WikiProject Manual of Style | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Archives |
|||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||
Threads older than 90 days may be archived by MiszaBot II. |
Contents
RFC on Position of Refimprove tag
An RfC is now in progress on the proper position of {{refimprove}} in an article, adn the degree to which this page's suggestions indicate consensus for putting it at the top of an article. The RFC is at Template talk:Refimprove#RfC: Location of Tag, and the formal RfC statement is: "Where should a {{refimprove}} tag be placed in an article? MOS:LAYOUT says that maintenance templates, of which this is one, should be among the headers. But some editors (see the section above) assert that there is no consensus for this, and that the MOS does not establish such consensus. I ask for discussion leading to a clear consensus one way or the other on this point." Additional views are welcome. DES (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
the Layout of header sections, I think it needs more
I was reading the header part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Order of article elements and that made me wonder:
- Can/ should a page have more than one infobox ? (the list speaks in the plural)
- Should the "Foreign character warning boxes" not be before the info boxes? (assuming that the infobox can contain the foreign characters)
The info on this section is very minimal, more information can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section but then there is no link to that page. (not regarding the headers that is) But even then does this part (the header of an article) not deserve its own Wikipedia:Manual of Style/header section subpage? I did make a link of Navigational boxes (header navboxes) to wikipedia:SIDEBAR and maybe this part can also be expanded on that page. (not all sidebars are relevant here I guess) WillemienH (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Regarding multiple infoboxes, it's sometimes done when a subject is notable in multiple domains. Pat Connaughton plays both basketball and baseball, and has both types of infoboxes. While this "can" happen, it probably shouldn't as it looks clunky IMO; in the ideal world, infoboxes would be more modular to allow for the rare hybrid case. Some infoboxes are designed to include others—see Mark Harmon, who is an actor and former athlete—but even that has some rough edges.—Bagumba (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- It's confusing that at WP:ORDER the term "Lead section" is used for the initial chunk of text (listed as the first part of "Body", after a group of items under "Headers"), while the link WP:Lead section leads us to a page which includes all of those "Headers" items as "Elements of the lead".
-
- It would also be useful to have a more detailed list of "what goes where" to include:
- {{italic title}}
- {{use British English}} etc
- {{use DMY dates}} etc
- It would also be useful to have a more detailed list of "what goes where" to include:
-
- They are distinct from the maintenance templates, in that they are permanent aspects of the article - in the case of "Italic title" it's a bit of code to produce an effect, in the other cases a note for editors - but nothing that needs to be dated, or removed when actioned. I think they probably go alongside the Foreign character warning boxes, but it would be helpful if they had a specific home so that their presence or otherwise in an article could be checked quickly. Perhaps all that's needed is for "Foreign character warning boxes" in WP:ORDER to be replaced by some broader category which would clearly include these other things. PamD 15:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
WP:ALSO currently advises: "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." However, WP:NAVBOX slightly differs: "Do not rely solely on navboxes for links to critical or important articles. Navboxes are not displayed on the Mobile Web site for Wikipedia, which accounts for approximately 30% of readers." When I use the mobile site, I find it annoying that I can't get to links because no navbox is rendered. I think ALSO needs to be softened and harmonized with NAVBOX to allow a few "critical" links that might repeat what is already in navboxes.—Bagumba (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- WP:NAVBOX was recently changed to say that without (verbal) consensus and should probably considered, rather than changing this guideline. --Izno (talk) 14:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Izno: It appears WhatamIdoing made the change two months ago in early September. Ar you arguing that WP:SILENCE is a weak form of consensus, challenging that 30% on mobile is inflated, or contending that no concessions are needed for mobile readers?—Bagumba (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- The change at NAVBOX was due to a discussion at the Village Pumps.
- Removing the information from NAVBOX wouldn't change the facts: Navboxes are suppressed on all pages at https://en.m.wikipedia.org – even the template pages themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Universe_navboxes shows a series of blue boxes; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Universe_navboxes shows nothing between the page title and the documentation.
- IMO links to "critical or important" articles ought to be present in the article itself, but if they aren't (e.g., because it's a stub), then you should WP:Ignore WP:ALSO and use whatever common-sense measures will help the reader, until such a time as the link is properly integrated into the article itself. After all, ALSO explicitly says "as a general rule" rather than "in all cases". ALSO has always acknowledged the necessity of using different approaches in different circumstances. This diff will show you the most significant change to this line in the last five years, and it went from saying that a navbox "may substitute for many links" to saying that they "generally should not repeat links which appear" in navboxes. The "which appear" part is increasingly important, because for 30% of our page views (and growing), the links in navboxes quite literally do not "appear". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Izno: It appears WhatamIdoing made the change two months ago in early September. Ar you arguing that WP:SILENCE is a weak form of consensus, challenging that 30% on mobile is inflated, or contending that no concessions are needed for mobile readers?—Bagumba (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Which brings us back to Bagumba's suggestion that WP:ALSO be more explicitly harmonized with the current text in WP:NAVBOX. That suggestion makes sense to me. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Issue: unable to find MOS/Layout doc for template 'Subject bar'
Greetings, In my reading through various articles, I found Ælfheah of Canterbury which uses the {{Subject bar}}
template. In the MOS/Layout archives, there is mention from 2011 here when template was created. Wondering if Subject bar documentation needs to be added into MOS/Layout section? Or am I just not looking in the right place within MOS? Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Section merge proposed
Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects#Where to place links mostly needs to merge into Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Links to sister projects. It's wrong-headed and confusing for MOS material to be not in the MOS, and we should not be forking the guidelines. The bulk of the material in that WP:SIS section, and its WP:MOSSIS shortcut (like MOS:SIS), need to go to the actual MOS:LAYOUT section about this. The section on this at WP:SIS can be replaced with a one-liner concise summary, and a {{Main}} pointer to the MOS:LAYOUT section. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Updated, after confusion resolved, below. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Links to sister projects should be the definitive source, with a partial description (maybe a paragraph or some bullet points) at Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects#Where to place links along with a {{main article}} article link to the former. So, Support, but with more than "a one-liner summary" left at the latter.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- [Adjusted to reflect note below and correction of the post above.]
[I think your first link was meant to be Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects#Where to place links.] I can't agree.<isn>Right. If it is article layout style advice, it belongs in MoS; all other aspects of it should be covered at WP:SISTER. We have had grievous difficulties, causing a lot of strife, when people try to advice-fork (and it's almost always a WP:POVFORK or rapidly becomes one) style advice out of MoS, to make some competing "un-MoS". Site-wide consensus has centralized WP style advice at MoS for very good reasons for over a decade. As for what to leave behind, sorry, I was being hyperbolic when I said one-liner. The gist is to have a compact summary in one place with{{Main}}
linking to the other, and the details provided there, with an HTML comment noting to keep the sections synched (we need a lot more of those). Anotherconcern with reversing the directionpoint in favor of the proposal is that virtually no one knows WP:SISTER even exists; we all know where MOS is, and MOS:LAYOUT is well-watchlisted and frequently consulted. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Updated. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)- @SMcCandlish: No my first link was meant to be Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Links to sister projects, I've corrected it and the second link. We agree for the most part I believe. Thanks for pointing that out. Best Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ah! Yes. I've tweaked my above comment to indicae this as well. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: No my first link was meant to be Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Links to sister projects, I've corrected it and the second link. We agree for the most part I believe. Thanks for pointing that out. Best Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- [Adjusted to reflect note below and correction of the post above.]
- Oppose This is something for the Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister project to take the lead the placing of links has next to nothing to do with style, any more that WP:Article Titles or Citations do. -- PBS (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Biographies: Section order referring to "end of life"
There are "no general standards or guidelines" concerning section headings or "what order they should take", and I am not aware of some mentioned consensus, but I would appreciate some input concerning one such section placement. There is some precedent specifically if there is a "Biography" or "Personal life" section that "end of life" content or sub-sections are found at the end of such content. On other articles, and I have not looked to see if this stems from article creation or through continued editing, there is a mix of results.
It just seems natural that some things follow a path. If there is a section titled "Death", "Death and burial", "Assassination", "Final years and death", or some other title reflecting end of life, or such content reflected at the end of another section, it should be at the end of the body of the article, and not as an appendage with other "life content" following. Of course I am sure there are exceptions.
Things such as "Legacy", "Memorials", "Descendants" or "Ancestry", "Tributes", and "Bibliography" are natural after an "end of life" mention, section, or sub-section, but newer editors, without some sort of guidance, may not consider this so I thought I would bring it up. It just seems weird to read "guy (or gal) is born, goes through life, dies, then--- gets married or has a family".
I have seen Featured articles such as Horace Greeley, William Henry Harrison, Good articles like Émile Durkheim, and even stub-class articles such as Robert Hamilton Bishop have an order where an "end of life" event is at the bottom of the main body.
If this has come up, or there is already consensus concerning this, would someone let me know? Otr500 (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- There's no way to make a blanket rule, or even recommendation-subject-to-exceptions, on this. The best way to present material isn't always chronological. In fact, I'd wager that most well-developed articles aren't robotically chronological. EEng 02:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Placement of {{Portal bar}}
Greetings, In response to your edit removing 'Portal bar' from SA section. The location for this template was discussed at Template talk:Portal bar#Location previously in 2012. I have not reverted your edit but am wondering whether this needs more clarification. For the articles that I'm updating, usually I place the portal bar template as first line after See also line. If there are many SA entries, I place the Portal template instead so the portals are stacked vertically and to the right side. Rarely do I see the portal bar after the External links section. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't "remove" it - I put it back where it came from, since Template:Portal bar#Location says "within articles, this template is usually placed at the bottom of the article". It doesn't name a section, but implies the last section, which won't be "See also" in any article that has references and also follows MOS:ORDER - it'll be "References", "Further reading" or "External links".
- Changes to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout or at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. If you amended Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout as a result of a discussion, you should have linked to that discussion in your edit summary. Since you had not done so, I checked both of those talk pages, and found no mention of portal templates - bar or otherwise. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- (was coming here to explain why I reverted ...but section already started) I have restored the edit as per the documentation page and normal usage of portals. I have also update the doc page to reflect the lead of the doc and its normal usage. Even-thought the template is not a guideline its just an essay the see also section for this is the norm so the MOS should reflect that. -- Moxy (talk)
- (end of moved content)
Regarding this revert: the recommendation where to place {{Portal bar}} should not be lumped together with {{Portal}} because their appearance is fundamentally different. The former should go at the bottom of the article where all page-wide boxes congregate. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, everyone.
I think a bold change by yours truly, and a couple of forth and back reverts by our esteemed colleagues Redrose64, JoeHebda and Moxy has very well demonstrated that we need to discuss this issue: Must {{portal bar}} appear in "See also" section, or along with navboxes?
Argument in favor of "See also" section:
- That's where portal links, such as {{Portal}} and {{Portal-inline}} appear. Why should {{Portal bar}} be exempt?
Argument in favor of navboxes section:
- Visually, {{Portal bar}} fits better with navboxes
- Navboxes contain internal links strictly; but they don't appear in "See also" section either, in order to suppress the effects of link bombing.
- {{Portal bar}}, like most navboxes, does not appear in the print, again for the same reason.
- Some navboxes, such as {{Microsoft}} have portal links as well, so portals do not strictly appear in "See also" section anyway
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Poll area
Here is where you can add your choice of "See also" or With navboxes, along with you rationale.
- "See also". The reason it was invented was to make sure the portals did not overlap into the section below. Was not intended as a footer...but as the last thing people see before non internal sections (refs, external links etc.). We should not be hiding the portals at the bottom of the page after all the external links...it should be with the content of the page. Plus the fact many footers have the portals the bottom of the page would have redundant links. Moxy (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- See also. And Navboxes should be in See also too. But that is a discussion for another day. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- With navboxes or, more generally, at the bottom of the article, because that doesn't disrupt the appearance of the article. If navboxes on a page already have links to portals, {{portal bar}}, or {{portal}}, should be omitted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Discussion area
The invaluable discussions take place here.
* FYI – There is Portal explanation at Wikipedia:Portal#How to add portal links to articles. It also mentions about portal placement. — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)