Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Layout

< Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 06:46, 30 December 2012 (Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 90d) to Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive 9.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:46, 30 December 2012 by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) (Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 90d) to Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive 9.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Format of appendicesPlease read WP:PEREN#Changes to standard appendices before proposing a change to the standard appendices.

Manual of Style

	This 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
	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.
	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.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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. --P64 (talk) 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 {{Navbox link}} is a work-around solution to the problems you identify. See Epigenetics#See also for an example. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

What now, since the poorly executed but recommended {{Navbox link}} has been, eh, executed?

That footer Epigenetics#See also 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? --P64 (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Suppport. I, for one, would support modifying wp:layout 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 "a permanent work in progress." See also consensus can change.

Second, guides should only reflect current practice. This approach sets up a Catch-22 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 guides should reflect best practice.

Third, it is aesthetically unpleasing. In other words, it is a good idea but "wp:IDONTLIKEIT." See also wp:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and De gustibus non est disputandum. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

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, Buaidh 17:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

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 various news sites 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. SFB 21:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that there is no opposition, should I add text to the guide allowing (but not requiring) this concept? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

At present, if WP:FOOTERS 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 WP:PDATA), because the categories and interlanguage links 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 {{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. --Redrose64 (talk) 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, Mark_twain#External_links and Evolution#Online_lectures. 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, (Green_bay_packers#Statistics_and_records 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.

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? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

For extensive opposition to such see this 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.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 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. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 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.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 18:26, 10 August 2012 (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. Jason Quinn (talk) 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. 86.186.8.210 (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2012 (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. LK (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Sections for navboxes

Please see discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Sections for navboxes concerning layout. —Quiddity (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Section headings for horizontal navigation templates

Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#RfC:_Section_headings_for_horizontal_navigation_templates Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Using == Sources == in appendices

There's a bot request at Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/TAP Bot 2 to change section headings currently named ==Sources== to ==References==. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like something a bot shouldn't do. How and where do I register that opinion? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I figured it out. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

SEEALSO to foreign language WPs

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 solution I chose at zabaione 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 WP:SEEALSO. --Trovatore (talk) 09:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Interlanguage interwiki links of any type other than "essentially the same article, but different language version of Misplaced Pages" interlanguage links are discussed at inline interlanguage links. Template:Seealso2 allows you to add other text after the link such as "(Italian Misplaced Pages)" for example. Your solution looks OK to me. LittleBen (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Now RfC

There is now an RFC at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#RfC:_Should_lines_be_used_between_a_template_and_text_above_it.3F on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive 9#Discussion on parent page.Curb Chain (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Authority control

Is there a consensus as to where {{Authority control}} should come in the list of Standard appendices and footers? If so, would some kind person add it to the Manual. -Arb. (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I was about to ask the same question. What a coincidence. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 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 WP:FOOTER. 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.

The WorldCat link is immensely useful and {{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 {{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.

--P64 (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It was discussed some weeks ago at User talk:VIAFbot#Authority control and stub templates (there had been a number of problems with edits which altered pages so that they no longer conformed to WP:FOOTERS), and AFAIK once it had settled down to a position immediately above the {{persondata}}, there have been no further complaints. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)