathglot (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks.
About excluding the lead from the body, consider ELBODY: "With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article." I think that if we add this definition, a wikilawyer will eventually come along to say that the lead isn't part of the body of the article, and therefore external links are fine in the lead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Maxeto0910 (talk · contribs) has been adding periods to the end of see-also links when the short description provided in the link happens to resemble a grammatically complete sentence. Example: the link to Immerman–Szelepcsényi theorem in Savitch's theorem, provided using {{annotated link}} to incorporate the short description of the linked article, currently "Nondeterministic space complexity classes are closed under complementation" (but significantly too long and in need of shortening). My position is that see-also entries in general, and the ones generated by annotated links in particular, are more often than not only sentence fragments, and that for consistency we should use a format for see-also sections in which the period is omitted from all entries. I don't see any guidance on this issue in MOS:SEEALSO, but this is consistent with all examples provided there, including the "Joe Shmoe" example which happens to resemble a grammatically complete sentence. Should this be addressed more explicitly there? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

In your edit summary, you wrote "As a general rule see-also links do not use periods and I see no exception for this case."
I'm just asking for that general rule because I couldn't find any guideline which states that. That's why I requested a link to a corresponding guideline in my edit summary.
The Joe Shmoe example in MOS:SEEALSO is merely a sentence fragment, as the description lacks the subject because it's obvious from the context to which it refers — "[He] made a similar achievement on April 4, 2005".
If there's no guideline regulating this Wikipedia-specific issue (yet), which it seems like, I'd argue that the general rules of the English grammar should apply, after which every complete sentence should end with a period. Maxeto0910 (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Guidance at MOS:LISTFORMAT: basically, don't mix sentences and sentence fragments in a list, but if every item is a full sentence, should end with a period / full stop. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Acceptable sorting orders of "Further reading" sections

I've recently sorted a couple unsorted "Further reading" sections by publication date, earliest first, but have had this sort order opposed by Skyerise over at User talk:Tollens/Archive 4#You call that sorted?. It seems to me from a reading of both MOS:FURTHER and Wikipedia:Further reading that while such sections are frequently alphabetized, sorting chronologically is also appropriate. I would think that a chronological sort order makes more sense in further reading sections.

Alphabetization is of course so that it is easier to locate a given entry in a list, which is important for a general reference section because it will be referenced by inline citations – readers will therefore be searching a general reference section for a particular entry. In the case of further reading sections, however, there is no possible way for a reader to know in advance what entries are contained in the list, because they weren't referenced in the text of the article at any point – otherwise they would belong in a general reference section. Readers are then never searching a further reading section, but instead browsing the section. As described at Wikipedia:Further reading, this allows readers to do multiple things: skip to the newest writings recommended in the section, or see how opinions expressed on the topic have changed over time. An alphabetized list allows neither, allowing only for works to be grouped by author, which is not helpful unless the authors are especially well-known (in which case yes, alphabetization is likely of more use).

Clarifying MOS:FURTHER to either explicitly allow chronological ordering, explicitly disallow it, or alternatively specify what cases the "usually" currently in the guideline does not cover, would be appreciated. Tollens (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I of course don't mean to suggest that in either case the list should be changed from one to the other, because as a purely stylistic change doing so would violate MOS:STYLERET. I am wondering only about lists that are already unsorted and new further reading sections. Tollens (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
@Tollens: I apologize for my tone yesterday, but there must be a good reason to sort a bibliography chronologically. Normally further reading should only contain material that could be used as a reference, but simply hasn't been cited in a footnote yet. The MoS also says that further reading should be presented in the same way that the reference bibliography is presented. Alphabetic order helps facilitate the integration of a newly cited further reading item into the list of cited works.
There are sometimes good reasons to sort chronologically, particularly in showing the development of an idea say in philosophy or some other historical development: but when doing so, the date should be presented first on the line, which means all the citation should be manually reformatted to present the date first.
I suggest that the writers of WP:FURTHER did not anticipate that the reader may not have ever written a research paper in college and WP:FURTHER should be clarified that the standard alphabetic order used in nearly every academic publication is strongly preferred and then give examples of when and how different orders might be used where they are actually useful. WP:MOSLOW should also be revised to include instructions on how to order bibliographies containing works of multiple authors. Skyerise (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Word count per paragraph guidance

Is there any guidance anywhere for how long is "too long" for a paragraph in the new Vector skin or mobile view? This isn't a question about how to write better paragraphs and I'm not looking for answers about writing style. It's a question more about web accessibility. eg, now that the default skin maintains a narrower paragraph, do we hit "wall of text" problems in shorter paragraphs than before, or is that concern less relevant now? -- asilvering (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

No. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
@Graham87: Thinker78 (talk) 03:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't affect screen readers. Graham87 (talk) 04:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Help Formating

Hello

On the list List of universities in Ecuador I can't get the image to stay to the right and the table to the left in order to mimic the page in spanish --HarveyPrototype (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@HarveyPrototype: This is the page as it stood at the time that you posted here. I don't see what the problem is. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Redrose64 thank you for your time. I just saw the page and it has been formated. HarveyPrototype (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I see; it's a page width issue. If your screen is narrow, or you use a skin that constrains the width (such as Vector 2022), or if you zoom in, the table may then be too wide to fit between the image stack and the left sidebar. The problem does affect the current version of the page, but only appears at narrower widths or greater zoom levels. If you go to the spanish page and zoom in a few times, you will see the problem appear there too. Really this should have been a matter for WP:HD, since this is the page for discussing improvements to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your input HarveyPrototype (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
> 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)

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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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

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)

@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)
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)
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)
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)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout/Archive_15&oldid=1256760009"