Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style/Layout page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 150 days ![]() |
![]() | Format of appendices Before proposing a change to the standard appendices, please study Wikipedia:Perennial proposals § Changes to standard appendices. |
![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Word count per paragraph guidance
[edit]Is there any guidance anywhere for how long is "too long" for a paragraph in the new Vector skin or mobile view? This isn't a question about how to write better paragraphs and I'm not looking for answers about writing style. It's a question more about web accessibility. eg, now that the default skin maintains a narrower paragraph, do we hit "wall of text" problems in shorter paragraphs than before, or is that concern less relevant now? -- asilvering (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- No. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Graham87: Thinker78 (talk) 03:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't affect screen readers. Graham87 (talk) 04:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Help Formating
[edit]Hello
On the list List of universities in Ecuador I can't get the image to stay to the right and the table to the left in order to mimic the page in spanish --HarveyPrototype (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- @HarveyPrototype: This is the page as it stood at the time that you posted here. I don't see what the problem is. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @Redrose64 thank you for your time. I just saw the page and it has been formated. HarveyPrototype (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I see; it's a page width issue. If your screen is narrow, or you use a skin that constrains the width (such as Vector 2022), or if you zoom in, the table may then be too wide to fit between the image stack and the left sidebar. The problem does affect the current version of the page, but only appears at narrower widths or greater zoom levels. If you go to the spanish page and zoom in a few times, you will see the problem appear there too. Really this should have been a matter for WP:HD, since this is the page for discussing improvements to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input HarveyPrototype (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I see; it's a page width issue. If your screen is narrow, or you use a skin that constrains the width (such as Vector 2022), or if you zoom in, the table may then be too wide to fit between the image stack and the left sidebar. The problem does affect the current version of the page, but only appears at narrower widths or greater zoom levels. If you go to the spanish page and zoom in a few times, you will see the problem appear there too. Really this should have been a matter for WP:HD, since this is the page for discussing improvements to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @Redrose64 thank you for your time. I just saw the page and it has been formated. HarveyPrototype (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
External links
[edit]I was told this section must follow the references section but for the vast majority of articles the references section is so huge and long, no sane human being will ever be able to scroll beyond it to find External Links, so they are basically lost for the reader.
And secondly in actual books References is the normally the very last section of the book.
I don't understand the rationale for actually burying/hiding/making inaccessible the external links. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- First claim would need some stronger foundation other than just your opinions about the inconvenience of scrolling. I assume you're talking about mobile users, who can collapse sections.
- Second point is irrelevant, since books don't have an external links section. (It's also not true? Most books with an index place it after the bibliography.) Remsense诉 11:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- External links are normally few and between, they often contain super important stuff, e.g. home/main pages for the relevant articles, they often contain extremely valuable external resources, yet references (often more than a hundred of them) are pushed in front of them. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose we have different views of the average EL section, since we seem to edit different types of articles. Remsense诉 09:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose the way I would put it, regardless of the above distinction, is that articles should theoretically be "complete" documents without the EL section (else the content should be in the article), whereas literally no article is complete without its references, so the contiguity is logical.
- Forgive me if I'm reading too much into your userpage, but most editors tend to care a lot about WP:V, so arguments that subordinate it aren't likely to be persuasive to other editors. Remsense诉 09:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose we have different views of the average EL section, since we seem to edit different types of articles. Remsense诉 09:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- External links are normally few and between, they often contain super important stuff, e.g. home/main pages for the relevant articles, they often contain extremely valuable external resources, yet references (often more than a hundred of them) are pushed in front of them. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- The rationale is that the references are part of the Wikipedia article text and the external links are external material. Whether or not you agree that the rationale sufficiently supports the placement, because so many articles are ordered in that fashion - and, as a result, so many readers expect that order - we're pretty much stuck with it. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- > the references are part of the Wikipedia article text
- I don't see how it's the case - to me they are as "external" as "external" links. They refer/link to external websites, just like "external links". Meanwhile let's say there's an article about some company and in the "External links" there's a link to this company home page. How is it "external"? Maybe you could first precisely explain the terms being used here because I have a strong feeling you're using them however you see fit.
- > Whether or not you agree that the rationale sufficiently supports the placement, because so many articles are ordered in that fashion - and, as a result, so many readers expect that order - we're pretty much stuck with it.
- It's not about "disagreeing". Like I said the "External links" section is normally very short and quite important as it may contain further material for the reader, e.g. a home page, various PDFs, etc. The References section is wholly explanatory and doesn't prompt the user to follow any of the links. It's a sort of confirmation/proof, just like in real books. Have you ever seen normal books' readers following the references? Almost no one ever does that except for (peer) reviewers. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
to me they are as "external" as "external" links.
- This seems falsifiable on its face, since unlike external links there's...an explicit connection, usually very granular, that certain parts of the references section map onto the actual body of the article as written? so what you said seems ridiculous. unless you simply don't care about like, citations and WP:V at all, which is what I'm concerned about. Remsense诉 10:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Artem S. Tashkinov, do you have specific examples of extremely valuable resources in the EL section. One example you give is the home page associated with the topic but that's usually in the infobox near the top of the article and doesn't need to be repeated in the EL section. In many of the articles I work on the EL section contains a lot of material that either would be better used as a reference or deleted.
- To your point about hard to get to the bottom of the article. On a computer, you can get there quickly by pushing the End key one time. ~Kvng (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- There's something here that I strongly disagree with: that putting information into an infobox makes it unnecessary to repeat it elsewhere. To me, everything in an infobox should be a summary of article content. An infobox can supplement an article by summarizing its content. It should never be used to replace and remove anything in an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Multiple articles have such examples and since I don't want to look/be biased by offering the web pages that I'm heavily invested into, let's open the main page and go from it:
- What I've noticed is that:
- Mostly contemporary events, organizations, etc. have relevant "interesting" (in quotes, because how much something is interesting for someone is open for debate) links
- The number of external links in the articles where they are present, is normally relatively small
- I don't think there's going to be any harm in moving them in front (before) the references section
- The references section is almost universally quite very long and makes discovering external links even by chance quite hard/impossible. That's my point. I don't want to push it hard, I just gave my logical reasoning why the status quo could be changed.
- For mobile users both are collapsed by default anyways, so this issue that we're discussing now is mostly irrelevant for them.
- Peace out :-) Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 07:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- To address one point here: putting the external link section after the references section is required, by MOS:SECTIONORDER. This is the sort of issue where, if you don't follow MOS, your watchlist will overflow with gnomes "fixing" your deliberate variation, and when you complain that it is a deliberate style choice, you have a high chance of losing the debate. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, as per @David Eppstein, the infobox is a quick summary of some key points of the content of the article, and the official website of a person or organisation must always be included as an External link, whether or not it's also present in an infobox. PamD 07:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks David Eppstein and PamD for the correction on official website. Still learning :)
- I believe Artem S. Tashkinov is proposing a revision to MOS:SECTIONORDER placing EL before References and this is the right place to discuss this.
Where would propose to move the EL section?I actually think it is more prominent and easier to find and access at the very end where it currently sits than somewhere in the middle of the article's endmatter. - Thanks for listing some examples. Those are a lot cleaner than most of the articles I work on. With the official website links as an exception, I would classify the material here as interesting but not critical. If anyone wants to raise the prominence of this information they could describe it in the body and use the EL as a footnote. For example in Boeing Starliner, the Spacecraft characteristics section could mention something like, "Boing has produced a series of videos detailing the design of the ship[1][2]" ~Kvng (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Boeing/Bigelow Crew Space Transport Vehicle on YouTube by Boeing (2010)}}
- ^ Boeing Unveils America's First Space Taxi, Unlocks Possibilities for Future on YouTube by Boeing (2014)
citation maintenance templates
[edit]I've only recently begun seeing {{CS1 config}}, {{use list-defined references}}, and similar templates being added to articles. Speaking on the list at MOS:ORDER, do these count as "maintenance tags" (despite not being found at that page) for ordering purposes? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Fourthords: Template:CS1 config#Usage says
this template should probably be placed adjacent to
, and Template:Use list-defined references#Usage says{{use dmy dates}}
or{{use mdy dates}}
(if present)Place this template near the top of articles that use the list-defined reference format.
What's the problem here? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)- The ordered list at MOS:ORDER doesn't seem to indicate where such templates should go. Saying only
adjacent to
andnear the top
doesn't answer my question of where they should specifically be placed (as the rest of MOS:ORDER is laid out) and whether they count as "'maintenance tags' (despite not being found at that page) for ordering purposes". — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)- I'd group them together with "Templates relating to English variety and date format", as their own docs suggest. They aren't maintenance templates, since maintenance templates are meant to be removed sooner or later (once the problems they describe has been resolved), which is not the case with variety, format, and config templates such as these. Gawaon (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- 10-4. If that's where they should go, MOS:ORDER would benefit from naming them more specifically, especially since {{use list-defined references}} (and any similar templates if they exist) doesn't have anything to do with language or date formatting. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'd group them together with "Templates relating to English variety and date format", as their own docs suggest. They aren't maintenance templates, since maintenance templates are meant to be removed sooner or later (once the problems they describe has been resolved), which is not the case with variety, format, and config templates such as these. Gawaon (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- The ordered list at MOS:ORDER doesn't seem to indicate where such templates should go. Saying only
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:
- simply adding
{{clear}}
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
{{clear}}
at the bottom of the See also section
- simply adding
- 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"
[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)
- 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)