Misplaced Pages

talk:Manual of Style/Layout: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:46, 30 December 2012 editMiszaBot II (talk | contribs)259,776 editsm Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 90d) to Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive 9.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:42, 6 December 2024 edit undoDocWatson42 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers217,233 edits →Placement of the "Bots" template?: New section.Tag: New topic 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header|shortcut=WT:MOSLAYOUT}}
{{notice|header=Format of appendices|Please read ] before proposing a change to the standard appendices.}}
{{notice|header=Format of appendices|Before proposing a change to the standard appendices, please study {{section link|Misplaced Pages:Perennial proposals|Changes to standard appendices}}.}}
{{WPMOS}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Manual of Style}}
}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 150K |maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 9 |counter = 15
|algo = old(90d) |algo = old(150d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{archives|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot II|age=90}}

== See also navbox ==

Regarding the navbox templates, I wonder why not always collapse and always place them in See also? In some articles, those navbox links are four screens below See also, where some visitor who do scan the entire article will not tread, and their purpose is not obvious as section heading "See also" is obvious. --] (]) 22:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

: At this point the reason "why not" is that the current rule has been applied in hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of articles. The template {{tl|Navbox link}} is a work-around solution to the problems you identify. See ] for an example. ] (]) 00:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

:: What now, since the poorly executed but recommended {{tl|Navbox link}} has been, eh, executed?
:: That footer ] is a hyper example, with a few External links and See also Navboxes four screens below section See also.
:: Is this under discussion somewhere else? --] (]) 00:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


== Placement of the commons category template ==
* '''Suppport.''' I, for one, would support modifying ] to allow (not require) the proposal above. I see three objections to this proposal:
::'''First''', it would introduce inconsistency, with some articles having navboxes at the end and some in See also. The response to this objection is that it leads to a violation of the basic principal that Misplaced Pages is "]." ''See also'' ].


See also the section ] above by ], this is not about that whole section but placement of ].
::'''Second''', guides should only reflect <u>current</u> practice. This approach sets up a ] situation (a new proposal becomes standard by use; but use of a new proposal is prohibited because it is not standard). So the actual rule is that ].


Could we please slightly change the part ] of this guideline per ] for the following reasons:
::'''Third''', it is aesthetically unpleasing. In other words, it is a good idea but "]." ''See also'' ] and ]. ] (]) 13:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


* it is '''already widely practiced''' to put this template into the See also section rather than the external links and this is for good reasons where the guideline doesn't reflect actual practice
*'''Alternative:''' I too find separating the navboxes from the '''See also''' section very illogical and annoying. Rather than moving the navboxes, I would suggest moving the '''See also''' section to the end of the article with the navboxes as the final items in the '''See also''' section. This would place all these links in the same section and make them easy to find. If a user is looking for a related article to read, the end of the article is the most logical place to find those links (at least to my very simple mind.) '''External links''' could be made a subsection of the '''See also''' section. Yours aye, ] 17:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
* the '''References section is often very long''', thereby in practice burying this box so nobody sees it (people rarely click or notice even if it was in the See also section)
::This worsens the current problem that our external links are mixed in with our internal ones (currently just with navboxes there). Another related issue is that our category structure is down there too. One alternative would be to place categorical links in a form of side bar like do, although this would require a MediaWiki overhaul. Another solution would be to have a small "related articles" link at the side which would then expand to show the relevant nav boxes, portal, and/or categories. This again might have to be an entirely novel concept, and may present unusual accessibility issues. ] 21:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
* the reason for ] the External links was recommended for it seems partly or mostly be because if there are many images above the template it can move it into the References section (as depicted ]) causing layout problems however the '''layout problem can be solved''' by:
*#simply adding <code><nowiki>{{clear}}</nowiki></code> at the bottom of the See also section below the template (if not adding it to the template itself)
*#since it only affects pages with images close to the see also section (or so many images that they get close it) that may push the template down, this info could be added to the guideline so that in such cases either it goes into the external links or needs a <code><nowiki>{{clear}}</nowiki></code> at the bottom of the See also section
* one could recommend to only put it into the See also section '''if it is a well-populated well-organized WMC category''' or simply make that the established practice so people readily find more media for an article whenever WMC has lots of media that isn't included in the article itself
* the associated Wikimedia Commons category for many pages can be very useful since only a few images are included in an article even if there are lots of them on WMC and people are '''relatively likely to be interested in'''/seeking more of them (e.g. more charts about the subject or files subcategorized by subtopic) – there is no good reason to make these links that inaccessible and disadvantage this other mature heavily-used well-maintained but barely-popular Wikimedia project and readers by making it so inaccessible. Files on WMC are very complementary to the article which is generally a text-based entry about the subject and of high interest to many readers which would appreciate if this link was more visible to them. ] made some related points in the link above.


So if the External links section isn't moved to below the See alsos which also seems reasonable at least for {{tooltip|most cases|that is >50% and for example articles on policies where the official link with far more details should be well-visible but less often in other cases with e.g. lots of links or links that already are in the article's top infobox}}, I'd like to improve this part for the above reasons – let's discuss and please be clear and specific if you have any objections. ] (]) 16:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Given that there is no opposition, should I add text to the guide allowing (but not requiring) this concept? ] (]) 11:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
:At present, if ] is followed rigidly, the only visible content after the navboxes will be stub templates (plus the persondata if you have the relevant cusomisation set up, see ]), because the categories and ] are moved into separate boxes not because of their positioning in the wikicode, but by features built into the MediaWiki software. Since navboxes constructed using {{tlx|navbox}} are always full-width, there is a psychological effect that they "draw a line" marking the end of the article; there is No More To See Here, Folks: Move Along Now. Essentially, what happens after the navboxes is stuff that's been swept aside, thus, if navboxes are moved up to "See also", this will downgrade the references. People won't take refs seriously, and won't bother adding them.
:If we ''must'' move navboxes to "See also", let's do it by moving "See also" to after the external links. --] (]) 11:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
:: I respectfully request that you reconsider your conclusion that one collapsed navbox in See also would downgrade references. With regard to your specific points: The introduction of new features is slowly separating footer navboxes from categories. See, for example, ] and ]. It seems unlikely that a single collapsed navbox will act as a stop sign to readers. And much larger navboxes already appear inside some articles, (] for example. Finally, while many readers reach the reference section by clicking on a footnote link, I suspect that few readers actually read it ''in toto''. If anything, it is the reference sections themselves - particularly long ones - that send a "No More To See Here" message (downgrading everything that follows). And, of course, the requirement that Misplaced Pages content be sourced means that the references cannot and will not be downgraded by anything in the See also section.


=="Places with more information"==
:: So what do you think? Whether or not we move See also (see below), doesn't it make sense to allow editors to place navbox information (containing wikilinks) in that section? ] (]) 12:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
: For extensive opposition to such see ] and related deletion discussions. So no, don't just change the policy because you prefer it, there is clearly consensus against adding such navigation aids to the See also section however it is done. The layout works as it is.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 14:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
::: Mr. Blackburne, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the opposition you cite relates to having a side box in See also that points readers to navboxes appearing at the end of an article. In contrast, P64's proposal discussed here is to allow navboxes to appear in See also (which would obviate the need for any sort of pointer in See also). If I am correct then there is no ''current'' consensus for or against P64's proposal. ] (]) 18:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
::::Yes, no broad consensus for it, which is certainly required for a policy/guideline change. If you think it should be changed it should be via an RfC or a discussion on a notice board such as the village pump, not because of a two month old thread on a talk page of a sub-page of a policy page – splitting the manual of style into separate sub-pages has made it much more manageable but means each page is watched by far fewer editors.--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 18:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


I've run across a number of articles lately that have a section at the end of the article called "Places with more information" - see for example ]. These are typically lists of societies, libraries, museums, etc; they do not typically include direct links to any specific pages, resources, or collections related to the page topic. What should be done with these? Should they be incorporated into Further reading? Removed entirely? Something else? ] (]) 01:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
:'''Very strong oppose''' --- Things have been otherwise for years and we have been just fine. This is a lateral change at best and at worst would confuse long-term users. Second, when I have come across nav boxes that are put in odd places, the article looks terrible. So, as far as ''layout'' is concerned, navboxes have no place in the middle of articles. ] (]) 23:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. The current situation, where navbox links typically appear to be in the "External Links" section, is quite clearly illogical. ] (]) 17:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


:I don't have a strong feeling about where to put this information but I support leaving it in. - ] (]) 11:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
:'''Strongly oppose''' It would make our articles inconsistent, and would also be confusing for users. I agree that the placement of Navboxes is currently suboptimal, but there should be a consistent guideline for all articles so that it doesn't cause user confusion and to increase consistency across articles. ] (]) 06:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


== Sections for navboxes == == Single-sentence paragraphs ==


Re:
Please see discussion at ] concerning layout. —] (]) 05:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


I suspect that most of MoS lacks such precise definition and requires judgment calls. Effectively in practice, the current guideline says, "Single-sentence paragraphs bad", and I witnessed it being interpreted/applied exactly that way just today. It wasn't the first time. That's a problem that needs addressing (there can't be a CREEP objection to re-wording a sentence), and I'm open to alternative suggestions. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 05:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
=== RfC: Section headings for horizontal navigation templates ===
] ] (]) 18:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


:Perhaps delete the entire wishy-washy sentence? Or, if it is important to say, move it to ]? It doesn't really seem to be a layout issue. - ] (]) 15:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
== Using == Sources == in appendices ==
:I think "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized" is sane advice and don't see any good reason to change it. It doesn't say that such paragraphs are forbidden, but just that they should usually be avoided, which is a good rule of thumb and in agreement with my own editing experience. ] (]) 16:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
::I think Mandruss is trying to solve the problem of editors reading "should be minimized" as "should be zero." Why not just remove the whole sentence*? ''See'' ].
:::<nowiki>*</nowiki> To clarify, the "whole sentence" I'm proposing to remove is the one in this article that is causing the problem: ''The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read.''
::- ] (]) 18:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
:::If everything that can be misread is removed from the MOS, the MOS will be empty. Why not just point people who have misread something to the actual wording so they can read it again? ] (]) 18:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
::::They didn't misread it the first time. The problem is disagreement about whether the case in question is part of the "minimum". The guideline provides no answer, no help with that. A guideline that effectively says "Use your own judgment" is not a guideline and should be modified or eliminated per CREEP. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 20:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::Some degree of judgement is always necessary, but that rule is still good advice. ] (]) 22:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::Which rule? &#8213;]&nbsp;] 22:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
::::If everything that is good advice is placed in MOS, the MOS will be infinitely long. - ] (]) 00:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::That, however, is not an argument for taking stuff out that's already in (and wasn't added just recently). ] (]) 06:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::Right, it's no better argument than "If everything that can be misread is removed from the MOS, the MOS will be empty."
::::::The argument for taking the sentence out is that is is not a "rule" but is being taken as one by some editors. ''See'' ].
::::::What - besides "it's been there for ages" - is the argument for keeping it in this guideline (rather than removing it or moving it to an essay)? - ] (]) 15:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
*For whatever it’s worth, the essay ] says: “One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly.”] (]) 06:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)


== External links followup ==
There's a bot request at ] to change section headings currently named ==Sources== to ==References==. ] (]) 04:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
: Sounds like something a bot shouldn't do. How and where do I register that opinion? ] (]) 04:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
:: I figured it out. ] (]) 19:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


Greetings and felicitations. Per the discussion I just started on ], it seems that we forgot to update or involve ] or ]—or ] for that matter. :-/ —] (]) 19:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
== SEEALSO to foreign language WPs ==


== Interpretation of guideline concerning links to sister projects ==
Is there a standard for adding interwiki see-alsos? It seems to me that there ought to be ''some'' way to do this, as sometimes an article that exists only in a different Misplaced Pages is relevant to the topic, but is not reasonably construed as the ''same'' topic (so you can't just use the interlang link). Of course it would be possible to use an external link, but I believe external links to Misplaced Pages are considered inferior to using wiki markup.


The ] guideline states (just slightly paraphrased) {{tq|The "See also" section should not include red links or external links (including links to pages within Wikimedia sister projects.}} This seemed to me to apply but I was reverted . Could we get a second opinion on whether these de.wiki links, which are redlinks on en.wiki, are appropriate or inappropriate? ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">]</span> (]) 15:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
The solution I chose at ] was to add the link unpiped, so that the language code is clearly evident, and add a warning that it is in Italian. But there may be a more elegant or more standard way. If so, perhaps we should mention it explicitly at ]. --] (]) 09:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
: This would come down to three questions:
:* Are {{tl|illm}} links counted as wikilinks (IMHO, yes) or as 'links to sister projects', i.e. the {{tl|commons-inline}} form?
:* Are redlinks excluded from See Also ? Our basic policy says yes. However we have previously followed a practice where obvious sets, such as geographical sets (the case here) have been kept even though red.
:* Is an {{tl|illm}} local redlink with a valid link to de:WP (and for an article that is essentially German) treated as a pure redlink to the same extent, re. purging them like this? ] (]) 17:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
:*There was a long and inconclusive discussion of {{tl|ill}} links at ], which may be relevant.
:]] 20:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
::I'd say the guideline is clear and interpret it as it's written, which means ''not'' to include links to sister projects (including Wikipedias in other languages) nor red links, as those won't benefit our average reader. (Red links might benefit editors and links to the German Misplaced Pages might benefit readers fluent in German, but I'd argue that neither can be considered as "average".) ] (]) 06:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
::: And yet if these weren't links at all, we might still include them (although not in this section) as a ''list'' of the related local equivalent sites. That, IMHO, is what tips these over. And even as someone with very poor German, I can follow a link and read a map (again, a useful action for this case). ] (]) 10:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Well, whether they belong into the "External links" section is a separate issue, to be discussed separately if somebody thinks so. But that doesn't magically change what's admissible for the "See also" section, which has its own clear rules. ] (]) 13:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::::: There is no way (nor has anyone suggested it) that they would belong under 'External links'
::::: Even clear sister project links don't belong there. (They are floated CSS boxes, which are coded within the ''last'' section on the page. Although this is often 'External links', that's not where they're related to.) ] (]) 22:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)


==External links section==
*Interlanguage ] of any type other than "essentially the same article, but different language version of Misplaced Pages" interlanguage links are discussed at ]. ] allows you to add other text after the link such as "(Italian Misplaced Pages)" for example. Your solution looks OK to me. ] (]) 12:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
It is just an observation but the ] reads {{tq|An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized...}} and {{tq|Any links to external websites included under "Further reading" are subject to the guidelines described at ].}},


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


It would seem to be less confusing to add "An optional bulleted list" because the section is "optional". -- ] (]) 15:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
There is now an RFC at ] on ].] (]) 07:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
:Almost every section discussed in Layout is optional. Perhaps a better solution would be to remove "optional" from Further reading. - ] (]) 15:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
::Makes sense. ] (]) 07:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)


== See also section status ==
== Authority control ==


My experience and general observation is that see also sections are slowly being trimmed back and deprecated during the article development process. This is because most of the time, as an article progresses from a stub, entries in the see also section can often be incorporated into the article and eliminated. However, at least one editor feels differently, and is keeping the spirit of the early 2000s alive. ("It's the <s>90s</s> 2000s, Colin!") Instead of using the see also section for articles that can be incorporated into the article during the expansion process, they are using the see also section purely as a navigational tool. In this instance, they are using the see also section in a wide variety of articles to point to "list of x" articles that are generally related to the biographical subject, such as a list of their paintings or books, etc. In most cases, this usage duplicates links in the footer template. The user has several justifications as to why we should use the see also section as a navigational tool instead of the footer template, often having to do with limitations on mobile users and the uptick in article hits (or so it is claimed) when the see also navigational link is used. I don't have any strong feelings on this, but I think adding see also sections as a navigational tool is slightly unusual and isn't spelled out or explained anywhere in the MOS, and is also, in many cases, duplicating the link in the footer template. More input would be appreciated. {{ping|Randy Kryn}} courtesy ping. ] (]) 21:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Is there a consensus as to where {{tl|Authority control}} should come in the list of ]? If so, would some kind person add it to the Manual. ] (]) 19:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
:Hi. I was about to ask the same question. What a coincidence. Best regards, ] (]) 19:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
:: It should be in External links, presumably as the last Ext link because it draws a horizontal line whereas Wikiquote(?) and that ilk are flushleft.
:: {Authority control} would then precede navigation boxes, according to ]. The popular location in biographies that I visit, however, may be described as "last of the External links if we consider navigation boxes External links". --flush against the last navigation box, where it is practically invisible unless all navigation boxes are collapsed.
:: It seems to me that genuine rather than superficial consensus for {authority control} depends on consensus about the navigational boxes. --which we don't yet have; see the preceding section.


:Any examples. I see that there have been a few talk about dropping footer.templates all together since only about 20% of our readers have access to them. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 21:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:: The WorldCat link is immensely useful and {{tl|Authority control}} has been redesigned recently to display it first, at left, rather than last. It belongs in External links and it cannot function as a replacement for template {{tl|worldcat}} if it follows navigation boxes. --I mean a {worldcat} link to the subject of a biography in the footer of the biography. That is practically redundant only if {authority control} precedes any navigation boxes.
:: --] (]) 21:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
:::It was discussed some weeks ago at ] (there had been a number of problems with edits which altered pages so that they no longer conformed to ]), and AFAIK once it had settled down to a position immediately above the {{tlx|persondata}}, there have been no further complaints. --] (]) 22:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


::It might be easier to just look at Randy's . He's committed to this like peanut butter on jelly. However, if you just want to look at one article instead of a bunch, you can take a look at '']'', where the see also duplicates the same link in the footer (which I've now collapsed). I guess I'm just not familiar with Randy's position that the see also should be used for navigation, and that's not something I've seen in the MOS, although I could be missing it. My objection to footer templates is that they look terrible, so I wouldn't be sad to see them go. If there was a way to make them look professional, then I would be in favor of keeping them. ] (]) 22:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
== See also section ==
:::I see the link at ] as a good addition as the footer is not see by the vast majority of our readers. This reminds me of what we do for country articles linking an index or an outline of the topic.... that is links that lead to a vast amount of information about the topic. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 22:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Great, could I see an example of such a country article link? I'm not familiar with it. ] (]) 22:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::] as outlined at the essay ] "See also – 'See also" sections of country articles normally only contain links to "Index of country" and "Outline of country" articles, alongside the main portal(s).". <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 22:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::That's great, because it limits and restricts the type of entries at the project/country level. I'm not sure that applies or is relevant to biographies, works of art, literature, etc., but I could see how one could loosely apply it. I don't see anything at ] or any the other relevant projects, however. ] (]) 22:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::It's something they should develop...... or at the very least develop some sort of anti-template spam that is seen at ]....that is one of the many examples used to justify why nav footers aren't visible in mobile view..... all related to '''masslink spam''' to loosely related articles and ]. ] is one of the worst ideas the MOS has and is simply ignored by those working on academic topics that are concerned about accessibility and structure of an article. WP:BIDIRECTIONAL results in mass template span that really only affects pop culture and biography articles and if one of the main reasons footers aren't seen in mobile view.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 22:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Thank you for the education. I'm more confused than before I started this thread, but over time I've come to learn that's a sign of progress. ] (]) 22:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Moxy}} I’ve been thinking about this, and I don’t really see how the link is all that helpful in see also sections about individual paintings. Yes, it should definitely appear in a top-level article about the artist, but in an article about an individual painting I don’t find it helpful or informative. There is virtually no useful content, such as info about his different periods and styles, and the accuracy of the information is probably in doubt. If it was a verified list with relevant material I wouldn’t have a problem with it, but it’s not. We just have one editor spamming the list to every article about Renoir, and I don’t like that. How does the link help the reader of the article? I don’t find it helpful, so I don’t see how anyone else does. I also don’t think it’s the job of the article to facilitate navigation, but rather understanding. For this reason, I would prefer to remove the see also section and merge the link into the article itself. ] (]) 04:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:I think having the most important related articles in the "See also" section (provided they weren't already mentioned in the article text) is a good thing, since we should not forget that mobile readers (which are clearly the majority, as far as I know) won't see footer templates at all, so having the "See also" section as a kind of mini-footer template will certainly help them. It's indeed no longer the 2000s, and we should try to think "mobile first" now. ]. (]) 07:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::Yeah, I’m a bit confused by that, honestly. 90% of all cell phones are smartphones, and many people browse in desktop mode. So where is this whole mobile users aren’t seeing footer templates thing coming from? I assume you are talking about people using the app? ] (]) 07:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I see now that you are referring to https://en.m.wikipedia.org, specifically. ] (]) 08:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Navboxes are coded to prevent their display on the Mobile Web site. This is because the layout is horrendous when the screen is 2.5 inches wide.
:::You can approximate the problem if you visit a page like ] and make your browser window as narrow as possible. The more 'nested' the template, the worse the problem. See ] for an example of that. Navboxes were designed as wide tables, and those just don't fit into the smartphone format. ] (]) 08:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't have a problem with navboxes and templates in iOS (except for playing video) but I assume other people do. ] (]) 08:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Scroll to the end of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Multidrug-resistant_bacteria on your phone. Make sure you are on the default-for-iOS mobile site, not switched to the desktop view. Do you see a navbox at the end of the page? ] (]) 18:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Yeah, I got it. Thanks. ] (]) 18:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I talk about people using browsers on mobile, not about the app. When I open Misplaced Pages on my smartphone's browser, I don't see any navboxes. It happens automatically based on one's screen size, as far as I know – which is very reasonable. Like ] said, navboxes on phone screens would be a terrible user experience, and I'm quite happy that they are automatically hidden. But of course that means that we can't rely on them for anything essential. ] (]) 17:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I edit and write from my phone on a daily basis, but I use desktop mode, not mobile. ] (]) 02:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''To put a cork in the See also concern''', to put it to bed. In February 2023, in one of my many See also runs, I distributed ] to the See also section of its entries. The result: , . That's probably the most productive run I've done in terms of views, yet there are dozens more which have upped daily views by many hundreds. I actually consider a See also run worthwhile if it adds 20 views a day, and look at that as a success (especially when considering yearly totals). ] (]) 01:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*: at 65.5% for English Misplaced Pages. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 01:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*::Thanks. Is See also not seen on mobile? ] (]) 01:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::"See also" is seen..... just linking stats for all. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 02:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::..... To see how messed up these are in mobile view..... our administrative pages allow nav templates to be seen. ]. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 02:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::I was commenting on "See also" in this section, the subject of this discussion where my name was initially dragged around. My comment on navboxes is below. ] (]) 02:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::::And how many people view and edit from their phone in desktop mode? ] (]) 02:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::Dragged, as in 1) one courtesy ping per best practices, and 2) answering a question about where examples could be found. Got it. ] (]) 02:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*:I remain skeptical. is probably responsible for most of the views, and it's the best explanation for the increase in views as it's the top parent article in the topic. ] (]) 02:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*::You're welcome. Maybe, who knows? My guess is that someone interested enough in a historical photograph to actually click on its Misplaced Pages article would jump for joy to find out there is a whole list of them. Many pages are short enough that their 'See also' section stands out and is actually used for navigation. ] (]) 02:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::To summarize: I agree that your single edit to the top level article ] resulted in more hits to the list. But I disagree that your "see also run" was significant. You would have to view the incoming links to verify. Do we even have access to that data? Then you could really shove it in my face. But until then... ] (]) 02:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::No comment (actually, too many to choose from). ] (]) 02:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Love me some navboxes'''. I love navboxes, and consider them one of the best features of original Misplaced Pages. ], and have edited many times more. When done well, and hopefully many of mine meet that standard, a navbox provides a comprehensive map to Misplaced Pages's collection of articles in a coherent way. Even if navboxes are now seen by only 20% of readers (respectfully, where does that number come from? Seems low to me, do only 20% of people read Misplaced Pages on lap and desktops?) that still means that many millions of people a day look at pages which contain a navbox. A feature of original Misplaced Pages, they are the cat's meow of internet topic maps. ] (]) 01:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*:I am reminded of ]s, what Misplaced Pages refers to as "a relic of the early web of the 1990s." ] (]) 02:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*::Webrings became obsolete because of improved search engines. Navboxes are in-house Misplaced Pages features, and still provide readers with a map of the website's collections. As mentioned, many millions of readers a day still have beneficial access to navboxes, even though mobile views lose several important Misplaced Pages features. I've sometimes advocated that a short message be placed on mobile where a navbox would ordinarily go, "Desktop and laptop Misplaced Pages views include important features not seen on mobile" (or some such language). ] (]) 03:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::Yes, the ] circa 1993. Sounds nice. I won't lie, I used to love browsing Misplaced Pages in Lynx. I won't address the can of worms known as a search engine. Thanks for the trip down memory lane. ] (]) 03:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)


== Placement of the "Bots" template? ==
In the see also section, the words "or its navigation boxes" should be removed or reworded, because it is common practice to ignore links that are in the navboxes, but to not include items in the see also section that are already wikilinked in the article. The nav boxes are more like an index to all related subjects, and are mostly collapsed, while the see also are more like "further reading" links, and are tailored to that particular article. ] (]) 19:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
:Hi
:I so happens that I have the opposite view. I think an article that has a navbox should optimally not have a "See also" section. I myself prefer to see navboxes above references or external links but I guess I can't do anything about it.
:Best regards,
:] (]) 21:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


:Agreed with Codename Lisa, though not to that extreme. If the link appears in the article whether in the navbox or article proper, it should probably not be linked in see also. There are some rare instances where that is not the case, of course. --] (]) 00:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Greetings and felicitations. Where should a "Bots" template be placed in an article? —] (]) 14:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:42, 6 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style/Layout page.
Shortcut
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 5 months 
Format of appendicesBefore proposing a change to the standard appendices, please study Misplaced Pages:Perennial proposals § Changes to standard appendices.
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconManual of Style
WikiProject iconThis page falls within the scope of the Misplaced Pages: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
Note icon
This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Misplaced Pages 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.
Note icon
For information on Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages policies of Misplaced Pages's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Placement of the commons category template

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

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

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

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

"Places with more information"

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

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

Single-sentence paragraphs

Re:

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

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

External links followup

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

Interpretation of guideline concerning links to sister projects

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

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

External links section

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

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

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

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

See also section status

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

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

Placement of the "Bots" template?

Greetings and felicitations. Where should a "Bots" template be placed in an article? —DocWatson42 (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)