This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Headings

The current advice on headings for subdividing section states that "In the rare cases when it is useful to sub-divide these sections (for example, to separate a list of magazine articles from a list of books), most editors prefer to use either definition list headings (;Books) or bold-faced text ("Books") instead of level 3 headings (===Books===)." However, this contradicts MOS:ACCESS, which states "Do not make pseudo-headings using bold or semicolon markup [Books or ;Books). Screen readers and other machines can only use correctly formatted headings [ie ===Books===]" (my additions for clarity). I suggest we follow the latter. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I commented on the same issue at Help talk:Wiki markup#semicolon issue?; accordingly, Agree. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The use of bold markup instead of semicolons is a helpful compromise which avoids mini sections and cluttering the ToC; it does not present accessibility problems. It is widely used and the guideline ought to be changed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with MB. People who do not use screen readers, easily skip parts of the TOC if they see it contains trivia, a person using a screen reader can not so easily do that, so insisting on using a format which expands the TOC unnecessarily is not helpful to the people for whom the bug in ";bold" is a problem in the first place. -- PBS (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Since the statement that it presents accessibility problems comes from MOS:ACCESS, I would be interested in seeing evidence to the contrary. It is quite easy for someone using a screen reader to skip all of the appendices in the TOC if they so wish; if they don't so wish, it's helpful to be able to select one. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I remember User:Graham87 mentioning that, unlike the semicolon, a bolded pseudoheading doesn't present a problem for screen readers, but I can't find his remark now. User:RexxS responded similarly at Help talk:Wiki markup. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer bolded headings, but it would be best if real headings could be used if possible. Graham87 07:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

First choice for anything that heads a section is to mark it up as a heading - that allows screen readers to navigate to it directly if required. If the table of contents becomes too cluttered then ((toc limit)) can sometimes help, but failing that, using bold markup ('''Subheading''') causes few problems for modern screen readers. The semicolon markup creates a definition list that is an annoyance for many screen reader users and should be avoided. --RexxS (talk) 10:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Voceditenore provided some history of the relevant parts of the guidelines involved at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera#Do we have to relive the "Opera/Article styles and formats" discussion??. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

To save people wading through a lengthy discussion there to find it, I wrote ... The injunction against using both the semicolon and the standard bold marking for pseudo headers, and in fact, an injunction against pseudo headers per se, was unilaterally added to MOS:ACCESS by one editor in June 2012 [1]. When they later had doubts and asked for comment, only one other editor replied (WhatamIdoing), to the effect that a standard bolded topic heading can actually help dyslexic readers keep track of the text and would not seriously affect those using screen readers. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Archive 12#Headings: avoid pseudo-headings. Nevertheless, the guideline remained with only a minor change from "never" to "do not". Then 3 days ago, Nikkimaria changed the guideline at MOS:LAYOUT [2] to "match" the one at MOS:ACCESS after a brief discussion with only one other editor, thus perpetuating an assertion for which no clear, independent evidence has ever been provided. RexxS's comment above seems to bear out the notion that while semicolon bolding creates potential problems for screen readers, it should not be conflated with standard bolding for pseudo headers, which is very widely practiced on Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm in favor of discouraging the semi-colon for bolding (;bolding). I'm not in favor of discouraging wikitext bolding (bolding). However, I'm okay with gently encouraging proper ===subsection headings=== since that is better for WP:ACCESS purposes (even though IMO it's also ugly). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Order of article elements: what about Italic title, Use DMY dates, etc ?

Where should ((Italic title)) (and ((Use dmy dates)) etc) go? Templates which are a permanent feature of the article, not requests for maintenance, not signs of a dispute. I've always put ((italic title)) near the top, but found it at the bottom of an article today.

The template documentation for ((Italic title)) says "place this template in the article, normally at the very top" - but we know that disambiguation hatnotes go "at the very top", closely followed by deletion templates.

The documentation for ((Use dmy dates)) sayd "Place this template near the top of articles that use the dd mmm yyyy date format; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section for more information about the order of elements near the beginning of the article." (That link, to WP:LEAD, doesn't seem to me to answer the question).

Do ((Italic title)) go before or after ((Unreferenced)) ((POV)) etc, the "maintenance and dispute" tags? Are they considered to be "maintenance" tags, although they are very different in function?

It may seem a bit like rule creep, but I think it would be helpful to have a line in the "Order of article elements" which gave a standard place for this kind of templates, so that we know where to find them, or place them, in an article. Any thoughts? PamD 00:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@PamD: The order of the lead section is primarily driven by the desired order of the HTML elements in the rendered page, and this is influenced by non-visual means of "reading" the page, such as screen-reader software, which start at the beginning and (unless links are followed or they are told to stop), work through to the end. The placement within the wikicode of a hatnote or cleanup template affects its position in the rendered form, so the order of these is laid down. However, ((italic title)) and ((use dmy dates)) work exactly the same wherever they are placed, so their actual position in the wikicode for the page is immaterial; they don't even need to be in the lead.

I prefer to place them in context: ((italic title)) affects the first page heading, so I put it as close as possible to that - at the very start, before even the hatnotes (the main reason for putting hatnotes first is so that screen reader software reads them out before anything else - but users of such software will tell you that the page heading is read out before the hatnote, regardless of the presence or absence of ((italic title))); and ((use dmy dates)) does nothing other than add a category, so I prefer to place it at the bottom of the wikicode (in the rendered page, categories are always gathered together into that box at the bottom, regardless of there the category is set in the wikicode), usually between the navboxes and ((persondata)). --Redrose64 (talk) 11:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Interesting: two tags I'd thought of as similar should be treated very differently. From what you say, ((italic title)) when present should be the first element of an article, and ((Use dmy dates)) should be somewhere near the end, alongside geographical coordinates and authority control templates. I had thought of it as being intended to be read by human editors, as well as bots, and its own documentation states that it should be near the top. It will be interesting to see other editors' views. PamD 14:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I've now found Template_talk:Use_dmy_dates#Changing_placement where there was considerable but inconclusive discussion of the question of placement of this template, August 2012-Dec 2013. PamD 14:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Use mdy dates has nothing much about placement except a request, 3 years ago, for editors to put the template at the bottom (in contradiction to the template documentation). Template talk:Italic title says nothing on placement. PamD 14:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I've mentioned this discussion in the template talk pages for the 3 templates mentioned: here, here and here. PamD 15:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Redrose64 is correct in that the functional placement (for bots and scripts) is unimportant. However, the ((Use dmy dates)) template is intended to remind editors of the day format in use in the article. Its placement at the top of the article therefore allows it to be easily visible as soon as the editor enters edit mode. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There are two problems that I've observed with ((use dmy dates)) being at the top: one is that some people treat it as a cleanup request template, so check through the article, find that all the dates are DMY, and remove it. Others wonder why it produces no visible output (presumably they don't spot the cat) and either remove it because of that, or they report the lack of a visible banner as a problem. There was a discussion a few months ago (it might have been at TFD) concerning the related template ((use British English)) (which similarly has no text, only a cat) in which some people repeatedly disagreed with others about the wording that "appears in the use British English template". They had assumed that ((use British English)) was either a redirect to ((British English editnotice)), or served the same purpose. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It makes sense to put general informative templates like ((Use mdy dates)) and others at the very beginning of the article, so that any editor who would edit it would pay attention right away. That is the reason why we put that on the documentation pages of these templates. Debresser (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Taxonomic lists?

It seems like lists of nested taxa for a given taxon should go at the end of the article similar to lists of works for an author. Is this documented anywhere? 67.188.230.128 (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"See also" and piped links

Please, let's have a look at this excerpt from the WP:SEEALSO guideline:

As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.

Does that apply to piped links? In other words, if an article contains only piped versions of a particular link, may that exact link be included in the article's "See also" section (in its raw/unpiped form, of course)? To me, "links that appear" from the excerpt above should indicate that piped versions don't prevent link's raw form to be included in a "See also" section. Please advise. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggested change

"As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes."
"As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links located in the article's body or its navigation boxes."

Which avoids any ambiguity about the word "appear" referring to the links appearance (piped / non-piped). If we wish to be explicit about piped vs non-piped, rather than leave it to "editorial judgment and common sense" that would be better handled in a separate sentence. Widefox; talk 10:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that additional clarification is required. However, we need to decide first whether piped links prevent the inclusion or not. To me, piped versions shouldn't count in the same way as the raw ones, simply because they can differ significantly. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

No need to wait to clarify the wording unless the original intent was to hint at the appearance, rather than just the location. Widefox; talk 11:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Dsimic, I think this is one of those "use your best judgment" issues. If the piped link is [[black|white]], then yes, there might be value in placing it under ==See also==, for the people who couldn't find what they wanted because of the pipe. But in other cases, like [[apple|apples]], then you really shouldn't re-link it (unless you would have for some other reason, like the link having been last seen ten thousand words ago). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Totally agreed, it's all up to the common sense and overall usability judgment, not up to following the rules blindly. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

What proposed names and orders exist for the sections in the bodies of articles?

This manual of style currently gives no guidance on what names and orders the sections of articles take. I said this in a section that I just added, because I believe that people come here looking for this information, and I thought it would be best to say that there is no general guideline for this. I think that also there is almost no guidance on Wikipedia about these things, but I know there must be something somewhere. I am looking for more recommended lists of the sort that WikiProject Medicine has proposed. Has anyone seen more section name and order proposals anywhere else? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about this.

Firstly, you will please take note that MEDMOS is not WikiProject Medicine's. It is not a WikiProject's style advice; it is the entire community's style advice. The main editors involved in it happen to be WPMED members, but it belongs equally to everyone, and it is closely followed by members of multiple smaller WikiProjects, too.

Secondly, there may be a dozen such actual MOS pages with such information and probably almost a hundred WikiProject advice pages that provide at least some such information. I've added a few just to give you some notion of the breadth. Consequently, I don't think that a list is feasible. You might be better off creating a new sub-category to tag WikiProject style pages that include section advice.

(Note, by the way, that the cat title is out of date [it implies that WikiProjects write guidelines by themselves, with no WP:PROPOSAL being necessary], and that many of the advice pages wrongly include the words "guideline" or "Manual of Style" in them. It hasn't seemed important to move everything, but don't put too much stock in the page titles.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph Needed

This page does not seem to have an adequate introductory paragraph, at least from the point of view of someone who isn't very experienced in the subject. Ok, this page may be some type of a sacred cow and other editors don't want it flagged, but when someone like me come along who actually needs to learn something from the page they find a lack of an adequate introduction to the page. A newcomer to the subject might really appreciate an introductory paragraph to orient them to the couple of guiding principles that are supposed to help us create excellent Wiki page layouts. This paragraph seems to be absent from the current page, merely redirecting users to the entire Manual of Style isn't very helpful. Unfortunately this isn't a project where I really have the experience to be very helpful, except to point out there is a real need. Atani (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Although I reverted you here for tagging the lead as too short as though it's a Wikipedia article, I agree that the lead should be significantly bigger than what it currently is. Flyer22 (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you help me see what the problem is with the current length? The "short" lead is followed by a table of contents that tells the reader where to click for the "guiding principles" regarding layout. The link in the lead to the entire Manual of Style tells the reader where to look for "writing style," not layout, guidance. (I'm not even sure what a "guiding principle" would be vis-à-vis layout. "Put article elements in the assigned order"? That said, I did make soe text changes to make the lead more accessible to non-insiders.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

ButwhatdoiknowThanks for your input. The basic problem is that the lack of an introduction wasn't helpful to me, and if it wasn't helpful to me it probably wasn't helpful to other people as well. Simply to orient my thinking in the right direction to better understand the rest of the material I would have found it helpful to have had one or two well written paragraphs [probably not more] that would explain the general principles and standard practices that generated the rest of the document - this could be an extract from the Manuel of Style or something more. Pointing to outside references, is fine but less than helpful, it can be downright confusing. An introduction should do three things, introduce us to what is there, what to do with it [or how to use it], and why it is important.Atani (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I tried. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Atani You are correct twice. There ought to be an introduction here, and people are shy about editing pages with site-wide policy on them. Until September last year, there was no introduction. In that month, I proposed some changes and wrote an introduction in the first section. A lot of what I proposed did not stick, so my introduction was not useful, and other people made changes much more insightful than what I proposed originally and the result of all those revisions is the version that exists now. I am much happier with the outcome than with what I proposed, and in my opinion, the page is stable at this point after some deep revision.

I feel that if someone wanted to write an introduction, then now would be a reasonable time to do so. Part of the reason why no introduction is here is because of fear of solidifying policy, uncertainty about the stability of recent changes, and difficulty in understanding the right things to say. I am not sure what an introduction should say but I feel that it should summarize in words the ordered list in the first section, and explain why that list matters even if it seems obvious. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

BluerasberryThanks for your input. At this point I spend most of my time as an 'editor' making things I can't understand in the pages I come across understandable to me and pointing out problems where I see problems. I remember at the time I first signed up for this project reading, "Be bold!" Maybe that principle has been revoked. Hopefully I've at least generated enough interest here to break the ball loose from the ice.

Writing a good introduction to anything is actually pretty difficult, you really have to understand the subject matter and be able to teach it, not just cut and past, make some lists, or point to off-page references. There must be some guiding principles of organization, or a set of priorities that will orient a new user to properly understanding the subsequent information - ones that have been found to work well and are widely used. Ok, if the principles are the same principles of organizing a research paper, or laying out a webpage, then what are those? or the most important ones for a Wiki article? Atani (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Bluerasberry Oh, forgot to add, if you've already written some material post it below, I'd like to see it. I can at least tell you if it was helpful to me or not.Atani (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm unclear what you mean by "principles". This isn't a design page, so design principles like the Rule of thirds are irrelevant. Mostly, the page says "Put stuff in a sensible order. 'Sensible' is defined as 'the order that would seem good to someone who had a comprehensive understanding of WP:ACCESS problems and had studied thousands of well-written articles'." WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary box

In what position shall the Wiktionary lookup box come? Before or after maintenance tags? Please add info about this to the guideline. Iceblock (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I would say that they fall within "Navigational boxes (header navboxes)" as the last item before the TOC. But this page does need to agree with WP:SISTER. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Redrose64! Iceblock (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Iceblock, can you give me the name of the template you're talking about? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, yes, the template is Template:Wiktionary. I'm sorry I didn't write this in the first place; I probably will do next time! :-) Iceblock (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Works cited

I think that "Works cited" should not be given as an option for both the list of explanatory footnotes ("other articles use 'Notes', 'Footnotes', or 'Works cited'") and the list of full citations or general references ("For a list of full citations or general references: 'References' or 'Works cited'"). "Works cited" should be given as an option only for the list of full citations or general references as is done in academic literature. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be on point: Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Changes_to_standard_appendices. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"The term works cited is used in the MLA Style and Chicago Style (humanities style)"; it describes a reference list not a set of footnotes. [3] --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"About the names of the section headings, different academic fields use different terms, and Wikipedia editors do not want to impose the convention preferred by one academic discipline on articles in another discipline." - Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Changes_to_standard_appendices. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Just one question: in which academic discipline is "works cited" used to mean "footnotes"? I am aquainted with a wide range of scientific literature and have never come across an instance where "works cited" means "footnotes." I have edited tens of thousands of Wikipedia articles and I have rarely found this practice followed, so it is not an established Wikipedia practice either. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

In other words, what I propose is not covered by "Perennial proposals" which states that it is not appropriate for one to propose that section titles "should be changed to the system preferred by the editor/a particular professional field/the editor's school". My objection is that, as far as I know, no professional school and no group of Wikipedia articles employs the title "works cited" to indicate footnotes; certain schools employ it to indicate "bibliography". So my concern is not the use of the title "works cited" in general, just the use of "works cited" to indicate "footnotes." I may be wrong about my "no professional school" assertion though; If so, please correct me. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Who is claiming that "works cited" indicates footnotes? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

(outdent) Currently the page says: Title: Editors may use any section title that they choose.[10] The most frequent choice is "References"; other articles use "Notes", "Footnotes", or "Works cited" (in diminishing order of popularity) for this material. This formulation by itself is ambiguous; it puts in the same group "Notes", "Footnotes", or "Works cited" as if they refer to the same type of appendix, i.e., list of explanatory footnotes or shortened citation footnotes. What follows in the documentation two paragraphs below clarifies the issue: For a list of full citations or general references: "References" or "Works cited". But shouldn't it be explicit somehow in the first part I quoted that "works cited" is a possible section title of the list of full citations or general references, not the possible section title of the list of explanatory footnotes or shortened citation footnotes? I do not think that this is self-evident as the text stands now. --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Under the heading "Notes and references", WP:FNNR is describing all sections that fall under that umbrella. They may be full references; shortened footnotes; or explanatory notes. It is suggesting titles for the section(s) without mandating any specific one, and is not implying that "works cited" is synonymous with "footnotes". Many articles have just one of these sections, and "References" seems to be the most popular title for that; quite a few have two such sections (a few weeks ago I made a small survey to show just how diverse the choices have been for those two headings in articles that use Shortened footnotes); some even have three, such as LB&SCR A1X Class W8 Freshwater#Notes (although I added the "Citations" heading, I don't personally like it). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting survey. If no one else besides me thinks that the current version is implying that "works cited" is synonymous with "footnotes", I withdraw my proposal for changing it. Thanks for the informative reply. --Omnipaedista (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Interwiki links

I wish that the section "Order of article elements" included an item "Interwiki links".

Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It used to have one, but was removed once Wikidata became the normal place for interlanguage links. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. Today, I was fixing Checkwiki #53 errors ("An interwiki appears before the last category") for the first time. Consulting this MOS/Layout article, I saw that "Interwiki links" weren't specified, and I didn't know where they should be placed in relation to stub templates. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

If there are any, they should be after the stubs - per this version from just over two years ago, which was the last one to mention them. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Redrose64. Very helpful. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Location of tag

There is a dispute (and brewing edit war) regarding the proper location at which to place the refimprove maintenance/cleanup template/tag. Input of others would be helpful.

Discussion is here. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Paragraphs: at least three sentences

Greetings! Do we have a WP recommendation according to which a paragraph should consist of at least three sentences? As far as I understand, this is the (minimum) practice commonly used. For example, Palmer, Richard. 1993. Write in Style: A Guide to Good English. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 0-203-47309-4 says that three sentences per section is the minimum bar. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The author goes on to explain that this and other "rules of thumb" mentioned are not true "rules" in any prescriptive sense, and need not always be followed. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Order of footer parts

Section four (4) is currently ordered thus:

Footers
1. Navigation templates (footer navboxes)
2. Geographical coordinates (if not in Infobox) or ((coord missing))
3. Authority control template
4. Persondata template
5. Defaultsort
6. Categories
7. Stub template

I should like to see this reordered according to the following, more logical, plan:

Things about the article subject, that are displayed here
Things about related articles, that are displayed here
Things about the article subject, that are hidden
Things about the article subject, that are displayed at the top of the article
Things about the article subject, that are displayed at the foot of the article
Temporary maintenance templates

That would mean changing section four to:

Footers
1. Authority control template
2. Navigation templates (footer navboxes)
3. Geographical coordinates (if not in Infobox)
4. Persondata template
5. Defaultsort
6. Categories
7. ((coord missing))

In terms of visual display, this means that authority control, being about the current article, goes before navigation to other articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Deprecating the "In popular culture" heading

FYI

– Pointer to relevant topic elsewhere.

Please comment on the proposal at:

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections#Deprecating the "In popular culture" heading

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 09:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Placement of ((good article))

Where should ((good article)) be placed in WP:ORDER? (Ping Rjwilmsi for AWB-coding) According to the template it should be above #5 in "¶Footer". Can it be added to the list? (t) Josve05a (c) 01:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

((good article)) uses ((top icon)), which during the course of 26-27 March 2015 was altered to use the new <indicator>...</indicator> feature (see Template talk:Top icon#Page status indicators and most subsequent threads). This means that as far as accessibility is concerned, the placement of ((good article)) is no longer critical: the page as served always has the HTML for the GA icon just before the main page heading no matter where it is placed in the page source. It emits categories, so its placement relative to other category-emitting templates (as well as the actual cats) is still significant. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The template documentation for good article says "This template should be placed at the bottom of the article before defaultsort, categories and interwikis." Also, if an article is now a good article, it can be given the good article badge on Wikidata. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate wikilink

#Section templates and summary style shows "references to such articles may be placed immediately after the section heading for that section, provided this does not duplicate a wikilink in the text." The last part is redundant and causes confusion. At first I thought that it was referring to something different from WP:REPEATLINK. SLBedit (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems clear to me. It just means that if a link naturally appears in the section it should not also be given by a ((see also)) or similar template. This is the same guidance as for links in the See also section, e.g. WP:NOTSEEALSO. If the links occur naturally as wikilinks within article text then there is no need to provide additional links in a See also section or hatnote. It is redundant in that it says mostly the same thing but many of our guidelines do this.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I looked at Wikipedia and it is not respecting that guideline, in three sections. SLBedit (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with JohnBlackburne. I've been fixing these quite a few myself. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

What if the duplicate link links to a section? Should we keep it? SLBedit (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

And what if the ((see also)) repeats a link in a navigation box but does not repeat in the article's body? SLBedit (talk) 05:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

"See also" content

Is it acceptable practice to provide links to Wikipedia templates in the "See also" section? Examples of what I'm talking about can be seen here, here, here, and at about 20 other recently-edited artclespace locations.

I've been discussing the matter a little with a few editors and there seems to be two schools of thought:

One thought is that this practice might violate the spirit of MOS:SELFREF and that WP:SEEALSO's recommendation to add "internal links to related Wikipedia articles" (emphasis added) implicitly excludes "Wikipedia templates, help pages, manuals of style, etc." The place to publicize Wikipedia's templates, then, would be in "talk" (e.g. WikiProject talk).
On the other hand, it has been suggested that the "See also" section of articles on topics like ISBN, IMDB.com, Amazon.com, etc. may be the most likely place for Wikipedia editors to look when they are searching for the appropriate template to use when editing and that adding templates to the "See also" section might be a good way to publicize the existence of some of Wikipedia's more under-utilized templates.

I'm interested in hearing the community's view on this and then altering the text of WP:SEEALSO to clarify the situation.
I've cross-posted a request for participants to this discussion here as well.

Prior discussions/background: 1, 2, 3
Thanks in advance for your comments. -Thibbs (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Pinging editors previously discussing this issue: Knife-in-the-drawer, Magioladitis, Jeraphine Gryphon -Thibbs (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'm pretty sure that for now I subscribe to the first school of thought you listed. I'm willing to listen to counterarguments to it, though. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely the first school of thought. --Izno (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Clearly case #1. Passive links to templates don't belong into article space or article category space (or any other page aimed at users in their role as readers rather than editors). It's a name space violation - it's like a goof in a movie, or a blue screen with crash dump. It looks unprofessional, as the goal of our collaborative efforts, the product, is to present an encyclopedia, not to disturb the reader with how it was done. Beyond the artistic point of view as authors, such name space or layer violations can also cause technical problems, f.e. when the work needs to be transferred to other media.

I acknowledge, however, that templates can be sometimes hard to find. To promote the existance and usage of a template, it should be mentioned on the article's talk page. Perhaps there are other means to promote a template as well, but this would be beyond the scope of this discussion in regard to WP:SEEALSO, I think.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC on Position of Refimprove tag

An RfC is now in progress on the proper position of ((refimprove)) in an article, adn the degree to which this page's suggestions indicate consensus for putting it at the top of an article. The RFC is at Template talk:Refimprove#RfC: Location of Tag, and the formal RfC statement is: "Where should a ((refimprove)) tag be placed in an article? MOS:LAYOUT says that maintenance templates, of which this is one, should be among the headers. But some editors (see the section above) assert that there is no consensus for this, and that the MOS does not establish such consensus. I ask for discussion leading to a clear consensus one way or the other on this point." Additional views are welcome. DES ^(talk) 16:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Biographies: Section order referring to "end of life"

There are "no general standards or guidelines" concerning section headings or "what order they should take", and I am not aware of some mentioned consensus, but I would appreciate some input concerning one such section placement. There is some precedent specifically if there is a "Biography" or "Personal life" section that "end of life" content or sub-sections are found at the end of such content. On other articles, and I have not looked to see if this stems from article creation or through continued editing, there is a mix of results.

It just seems natural that some things follow a path. If there is a section titled "Death", "Death and burial", "Assassination", "Final years and death", or some other title reflecting end of life, or such content reflected at the end of another section, it should be at the end of the body of the article, and not as an appendage with other "life content" following. Of course I am sure there are exceptions.

Things such as "Legacy", "Memorials", "Descendants" or "Ancestry", "Tributes", and "Bibliography" are natural after an "end of life" mention, section, or sub-section, but newer editors, without some sort of guidance, may not consider this so I thought I would bring it up. It just seems weird to read "guy (or gal) is born, goes through life, dies, then--- gets married or has a family".

I have seen Featured articles such as Horace Greeley, William Henry Harrison, Good articles like Émile Durkheim, and even stub-class articles such as Robert Hamilton Bishop have an order where an "end of life" event is at the bottom of the main body.

If this has come up, or there is already consensus concerning this, would someone let me know? Otr500 (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

There's no way to make a blanket rule, or even recommendation-subject-to-exceptions, on this. The best way to present material isn't always chronological. In fact, I'd wager that most well-developed articles aren't robotically chronological. E Eng 02:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Issue: unable to find MOS/Layout doc for template 'Subject bar'

Greetings, In my reading through various articles, I found Ælfheah of Canterbury which uses the ((Subject bar)) template. In the MOS/Layout archives, there is mention from 2011 here when template was created. Wondering if Subject bar documentation needs to be added into MOS/Layout section? Or am I just not looking in the right place within MOS? Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:MOSSIS. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Section merge proposed

Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects#Where to place links mostly needs to merge into Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Links to sister projects. It's wrong-headed and confusing for MOS material to be not in the MOS, and we should not be forking the guidelines. The bulk of the material in that WP:SIS section, and its WP:MOSSIS shortcut (like MOS:SIS), need to go to the actual MOS:LAYOUT section about this. The section on this at WP:SIS can be replaced with a ~~one-liner~~ concise summary, and a ((Main)) pointer to the MOS:LAYOUT section. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Updated, after confusion resolved, below. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Links to sister projects should be the definitive source, with a partial description (maybe a paragraph or some bullet points) at Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects#Where to place links along with a ((main article)) article link to the former. So, Support, but with more than "a one-liner summary" left at the latter.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- [Adjusted to reflect note below and correction of the post above.] ~~[I think your first link was meant to be Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects#Where to place links.] I can't agree.~~ Right. If it is article layout style advice, it belongs in MoS; all other aspects of it should be covered at WP:SISTER. We have had grievous difficulties, causing a lot of strife, when people try to advice-fork (and it's almost always a WP:POVFORK or rapidly becomes one) style advice out of MoS, to make some competing "un-MoS". Site-wide consensus has centralized WP style advice at MoS for very good reasons for over a decade. As for what to leave behind, sorry, I was being hyperbolic when I said one-liner. The gist is to have a compact summary in one place with ((Main)) linking to the other, and the details provided there, with an HTML comment noting to keep the sections synched (we need a lot more of those). Another ~~concern with reversing the direction~~ point in favor of the proposal is that virtually no one knows WP:SISTER even exists; we all know where MOS is, and MOS:LAYOUT is well-watchlisted and frequently consulted. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Updated. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  - @SMcCandlish: No my first link was meant to be Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Links to sister projects, I've corrected it and the second link. We agree for the most part I believe. Thanks for pointing that out. Best Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
    - Ah! Yes. I've tweaked my above comment to indicae this as well. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose This is something for the Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister project to take the lead the placing of links has next to nothing to do with style, any more that WP:Article Titles or Citations do. -- PBS (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Placement of ((Portal bar))

Moved from User talk:Redrose64 § At MOS, removal of 'portal bar' from Layout - See also.

– Redrose64 (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, In response to your edit removing 'Portal bar' from SA section. The location for this template was discussed at Template talk:Portal bar#Location previously in 2012. I have not reverted your edit but am wondering whether this needs more clarification. For the articles that I'm updating, usually I place the portal bar template as first line after See also line. If there are many SA entries, I place the Portal template instead so the portals are stacked vertically and to the right side. Rarely do I see the portal bar after the External links section. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't "remove" it - I put it back where it came from, since Template:Portal bar#Location says "within articles, this template is usually placed at the bottom of the article". It doesn't name a section, but implies the last section, which won't be "See also" in any article that has references and also follows MOS:ORDER - it'll be "References", "Further reading" or "External links".

Changes to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout or at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. If you amended Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout as a result of a discussion, you should have linked to that discussion in your edit summary. Since you had not done so, I checked both of those talk pages, and found no mention of portal templates - bar or otherwise. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

(was coming here to explain why I reverted ...but section already started) I have restored the edit as per the documentation page and normal usage of portals. I have also update the doc page to reflect the lead of the doc and its normal usage. Even-thought the template is not a guideline its just an essay the see also section for this is the norm so the MOS should reflect that. -- Moxy (talk)

(end of moved content)

Regarding this revert: the recommendation where to place ((Portal bar)) should not be lumped together with ((Portal)) because their appearance is fundamentally different. The former should go at the bottom of the article where all page-wide boxes congregate. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

NOT ACTIONABLE

Closed stagnant RfC. The number of participants is so small that this discussion does not possess sufficient force to change a Manual of Style for millions of editors and millions of articles.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, everyone.

I think a bold change by yours truly, and a couple of forth and back reverts by our esteemed colleagues Redrose64, JoeHebda and Moxy has very well demonstrated that we need to discuss this issue: Must ((portal bar)) appear in "See also" section, or along with navboxes?

Argument in favor of "See also" section:

That's where portal links, such as ((Portal)) and ((Portal-inline)) appear. Why should ((Portal bar)) be exempt?

Argument in favor of navboxes section:

Visually, ((Portal bar)) fits better with navboxes
Navboxes contain internal links strictly; but they don't appear in "See also" section either, in order to suppress the effects of link bombing.
((Portal bar)), like most navboxes, does not appear in the print, again for the same reason.
Some navboxes, such as ((Microsoft)) have portal links as well, so portals do not strictly appear in "See also" section anyway

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Poll area

Here is where you can add your choice of "See also" or With navboxes, along with you rationale.

"See also". The reason it was invented was to make sure the portals did not overlap into the section below. Was not intended as a footer...but as the last thing people see before non internal sections (refs, external links etc.). We should not be hiding the portals at the bottom of the page after all the external links...it should be with the content of the page. Plus the fact many footers have the portals the bottom of the page would have redundant links. Moxy (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
See also. And Navboxes should be in See also too. But that is a discussion for another day. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
With navboxes or, more generally, at the bottom of the article, because that doesn't disrupt the appearance of the article. If navboxes on a page already have links to portals, ((portal bar)), or ((portal)), should be omitted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
~~"It depends"~~ – I put together a wikitable at User talk:JoeHebda/sandbox1#Portal placement examples rather than adding it here. Hoping this clarifies the choices for portal placement in articles, depending on the article's existing content. — JoeHebda • (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm ammending my vote to Subject bar template instead. See subsection below. — JoeHebda • (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

See also section. Also support combining the redundant templates into ((Subject bar)) (or into one of the others, as long as they're combined), whether that template is used in the "See also" section or used as a navbox at the bottom of the page; it depends on the form of the template (if it's a navbox, it goes with the navboxes; if it's something smaller, keep it in "See also" along with the interwiki templates, etc. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion area

The invaluable discussions take place here.

* FYI – There is Portal explanation at Wikipedia:Portal#How to add portal links to articles. It also mentions about portal placement. — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

As does Template:Portal#Location.... that I recently added to Template:Portal bar#Location that perhaps should be reverted till this talk is over? -- Moxy (talk)

Moxy – Yes it might be a good idea to revert those. I'm glad we are having this discussion, a great change to clarify this portal topic. Hoping to get multiple votes from editors, especially with more experience than mine. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Done....Should be noted the intro at Template:Portal bar/doc explains the bars purpose for being made. -- Moxy (talk)

Another option, Subject bar template

Greetings, After much searching I finally located this template which I had only seen once or twice.

Template:Subject bar

Wondering if this Subject bar template would be a better alternative than these three?

In the Subject bar documentation it explains placement & reason to use.

This navigational template is intended be placed at the end of an article, after the References or External links and before any navboxes and categories. It offers an variant to several floating box templates that link to books, portals, and Wikipedia's sister projects but also typically cause formatting issues because of their size and alignment.

For example:

((Subject bar |portal1= Biography |portal2= Primates |portal3= Madagascar))

Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

* Seeking more discussion:

Greetings to (Redrose64—PBS—EEng—Otr500—SMcCandlish—Godsy—PamD—Butwhatdoiknow—Bagumba—Izno) – Asking for your comments regarding MOS / Layout, discussion about templates "Portal", "portal bar", "portal-inline" and "Subject bar". Looking for a consensus of where best article placement. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment Summoned by ping. I'm afraid I haven't enough of a feel for the role played by navboxes and so on to have anything useful to add to the conversation. E Eng 17:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
As noted above, I support combining the three templates, but don't care in which direction. If it's a navbox, put it with the rest of the navboxes; if it's something smaller put it in "See also" with interwiki templates, etc. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2016

This edit request to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Basiliscowerdelyne (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC) •write the important details.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

the Layout of header sections, I think it needs more

I was reading the header part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Order of article elements and that made me wonder:

Can/ should a page have more than one infobox ? (the list speaks in the plural)
Should the "Foreign character warning boxes" not be before the info boxes? (assuming that the infobox can contain the foreign characters)

The info on this section is very minimal, more information can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section but then there is no link to that page. (not regarding the headers that is) But even then does this part (the header of an article) not deserve its own Wikipedia:Manual of Style/header section subpage? I did make a link of Navigational boxes (header navboxes) to wikipedia:SIDEBAR and maybe this part can also be expanded on that page. (not all sidebars are relevant here I guess) WillemienH (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding multiple infoboxes, it's sometimes done when a subject is notable in multiple domains. Pat Connaughton plays both basketball and baseball, and has both types of infoboxes. While this "can" happen, it probably shouldn't as it looks clunky IMO; in the ideal world, infoboxes would be more modular to allow for the rare hybrid case. Some infoboxes are designed to include others—see Mark Harmon, who is an actor and former athlete—but even that has some rough edges.—Bagumba (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It's confusing that at WP:ORDER the term "Lead section" is used for the initial chunk of text (listed as the first part of "Body", after a group of items under "Headers"), while the link WP:Lead section leads us to a page which includes all of those "Headers" items as "Elements of the lead".

It would also be useful to have a more detailed list of "what goes where" to include:

They are distinct from the maintenance templates, in that they are permanent aspects of the article - in the case of "Italic title" it's a bit of code to produce an effect, in the other cases a note for editors - but nothing that needs to be dated, or removed when actioned. I think they probably go alongside the Foreign character warning boxes, but it would be helpful if they had a specific home so that their presence or otherwise in an article could be checked quickly. Perhaps all that's needed is for "Foreign character warning boxes" in WP:ORDER to be replaced by some broader category which would clearly include these other things. PamD 15:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm late to discussion, but I agree—I'd like more specific instructions for this sort of thing, including the ((coord)) template.—DocWatson42 (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@DocWatson42: Unless part of the infobox, ((coord)) doesn't go in the header but in the last section, after the succession boxes and navboxes, but before the defaultsort and categories. See MOS:ORDER item 4 sub-item 2. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Oh, foo. I would have sworn I'd read otherwise somewhere (that it goes in the top of articles), back when. <sigh> I think that makes more sense, given the "title" display parameter.—DocWatson42 (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Although the |display=title parameter means that the coords are displayed in the same place on the physical page regardless of the location of ((coord)) in the page source, this is only true for sighted people. For those reliant on screen readers, such as Graham87 (talk · contribs), the order of the page source is crucial, since this governs the order in which the screen reader announces each item. This is why (for example) we insist that hatnotes go first of all. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. The easiest way for me to find the coordinates on a page is to use my screen reader's find feature to search for "coord". Graham87 05:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

MOS:BODY

How should editors interpret the opening sentence of MOS:BODY?

"This style guide only lightly gives recommendations of how the body of an article should be ordered, because the diversity of presentation in various Wikipedia subjects is too great to do more in general summary form..." (italics added)

One way to interpret the opening sentence is that the remaining guidance in MOS:BODY carriers very little weight, and so editors and WikiProjects can disregard the MOS:BODY guidance re sections and paragraphs if they choose. A second way to interpret the language is that MOS:BODY doesn't tell us what content goes in which section headings, but that MOS:BODY's generally applicable advice re sections and paragraphs should still be followed.

If the second interpretation is correct, then the opening language of MOS:BODY is essentially the same advice as what is contained in one of the sections within MOS:BODY — Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Names_and_orders_for_section_headings ("Wikipedia has no general standards or guidelines for what section headings are expected in the bodies of articles or what order they should take ...").

If that interpretation is correct, I would recommend folding the opening language of MOS:BODY into the opening language contained within the subsection re Names_and_orders_for_section_headings. That would remove the redundancy, and make clear that the MOS:BODY generally-applicable guidance re sections and paragraphs should be followed. Thoughts? CUA 27 (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

A third interpretation is that more than any other section, this section of MoS is subject to exceptions dictated by the common sense and penmanship. MoS is great in general but it does not turn its reader into an excellent author. In fact, poor writers can potentially make the life very miserable for the good writers.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I explained myself well the first time, so I'll take another shot. There are four sub-sections within MOS:BODY, but the introductory language to MOS:BODY appears to apply to only the section re names and orders of section headings. I think what I'll do is I'll take a shot at WP:BOLDLY making a change; if editors like the change, great; if not, we can revert. CUA 27 (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Suggest adding Template:Use dmy dates

I suggest adding Template:Use dmy dates to the list of article elements. Iceblock (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Succession boxes without External links

Couldn't find a mention of this at WP:LAYOUTEL. If a small-scale article does not have an External links section, is it still OK to put a succession box below ((reflist)), or does External links need to be created for that alone? Example of the former at Nick Blackwell. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Like navboxes and other such elements, simply put it in the last section. --Izno (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Commons category in see also

What's the rationale behind the decree that ((Commons category)) and similar templates have to be in the last section? It doesn't say that that's where they generally go, but that that's where they have to go. It seems arbitrary to me, and it makes no sense in articles with no "external links" section; it would seem to fit much better in the "see also" section than a references section. I'd like to propose that the guideline be modified to allow use of ((Commons category)) in the see also section where there is no external links section. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

They don't go in any section. The boxes are CSS floated, so they're out of the main flow of text, and they're placed at the bottom of the page.

In terms of where to place them in the wiki source code, they're placed at the top of the last section. The "last section" will often be the External links, but frequently (perhaps most commonly) it will be References that is last, there being no ELs. It is wrong to add an otherwise empty ELs section to hold them. If See also was the last section (in an unreferenced article), the the box could belong there – but when it is there, that actually seems to be a hangover from old articles and ought to be corrected. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I think the correct thing in the absence of an "External links" section is to create one but use ((Commons category-inline)) in it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

No, that's ridiculous (just think about it! The format for showing a link to Commons shouldn't completely change, just whether there's an EL or not.). But that's how a badly worded MOS sentence could have been read at one time (I think it was fixed, then reverted). Andy Dingley (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think it has logic in it: If it is an external link, it belongs in the External links section. Unlike you, I am not in love with floating boxes. I go with whatever style is suitable.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Hey. I think you should remove "Unlike you" from your message because Andy Dingley might take it as an offense. Most probably you didn't mean offense, but please do it anyway. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 07:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

No offence taken. But if Codename Lisa wants to change the Commons box because she doesn't like floating boxes, then that's a separate question and should be dealt with separately.

Personally I do like the floating box. I think that the Commons link has an importance greater than most other things which might be found down at the page footer, so making it distinctive and prominent has value.

I would actually like to see a "Common inline" box too, which could be used for Commons links from sections of an article, placed inline with the article sections. This would be small, left-aligned, but boxed for display and prominence. At present we just have bare text and an icon, which isn't visually distinctive enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

"if [...] she doesn't like floating boxes"

Like I said:

"I go with whatever style is suitable."

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I get it. To be not in love does not mean to hate. You are not obsessed about it but you are okay with it. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 08:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Close enough. I choose whichever fits best and is most natural. When both are okay, priority is with the box. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind the floating box, but why does it make sense to have it floating next to a list of references, as opposed to alongside the "see also" items or somewhere else? It just feels random and arbitrary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Not only random and arbitrary but also defying logic. What is not a reference must not be mixed with references. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

If it were in-line, then I would suggest that its presence would be reason enough to create an "External links" section for it, which resolves the paradox of it being listed with "References"; I agree that leaving it open to listing it like this could surely be confusing to the general reader (whom I would expect to consider anything in that section as an important source of information for the article). I don't think it can have a section to itself while floated, as it leaves a lot of whitespace (and getting rid of whitespace is, to me, one of the main reasons to float an object in the first place).

I do think that floating it to the right of the "See Also" section is also acceptable, as it is simply pointing to another Wikimedia resource (and I'm open to "See Also" links pointing out of Wikipedia into other Wikimedia projects). — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not "alongside the references", it's at the bottom of the page - not right at the bottom, but just below the last heading. Sometimes this is ELs, sometimes Refs. Alongside See also would often put it halfway up a long article page. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

See Also fix

I am having some major reservations with regards to the Seealso section, which suggests that editors can make OR connections between two articles that they themselves perceive as being connected. Instead, why not utilize those connections made by reliable sources, so as to avoid editors making connection like Bernhard Goetz to the Punisher. The connections are often trivial, and the connecting of similar events, persons or things seems to run afoul of OR (and especially synthesis). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the change you are proposing. It would replace editorial judgment and common sense with an unnecessary rule. I also take issue with the fact that you have chosen to not follow WP:BRD but have twice now made the same change when it has become clear that there is opposition. CUA 27 (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

All the existing articles with a See also section would be in breach of the proposed new rule. The verifiable/original research dimension applies to article content: what goes in See also can remain the subject of editorial discretion and discussion. I can't see how this is practicable either: to take an example at random, try to find a reliable source saying that Spanish American wars of independence is linked in some way with History of Spain (1810–73). No, a new rule with major implications like this needs to be subjected to a well-advertised RfC: Noyster (talk), 18:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, we shouldn't be using editorial judgment or common sense to determine what is connected and what is not. We are supposed to use sources to support any statement within Wikipedia (with very few exceptions, like summaries). Why do editors get to determine what shares similarities and what does not when we insist on using references for every other aspect of our articles?

And I was utilizing BRD with my edits. The first revert was because the reverting editor thought the edit wasn't a clarification, so I put it back in as a proposed change; a little AGF wouldn't hurt. RfC's don't come into play unless, after discussion here fails to find a solution.

Lastly, I am not going to address OSE argument, or the idea that there is too much stuff to change. We have tens of thousands of editors working on millions of articles; it would quickly get sorted out, and the end product only strengthens Wikipedia. What if somone comes along and decides - using the guideline as it currently stands - to add to the the Donald Trump article a See Also for Adolph Hitler? There are certainly enough people who think there's a solid enough connection, and I've personally seen at least half a dozen reliable sources that could back up the claim. But of course, I wouldn't need cites to make the connection, because its up to my judgment to connect them in the See Also. That's what this hole in guideline allows. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose for the same reasons mentioned by CUA 27 and Noyster. One cannot simply replace the care for WP:NPOV (or lack thereof) with rules that cannot be enforced. It isn't just the man who must respect the laws. Laws must respect men too. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, we are just in the discussion phase at this point, Lisa; no need to vote yet. I don't understand your statement; how could 'See also' sections go unenforced? IEither a connection is cited with respect to our NOR and V policies, or its not. The litmus for inclusion is not our synthesis of two separate things into a perceived connection, but a referenced source that makes those connections. Out of all of our collective edits, what we remove the most from Wikipedia articles is uncited content. If the See also in an article is truly connected, then a source would have connected them. If they have not, then its a sure sign that its the editor using their own particular judgment to connect them. That's not what we are here for. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

One more go: A "See also" item is not a statement, of fact or of someone's opinion, needing support from citations. A "See also" is a suggestion: it's telling the reader "We've got these other related articles as well that may interest you; you won't already know about them because we didn't link them in the text". How these suggestions are related to the main article should be pretty damn obvious and no more contentious than including List of museums in London as a see-also under London (try finding a citation to support that). Tendentious, even perhaps libellous, see-also entries, such as linking an article about a living person to a hate-figure of another time and country, should be removed on sight and if an arguable perceived connection is somehow really important to tell readers about, it should appear in the article body, of course cited and with due weight to different views: e.g. [hypothetical example]:

"Some commentators have compared John Doe to Hitler,^{1 2 3} while others have likened him to St Francis.^{4 5 6}"

There should be nothing under See also that calls for a citation and perhaps that is what may be appropriate to reinforce on the MoS page: Noyster (talk), 20:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe your statement that "A 'See also' item is not a statement, of fact or of someone's opinion" is incorrect. You advertise it as an advert for other articles which is related to the article they are reading. It is in point of fact a relationship that the editor is stipulating exists. We as editors aren;t allowed to make those sorts of judgments; we use references to make those connections. And simply adding Hitler to the See also section of the Trump article would indeed be libel - as it would present as an uncited connection - adding it with a reference removes us from any libelous behavior, as we are adding reliably-sourced statements. However, the discussion of Trump is moot.

Here is the basic question to ask yourself: has a reliable source noted the connection between this article and the See also link? If not, then its clearly not important enough or close enough to connect. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

While the libelous intricacies of adding statements that Trump reminds many Holocaust survivors of Hitler aren't lost on me, citing the numerous sources that take this stance removes us from the chain of libel, as we are simply adding reliably-sourced statements

I continue to oppose the proposed change. If this proposal were implemented, many articles would have their See also sections eliminated or significantly shrunk, which would impede readers from discovering articles on related topics. More fundamentally, I don't see what is the problem that this change is attempting to solve — the fact that tangentially related articles show up in the See also section is not a problem to be fixed; instead, that's the very purpose of the See also section. CUA 27 (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@CUA 27: So, if I am to understand your opposition to the proposed change, it is based on the supposition that doing so would make See Also sections vanish, leaving the reader high and dry without a way to follow their bliss to related articles, right? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I think consensus here is against this. I really wish Jack would have let me know of this discussion since between us on an article talk page, and I think efforts to go and change a policy while you're arguing with another user, especially when it appears Jack tried to do this unilaterally, without consensus here, such a bold move for such a significant change to a longstanding policy, when the other user has existing policy on his side, are disingenuous and duplicitous. This sort of thing has not only gotten people blocked; they have been hauled before ArbCom and admonished. Wikipedia is not the Kobayashi Maru. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, that is not the case. My edit to the See also in the article in question was reverted citing policy, and when I saw that allowing the slimmest of connections was actually allowed, I initiated conversation here. I knew your position; I wanted other viewpoints. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose a dangerous rule basedon a misunderstanding that would weaken Wikipedia. Editors have roles of reading the Wiki articles to see which articles are related. The main objection is that an editor commits OR: that is false because OR only deals with secret unknown info that cannot be checked. In this case everyone in one second can click on the SEE ALSO item and see whether it is linkable. (Outside published sources will almost never discuss the Wiki articles--the editor has to read the two wiki articles.) Rjensen (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow, just..wow. Allow me to correct a number of interpretation errors in your post @Rjensen:.

First is the supposition that that my proposed alteration to the policy is a "dangerous" "misunderstanding" that would "weaken" Wikipedia. I don't see any 'misunderstanding' in my expectation that information be cited. In point of fact, the See also section absolutely encourages Original Research via Synthesis.

To use the case intimated by Daniel Case above, we have an article about a missing child. In the See also, there is another article about another missing child. There are precisely zero references connecting the two - the connection exists solely in the perception of the editor. With mad props to Daniel, he is taking the aspects of two very different, unrelated cases and noting them as similar. This is a verbatim violation of synthesis, and is currently allowed by this See also guideline. While Daniel's instance is less of a leap, the aforementioned instance of connecting Trump to Hitler is a huge one to make; without references, its a BLP violation.

A second point you made: "Outside published sources will almost never discuss the Wiki articles", is e a startling misunderstanding of what we are talking about here. No, when i say that in order to connect the two (using the example of the two articles about missing children), there has to be a source discussing how one disappearance has similarities to the case being wikilinked. I am not sure where you got the idea that a source has to connect one wikipedia article to another wkipedia article. No one has suggested that. Ever.

So, the main thrust of this problem is, in essence, while we do not allow editors to synthesize material anywhere else in Wikipedia, this one section allows us to make connections based on no sources, and the probability of See also connections approaching the esoteric, absurd and just plain wrong approached 100%.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

"information be cited" is a misunderstanding. the "see also" article is information and it is cited. Wiki has always had the rule that a text is a reliable source about itself that when any reader has access to it. Rjensen (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, you are completely missing the point: what reference connects the two different articles? The answer is that no reference connects the two, and so this current state of the rule allows editors to do something that they cannot do virtually anywhere else in Wikipedia - they get to use original research to synthesize a connection that they cannot cite. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Good articles are written by good editors in possession of excellent judgment. Ignoring this fact, Jack is trying to supersede editor's discretion with impossible rules. (Stress on impossible.) Do I even need to say that it is insane? Cheers. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 04:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@FleetCommand:'good editors in possession of excellent judgment'. We both know that this is rarely true. If it were, there'd be no need for noticeboards and ArbCom. While there are excellent editors out there, they are excellent because they follow the policies that we set down, pertinent among those being no original research, verifiability.

I guess i am not understanding why its "impossible" or "insane" to expect every editor to you know, find references for connections? It's an encyclopedia. See Also sections that allow Synthesis erode one of the Pillars of Wikipedia. What is the point of insisting on no original research, when editors are allowed to do precisely that with a synthesized connection?

Let me ask you a very simple question - if a reliable source didn't connect the article to something int he see also section, what makes it worthy of note? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

"they are excellent because they follow the policies that we set down"

How arrogant, especially for a person who doesn't have a Good Article or Featured Article is his or her record. In fact, your edit history shows you are just a pot calling one million kettles black.

"erode one of the Pillars of Wikipedia"

Wikipedia has no such pillar. Pillars of Wikipedia are WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:Copyrights, WP:Civility and WP:IAR.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 11:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Could you please limit your comments to the content of the edits and not attacking the editor? I'm fairly certain that being civil is one of the Pillars. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Defending one million editors is never uncivil. Arrogance is. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 12:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

When you do so using indefensible personal attacks, its uncivil. Please AGF and be civil. Or else. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't assume bad faith in you. As a matter of fact, any editor except vandals are acting in good faith. (Okay, this is not my original opinion, but it is true.) But what you said was clearly an affront to one million editors and simply being indifferent to it is very difficult. Now, back to our discussion: Even very bad editors often have a very good judgment as to what link must be included. That's one side. The other side is your proposed law is impossible to effectively implement: There isn't enough sources that introduce connected material and those that do it use inferior methods, i.e. either they rely on one editor's judgment (we rely on editors' consensus) or use automated matching. The third side is that WP:V has never asked for sources for implicit assertions. Hasn't it ever occurred to you that the link introduced in See also section might not be connected to the topic at all? They may have superficial resemblances or even be tangentially related. When you say "give me a source for their connection", it is you who claims they are connected and the burden of the source is on you. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 02:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you are deeply misunderstanding the matters being discussed, @FleetCommand:. To being with. I'm not suggesting a law, but instead, that follow the rules already in place that govern how we edit articles in Wikipedia. I completely reject the idea that we cannot implement those rules in 'See also' sections, because we do so already within virtually every other aspects of the encyclopedia.

When an editor notes similarities between two different articles by wikilinking them to each other, the editor is creating the connection between the two. We editors aren't allowed to do that, because its a specific type of original research called synthesis, in that we are drawing a connection between two things that have no other connection except that which is made by the editor themselves.

Now, synthesis is completely okay for a reliable source to do, but it isn't allowable for us as editors. This is why I believe that in order to keep these sections of synthesis, we need to reference their connection to a RS. If a source did not note a connection, we are not permitted to do the detective work for them. We cannot create connections - we can only note how others have.

This is fundamental to how Wikipedia works. We do not create connections because we personally notice them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose (1) "Hey, take a look at this too" isn't an assertion, so it's hardly subject to the standards for WP:V and WP:N applicable to assertions in the text of an article. If other editors find there isn't a real connection, or that the connection is of the type that categories are meant to cover, or that the connection is very subjective, involving a measure of synthesis, or involves insinuation or defamation, then they can remove the link, subject to the same rules applicable to any editing of contributions by others. And if there's a dispute, then it can be sent to dispute resolution. (2) <sarcasm>I propose that we go even further than the proposal here: We should require that all sources cited in articles ("Tier 1" sources) be supported by "Tier 2" sources that confirm that the Tier 1 sources are, indeed, reliable sources. Because, heaven knows, we can't have editors using their own judgment as to what reliable sources are. We must leave that judgment to outside sources. Example: If the Washington Post says that Der Spiegel is a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes, then we can treat Der Spiegel as a reliable source.</sarcasm> Largoplazo (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Again @Largoplazo:, I ask: who is making the comparison that two separate things are related, a source or the editor? It's an easy question. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

If it wasn't crystal clear that my response was a criticism of the idea that we should require a source to support the association of one topic with another, I can't think of any clearer way to put it. Largoplazo (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

If I am to understand you correctly, you are saying that drawing an editor, taking two different things and suggesting a relationship of similarity exists between them, is doing nothing that conflicts with our guidelines? I just wanted to be clear of your position. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose I'm going to add my opinion too. Since I'm getting kind of tired of this. Oppose, for every reason already stated here. It's pretty clear no one agrees with the proposal already. There is no big problem here. The see also section should only link to things that are obviously simmalar or related. No sources should be needed.*Trekker (talk) 10:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion being continued elsewhere

@Codename Lisa:@FleetCommand:@CUA 27:@Noyster:@Largoplazo:@Rjensen: About three weeks after the discussion above, Jack (apparently) cited it as justification for removing the material he objected to. After some revert warring and discussion between the two of us, he opened a discussion at BLPN. Some of the participants above may want to add to it. Daniel Case (talk) 07:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Paragraphs

To quote the policy: "Bullet points should be minimized in the body and lead of the article, if they are used at all; however, a bulleted list may be useful to break up what would otherwise be a large, grey mass of text, particularly if the topic requires significant effort on the part of readers."

That would be the only time that one would use bullet points. I would recommend a change to:

"Bullet points should not be used in the lead of an article, and should not be used in the body unless for breaking up a large, grey mass of text, particularly if the topic requires significant effort on the part of the reader."

Do other editors have a point of view before I change the policy, please? Regards, William Harris |talk 05:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks like an improvement to me. Thanks. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

MOS:BODY - Section templates and summary style

I am happy with the treatment of the template Main but not the templates for Details, Further and Also. This is because Main clearly introduces material from another article that is about to immediately follow below this template, however the other 3 being placed at the beginning of a section would have them appearing without any context. For example, in the article and chapter Origin of the domestic dog#First dogs as a hunting technology, why would a reader who commenced reading this chapter want to then be immediately confronted with "Further information Dog type" when we have not even introduced dog types yet. The place for it is at the bottom of the chapter and leading the reader towards the next article that focuses on dog types. I note that there is no rationale provided in MOS:BODY for placing these 3 templates immediately below the section heading, except for "rather than being scattered throughout the text of a section" - however, I believe that is exactly where they belong, placed below the paragraph that introduces the topic. I would like to hear the points of view of other editors on this matter. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 03:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It is my intention to change:

"These additional references should be grouped along with the ((Main)) template (if there is one), for easy selection by the reader, rather than being scattered throughout the text of a section."

to read as follows:

"These additional references may be grouped along with the ((Main)) template (if there is one), or at the foot of the section or the paragraph that introduces the material for which these templates provide additional information."

Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 07:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed change. I prefer to retain the current guidance. It looks quite unprofessional to have these scattered throughout the section. CUA 27 (talk) 12:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

You appear not to have read my comment in the first paragraph and the reason as to why I am proposing this change. Please direct your counter-argument to whether you believe the templates should appear before or after the material that introduces them, rather than to what you personally believe may or may not look "professional", which comes down to a personal preference rather than a structure issue. (Please keep in mind that this is about a user's learning and reading experience, and not how something looks in its own right.) Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 08:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

For future reference: I understand your passion, but starting out with "You appear not to have read..." may not be the best way to put the person you are trying to convince in a persuasive mood. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Right. And in the next sentence he starts issuing orders regarding what he will allow me to comment on. Strange. CUA 27 (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I was not trying to convince, I was trying to put the issue back on track. People will either support the idea on its logical merit or they will not. I have never heard of an order being given that started with the word "please". Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 03:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with "These additional references may be grouped along with the ((Main)) template (if there is one), or at the foot of the section that introduces the material for which these templates provide additional information." (Removing "or the paragraph.") Inserting templated links within sections interrupts the flow of the text. If the link is so crucial then the editor can include it as a generic link in the text. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

That is a compromise that I can work with. I will wait until 1 February for any other input that might be coming from editors. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 03:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

MOS for foreign names

There's a discussion about how to include foreign names at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Foreign names in the lead. Any thoughts? HerkusMonte (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Further reading is not external links

Headings

Order of article elements: what about Italic title, Use DMY dates, etc ?

Taxonomic lists?

see also sections are not mini-outlines of the article

"See also" and piped links

Suggested change

What proposed names and orders exist for the sections in the bodies of articles?

Introductory Paragraph Needed

See also links and hatnotes

Wiktionary box

Works cited

Further reading

Interwiki links

Location of tag

Paragraphs: at least three sentences

See also links with italic titles

Order of footer parts

Deprecating the "In popular culture" heading

Placement of ((good article))

Duplicate wikilink

"See also" content

RFC on Position of Refimprove tag

See also and navboxes

Biographies: Section order referring to "end of life"

Issue: unable to find MOS/Layout doc for template 'Subject bar'

Section merge proposed

Placement of ((Portal bar))

Poll area

Discussion area

Another option, Subject bar template

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2016

the Layout of header sections, I think it needs more

MOS:BODY

Suggest adding Template:Use dmy dates

Succession boxes without External links

Commons category in see also

See Also fix

See also – break

Discussion being continued elsewhere

Paragraphs

MOS:BODY - Section templates and summary style

MOS for foreign names