Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sanitation/Style advice

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Sanitation/Style advice page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

How to link to the Wikiproject Sanitation?

Here is the link to the Wikiproject Sanitation but I can't figure out how to link to it, as the beta editor is not available? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Sanitation EvM-Susana (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like this on Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Sanitation]] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about the section "Society and culture"

Section "Society and Culture": What does this section include? Can anyone give me examples what this section should be about? Thanks.Mll mitch (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One could discuss for example the campaign in India that uses the slogan "no loo, no I do" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should costs be part of "Society and culture"? Maybe yes, if the information on costs is anyway brief. EvM-Susana (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style

I have been having lessons in citation style today. The style suggested here does not appear to be the same one in use by those who monitor pages for medical edit issues. Given the likely overlap, I suggest we use their citation style. That said, lots of our pages overlap with other projects, so there is likely to be some confusion about citation styles. JMWt (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many of us use the style explained here WP:MEDHOW. The expectation is that one use the pre existing style if there is one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JMWt, could you please elaborate what you mean? I tend to use Harvard style which is pretty much like we use it in the SuSanA library ([[1]]). As many of the references are taken from there, I find it easiest to stick to that style. Doc_James: that link to WT:MEDHOW which you gave doesn't seem to work? EvM-Susana (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EvM-Susana please see Geophagia where I was given lessons today. I do not think it is either Harvard or Chigaco. JMWt (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC) PS I suspect User:Doc James meant to type WP:MEDHOW[reply]

Yes WP:MEDHOW wrong key Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another point I've noticed: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sanitation#Edit suggests some tools to use, but unfortunately the majority of sanitation articles are not on PubMed. Is there anything to use which does the same thing with a DOI? JMWt (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Just keep in mind that whenever you see the word "Medicine" in our WikiProject Sanitation page, it's likely that I copied that part across from the WikiProject Medicine page in order to be a "place holder" and reminder that we should put something equivalent at that place when we have the ideas and inspiration. Maybe this has to be made clearer. EvM-Susana (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Categories of sanitation-related articles needs its own separate section

When I see the first section, I expect to immediate get advice about headlines. Instead, the first thing that comes up is the categorization of types of articles.

Then once I read that, I expect to see a list of "Recommended Headlines" for each and every one of the categories presented. Instead, there are suggestions for only 3 of the types. (And those are not in the same order as they are presented in the list of categories)

My suggestion: Pull the Categories list out and start with that, noting however, that you only have suggested headlines for the first three categories. (and list Technologies, Concepts and Medically-related first)

I have more suggestions for writing a Manual of Style, but thought I would start with this and see if I can learn more about what flexibility there is for changing the style itself. If the style as presented has been vetted by a group of people, I won't tinker with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlanetCare (talk • contribs) 00:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:PlanetCare, thanks for working on this. It's been a long time since I set this up and I am happy for it to be improved... It hasn't been vetted by many people either. I think the standard section headings are in general pretty good but am happy for changes to the guide to make it clearer how to use this. Question back to you: you added "and/or" in one place. I was once taught to not use "and/or". What is your take on that? EMsmile (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked "and/or" up on Wikipedia. Lawyers throughout history have objected to and/or. I'm now cured of using it.PlanetCare (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 November 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Sanitation) → Wikipedia:WikiProject Sanitation/Style advice – Put it under the wikiproject where it belongs. And clean up the lead. It's not really permissible on WP (per WP:OWN, WP:EDITING, WP:MERCILESS) for a page to state "This Manual of Style (sanitation) belongs to the WikiProject Sanitation" (and the first half of that is redundant – we already know what the page name is). But at least it's clear up front that it's a wikiproject page, not a product of site-wide input and consensus. Anyway, this is not an MoS page: not a guideline, never proposed as part of MoS, has material in it that would never be part of MoS, and isn't named correctly for an MoS page. This is a typical "how we like to lay out articles within the project's scope" WP:PROJPAGE essay, and should be tagged (and thus categorized) accordingly, with {{WikiProject style advice}}. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 01:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Thanks for your advice, User:SMcCandlish. That's fine by me. I am not fully into this kind of level of detail, so appreciate your advice. Please go ahead and make the move. (I think this page was originally set up by Doc James who might have had reasons for doing it like this, I am not sure.) EMsmile (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotten out of the habit of making manual moves any time I think anyone sane might have an objection, since I got hauled to ANI and pilloried for doing so a few year ago. There's no deadline, so RM running for a few days won't kill anyone. :-) As indicated below, people may also have editorial feedback about the content, which could improve it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 04:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why in the world should sanitation articles be limited to level 3 headers? Much or most of this stuff shouldn't be legislated by a project. E Eng 01:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they do it all the time. As long as its tagged as a PROJPAGE essay and not masquerading as official MoS position, it's just an opinion shared by some (maybe most?) of the topical editors. Others are free to ignore it if they think an article is better with, e.g., a level-4 heading (they really aren't always needed, but often they are, so I agree the page shouldn't be one-size-fits-all about it). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 04:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I initially also objected to this but the Medicine articles all limit their TOCs to level 3 headers, and in the meantime I am used to it and see the merit and like it. It makes for much easier and faster reading of the TOC and it encourages people not to go too deeply into Level 4, 5, etc headers in the article... So I would say it works well. EMsmile (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could make the same assertion ("makes for much easier and faster reading of the TOC and it encourages people not to go too deeply into Level 4, 5, etc") about articles in any topic area. These are questions of editorial judgment for editors of particular articles. The idea that some knot of editors should impose some standard they prefer, in some little topic area, is preposterous. I often use TOC limit on well-developed articles, but not necessarily at level 3. Much else on this page reinvents the wheel. E Eng 00:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not imposing anything. It is simply giving a recommendation that has been shown to work well on many other articles, too. I can go back and change the wording to make it clearer. Yes, a lot on this page is "nothing new" but for people who get drawn into Wikipedia via an interest in the WikiProject Sanitation it is useful to have it all together in one place. I don't see any harm in repeating information that is also to be found in the broader Manual of Style. Nobody has complained so far and it's been around since 2 years or so. EMsmile (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I took another look and actually I don't think it needs changing. It currently says: "To keep the table of content (TOC) clear and concise, we recommend that the TOC is limited to show up to Level 3 headers only." It is only a recommendation of those who are active in the WikiProject Sanitation towards those who want to improve sanitation-related articles. It is not a "must do". EMsmile (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I would like to see this gain 'MoS approval' (though not be a part of the MoS), and have an MoS link which redirects to the WikiProject page. –Sb 2001 00:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This shit is my area of expertise (pun intended). A quick glance caused some concerns. It appears to have a very narrow view of scope, though this may be a construct of the project concerned - which I have not delved into. It also attempts to standardise (note spelling) on matters contrary to MOS - such as dictating US spelling. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion

By the way, how does a reader go from here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style to the Manual of Style for Medicine Articles? I can't see a way to navigate in that direction (I can only see it in the opposite direction)? EMsmile (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right-hand sidebar template at WP:MOS, under "By topic area" and then under "Science". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 04:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I looked there but didn't expect to find Medicine under Science. Given its importance of Wikipedia, any chance it could be elevated up a leverl and be put up side by side with Science, not below Science? (User:Doc James)? EMsmile (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.