Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Layout

< Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Izno (talk | contribs) at 00:50, 29 December 2012 (→See also section: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:50, 29 December 2012 by Izno (talk | contribs) (→See also section: re)(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)

What is the real problem?

The reasons given for this reversion are that it is (a) atypical and (b) requires pre-edit consensus. There is no suggestion that it is incorrect or the guidance it provides is unnecessary. Further, with all due respect, I don't believe that either of the proffered reasons are proper rationales for objecting to an edit. Perhaps the reverting editor can tell me what, if anything, is substantively wrong with the original edit. Once I know that then I can "discuss toward consensus." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The text you added was offtopic and unprofessional.Curb Chain (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

CC, while we wait to hear from the reverter, let me respond to your concerns: Off topic. The topic is the titles to give the notes and references section. The footnote explains why WP:Layout does not give "preferred" titles. I am at a loss to understand how that is off topic. Unprofessional. I am afraid I don't understand this concern. What is unprofessional about explaining why something is the way it is? Or are you saying that the concept was somehow carried off in an amateurish fashion? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your undiscussed edit, B. It was quite a long addition (quoting a Misplaced Pages essay). Some of your added text:

"Misplaced Pages doesn't standardize section headings for citations because the real world doesn't. There are four major style guides that are heavily used in universities, and articles using each one can be found on Misplaced Pages. ..."

And after about 130 words that introduce and cite four external style resources:

"Misplaced Pages hasn't chosen one over another because nobody wants to be stuck telling the English people that they have to follow scientific conventions, or the history folks that they're required to follow the English manual."

For a start, this is arguably more explanation than one needs on a MOS page, and its tone and register are conversational rather than economical in the manner of Misplaced Pages guideline and policy text. People complain that MOS is oversize and overcomplex. If we were to explain everything at great length, the whole thing would become unmanageable. Attempts have been made at WT:MOS to remedy this with a register of such background and reasons, with uneven success. New ideas would certainly be welcome; but striking out on one's with long explanatory notes seems ill advised.

Apart from those general points, there are particular concerns. Does what you add really give Misplaced Pages's reason for not choosing one style over another, for the relevant section headings? That is debatable. All sorts of things are done in the "real world" that the Misplaced Pages community chooses not to do. For example, WP:MOS recommends against spaced em dashes (after long community consultation in 2011); see WP:DASH at WP:MOS. But they are common enough in the real world. Same for curly quotation marks and apostrophes (“ ” and ‘ ’); see MOS:QUOTEMARKS, also at WP:MOS, where most exceptionally some explanation is indeed added – but only after extensive discussion and refinement.

Misplaced Pages's manual of style does restrict choices in its recommendations. It could not be a manual of style if it did otherwise! So appealing to the diversity of choices available and adopted in external guides and manuals gives no true explanation, and lessens the standing of MOS as representing our community's will.

Noetica 01:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Let me respond to your concerns: Length: Boldness. Can you provide me with a policy or essay that suggests an edit should be reverted because the editor is "striking out on one's" own? Length: Conciseness. If I may suggest, editing rather than reverting is a more appropriate way for one editor to respond to an edit that appears to lack conciseness. I certainly have had no objection to you taking a pair of scissors to what I've added. (Preserving the right to argue for restoring text if I felt you went too far.) Tone and register. Again, my understanding is that editing is preferred approach to dealing with this problem. Bloat. I agree that not everything needs to be explained. But the question answered by this footnote seems to come up with some regularity (see the "Notes and references section" talk immediately above). And, by placing the explanation in a footnote I have done little to detract from the readabilty of the policy itself.

Taking all of these concerns to heart, I can reduce the footnote to:

One reason this guide does not standardize section headings for citations and explanatory notes is that Misplaced Pages draws editors from many disciplines (history, English, science, etc.), each with its own note and reference section naming convention (or conventions). For more specific guidance regarding titles for note and reference sections see Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects.

Better? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Two comments:

It's not taken from an essay; it's taken from my userpage.
The reason it's on my userpage is because so many people ask about it, and so many history- and fine-arts-oriented editors come around to tells us that we're "wrong" to use ==References== because their schoolteachers told them to use something else, that I've gotten tired of re-typing it every fewmonths for several years.

That, by the way, suggests that we would benefit from providing at least some minimal explanation, at least to the extent of pointing out that the real world is not all CMOS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

What is "Cmos"?Curb Chain (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Chicago Manual of Style. CMOS is a major guide to style but one that has barely begun to acknowledge the sorts of realities that Misplaced Pages confronts, and that MOS deals with routinely – despite its 16th edition pretending to do so. ☺ Noetica 23:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Butwhatdoiknow:

WhatamIdoing has corrected me: your inclusion was not from an essay, but from her userpage. So much the worse! It was not even presented to the community for the sort of scrutiny that essays sometimes get.
From an ArbCom decision:

"All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegially towards a workable consensus. In particular, a rapid cycle of editing these pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes."

Considering the size and content of your edit, it is reasonable that it be discussed first. You did not simply "strike out on your own"; you did so with a significant innovation. So I reverted, and called for discussion.

You suggest further editing rather than reversion; but I object to the addition of any note of the sort that you added, and certainly with that content. I give my reasons above.
You refer to "the explanation" as if what you added was something agreed upon. It is not. In particular, citing external style guidance that is concerned with traditional printed matter may be deemed irrelevant. Misplaced Pages is not print. To illustrate: the term "footnotes" assumes placement at the foot of a page, contrasting with "endnotes" at the end of some larger section, or of an entire work. That distinction cannot apply on Misplaced Pages; so the sources you cite do not address the issues that confront us here. The variation in style between disciplines is nothing compared to the variation between print media and the medium in which Misplaced Pages presents its content.
For all of those reasons, I once again object to any note of the sort that you propose. It is one view of the matter, and not a consensual one.

WhatamIdoing:

I agree entirely that the real world is not all CMOS (just as well!). But also, the real world is not represented well by any of the "authorities" you and Butwhatdoiknow cite to justify the guidelines here. Not even by all of them together. Misplaced Pages is utterly new in many respects; for it, the world of footnotes and endnotes is almost as remote as the world of girdle bindings or deckle edges.
The whole issue of naming these sections needs to be addressed again with such facts in mind, but with very wide community consultation. As in other discussions at talkpages for guidelines and policy, there should be no prejudgement of the outcome, and no slavish or unexamined deference to external sources that have little to do with Misplaced Pages's unique environment.

Noetica 23:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Noetica, what about my proposed revision, just above "Better?" above, which does not come from a user page, does not result from a rapid cycle of editing, is no longer lengthy, and does not cite external style guidelines? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to be difficult without reason, B. The problem is that we have a well-motivated practice of not adding explanations like that. Very rarely in a note, which makes navigation unhelpfully complex. There would be no end of it, if we did it without exceptional circumstances. I'd prefer to get rid of almost all such notes in guidelines and policies, myself. Readers can't tell at a glance whether there is something that needs their attention, so they are inconvenienced by flipping down to it just in case. (Incidentally, why do you call it that a "footnote"? And why did you introduce that archaic term at WP:CONSENSUS, in a recent edit?) See how the explanation for quotation marks is managed, at WP:MOS (linked above).

My suggestion: do it without a note. Just insert something uncontentious in parentheses. Perhaps this, adapted from your shorter text:

(Specific projects on Misplaced Pages often make their own recommendations, so sometimes the choice of headings for these sections is constrained. See Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects.)

Or words to that effect. Neutral, factual, good to be aware of, no big distraction, and no added complexity in navigating the MOS page.

How's that, then?

Noetica 08:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Noetica:

Can you provide me with a cite for your statement that "we have a well-motivated practice of not adding explanations like that"? The practice on this page (WP:Layout) seems to be just the opposite (see footnotes 4 - 8 & 10). While I would certainly agree that we have to monitor against footnote bloat, if issues keep popping up on the talk page then placing explanations on the policy page seems warranted.
Your points regarding the advantages of parentheticals over notes are well taken. The problem is that there are equally good points in favor of footnotes (they leave the body simple and direct without a lot of clutter that discourages casual readers and camouflage the policies themselves). The approach on this page seems to be to go in the footnote direction. So, for consistency sake, I suggest we do that with this explanation.
I personally prefer "Footnotes" as a title for a section containing both references and explanatory notes (leaving "Notes" for sections containing only explanatory notes) and WP:Layout gives Footnots as an example of a possible title in that circumstance. However, since it is a personal preference, feel free to change it back on the Consensus page. However, it should probably not be changed on Layout because there is already a "Notes" anchor at "Notes and References."
Turning to the text (whether in parentheses or a footnote), how about:

One reason this guide does not standardize section headings for citations and explanatory notes is that specific Misplaced Pages projects make their own, often differing recommendations. See Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects.

What say you? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Butwhatdoiknow:

Yes, I can provide evidence. Look at WP:MOS and WP:MOSNUM. Those are very large pages, yet each has only four short notes. Both pages are watched closely; they are the major pages of the manual of style, and editors have not wanted them weighed down with notes. That has been the tradition. It would be easy enough to remove all eight notes at those pages, and I think that should be looked at.
The approach on this page reflects the fact that it has less attention from editors. It appears to be in need of some tightening, and more scrutiny to see that it reflects the will of the community better. Don't you think the pages of MOS should themselves adopt a uniform presentation, just the projects you want to mention do? This page is not easy to navigate, because of those notes.
In particular, why have the equivalent sections here and at WP:MOS and WP:MOSNUM called by different names? Why "Notes" there, and "Footnotes" here? Not a good look. I wonder whether your personal preference, or anyone's, should overrule a project-like uniformity for MOS pages. Would you object if we changed "Footnotes" to "Notes", here?
Your text is OK, but I would strongly recommend parentheses. This bit is unnecessarily awkward: "their own, often differing". Make it "their own different". Then we can agree. No one thinks those projects must all differ, on every point! Economy of expression, without serious loss of accuracy.

Noetica 13:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is helpful to add an explanation to this page, giving the reasoning that has consistently been put forward, as to why Misplaced Pages allows and endorses multiple citation styles, as well as multiple citation-heading names. See these talkpages (and their archives): Misplaced Pages talk:Citing sources/Example style, Misplaced Pages talk:Citing sources, Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Citation discussion, Help talk:Footnotes
I believe it is useful to name specific styles that are commonly used in various academic fields, for the familiarity that they have for anyone who has been through post-secondary education, and as explicit acknowledgement of where we derive our practices from. (Try searching those pages (or many MoS talkpages) for combinations of: MLA, APA, CSE, Chicago, Harvard. We refer to them regularly, and have always done so.)
These locations point to this page, as a place to "see further information about this": Misplaced Pages:CITE#How to create the list of citations, Help:Footnotes#Creating the footnote list, Help:Cite errors/Cite error refs without references, Misplaced Pages:Parenthetical referencing, Misplaced Pages:Citation templates#Use in footnotes (and more).
If you prepare an RfC to revisit all this, please collect a list of most-relevant old talk threads (whilst you're researching them), so that we can add them at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Register#Section headings (currently empty).
See also Misplaced Pages:Perennial proposals#Changes to standard appendices (linked at the top of this page for the last 3 years) and Misplaced Pages:Perennial proposals#Establish a house citation style and Template:Cnote2/example (and WP:VPR and WP:VPP).
Until then, we should be describing the actual practices. The 1st and 2nd proposals of wording, were the clearest and most informative, so far. I'd like to see those merged/tweaked/added.
Many (most?) of the "Style guidelines of WikiProjects" do not mention or recommend any appendix-section heading names, so it seems unhelpful to mention that category. —Quiddity (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Explanation text

One reason this guide does not standardize section headings for citations and explanatory notes is that Misplaced Pages draws editors from many disciplines (history, English, science, etc.), each with its own note and reference section naming convention (or conventions). For more, see Misplaced Pages:Perennial proposals#Changes to standard appendices, Misplaced Pages:Perennial proposals#Establish a house citation style and Template:Cnote2/example.

O.k., it seems we've reached a consensus to say something. But what? I've started a draft above. Please feel free to edit that draft to your heart's content. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I approve of your choice to omit WikiProject WP:Advice pages, which have no special standing and are just essays (the style cat name notwithstanding). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm content with those sentences, and support adding them as is.
However, as I suggested above, I believe it is helpful (and heavily precedent-based, in discussions, and in practice when documenting the accepted citation methods) to mention specific academic standards. I would support adding a short list "(e.g. MLA, APA, Chicago, CSE)", or a longer footnote as was originally added, or similar. (If anyone agrees, please add on behalf of us both). —Quiddity (talk) 05:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 September 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"view by the default" should be "view by default" 121.45.223.144 (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As it turns out, the whole clause seems to be wp:BLOAT, so I removed it. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:25, 30 September 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)