Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Would editors here please include the information from Template:Long comment/doc (that {{short pages monitor}} and comment when generated from {{subst:long comment}} should be at the very end of the page) in the WP:ORDER listing here. Thanks Rjwilmsi 20:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean after the interlanguage links too? You'll need to inform dozens of bot operators. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That's what the template documentation says, though I have no personal opinion. I would just like to see WP:ORDER cover it (whatever the right answer is). Rjwilmsi 21:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• It goes at the very bottom, as it is not "encyclopedic content" but placement by the people (and bots) that monitor short pages to know that its been checked. Without going into the value of short page monitors, suffice to say many innocent errors - like accidental deletions of lots of text - or just plain vandalism ends up there and isn't caught until the short pagers get it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm one of the main people who places it on. I always place it at the very bottom of the pages that I put it on. Generally there is little else on the pages to have to order it with. Usually Disambiguation templates, sometimes Stub templates, and rarely interwiki links. In general, though, I have no strong preference for what order it is placed in. Always placing it last is just convenient. I don't have to analyze what else is there, I just drop it at the bottom and move on to the next page that needs attention. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Presumably "Consider using {{Columns-list}} or {{Div col}} if the list is lengthy." was removed, because there is an objection to lengthy lists. If that is so I agree, but what is a long to one person might be a weeny for another. Perhaps numbers should be added to clarify what the consensus is for the minimum number that constitutes a length list.

If the concern was not the length then I think that they should be kept as a useful Aide-mémoire. -- PBS (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

interjection. If this Layout section "See also section" covers the use of any column-generating templates, it should also address any issue that arise when the section already includes right-hand boxes such as generated by template {{portal}}. For portals in particular (don't know what others may be located here) I suggest recommending {{portal bar}} if/when column templates are used. See the next Talk section. --P64 (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to the talk page. The text is intended as an Aide-mémoire. Keeping in mind that the number of See also entries is left to editors' discretion, this memory aid regarding how to display content is entirely appropriate for a "layout" page. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd argue that a good rule of thumb is precisely that when a list becomes so long that columns seem like a good idea, it's too long. The section already makes the point that many good articles do not contain a "see also" section at all; an inspection of good articles would very likely show that few good articles contain long enough lists to warrant columns. But my major concern here is not that some articles may have longer "see also" lists than I may personally prefer: it's that the explicit mentioning of a workaround is a tacit encouragement to have very long lists. One cannot argue that we leave the length to editorial discretion when the current wording implyies that there's nothing wrong with having forty entries if they're in columns. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Changing the subject somewhat, it occurs to me to ask: Is it the job of layout to say how much content is appropriate for any given section (as opposed to saying what content goes into any particular section)? In other words, should the discussion of the underlying premise (See also links should be discouraged, we should state a maximum number of See also links, etc.) take place elsewhere? Maybe we need to start a WP:See also section essay. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:SEEALSO would seem to be the canonical location in the MoS of advice on the composition of the see also section. That redirect points to a section of this article. Therefore, this is where we should be discussing it for the time being. I don't believe this is an especially controversial matter, such that it would need to be pushed for in an essay prior to requesting addition here; I believe there is a broad consensus that see also sections should link sparingly already, which simply happens not to be explicitly codified in the present revision. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The other issue is that (ideally) your ==See also== entries are supposed to have descriptions, which means that columns are harmful. A well-written ==See also== section is going to look more like a dab page than like a list of unexplained wikilinks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. That's not the case. Those who say "See also" sections must have description are not familiar with all ranges of Wikipedia articles. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I know the difference between must and should (see RFC 2119 if you don't), and that's why the word must does not appear anywhere in my comment.

The guideline has named three important instances for which descriptions "should" be provided, and those three cover most of the items that IMO are worth linking in the first place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I was talking about those who say must and if you are not one of them, then that part of my message does not apply to you. So, please chill, Earthling: I come in peace and am not armed with death rays of any kind. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably we should mention template {{portal bar}} in WP:SEEALSO --regardless whether we mention columns there, which is discussed immediately above. The {{portal bar}} is useful here, in my opinion, approximately whenever the number of ordinary bulleted See also (maybe none) is no more than the number of portals.

My sandbox is currently devoted to exploring these matters --both very few ordinary See also and many with {{multicol}} used to generate columns. User:P64/Sandbox You are welcome to explore, even to save. --P64 (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

After skimming last year's discussion (Archive 9, especially #2, 17, 19):

• Perhaps the portal templates should be covered as one instance of templates, perhaps leading {{portal bar}} the only approved template whose display spans the page.
• There has been no consensus here for See also {portal bar} or {portal} when there are no ordinary See also. At least Redrose64 (#19) prefers External links. So does one Narnia editor[1], and another prefers References[2].

--P64 (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Sometimes I find a "Resources" section in place of a standard "Notes" or "References". For example: Marlborough, Connecticut#Resources. Should we replace every header "Resources" with "References" when it is used for footnotes? -- Basilicofresco (msg) 06:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Basilicofresco. Yes, it would be great if you did. Articles should be MOS-compliant as much as possible. Make sure you include an edit summary. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that References (or Notes) is better than Resources, I don't think Layout requires it. So feel free to change it whenever you see it, but don't think that you are enforcing MOS when you do so. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

LAYOUT does not require it. If you think it's a good idea, then please do so. I'm really going to have to take the time to undo the mess created a while back with this "Here are the One True™ Names for These Sections So We Can Be Matchy-matchy and Standardized" approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I am not against reasonable exceptions but rules are in general created because following them is a great idea. I do not know what you have against following the manual of style but maybe you should tell us. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "following the manual of style"? There is absolutely no requirement in the MOS that any particular section heading be used, and there never has been. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I just coughed at someone for adding List of animal rights advocates to the otherwise empty "See also" of the Douglas Adams article (there are a few such lists that Adams appears on - English novelists, atheist authors, humanists - and I don't see that it would really help the reader to point at them all). The editor observed that WP:SEEALSO says "...the 'See also' section is an excellent place for presenting 'Lists' which invite the reader to branch out and explore Wikiipedia's many other related articles. For example, an article about a particular kind of ship (e.g.steam ships) is a good place to present a List of other such ships.", but this was only added yesterday. I can see that "List of steam ships" would be a fine link to put on the "Steam ship" article, but it's perhaps less useful to the reader of the "SS Great Britain" article. What exactly is this addition trying to say, and should it be saying it? --McGeddon (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, another editor silently reverted the change a few hours after my comment. --McGeddon (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the page history for the past few years, and this discussion, I believe there is a concern by others that this type of generalized wording just invites people to add overly tangential or offtopic links. Or worse, lets them link to topics that would subtlety promote a fringe theory, a POV view or original research. For example, instead of violating the WP:BLP policy by adding the unsourced, POV content "Mr. X has done A, B, and C", one easily could add List of people who have done A, B, and C to the see also section, making that POV, BLP-violating connection. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

While I can appreciate the concern for too many links in 'See also', the argument that it will promote 'fringe theory' is sort of a stretch. Fringe theory can creep into an article any number of ways. When it does, it requires more than one lone link. -- Subject/links that are directly related to the topic are/should be included in the body of the text. Subject/articles that are tangential, like lists, belong in 'See also'. Hence the word 'Also'. Many articles have titles that the readers will never think to search for. Esp lists. Many articles and lists have very low view statistics and 'collect dust' for this very reason -- no one knows they're there and they almost never come up in search results. Also, I have too often seen some editors routinely delete not only the links in 'See also', but the entire section itself because of the notion that a 'well written' article doesn't need them. So with this in mind, some editors take an 'axe' to 'See also'. I added a sentence to this effect but I see that too was deleted. The section needs something more than a mention of 'tangential links' to keep this type of editor in check. Can we please strike some sort of compromise here and at least include this sentence?:

("...however if an article should have a 'See also' section it doesn't automatically
mean the article is not high quality or comprehensive")

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

O.k., we're getting away from links to lists (which I think most would agree do not belong in See also) and moving on to a discussion of whether to come up with more neutral language allowing for an article without a See also section without encouraging it one way or another. I would certainly support that change. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No, we're not getting away from links to lists, as only links are to be found in 'See also'. The link can be to an article, list, bibliography or what have you. In any event, this is not a discussion about what to put in 'See also', and there certainly is no 'one size fits all' policy regarding that, but rather what text to include here in 'See also' guidelines. We need to address the notion that a "well written" article should not have a 'See also' section as there are a fair number of editors who routinely gut or eliminate 'See also' sections on that premise. Such robotic slash and burn behavior is what promoted me to come to this page in the first place. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

...you first say "we're not getting away from links to lists" then you say "this is not a discussion about what to put in 'See also'," . Which is it? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Above, when I refer to what to include in 'See also' I'm referring to any given 'See also' section. This discussion, however centers around 'See also guidelines' i.e.what to/not to include here. As I indicated, I have encountered a fair number of pages where the 'See also' section has been largely gutted, or entirely eliminated, and is done so under the premise of "clean up", and/or the notion that ... many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section. To qualify this term (as tangential subject/links are allowed) I believe we need to append that statement so it reads:

Thus, many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section...however if an article should have a 'See also' section it doesn't automatically mean the article is not high quality or comprehensive. (appended in bold)

This will serve to dispel the notion that a given article shouldn't have a 'See also' section simply because it is well written. i.e.Indeed, many FA and GA have 'See also' sections. Guidelines here should emphasize that many well written articles have 'See also' sections, as again, the 'See also' section is too often removed, entirely, on that basis alone. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm on board with the concept. With regard to text, I'll suggest replacing the current sentence with: Thus, the editors of a comprehensive article may conclude that it does not require a "See also" section. Feel free to improve my language. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thus, a comprehensive, GA or FA, article might not even need a "See also" section. Apteva (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The language in guidelines needs to address those individuals who gut or eliminate 'See also' sections because they feel the article is comprehensive, GA, FA, or otherwise. I mentioned GA and FA articles only as examples of comprehensive well written articles that have a 'See also' section, which is contrary to the notion that such articles never, or shouldn't, have one. Indeed they can, as existing guidelines allows for, per tangentially related topics, a clause overlooked, or ignored, by those individuals who entirely eliminate 'See also' sections.

Thus, many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section...however if an article should
have a 'See also' section it doesn't automatically mean the article is not high quality or comprehensive.

(appended in bold) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Not all articles require a "See also" section, irrespective of quality. Or instead of "irrespective of quality", "and requiring a large see also section is not an indication of low quality." Or maybe even just delete the entire ending sentence of, "Thus, many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section", as it seems that is is being misunderstood to mean less in the see also section is better and none is even better. Apteva (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

That sounds close to me. How about: Thus, not all articles require a "See also" section. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we should perhaps condense the wording, but these examples still give the wrong impression. Now an editor could easily argue -- "Since it's a comprehensive article it doesn't require a 'See also' section." -- Actually, we don't need to say what an article 'doesn't require' here, only what the 'See also' section can be used for. Here's an example that combines some of the existing wording while also relating the point we are discussing here all in one sentence.

Many well written articles may contain a 'See also' section that links to tangentially related
subjects allowing and inviting readers to further explore the subject and Wikipedia.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I've boldly added two examples of FAs that contain this section. (In my experience, giving examples of specific FAs that do something is a more effective way of convincing people that it is actually accepted thn merely asserting that it has happened without any proof.) It is true that most FAs do not; it is equally true that a non-trivial minority do use it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't revert your change, but I think it will have to be modified. As written it seems to discourage See also sections (which is a far cry from making it clear that they aren't required). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

My change does not discourage the use of this section. My change solely adds the fact that multiple FAs include this section. (And I'm "Ms." Minimalist, not "Mr." anything. .) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

But "even some"? I checked the twelve Philosophy and psychology FA's and they had see also sections (0 meaning did not have), with 6, 1, 12, 0, 0, 3, 3, 6, 0, 1, 0, 0 links, or over half had a see also section. That is a very small sample, of course. I doubt that examples are needed. Basically, including a see also link should be a result of following the specified link criteria, and not a goal either way (not a goal to have more, not a goal to have less). Apteva (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Examples linking to FA's makes the point solid, however as long as we convey the message that a comprehensive article may (is allowed to) have a 'See also' section with links to related and tangentially related topics then I am (more or less) happy. Again, I have too often seen this point ignored while the entire 'See also' section was completely eliminated with the 'argument' that a comprehensive or well written article "doesn't need" one. This is what prompted me to come here in the first place. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

How about just delete the words "even some", and leave the examples? Apteva (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That's heading in the right direction. However, leaving in "although" makes it sound like a See also section is the exception to a rule. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I take that back. I'm good with Apteva's proposal "as is." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I just checked a semi-random selection of 32 FAs in the first half of the FA page and found that less than half had a ==See also== section. Of the first 20 TFAs for this month, seven had a ==See also== section and 13 did not. Also, in the older FAs from my random selection, I think it likely that a few did not contain a ==See also== section at the time of promotion, but acquired it later. So that suggests a non-trivial minority contain it, both in past and current practice, and that the majority of FAs do not.

If someone's giving you a hard time at FAC over the presence of this section, you might invite them to explain why about a third of the most recent TFAs have this section, if it's actually "illegal". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Butwhatdoiknow's first impression. The wording made it seem that a 'See also' section was the exception to a high quality article. So I fixed the wording so that it conveys the idea that a 'See also' section may or may not occur, on an equal basis, as this is the case. Anyone can easily present a long list of GA and FA articles that include a 'See also' section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was fun. Now, back to consensus building. I believe, when we left off, we were at the point at which Apteva and I were comfortable with

Thus, many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section, although featured articles like 1740 Batavia massacre and Mary, Queen of Scots include this section.

Keeping in mind that "perfect is the enemy of good," anyone else want to jump on this bandwagon. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Can some one explain what is wrong with the below statement? It gives equal weight to 'has a See also section' AND 'doesn't have a See also section .

Thus, some high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a 'See also' section, while at the same time some featured articles like 1740 Batavia massacre and Mary, Queen of Scots include this section.

I have not restored the version with my added wording but instaed have restored the version before that, w/ links for examples, as was discussed. What exactly is the issue here? Why would anyone be opposed to being clear about this section's use and occurance in GA and FA pages? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem is that it leaves the misleading impression that it's a 50-50 split. Most do not; some do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's do a complete analysis and give the actual percentages. Or, at least, a rough estimate. Is is 70/30? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

On a related note, someone removed the examples, which I believe weakens the utility. Specific examples keep us out of the realm of handwaving. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I've restored 'em. Let's see whether the editor will care to join our discussion. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Even if it was only a 20 or 30 percent occurance, it's still common enough for the clarity and wording I attempted to add to the statement -- however, as I said before, I am happy with the version that gives examples. We also might want to mention that many GA's have a 'See also' section. Overall, this is not supposed to be anything amazing to anyone who's been around the block once. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The recent FAs were about 70/30. We could ask MZMcBride (talk · contribs) to run a complete count for us. Counting the number of articles containing a ==See also== header (FAs? GAs? Only FAs and GAs from the last year?) probably wouldn't be much more complicated than User:WhatamIdoing/Header frequency was. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The rule currently recommends placing the "References" section before "External links". That is illogical. The "References" section is not meant to be read sequentially; readers are supposed to click on the bracketed anchors in the text, and are then taken directly to the relevant reference. Thus the "References" section can be anywhere in the article, even hidden in a separate page or database. Ditto for footnotes, whether they are separated from the references or merged with them. On the other hand, the "External links" section (like the "See Also" and "Further Reading" sections) is meant to be read, since there is no other way for the reader to get to its contents. Moreover, for some articles the "External links" section is very important, e.g. the official website of a company or university.
Therefore please consider changing the standard order to place the "External links" after the "See also" but before the navboxes and the "Notes" and "References" sections. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

All very good points. In fact, there may be more good points in favor of your proposed change than to the current order. The problem: The die is cast. As a practical matter it is now too late to change millions of articles even if a substantial number of editors agreed that your order should have been implemented from the get-go. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

What practical matter would that be? Our current transfer of data to wikidata is just as intensive requiring changes to millions of articles as swapping round references and external links would be. Of course a strong consensus would be required in order to get all the bots to work away at this task but its certainly not impractical. I would suggest that Jorge should consider a central request for comment to form such consensus. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Changes_to_standard_appendices?

Your argument assumes a particular style of citation, but says nothing about what ought to be done for articles like Actuary and Irish phonology, which don't have any little bracketed anchors, or for articles whose bracketed numbers lead to shortened footnotes that are then followed by a section that is meant to be read sequentially.

Additionally, the anti-spam folks have long expressed a desire to keep the least-important (in terms of article content) and most-abused section at the end of the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the case is nearly as clean-cut as User:Jorge Stolfi suggests it is. First, there is an underlying logical basis for the way the current sections are ordered. Basically, the more likely the section is to take the reader away from Wikipedia, the further down it is. The appendix matter "really starts" with the "See also" section. (The "Works" section doesn't really count because it's still about the subject directly.) It's at the top because if a reader is interested in an entry, they click it but stay at Wikipedia. "External links" goes at the bottom because if a reader is interested, they click a link and leave Wikipedia. The "References" are a middle state and if a reader is interested, they may just wish to check the reference and return to the article. Even the "Further reading" section can be thought of as a "weaker" "External links" section, and therefore should come right before it. It does make logical sense; just in a different way than Jorge may have considered. The current ordering is also a practical one for reasons that one only perhaps notices with much usage. For instance, you mention, "official websites" which are often wanted by readers. I agree those are very important and highly used. When they are wanted by readers, what do they do? They search for the company/person/thing they want, and then immediately scroll all the way down, and bingo at the top of the "External links" section there will be the official website. Easy breezy! Now, if the "External links" section were to go in the middle of the article, readers would end up playing a game with their scroll bar trying to find the "External links" section. I consider this a major flaw with the proposed new order. Ultimately, even if the proposal had a better logical basis than the current one (which I would argue), usage must still trump idealism when necessary. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

My preference for ordering is as follows:

• See also
• External links
• Further reading
• References [containing an "author (year) title" list if any are referred to multiple times]
• Notes (or "Footnotes"), consisting of {{reflist}}

If I want a particular footnote, I click on the corresponding reference number. I doubt if anyone reads the Notes sequentially. With several articles where "References" consisted of {{reflist}}), I have created a new "Notes" section consisting only of {{reflist}}) and preceded that with a "References" section for "author (year) title". When I've found "Notes" (or "References") earlier in an article, I've sometimes moved it to the end, consistent with the above.

I would hesitate creating bots to rearrange articles like this, because it could create problems with articles whose text somehow relies on its current order. I think it would make sense to change this "Manual of Style" to something like this, and then invite people to follow it without mandating it. That would take longer, and uniformity may never be achieved that way. However, I'm not convinced we need that much uniformity. DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The main stumbling block is that a section such as "Further reading" can also have references. Following the order stated, this leads to errors. References should be more or less the last, followed by External links. John of Cromer (talk) mytime= Sun 16:21, wikitime= 15:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Why would "Further reading" need refs? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I second that question, but I also add that you can have multiple groups of footnotes, which means that you won't necessarily end up with errors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I was around when the arbitrary decision was made to order them as they are, and the main argument put forward was the Notes and References should be placed next to each other. As Further Reading usually followed References the logical place to put notes was immediately before References.

However if the "Notes" section were to be considered "Endnotes", there is a good argument for putting them last just before citations categories. This is because it allows the footnoting of the appendix sections and more importantly as articles have attracted more and more "footer navboxes" there is often information contained within them that ought to have footnotes, but the technical limitation of placing a "ref tag pair" after the <reference/> makes this infeasible with the current popular layout. -- PBS (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused by "putting them last just before citations." Did you mean "just before Categories"? That makes sense to me. Notes / Endnotes / References, etc., seem to be comprised of "citations" ;-) DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes just before categories (I made a mistake which is now patched with strike out) -- PBS (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with the mnemonic rule, and how would it promote instruction creep? There's no new instructions in that section that are not already in WP:ORDER, the mnemonic is only a summary of the sections that are use with more frequence. (Of course if we change the sections order as suggested above, that mnemonic would no longer be valid). Diego Moya (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with that mnemonic rule; I see a benefit from its inclusion on that page.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

"Too much instruction can result in complex pages which will seldom be read and understood." While your addition may help some editors, it is my opinion - and one editor has already disagreed - that the cost of adding to the length of the guide outweighs the benefit of a three letter mnemonic. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

This rule is not so useful and anyway the current order mentioned by the page may change according to the previous section of this talk page. Ladelayerpitts (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC).

It would be more logical to group all the sections that will bring the reader to other pages (internal links, bibliography and external links) and to keep the notes and references directly after the text of the article.

In the future, it would be nice to discuss and promote this order:

1. Works or publications
2. Notes and references
3. Bibliography
4. Related articles
5. External links
6. Navigation templates
7. Portal bar
8. Geographical coordinates, Defaultsort, Categories, etc.

Or this one:

1. Works or publications
2. Notes and references
3. See also
   1. Bibliography
   2. Related articles
   3. External links
4. Navigation templates
5. Portal bar
6. Geographical coordinates, Defaultsort, Categories, etc.

What do you think? Don't hesitate to give your opinion and discuss how the current situation can be improved. Kahalaean-II (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC).

I actually like the See also links right below the article text; I would prefer that even external links are above references so that you don't need to pass the (sometimes huge) references section to find the official link for websites and organizations, for example.

The natural way to consume notes and references is by clicking them while reading the article, so their relative position is less important; there's no need to have them near the article's text. Have in mind that some articles have several hundreds of references, and forcing people to scroll through all them to find links to related content is far from optimal. Since See also and External links sections are kept deliberately small, there should be no problem to have them above references. This would be my preferred order:

1. Works or publications (I see these as article content).
2. See also
   1. Bibliography
   2. Related articles
   3. External links
3. Notes and references
4. Navigation footer (typically found at the bottom of web pages)
   1. Navigation templates
   2. Portal bar
5. Hidden content and meta-data (Geographical coordinates, Defaultsort, Categories, etc.)

Diego Moya (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The above suggestion would be a good improvement of the current situation. It is good to keep the references close to the text. And, more importantly, it is good to have the "see also" section after the references so that they are close to the navigation templates and portal bar. What is more, the link to sister projects should be added at the beginning of the "see also" section. Ladelayerpitts (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC).

There are good ideas. It could be even improved this way (section titles and other elements):

1. Works or publications
2. Notes and references
   1. Translation reference
   2. Notes and references
3. See also
   1. Links to sister projects
   2. Bibliography
   3. Related articles
   4. External links
4. Navigation templates
5. Portal bar
6. Authority control
7. Geographical coordinates, Defaultsort, Categories, etc.

Keepsgames (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC).

Totally agree. Plunkersiniapes (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC).

I also do agree with this. Coreyemotela (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC).

@Coreyemotela: I've reverted your overhaul, as, whilst yourself and 2 other editors agree with the system under this subsection, 3 other editors discuss an alternative system in the subsection above, and still more editors discuss another system in the section above that. In fact, a large quantity of the Archives of this talkpage, are of discussions regarding re-arranging the Standard Appendices and Footers.

Note the warning box at the very top of this page, in particular: "Please read WP:PEREN#Changes to standard appendices before proposing a change to the standard appendices."

I'll now go through your overhaul, and replace any pure-content-improvements, whilst leaving out the re-arrangements.

We can keep discussing the proposed overhaul (after you've read that PEREN link ;) but actually changing this guideline's "arrangement order" content would require a large RfC. Thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I like the current order. It's not perfect but no solutions seem to be. And as Quiddity says, any change to the proposed order would require a large RfC, one that's very precisely worded. Hopefully a very very large RfC too because this change would be so pervasive. I suspect there's not much participation here because people are fatigued by this topic. It's been proposed quite often. In any case, the above discussion sort of shows we are dealing with lateral change, not quantifiable change. If you edit long enough you may find your own opinion isn't constant regarding what constitutes "logical" in the order. In any case, any new order that does not leave the External links at the bottom of the page, I believe is severely misguided. I know from my usage and suspect it is extremely common for others that using the Wikipedia page to find the official site for many many topics. So being unable to immediately scroll all the way down to find official link is something that would anger many users. Any proposal that doesn't at least address this I think is incomplete. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't find a guideline that there should be a blank line after an infobox (for the same reasons as there is a blank line before a new section). --Leyo 16:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that it's best to have a blank line there, but do we really need to issue an official rule on this point? Are people (or bots) getting into fights over this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I am actually in disagreement with another user about this issue. --Leyo 22:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you think the two of you will be able to resolve the dispute? Have you considered getting a third opinion if you can't come to an amicable agreement on your own? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The easiest way would be if we had this issue in the guidelines. --Leyo 09:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter if there are zero or one blank lines after an infobox; in both cases, the lead text begins level with the top of the infobox. It does matter when there are two or more, because you then get an increased amount of blank space above the lead. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It's about the clarity of the source code, not the layout of the article. --Leyo 13:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a blank line in the code between a leading infobox and lead prose is an aid to scan- or readability, as does much other whitespace in the code. We do have editors who delete innocuous whitespace and they seem persistent, collectively. I add space only in the natural course of editing and not when it interferes with our simplisitic display of difference between revisions, a.k.a. compare versions.

The two braces that close an infobox do aid reading when they are alone on a line. Consider adding three lines (newlines), one before the braces and two after, in code such as this:

| website      =}}'''Rosemary Sutcliff''' 

That is a fictitious example representing the end of {{infobox writer}} and beginning of the lead sentence. The result is four lines of code:

| website      =
}}

'''Rosemary Sutcliff'''

If someone deletes the third line, leaving no vertical whitespace, the net result remains a big improvement. --P64 (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

[final paragraph illustration and prose revised for clarity three months later] --P64 (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Would there be any support for a proposal to modify this guideline so that deletion templates are placed above maintenance tags? For example, when I add a BLP PROD or CSD to a new article, there are times when another editor using Autowikibrowser or Twinkle adds Orphan/Unreferenced/whatever tags above it. It's not a big deal, but it seems logical that deletion notices should have a higher priority than other tags. Andrew³²⁷ 19:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The original design project (Wikipedia:AMBOX#Categories and colours) made it somewhat clear that high-severity templates belong at the top of the stack, but that information doesn't seem to be explicitly stated anywhere that I can find.

I'd specifically suggest adding a single sentence, to the end of the 2nd bulletpoint ("The maintenance tags ...") at Wikipedia:Lead_section#Elements_of_the_lead. My brain isn't in documentation writing mode, so I can't offer a wording. But keep it short! :) –Quiddity (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

How about this? "Maintenance tags should be below the disambiguation links, with CSD, PROD, and AFD notices placed above other tags. These tags inform the reader about the general quality of the article and should be presented to the user before the article itself." Andrew³²⁷ 13:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I also agree. How about this? It isn't right but I think it shows the right approach concerning AMBOX templates.

1. disambiguation links (dablinks)
2. maintenance tags (Maintenance tags should be ordered from more to less severe with deletion tags above all others.)
3. infoboxes

But we have maintenance tags with null displays --no message, much less AMBOX-- such as the {{dmy}} and {{engvar}} families. We hope that many editors will see and heed them so they should precede (as 2a) the others (as 2b). Right? --P64 (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Should Commons links be placed stand-alone in a created EL section with no other content?

cf:

• [3][4][5]
• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#External_links
• User_talk:Andy_Dingley#MOS.3F

Opinions? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:List of Arcade Video Games Navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

notifying here as the discussion is centred around list-article layout and the placement of a multipage table of contents. Frietjes (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The Help:Section page says "For information about how to name sections or how to use sections to structure articles, please read the Wikipedia:Guide to layout."

So I expected this page to say a few words about how to name sections of the body of the article -- in particular, I hoped to see something like

A section titled "History" is encouraged in most articles, to avoid problems with Wikipedia:Recentism. However, a section titled "Criticism" is discouraged -- see Wikipedia:Criticism.

This article gives a lot of advice on the naming and order of "appendix and footer sections" -- but I don't see any advice here on naming body sections.

Should information about how to name sections of the body of the article be added to this guideline, or would that be WP:BLOAT?

So was there once information about naming sections of the body of the article, but that information was moved elsewhere? Perhaps this article (and Help:Section) should be edited to point directly at the new location. If so, where? --DavidCary (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The organization of the section titled "paragraphs" seem strange in three ways. First, the first paragraph is mostly about bullets — when to use them or not to use them. The discussion then moves away from bullets, but the second paragraph concludes with an instruction re bullets. Perhaps the discussion re bullets would flow better if all in the same paragraph? Second, the second paragraph contains an instruction re section headings, which seems out of place. Perhaps that instruction re section headings should be moved out of the "paragraphs" section and into the "headings and sections" section, which appears two sections earlier? Third, the "see also" link appears at the end of the section, although most wiki articles put the See also or Further information links just below the section heading. Would it make sense to move the "see also" link into the standard position? Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate you bringing this to the talk page after I reverted you here and left a WP:Dummy edit note about the revert here. Like I stated in my revert, I had just come from an article where I fixed a heading matter while pointing to MOS:PARAGRAPHS. That article is the Justin Bieber article, and this is the aforementioned edit I made there with regard to MOS:PARAGRAPHS. I decided to click on MOS:PARAGRAPHS, but then saw that the "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." text that was there had been removed. I was confused as to when and how that happened since I have Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout on my WP:Watchlist. So then I looked into the edit history and saw that you'd moved the material. I disagree with at least that change; there are two reasons why. The first is that the material is a longstanding aspect of MOS:PARAGRAPHS, which means that many editors will link there for the text you removed (like I did). The second reason is that the "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." text fits there, in my opinion; the fact that it mentions headings does not make paragraphs any less the focus of that text. It's clear why it mentions headings. Flyer22 (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

@Flyer22: Thanks for including the "diff" to the Bieber article you were editing. That example helps me understand where you were coming from. However, I think this example supports my point. Your Bieber edits and comments were on the subject of whether to include or delete certain section headings, and were not about which paragraphs should be grouped together or split apart.

The "Headings and sections" section advises against organizing text into "very short" sections or subsections. The statement in MOS:PARAGRAPHS that "short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading" is a further explanation of the same principle that disfavors very short subsections. The two statements are clearly related. And since they are related, I propose grouping them in the same paragraph in the same "Headings and sections" section.

Also, I'm interested if you have any thoughts re my suggestions to (1) move the "see also" sentence under the section heading, and (2) grouping the three sentences re bullets into the same paragraph? Both involve moving material within the section, as opposed to moving it to a different section. I think they would be slight improvements. They seem less controversial, but I want to tread carefully here, for obvious reasons. Barryjjoyce (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I've made one small change — the proposed "see also" change. It's a modest change, and it complies with the MOS:BODY guidance that the "see also" should appear immediately under the section heading. There are still two more proposed changes raised for discussion, but I'll give it more time for editors to weigh in on those before making either of those changes. Barryjjoyce (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Barryjjoyce, I saw you recently ping me, but, because I was busy with other matters, I didn't get to this section to respond to you. The ping didn't work; it's that I saw you on my WP:Watchlist. I'm still against moving the "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." text out of MOS:PARAGRAPHS. This is per the reasons I already stated above. As for your other proposals, I don't mind. Flyer22 (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I meant to add a comment to this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style%2FLayout&diff=597888465&oldid=597805431 The comment would have been "restore helpful information." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

This is somewhat disingenuous, as Butwhatdoiknow took part in the previous discussion on this advice; it is actively unhelpful for the reasons given there, namely that columns hide problems with extensive length in these lists when they should be kept short. We should be actively proscribing the use of columns here, instead recommending that long lists be trimmed (through integration into the article body, or by the creation of dedicated list articles where the items are all of a particular nature). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

See for instance [7], [8] and [9]. Is this ok? Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:Layout does not prohibit it. Therefore, it is ok permissible. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I think a better word is that it is "permissible". A reasonable argument could maintain it is unnecessary visible clutter in most cases. "Okay", at least to me, seems to carry a connotation that the arguments against it are not significant. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

An editor has removed the examples in the See also section because the pages to which the examples link "don't have 'a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent' in the see also section." However, it seems to me that the point of the examples is the text on the Layout page, not the text on the pages to which the examples link. I suppose we could put in new examples, such as -

"Arthurdale, West Virginia – New Deal planned community." in New Deal

But then we run the risk of the text of the sample article changing and varying from the example in Layout. Your thoughts? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible to link to a revision in the history? Theemathas (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This was restored. I think that someone thought the example was supposed to be on the linked page, rather than right here on this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

We're running into a situation where some editors are choosing to use further reading sections as external link dumps in order to circumvent our external link guidelines. I'd like to propose that we either craft the manual of style so that further reading sections aren't used in this manner, or point people to a main project page on external links (as opposed to the dead-on-the-vine further reading guideline proposal) to ensure that we don't continue to have these sorts of issues. Thoughts? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

My reading of WP:FURTHER is that a "Further reading" section and an "External links" section are pretty much the same, except that one is primarily (not necessarily exclusively) printed matter and the other is exclusively online material. As I understand it, WP:EL applies to any EL that is not used as a reference, regardless of the heading that precedes it. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

That's absolutely the common sense reading I get from it as well. Unfortunately, this common sense doesn't seem to be carrying over across the board, and it would be nice that, if our reading of it is the intention, that we can explicitly say as such. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and propose that we could solve the problem by simply adding to WP:FURTHER and Wikipedia:Further reading's lead section the explicit statement:

Any links to external websites included under Further reading are subject to the guidelines described at Wikipedia:External links.

Mitch Ames (talk) 03:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I completely and totally disagree. The "further reading" section is not now and has never been considered an "external link" section, as the layout MOS makes perfectly clear when it says that the section should not duplicate external links nor the references. A further reading section is a standard appendix that supports article content. Just as the external links guideline does not apply to citations to sources in reference section, neither does it apply to further reading sections. This is the common sense reading of it. Furthermore, most further reading sections on Wikipedia do not have external links at all because often times such citations are offline. Viriditas (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I acknowledge your points that Further reading should not duplicate External links nor References, and that most Further reading sections have no links - but those points are irrelevant. The discussion is about external links that are in Further reading and do not duplicate External links or References. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

@Viriditas: WP:FURTHER doesn't say that "the section should not duplicate external links nor the references"; it says "The Further reading section should not duplicate the content of the External links section, and should normally not duplicate the content of the References section". The use of the word "content" (twice) is significant: this means that any particular link or source that appears under either External links or References should not also appear under Further reading. Nor is it "a standard appendix that supports article content". It is a standard appendix, yes: but it says "This section is not intended as a repository for general references that were used to create the article content." which is to say it is the place to put material which was not used to support article content. Nowhere does it specify that the material listed under Further reading should be printed matter, so they may, ipso facto, include links to online publications; and WP:ELPOINTS is clear that any link that is not used as an inline citation or a general reference is subject to WP:EL. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

In practice, further reading sections support content and provide pointers to further information. And while they are not intended to be used as a repository for general references that were used to create article content, they can be used to point readers to "publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject" and help them expand it as editors. While it is true that the guidelines for external links sections provide for further research and contain some overlap here, a further reading section is not an external links section, and overlap between references and further reading is allowed in terms of general reading lists. A further reading section is in practice, a list of old media, including recommended print and electronic citations. On the other hand, in practice, an external links section is a recommended list of websites. The reason we have an external links guideline is because anyone can publish a website; not everyone can publish a reliable book or newspaper. The overlap occurs when the old media makes the jump to new media, but the dominant guideline for further reading sections is WP:RELIABLE, not WP:EL. Thargor's conspiracy theory, which posits that editors are "choosing to use further reading sections as external link dumps in order to circumvent our external link guidelines", is one of the most ridiculous claims I've ever seen on Wikipedia and has no basis in reality. External link guidelines do not apply to further reading sections, WP:RS does. Thargor is making this claim because for the last year or so he's been systematically removing further reading sections in controversial articles because he personally doesn't like them, usually due to their subject matter. This entire discussion is an attempt by Thargor to game the system by claiming external links guidelines apply to further reading section in order to bypass WP:RS and remove any source he doesn't like. Unfortunately, most editors in this discussion aren't aware of this behavior, and don't know what he's really up to here. To summarize, further reading sections are not intended to contain websites, they are used for traditional citations, so EL doesn't apply. It is true that there is some overlap between old and new media, hence the confusion, but at the end of the day, we defer to WP:RS, not WP:EL. Viriditas (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps some example would be helpful in this discussion. @Thargor Orlando: could you provide a few examples of "further reading sections as external link dumps in order to circumvent our external link guidelines", so that we can see what the problem is. @Viriditas: no doubt can provide examples of Thargor Orlando's alleged "systematically removing further reading sections in controversial articles because he personally doesn't like them". Viriditas, can you provide some examples of legitimate links in Further reading that would contravene WP:EL if it applied? Mitch Ames (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Mitch, addressing only the relevant question to me, the issue was raised specifically at Abby Martin, which is what prompted this desire for clarification. I'm sure, if I took some time and effort, I could find more. I've been doing a lot of work on external links (not further reading sections) as of late and was frankly surprised that the only real mention was here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Please provide an example of further reading sections being used as external link dumps in order to circumvent our external link guidelines. Abby Martin's article does not have any links which circumvent the guidelines. Instead, you modified this layout guideline, and claimed that it is now governed by the external links guideline, which you then used to deny exclusion. That makes no sense at all, and merely demonstrates you trying to game the system. Further reading sections are not governed by external links, they are governed by RS. Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I had a look at the Further readings section of this recent version of Abby Martin. Most of them obviously contravene WP:ELNO 8 "Direct links to documents that require external applications or plugins (such as Flash or Java) to view the content". One has significant content viewable without Flash, but the Flash content may be relevant and/or necessary for reasonable interpretation of the text. The only one that didn't require some external software was in Russian (which does not contravene ELNO, but see WP:NONENGEL). Mitch Ames (talk) 06:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The major paper encyclopedias typically have sections called "further reading," which is the inspiration for Wikipedia. They tell readers where to go to pursue the study of the subject. In our case they point to reliable secondary sources that have not been referenced explicitly, but often have been reviewed by editors in preparing the article. All the items in "further reading" are facts about a publication that deals with the topic of the article, and these facts have been selected by an editor just as have the facts in the main text of the article been selected by an editor. I have not seen (in history articles) examples of "data dumps", which I take to be UNselected grab bags. "Further reading" sections are unusually valuable for students doing papers on the topic. Websites, as several editors here have noted, do not usually meet the criteria of published reliable secondary source. Rjensen (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course, the major paper encyclopedias have far fewer footnotes. So they explicitly reference very little in the body of the article. Accordingly, their "further reading" sections may well contain sources used to support the articles. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I've always seen "further reading," however, as substantive bodies of work that would be used not as a reference in our project, but as larger works. As an example, the article on Barack Obama might not use a book called Barack Obama: A Biography as a source, but it would be a good larger-form option for readers who want to learn more about a subject. On the other hand, some random New York Times interview is unlikely to act as further reading, and is just an indiscriminate link that offers little "further" information. By simply pushing out indiscriminate links as "further reading," it creates the same problem the external links guideline sought to solve, as there would be no end to it. Butwhatdoiknow also makes a solid point that our referencing system is much different than a traditional encyclopedia, making further reading sections somewhat moot in many regards. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the substance of your comment. However, it seems I misled you regarding my point: I think that a citation to Barack Obama: A Biography in a footnote somewhere in the Barack Obama article should not keep it out of the Further reading section. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Particularly important books may be double-listed. What Barack Obama needs, though, is someone to actually get a handful of good books like that and use it, instead of citing four hundred WP:PRIMARYNEWS and websites. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Also agree. I think the idea I'm trying to say is that "further reading" should be substantive texts, not random links. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Substantive texts are used as sources and citations in the body of the article and appear as references to cited material. Further reading sections do not contain "random" links. "Links" are the domain of external links, not further reading sections. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears we're basically on the same page here, with one exception. Unless there's any significant protest, I think I like Mitch's suggestion of adding this: "Any links to external websites included under Further reading are subject to the guidelines described at Wikipedia:External links." This allows for book "further reading" offerings without allowing the external links workaround. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Considering the discussion above, I am going to use Mitch's suggestion and make the change. Thanks everyone! Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Good edit!! Compiling further reading sections and bibliographies is a major activity of historians and scholars here on Wikipedia. What needs to be clear is that "further reading sections" should contain major works on the topics......thus should contain only scholarly publications. Links to web sites do not belong in "further reading sections" or in bibliographies for that matter. For student "further reading" and its extension bibliography of work pages are essential - as Wiki is used as a jumping of point for self education. We simply cant use all the best sources in articles. Students from the Wikipedia:Canada Education Program have used the sources from the "further reading section" of Canada - History of Canada - Military history of Canada - Culture of Canada so much that we created bibliographies for all of them Bibliography of Canada - Bibliography of Canadian history - Bibliography of Canadian military history. -- Moxy (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad this inadvertently made a better discussion as to what belongs there. Is there a way we can phrase that to flesh out what we have a little more? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, Moxy is wrong. That's too harsh: Moxy is right so long as you're only talking about specific types of articles, like maybe major subjects in history, such as the article on World War II. For pop culture, notable hoaxes, outdated concepts of diseases, etc., you should not limit it to "only scholarly publications". ==Further reading== for a notable pseudoscience-y book should include a bibliographic citation for the original book. For a disease, it's good to include a famous early description of the disease, and it's often a good idea to include a lay-oriented book that average non-university-graduate patients (or even younger students) could understand. Even for something like history subjects, where scholarly books are easy to find, there's a place for including non-scholarly books, e.g., books written by people who were present or participating. It'd be pretty silly to exclude Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant from Ulysses S. Grant on the grounds that his own memoirs weren't "scholarly". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I would rephrase Moxy's original statement "further reading sections" should contain major works on the topics......thus should contain only scholarly publications." to something like "further reading sections" should contain major works on the topics, with priority given to the most reliable and most scholarly sources available to Wikipedia readers. 'Further reading' can also include "primary sources" that are of value in historical study." Rjensen (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thargor Orlando recently added this to the layout guideline in order to gain advantage in a dispute:

Any links to external websites included under Further reading are subject to the guidelines described at Wikipedia:External links.

This is altogether unclear. Many of our best sources are print publications, not external websites. However, these print publications are now becoming available online. They should not be subject to an external link guideline, they should be subject to WP:RS. We also have a plethora of new media sources that are not exactly considered "external links", ranging from podcasts, to television interviews, to radio shows, to documentaries. Again, these are not considered "external links", such as a self-published website. The external link guideline was created to act as a gatekeeper of self-published websites. It was not intended to filter citations and sources in further reading sections. The rules governing external links are quite different than the rules governing further reading sections which include scholarly and other types of content. We don't determine their inclusion based on the type of website that hosts the content. The fact of the matter is, the external links guideline does not apply to citations and sources already being used. In practice, citations and sources found in further reading sections use WP:RS to determine inclusion regardless of the type of website where their content may be found. Thargor Orlando is trying to invoke the external links guideline because it allows him to eliminate sources used in controversial articles. Essentially, it is a backdoor for those wishing to exclude sources because of their POV, not because of their reliability. This is a bad faith proposal with the sole purpose of eliminating further reading sections, particularly in controversial articles where POV pushers may attempt to hide or delete sources because they disagree with the view presented. Essentially, Thargor Orlando is doing a sneaky, backend run around NPOV by appealing to the external links guideline. This allows him (and anyone else) to endlessly wikilawyer over the minimal use of sources, the merit of including citations, and the relevance of a further reading section, while ignoring RS. For only two examples of this today, Thargor Orlando argued on Talk:Abby Martin that links to controversial television and radio interviews of Abby Martin by Piers Morgan and Bob Garfield, two reliable sources, were not acceptable as either further reading or external links. Thargor Orlando is trying to go around RS and NPOV by proposing that further reading sections should be governed by the external links guideline even though these sources and citations do not depend on websites for their content. Piers Morgan's interview appeared on CNN and Bob Garfield's on NPR. These are relevant to the subject of the article in terms of further reading or further reading and resources, not in terms of their external links or the merits of their external links. Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure now that that WP:FURTHER should be necessarily be constrained by WP:ELNO. Some ELNO items are purely about accessibility - eg 7 "Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, ... only work with a specific browser or in a specific country.", 8 "require external applications or plugins". So ELNO disallows a site that requires Flash, even though most users can easily get Flash. But Further reading could legitimately include a book or other physical publication that might be difficult or impossible for me to find or buy. It seems to me that before we say Further reading should be constrained by ELNO, we need to answer a few underlying questions:

• Why are those restrictions in ELNO?
• Why do we separate External links and Further reading? (Obviously External links are web sites, but it's not obvious that Further reading is intended to be limited to offline publications.)

Mitch Ames (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The idea about constraining the two is exactly why we talked about it prior, to ensure that link dumps don't occur in further reading like they don't occur in external links. It is clear by the discussion above that further reading, at least as understood by everyone, that it's meant to be a place for more significant looks at a topic, not simply random "hey, check this out" indiscriminate links. A television interview concerning one topic is not "further reading," as it's not something to read and it's not a significant look. The external links section is constrained because we don't want an indiscriminate list anywhere. We want links to outside sources to either be references or official sites to ensure quality, not to become random dumps of information. To use further reading as a link dump is not at all what is intended by it, and really basically misses the point. Even if we were to say "hey, weblinks are cool here", nothing being added to the place Viriditas is currently battling at would be allowable even still. If someone wrote a biography of Abby Martin, or even perhaps a feature-length biographical magazine article, those could be appropriate. Not a podcast. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The External Links section is basically a 'Further Reading' section - most if not all of the external link in an External Links should be information, and I quote, "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." that adds to the article. Basically, an External Links section is just a bit wider than a Further Reading section. We do not add a 'Further reading' section (my emphasis) if there is nothing to further the reader.

I do agree that it adds to clarity to sometimes split the External Links and Further Reading type information, but those two sections are basically the same. Whether it is separate or not, they still both have to comply with our core policies and guidelines, in other words, no linkfarming, no yellow page generation, and the sections should neutrally (where applicable) depict what there is outside, follow copyright rules, etc. etc. I also see Further Reading sections (without direct linking) which are plainly a large, long list of publications regarding the subject - most of which do not necessarily add, nor cumulatively add.

Regarding Viriditas' example ("Piers Morgan's interview appeared on CNN and Bob Garfield's on NPR. These are relevant to the subject of the article in terms of further reading or further reading and resources, not in terms of their external links or the merits of their external links.") - that is exactly what external links should comply with, they are relevant in terms of further reading/research. Thát is the base requirement. If they do that, then they may fail some of the 'Links to be avoided'-requirements but still be suitable for inclusion. As an example: omitting a YouTube because they are on YouTube is not the reason, the reason generall is that they do not add (which is, unfortunately, true for by far most of the material on YouTube) anything to the article which is not already there.

Mitch Ames: no, ELNO does not disallow sites - the point (#7) is that if many readers can't read the info, it does not help the reader anyway. Similarly for #8. We are not writing an USA/Europe centered encyclopedia here where everyone has access to everything - do note that there are countries that have no or limited access to YouTube and even to Wikipedia. Sites that hit some or more of the points in WP:ELNO often are often of less use to Wikipedia articles. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I think see alsos should be ordered by relevance to article. 67.252.103.23 (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It says preferably alphabetically sorted and I think that makes sense. Relevance is very subjective and is different for different readers. Alphabetic ordering helps readers find things more quickly, useful as the section is for navigation. It's also a guideline, so editors can and do ignore it: one thing I've seen that works is grouping of longer lists by topic, another is using indentation to group topics. And if the list is too long it can often be shortened considerably by removing irrelevant links/integrating them into the article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we should omit information about how to organize these lists, and leave it entirely up to editor judgment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we should not omit information about organizing these lists. An editor might have absolutely no clue as to what might work (let alone what might be best) and no basis for a judgment, and so suggestions, even recommendations, should be given, with some comment on their advantages or disadvantages. What we might omit is any suggestion that it must be done any particular way. Indeed, as merely suggesting "preferably alphabetized" seems to be taken by many editors as required perhaps we should say something like "alphabetic order is not required, but is preferable to having no order". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that "relevance" is too subjective. It also won't work because various things can be entirely equally relevant. Alpha order has served us well.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes it is useful to include in the See also section a specific section of an article (especially a long article, where only on section is relevant). Some guidelines on to do this would be helpful. Possibilities include:

• Midland Railway of Western Australia#Land development
• Midland Railway of Western Australia, Land development section
• Midland Railway of Western Australia, Land development

Thoughts, anyone? Mitch Ames (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I usually do

• Midland Railway of Western Australia, "Land development" section

in mainspace (articles). In internal namespaces and on talk pages I just use Midland Railway of Western Australia#Land development, because all editors know what that means.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with SMcC except I suppose I always=rarely do

• Midland Railway of Western Australia, section "Land development"

as consider ' section "Land development" ' a wordy analogue to 'p. 1'.

--P64 (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Hello, Mitch Ames.

The professional way of doing so (which is approved for WP:FA as well) is using section sign, "§". You can find in below your editor interface in "Wiki markup" category. You can also use {{section link}} template to implement it:

{{section link|Midland Railway of Western Australia|Land development}} gives Midland Railway of Western Australia § Land development

In addition, {{Main}}, {{Further}}, {{See also}} and {{Details}} now automatically convert "Midland Railway of Western Australia#Land development" into "Midland Railway of Western Australia § Land development"

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Mmm, yeah, or not. I've seen that a grand total of ONE TIME in all of Wikipedia, and it wasn't even in an article. Some people may like it and an argument can be made for it becoming a norm someday here, but it definitely is not one presently.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Reconsidered in light of wide deployment in hatnote templates.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, then, look into the article associated with this talk page! You will see a lot more there. Evidently, Mitch Ames does not want to go with the raw # form, which I bet you've seen a lot. So, might as well take the route for which there is template and Lua support and is accepted in academic circles. I'm just saying... Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: On second thought, if various templates are going to do this automatically now, I rescind any objection (it was more of an observation than an objection). It's not that the style is "wrong"; it's well-used off-WP, and I have even tried to implement it here myself in various places only to get reverted on it. My demurrer was basically that the symbol was not (for better or worse) our internal style for sections, but that seems to be in flux, and leaning in a way I'd ultimately prefer anyway. :-) I was engaging in some kind of "argument from sour-grapes entropy" fallacy, I think.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The section sign looks good to me. Actually any "standard" would suit me, as long as we all agree to do the same thing - and can point to something in MOS to justify the usage in any disagreement. Does it actually get mentioned anywhere in MOS? Should it? The existence of {{section link}} and usage in {{see also}} is a good enough reference for me, but perhaps it ought to be mentioned in MOS. (Had it been mentioned in WP:SEEALSO, I wouldn't have needed to ask here.) Mitch Ames (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It probably should be added here, or its absence could be used as an argument to remove it from all those templates.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm having 'editor-recommended' quoted at me to argue that any book recommended by an editor can be in the list. I don't think this was ever intended - surely if a book is added it should be one that is clearly significant in some obvious way, eg mentioned by other authors in the field, etc? Dougweller (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, good question. Does anyone know what the phrase "editor recommended" is designed to accomplish in Further reading? Maybe we can just delete it. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that's more a consensus issue, but if it's causing that sort of problem, removing it doesn't seem out of line. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Linking to and phrasing it in line with WP:CON might be a good idea instead. --Izno (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Should it be called "References" or "Reference list" or something else. all input is welcome at Talk:Albert Anae. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:FNNR:

Editors may use any section title that they choose.^[1] The most frequent choice is "References"...

Mitch Ames (talk) 05:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Our instructions for the See Also section include this language:

"As a general rule, the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes."

I wonder whether this instruction is actually desirable, and also whether it describes actual practice. Perhaps it is true in situations where the redundancy is obvious, or in cases where the See Also section has grown to include items of questionable relevance. However, other than these reasonable constraints, it seems to me that this is a rule that puts form over function. Especially in long articles, the See Also section functions as a sort of tl;dr which identifies some of the best wikilinks that appeared within the article.

If the best defense of the existing language is that it interprets the word "also," one could reply that the "also" means articles other than this article.

I am not insisting that the sentence simply be deleted. But we should decide exactly what it is we want to say. Maybe that requires a bit more subtlety. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 17:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It describes actual practice when it comes to WP:Good and WP:Featured articles, generally anyway...until someone adds a link to the See also section that is repeated higher in the article. And very experienced Wikipedia editors, such as myself, often remove a link from the See also section that is repeated higher in the article; I usually do. If WP:See also did not have this rule, the See also section could become a large WP:DIRECTORY, as it is in some articles.

This WP:See also rule is generally abiding by WP:OVERLINK, which makes a few exceptions; it states, "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." Flyer22 (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for your reply. So my take away is that there really has formed a conscious , deliberate consensus around this rule. I guess I assumed this language was accidental and not carefully thought out ... but by now I should have known that does not happen on Wikipedia as often as it used to!

Still, I am following up because I wonder whether you ever felt that there were individual cases where certain articles would have been more useful had you not deleted those redundant wikilinks from the See Also section -- and, significantly, whether you can articulate the distinction in a principled way -- like, "While it is important to not create a slippery slope situation where the See Also section winds up looking like a directory, some of these articles are so significant (perhaps PRECISELY because they featured so heavily in the body text!) that we should make an exception."

Speaking as a lawyer, I will volunteer that I understand why it is risky business to suggest changes to longstanding policies. The encyclopedia is working quite well. But in this case I think you would agree that some of those articles were actually enriched by having a more thorough See Also section. In a place as unruly and heterogenous as Wikipedia, policies like this should not be framed as absolutes, but rather as a balance of values (here, usefulness vs. crowdedness) . That puts a thumb in the dike of the slippery slope, and allows people to make case by case solutions to what is essentially an aesthetic problem. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 19:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: In general, no-discretion policies are preferable where the costs of uncertainty are high, e.g. because quibbling over borderline cases leads to conflict. But I don't think this is such a case -- I don't think we have seen editors become as emotionally invested in having their favorite links in the See Also section! We are not going to see edit wars here. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 19:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You would be awfully surprised then. --Izno (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Gradman, yes, I oftentimes feel that a link should be repeated. As noted above, if a link is in the lead, WP:See also allows us to repeat a link once after the lead. So that is two chances that a reader has to see a link. There are other chances to repeat a link as well, noted above, which makes more than two chances in some cases. And in those cases, it can be overkill to then add the link to the See also section. The See also section is supposed to tell people to "See this also" because that matter has not yet been addressed in the article, or because it's otherwise relevantly related to the article; that's why it's (generally) not good to have a link repeated in the See also section, as if that matter has not already been addressed. So, yes, I have removed a See also link in cases where I thought that the article benefited from them, but I don't generally feel that way. Sorry for the late reply. And WP:See also and WP:Overlink are guidelines, not policies. Flyer22 (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

That sentence has bothered me for quite some time. Sometimes it's just silly not to put a highly related topic in the "See Also" section merely because it was linked earlier in the article. This becomes especially true when the article is very big and the link in the text is unlikely to be easily found by a skim reader. In the end, as far as I'm concerned, good common sense is what matters most for the "See also" links section. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

  As a short answer to the question posed: no, the guidance is not realistic.

  The common notion and supposed rule that a "See also" section should not duplicate any wiki-links inside an article is being interpreted strictly by some editors who use it as authority for removing duplicate links, without any allowance for editorial discretion. (E.g.: here and here.)

  This notion appears to be derived from an implication that if "See also" is for wiki-links not used in an article, then it is not for links that are used. However, this is syllogistically invalid. That certain items are permitted is not the same thing as permitting only those items.

  It has also been stated "as a general rule" (also at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive_9#.27See_Also.27) that see-also links should not repeat links in the text. This is the application of a more general rule, that links should not be duplicated. However, it is unreasonable that if some other topic is important to more than one section of an article that it cannot be linked in each such section, or that the reader should have to dig for links buried in the text of other sections. It seems more reasonable that links should not be duplicated within any given section, and that in any section where another topic is sufficiently important or relevant to be linked it may be linked on first mention, regardless of any links in other sections.

  In support of restricting "See also" links it has been said that the purpose of this supposed rule "is to stop large, double columned see also listings [and duplication of obvious material]" (Shadowjams, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive_9#Repeating links in See also section). I agree that is a reasonable purpose; we certainly do not want long lists of links of marginal interest. But this rule is much more restrictive than necessary for such a purpose. As some editors are interpreting it strictly, without allowing for exceptions, some clarification is needed.

  Probably we should discuss the purpose of "See also" and suitable inclusion and exclusion criteria. However, until that is resolved I think we should add some language to the effect that links in "See also" are not precluded, and should not be removed, on the sole basis of being duplicated elsewhere in the article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

As this issue came to a matter of WP:OVERLINK and its "only once" rule I have proposed here that links be allowed once per section. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The current guidelines work very well because they dramatically limit the number of articles that can appear in "See also" to just articles that are highly related but not mentioned in the text. That is often just a handful of links. Changing this logic to just "highly related terms" will quickly expand the candidate links to many dozen. Just think of how many you could come up with for an article like 2014 Crimean crisis (which already has over 20). There is clearly some benefit to this guideline as it (a) promotes articles not linked in the text (additional detail) over already linked articles (repeated detail), and (b) makes sure editors do not spend hours debating which links deserve a second link at the end of an article. SFB 09:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

In accordance with the guideline, I have been systematically removing instances of the horizontal line from articles. I met with objection when doing so at some hockey articles. In defending its use, User:Aleenf1 stated that it is used legitimately as separators between match results, also in use in many football articles. The guideline is categorical and makes no mention of exceptions, and the table appears perfectly clear and acceptable without the lines. Can anyone recall the reason why the horizontal line is deprecated, and why these can/should not be removed throughout the encyclopaedia? Thanks, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't answer your question, but I can point out that guidelines are not rules. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Although previous versions of HTML defined the hr element only in presentational terms, the element has now been given the specific semantic purpose of representing a 'paragraph-level thematic break'."[10]
• "Some examples of thematic breaks that can be marked up using the hr element include a scene change in a story, or a transition to another topic within a section of a reference book."

It appears to me that the various sections in question are changes in topic, thus hr is valid. We normally use section headings and subheadings, but the horizontal rule is more appropriate in this instance. I recommend that it be moved to the template so it can be applied consistently, perhaps with a switch to disable it as needed. I have noted that the MoS really does not address the semantics involved in HTML elements. --  Gadget850 ^talk 17:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The guideline does list several exceptions: "Rules can be used to provide separation inside certain templates (for example, sidebar derivatives), within discussions, or when needed in some other formats." - Dravecky (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I have the impression (the rule is before my time) that it's really about the old, pre-dab-page style of writing articles. Horizontal lines were used to separate content that we'd now put on separate pages.

I kind of like the look of the hockey article you linked. It's basically an airy-looking table built with a template (for the columns) and horizontal lines (to delineate rows). It could actually be turned into a table, while still keeping that format, if wanted, but this system is probably simpler to edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree, <hr />s work very well there. Based on the W3C guidance that Gadget850 quotes, I think that WP:LINE is overdue for an update. — Scott • talk 23:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Should the Casey Kasem article contain a link to "List of vegans" in the see also section, despite his veganism not being the most notable part of his public life? Should that list (and others) be more widely linked in see also sections? There's a dispute about this at the Casey Kasem talk page; please direct any responses there. Graham87 01:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is a good question: Is having a see-also link between two articles a coat rack? Greg Mortenson and Somaly Mam both are accused of fabricating portions of their biographies to enhance their charities. Is having a see-also link between the two a coat rack? Would your average reader want to jump between the two articles based on that connection? While I was reading about the Somaly Mam controversy, I asked myself who was that other guy that had the same thing happen ... Please join the lively discussion at Talk:Greg Mortenson --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Improve categories says "It is recommended that this template be placed at the bottom of the page, where readers will look for the categories." Just wondering if there's a WP:ORDER standard for where exactly? E.g, after categories, or before defaultsort?

—Msmarmalade (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Since its exact positioning in the defaultsort/categories cluster does not affect how or where it is displayed on the page, on the rare occasions I've used the tag I've put it at the very bottom of the categories for easiest editing. - Dravecky (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

If Wikimedia Commons has a page for the subject a the WP article, should a template be placed in the WP article to the Commons page or to the Commons category. What led me to raise this issue is that I wanted to place a Commons template in the Bas-Rhin article. There is a page on Commons with the same name, but it only has two images (a locator map & the official seal/blason) and an index to pages for all French departments (equivalent to states/provinces). I don't think it's very intuitive for people not familiar with WP (or wikis in general) to click the link at the bottom for the category. This is relevant here, because the {{Commons}} template says "Wikimedia Commons has media related to Bas-Rhin." When someone looking for "media" follows that link, they just see two images and—again—it's not intuitive to click the category link at the bottom. Meanwhile, the Commons category has many images and it should be somewhat intuitive for people who have followed a link from the WP article to then click on the subcategories to find the media content they'd like to view.

So basically, if Commons has both a page and a category, which should (or should both) be linked from a Wikipedia article? I think that whichever is better for WP readers, since the template says it links to media. Any changes resulting from this discussion need to be made to the "Links to sister projects" section and at Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects. AHeneen (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a copyedit and layout proposal at "Avoiding personal attacks". Your participation would be appreciated. Lightbreather (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I write regarding this edit, which cites to a 2010 version of Layout. The editor explains that the difference between an appendix and a footer is that "appendices have headings; footers do not". But the new "Orders" section of this page explains that: "These areas are more influenced by technical considerations than the body of articles. The established Wikipedia community typically maintains the order of these sections in its quality checks, as these orders are specific to Wikipedia." Which is it? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That was me. The merging of appendices and footers (over four years ago, admittedly) has blurred the distinction. But at the top of the section that I linked it states "when certain optional standard appendix sections are used, they should appear at the bottom of an article, with level 2 headings, followed by the various footers"; and if we look at the current version of MOS:APPENDIX it still states exactly that - the wording is absolutely unchanged. Either way, it is surely another way of saying "appendices have headings; footers do not". Every year or two, somebody suggests that the navboxes should be given a heading; it's always rejected.

I'm not sure what these "technical considerations" might be, with certain exceptions: hatnotes must be first so that screen readers read them out first; the infobox should be before the introductory text so that it appears alongside (instead of below); the TOC must be the last item before the first level-2 heading because screen readers will not read out anything in between. As regards navboxes, I think that it's psychological: they "draw a line" across the bottom of the article which for some people means that they don't need to read any further. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I wanted WP:ORDER to redirect to some central list of the order of sections of Wikipedia articles. As best I can tell, no list has ever existed on Wikipedia. This is unexpected; I am sure someone must have proposed one.

What did exist in this article is a series of disjointed lists. Previously, WP:ORDER redirected to the order list for the appendix/footer section of Wikipedia articles. I collected all the disjointed lists on this page, put them all in one section, wrote an intro, then put the WP:ORDER anchor to redirect to here. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Order_of_sections for the live version of this.

I think I have neither added nor changed any concepts already presented here, and am only summarizing the order that everyone uses anyway. I would appreciate comment on what I have done because it is always touchy to make bold changes to fundamental guides like this one. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Good start, but it's made the list content of the "Lead section" section completely redundant. That needs to be replaced with a very concise summary of WP:LEAD as it applies to layout matters. I.e., in prose form, not a redundant list of elements (most of which are page header elements, not lead elements anyway).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I agree about the "Lead section" being redundant. If this WP:ORDER section stands then I think the lead section should be re-written in prose form with more explanation about what the lead contains, as you say. I hesitate to do that yet because I want to see if anyone comes forward with any complaints about all these changes. I feel like I changed something sensitive and I am not in such a hurry to change a lot more, but what you say should happen as you describe if the new section remains. Thoughts from others about any part of this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I've added a number here Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Order_of_sections, but two line items are still linkless ("Foreign character warning boxes" and "Navigational boxes (header navboxes)"). Can you add either one of those two? Also, of course, you can swap in any better links for the ones I found. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Omnipaedista has informed me that a ===Level 3=== "Works cited" section must not appear as a subsection of a ==Level 2== "References" section. Here's the relevant part of the message:

the "works cited/sources" section is usually considered a separate section wikiwide (as opposed to subsection of "citations/references") and (apart from very few exceptions) is marked as a level 2 heading. The only other way is to have a level 2 heading called "Notes and references" (or "References") and have two level 3 headings called "Notes" (or "Citations") and "References" (or "Works cited"), respectively, below it. This Wikipedia convention reflects the convention employed in most printed academic publications according to which the last two sections of an article/book are called "Citations/references" and "Works cited", respectively. Even WP:APPENDIX says "optional standard appendix sections are used, they should appear at the bottom of an article, with ==level 2 headings==".

This is totally news to me—somehow I've managed to push through 19 FAs using the format—

==Notes==

{{Notelist}}

==References==

{{Reflist}} ''using short refs''

===Works cited===

* ''List of''
* ''full citations''
* ''of sources''

Have I really been such a bad boy? Am I really in violation of the MOS? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

No. As the headings section indicates, subdividing appendices is permissible (although the current method suggested for doing so needs to be changed...see next section). Subdivided reference sections of the type you describe are fairly common. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)