Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout

Placement of the commons category template

[edit]

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)[reply]

"Places with more information"

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Single-sentence paragraphs

[edit]

Re: [1][2]

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)[reply]

Perhaps delete the entire wishy-washy sentence? Or, if it is important to say, move it to Wikipedia:Basic copyediting? It doesn't really seem to be a layout issue. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Some degree of judgement is always necessary, but that rule is still good advice. Gawaon (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which rule? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If everything that is good advice is placed in MOS, the MOS will be infinitely long. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]
[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

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)[reply]

This would come down to three questions:
PamD 20:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
[edit]

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 Wikipedia: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: "Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Makes sense. Gawaon (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also section status

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography or any the other relevant projects, however. Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I see now that you are referring to https://en.m.wikipedia.org, specifically. Viriditas (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Scroll to the end of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)[reply]
Yeah, I got it. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I talk about people using browsers on mobile, not about the app. When I open Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout&oldid=1256760013"