Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style/Layout page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:MOSLAYOUT

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 90 days

Format of appendices Before proposing a change to the standard appendices, please study Wikipedia:Perennial proposals § Changes to standard appendices.

Manual of Style

This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style/Layout page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 90 days

Hello, is there a purpose for specifying at MOS:LAYOUTEL that "External links" must always be plural even if only a single link is added? Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I don't know the historic answer, but here is one I just made up: consistency. That and the risk that the editor who adds the second link won't change the heading to the plural. Okay, that's two I just made up. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So we apply the English language incorrectly and assume incompetence, they seem two very poor reasons. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. But keep in mind that assuming incompetence does have its place. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure it's applying anything "incorrectly". If, for example, there were only one featured article candidate, that wouldn't suddenly make the page Featured article candidates mis-titled. Primergrey (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same as for "References" - if we started with it in the singular people wouldn't notice and/or bother to change it when adding another, so having it plural all the time works fine. PamD 08:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

THis is a thing this manual mentions, but doesnt explain the reasoning behind this guidance. Might I ask why is that so and why are Wiktionary and Wikisource exceptions to this rule? (but not eg Commons) 2A02:A317:2241:7A00:9F4:3E9A:A783:B4FC (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They appear in the last section of the article, whatever name that happens to have; see Template:Sister project#Location. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's rephrase the question: Why do they appear in the last section rather than in the See also section? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also is for links to Wikipedia. --Izno (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except for Wiktionary and Wikisource, which still appear in "See also", even though they're not links to Wikipedia. Why? 2A02:A317:2241:7A00:6157:606A:7BD5:B88B (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are misreading the section in question. It gives an exception to Wiktionary and Wikisource links to appear in the main text of the document, not in the "See also" section. --Izno (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, regarding "no See also" this page reads The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links), nor to disambiguation pages (unless used for further disambiguation in a disambiguation page). As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. I disagree fully: the beauty of Wikipedia over previous encyclopedias is that it allows super-quick cross-referencing, while the "See also" sections should serve to call out important elements for further reading – especially for people who are often "clicking through" a document and are susceptible to missing the big picture. Which is to say, I'd like to see the NOSEEALSO policy changed. Any responses? If any agreement, can fellow Wikipedians guide me as to how to recommend and get that change made? Gratefully, Aboudaqn (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Unfortunately, making the change you suggest would be an uphill battle. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#cite_note-9. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"...especially for people who are often "clicking through" a document and are susceptible to missing the big picture". Who is deciding an article does not contain the information they are looking for after only skimming through it? No amount of links anywhere will help such an attention-deficient character. At some point these people, whoever they are, must actually read an article to get information on a subject. Primergrey (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's crazy talk. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your question to be: Who would decide what links we would need in See also for those who just skim an article? I'm thinking the answer is: "Whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." (From Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#"See_also"_section.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then first at least make these article's navigation boxes appear visible to readers at mobile devices in your disfunctional mobile version. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A bit late, but I concur. You raise a valid point. Jay D. Easy (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The navbox example is one case, with overlinking being another. A lot of the MOS would be tossed out if we took mobile versions into consideration, and the people who write the MOS aren't going to allow that to happen. The MOS is more important than some inconvenience to lesser readers, given the amount of time these people spend discussing and writing it, and they aren't going to permit their hard work to be devalued. - BilCat (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Time to update some things I would guess.... considering the majority of our readers are now on mobile devices.--Moxy (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with that. But it will be a huge undertaking, and will probably face a lot of opposition. - BilCat (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the last Wiki conference I was at 2017..... there was a talk about just making these templates visible in some manner in mobileview, thus no big change to policies and guidelines. I find it odd this hasn't come up in the community at Large.... only argument I've ever seen is that templates are considered spam by a lot of cotent editors and shouldn't waste valuable space ( I don't agree).--Moxy (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Project page recommends annotating links in see also section. This can be done automatically by using the {{annotated link}} which annotates the link using the content of the {{short description}}. I propose to mention this as a convenient option. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• We seen to have a flurry of edits to this section today....removing info about nav boxes as per WP:NAVBOX and recommending putting it in the reference section dispte the fact we give the example of what happens when we do this. Not sure if you guys are in a dispute somewhere but we've just removed a recommendation refetcted in another MOS and added something that causes a format problem. I'm pretty sure no one wants to have accessibility concerns by breaking up sentences and sandwiching our references..... are references one of the most important features of an article.--Moxy (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And your response to your navbox change being reverted is just to start being disruptive for the sake of it. I've got no dog in your little game, but I'm damned if I'm going to sit here. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What an odd comment... if your in some fight somewhere best keep it there. Very odd reply to a wish to talk about changes. I can only assume you think I am someone else.--Moxy (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your change re not embedding sister project links into a navbox has just been reverted (not by me). But you've chosen that as an excuse for a fit of pique and to start bulk reverts, including some quite unrelated text improvements. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So It's all because your mistaken.....I did not revert my addition of the removal of the navigation box info.....I reverted the addition about references you added 2 times. As you can clearly see I am the one that restored the stable version. So what really happened is you added back 2 different disputed content one of them 2 times .....where no one else has. You added back the navbox info after it was removed and added the stuff about the ref section 2 times. So let's start all over shall we.--Moxy (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the reasoning behind not having a consistent section for sister project links, or why it's a "bad thing" if they are placed in an "empty" "External links" section. (Sister project links are external links, so if they are there, the section is not empty.) I'm not trying to be contrarian here for it's own sake. I just believe that not being consistent is more confusing than having an "empty" section, and am asking if there is some higher reason I'm overlooking. - BilCat (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have always wondered where this rule came from.... just because of the fact we made the inline sister template just for this reason to make it the first line in external link section on the left.. Perhaps outlining some of these problems... see if we can get some change based on common sense.--Moxy (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No, we did not make a competely different inline version of the sister boxes, just so they'd be somehow "better" in an empty External links section.

If there's an issue with {{Reflist}} not using the full column width if there's a floating box involved, then that should be fixed within Reflist's column model. But if it isn't, then use a {{-}} or {{Clear right}} to fix it and don't break the sister link boxes. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No one said the inline version was made just to fill an empty section? Not sure adding a clear all over is fesable....but adding a {{Clear right}} to the start of yhe ref template would make the most sense in my view.--Moxy (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• we made the inline sister template just for this reason??

There's usually no difference between {{Clear right}} and {{-}}, unless there are images floated to the left. If there are, {{-}} (or {{Clear left}}) are usually needed before References (or See also, or anything with a list) anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Odd to quote just half the statment ...but I guess I was not clear....my bad. So we have one solution that needs to be implemented before we add to the section about refs. So what about the external links? Should we mention this here as we do at the other MOS page? Still not sure why it was removed but hopefully they will reply soon.--Moxy (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A sister project box template is not a reference, so should not go in References section. It is an external link (external to English Wikipedia anyway), so External links would be a reasonably rational place to put it. If it is in External links, the External links section is not empty, it contains an external link to a sister project. A bar style may look better, but the place is reasonable. There may be other, better places, but External links seems a reasonable option based on logic.

I would prefer to see a section dedicated to navigational tools, which would include navboxes, portal links, sister project links, regular external links, and most other navigational tools, both internal and external, clustered at the bottom of the page, where people will get to expect to find them, but that is another issue. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by this, I tried to add an internal link to Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic and Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords for see also because technically it's not on the page for specialist browsers or mobile view however ferret removed them quoting MOS:SEEALSO , but nav-boxes disregard WP:ACCESS for disability readers. So whats the best out come to help a reader get to page for the characters? Govvy (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]